Business Operations & Automation Map
Mark which processes your business currently uses AI for. See your opportunity map update in real time, and compare your position with an illustrative sector benchmark.
Listen to this briefing
Map Quick Wins and Stop Shadow AI
How the map works
Each of the 16 processes below carries an impact score and an effort score from 0 to 100. Mark the ones your business runs with AI today. The map places every process in its quadrant, scores your coverage against an illustrative benchmark, and ranks the processes you have not started by return relative to effort.
16 processes, four quadrants, one score
- Score. Processes you mark as in use, as a share of all 16, read against an illustrative sector benchmark of 38%.
- Next opportunities. The processes you have not marked, ranked by impact minus 0.4 times effort, so a high-impact process that is cheap to start comes first.
Impact and effort scores are the directional planning estimates shown on each card. The split is at 50 on both axes.
Which processes are you currently using AI for?
Select every process where AI is actively deployed in your business today. Your choices are saved in this browser.
Quick wins high impact, low effort, 8 processes
Strategic high impact, high effort, 8 processes
Your automation opportunity map
Navy: in use today. White: not yet. An orange ring marks your top three next opportunities. Select a bubble to mark or clear it.
Scroll sideways to see the whole map.
Mark the processes you use AI for today to see your score, how it compares with the illustrative benchmark, and your next three opportunities.
0%of 16 processes in use
Highest-impact, lowest-effort opportunities you have not automated yet.
This map applies illustrative sector-adoption benchmarks to the processes you mark as automated; it is not a live survey of your industry. The impact ranges quoted for each process are directional planning estimates for that category of process and are not measured results for your business. The map is not an independent audit, and the opportunities above are the starting point for your own prioritisation, which remains your responsibility. Your selections stay in your browser and are neither sent to Terence Kok nor reviewed by anyone.
What each signal reveals and how to act on it
The impact and effort quadrant
The quadrant maps each of 16 business processes by potential business impact (Y axis, 0–100) and implementation effort (X axis, 0–100). The four quadrants are: Quick Wins (high impact, low effort), Strategic (high impact, high effort), Low Priority (low impact, low effort), and Reconsider (low impact, high effort).
- Without a prioritisation framework, AI initiatives default to the most interesting technology or the loudest internal champion, neither correlates with ROI
- Quick Wins generate early proof points that sustain leadership confidence for larger Strategic investments. Skipping Quick Wins to go straight to Strategic is the most common sequencing error
- The Reconsider quadrant (low impact, high effort) reveals where AI is being proposed for the wrong reasons: vendor pressure, peer comparison, or novelty rather than business value
- Start with 2–3 Quick Wins in your first 90 days: Customer Support Deflection, Report Generation, and Email Triage are the most consistent first-movers
- Use time and cost savings from Quick Wins to fund the first Strategic investment
- Do not pursue Low Priority or Reconsider quadrant processes unless driven by compliance, contractual obligation, or competitive necessity
Industry benchmarks
Each process card shows an illustrative share of mid-market enterprises that have automated that process. Read against your own marks, it shows where you are likely ahead of your competitive cohort and where you may be falling behind, turning an internal capability question into a market positioning question.
- A process with a high benchmark, such as customer support deflection, is likely where competitive pressure is highest right now. A process with a low one, such as churn prediction, is still early
- Being below the median in a high-impact Quick Win process is a competitive exposure: your competitor's AI-assisted support team is handling what your human team is still manually routing
- Being above the median on a complex Strategic investment may indicate you are already leading in that area and can redirect effort
- Use the benchmark as a signal of competitive urgency. Peer averages reflect past adoption and say nothing about the right sequence for your business
- Any Quick Win process where you are below the 50% industry benchmark and above 60 on the impact scale is your highest-priority starting point
- Review benchmarks quarterly. They shift as adoption spreads, and a process that was "early adopter" territory 12 months ago may now be table stakes
Adoption gap and shadow AI risk
The gap between processes you mark as automated and the industry benchmark is your automation exposure. But there is a second, less visible gap: processes where the benchmark is high but you have no official automation almost certainly have unofficial AI usage: employees using personal tools with no governance, audit trail, or organisational visibility.
- Shadow AI in unadopted processes is a governance and compliance failure that exists silently until it becomes a security incident, a data breach, or a regulatory finding
- Low official adoption does not mean your team is not using AI. It means they are using ungoverned personal tools (personal ChatGPT, browser extensions, third-party APIs) outside your visibility
- GDPR, MAS, and most sector regulators now require organisations to account for AI tools used in business processes. Shadow AI creates direct compliance liability
- For any process marked "not automated" where the benchmark is above 50%: conduct a shadow AI audit: ask your team directly what tools they are already using for that task
- Channel discovered shadow AI into governed, tracked deployment. Banning tools people have already integrated into their workflow destroys trust without solving the governance problem
- Open the printable report from the results panel above to see the benchmark comparison and the full implementation sequence for your governance programme

I built this map because Quick Wins and Strategic bets get chased in the wrong order more often than not, and the mistake is expensive to unwind. The industry benchmarks are the part I'd pay attention to first: a low score on a process everyone else has already automated usually means your team is using ungoverned tools to compensate. Mark what's real today, and the highest-leverage next step tends to be obvious.

Last updated 30 Sept 2026
More in Where you stand

- AI Readiness Self-AssessmentAre we ready to deploy AI, and where should we focus first?
- Organisational AI Readiness QuizAcross data, process, technology, people and governance, which one is holding us back?
- AI Value Sequence DiagnosticHave we built the capabilities DBS built, in the order it built them?
- AI Acceptable Use Policy BuilderOur staff already use ChatGPT and Copilot. What should our written rules say?
- AI Use Case Prioritisation MatrixOf the use cases on the table, which do we fund first, and how much autonomy can each one have?
- Chief AI Officer Personality TestWhat kind of AI leader am I, and where are my blind spots?
