Key takeaways
- Score a named process, not a department. The same function can contain shared execution, shared preparation and fully local work.
- Portability strength combines common definition, evidence portability and repeatability. Local-control pressure separately combines local knowledge, consequence and authority.
- Critical consequence or non-transferable accountability is a hard route to shared preparation at most, never shared autonomous decision-making.
- The tool exports five process routes without signup. It does not approve centralization, automation, staffing or savings.
Assess processes you can name and observe
Use a label such as “prepare weekly branch report,” not “finance.” Score current behavior from recent cases. Keep confidential and personal information out of the fields.
Process-by-process routes
Portability strength and local-control pressure are not combined. A process can be portable and still require local accountable control.
- 1. Unnamed process 1portability 3/9
Local-control pressure 3/9. Observe and reconcile definitions before choosing an operating model.
- 2. Unnamed process 2portability 3/9
Local-control pressure 3/9. Observe and reconcile definitions before choosing an operating model.
- 3. Unnamed process 3portability 3/9
Local-control pressure 3/9. Observe and reconcile definitions before choosing an operating model.
- 4. Unnamed process 4portability 3/9
Local-control pressure 3/9. Observe and reconcile definitions before choosing an operating model.
- 5. Unnamed process 5portability 3/9
Local-control pressure 3/9. Observe and reconcile definitions before choosing an operating model.
The method preserves the tension instead of averaging it away
| Output | Formula | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Portability strength | Definition + evidence portability + repeatability; 0 to 9 | How much stable process structure can travel |
| Local-control pressure | Local knowledge + consequence + local authority; 0 to 9 | How strongly execution or decisions should remain local |
| Investigation route | Visible rules plus hard stops | What to test next, not permission to move work |
A high portability score can coexist with high local-control pressure. In that case, share definitions, evidence preparation or the platform while the accountable local owner keeps the decision.
Critical consequence or non-transferable authority is a hard stop on shared consequential decision-making. A strong procedure does not remove that boundary.
Read the output as one of four investigation routes
- Bounded shared-execution pilot: high portability, low local pressure, explicit fallback and acceptance tests.
- Shared platform or preparation: reusable evidence and routine work, with local approval for exceptions and effects.
- Shared standard, local execution: common visibility while relationships, consequence or authority stay local.
- Observe and reconcile: definitions or evidence are too weak to choose an operating model.
The shared-versus-local guide turns those routes into a service contract and pilot design.
One portable process still keeps local approval
A weekly branch report has a tested common definition, accessible evidence and a stable route, so portability is high. Local-control pressure is moderate because branch controllers approve adjustments.
The tool routes it to shared preparation with local approval, not shared autonomous execution. A customer credit review has stronger local relationship and consequence scores, so only the evidence standard is shared.
Limitations and when not to use this
- This is an educational process-screening tool, not organizational, staffing, legal, financial, accounting, employment, safety, regulatory or cybersecurity advice.
- The user-entered profile is not evidence that a service will save money, perform well or be accepted by local teams.
- Specialist and accountable human review remains necessary for consequential work regardless of either score.
- Do not enter customer, employee, financial, credential or confidential information. Inputs remain in the browser and process labels appear in copied output.
Sources
- Federal Shared Services: Adoption Challenges — U.S. Government Accountability Office Accessed 9 August 2026
- Enterprise Shared Services Governance Ecosystem — U.S. General Services Administration Accessed 9 August 2026
- Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems — NIST Accessed 9 August 2026
Map the selected process
Specify its trigger, actors, evidence, output and exception destination.
Map the selected processUli Prantz
Builds and operates all-agents
Uli Prantz builds all-agents, the process-automation platform this site documents. He writes about the operational side of automating recurring business work: where deterministic code beats model judgment, where it does not, and where a human still has to approve.