Service 01 · Nine Weeks · ¥38,000
See what automation actually does to one of your processes — before you commit to anything further
The Workflow Automation Pilot takes one bounded process, records how it currently runs, introduces an automated approach alongside it, and produces a written comparison at the end of nine weeks. You read the results and decide what follows.
What this delivers
By the end of nine weeks, you'll have something you can point to
Most organisations that adopt automation do so without a clear record of what existed before. That makes it hard to know whether anything has changed — or to explain to anyone else what the change amounted to.
This pilot is structured differently. Before any automated handling is introduced, we record how the selected process currently works: time per task, error frequency, volume. Those numbers become the reference point. At the close, the same numbers are taken again under automation, and the two are set side by side in a written document.
The result is not a claim. It's a record. You can read it, share it, and make a decision from it — including the decision that the current approach is adequate.
Baseline figures
Recorded before any change is made. Time, volume, error rate — whatever the process makes measurable.
Written comparison
Delivered at the close of the pilot. Both methods observed over the same six-week period.
Decision framework
A structured review in which continuing, adjusting, or stopping are all presented as reasonable outcomes.
No further obligation
The pilot is a self-contained engagement. What comes after it is your choice, made with the information in hand.
The situation many organisations are in
Automation tools are easy to start using and difficult to evaluate afterwards
There is a common pattern: a team adopts a tool — often a reasonable decision at the time — and uses it for months before anyone asks what it has actually changed. By then, the baseline is gone. Comparisons are impressionistic. The question of whether the tool is earning its place becomes difficult to answer cleanly.
This is not a criticism of the teams involved. The pressure to adopt quickly is real, and pausing to measure first can feel like delay. But the consequence is that many organisations are carrying tools they cannot fully account for — and find it difficult to plan further steps because the ground isn't clear under the ones they've already taken.
If that describes your situation, or if you're considering automation and want to approach it differently from the start, this pilot is built around that specific gap.
No baseline to return to
Once a process changes, the pre-change numbers are often gone. Without them, improvement is a matter of perception rather than record.
Difficult to explain upward
When leadership asks what a tool has contributed, "it seems faster" is not a useful answer. A documented comparison is.
Scale decisions without evidence
Expanding automation to other processes is harder to justify when the first one was never formally reviewed.
The approach
One process, recorded twice — before and after
The pilot is structured so that comparison is built in from the start, not attempted after the fact. Every step follows from that principle.
Process selection
We work with you to identify a process that is bounded clearly enough to measure and large enough for the comparison to be meaningful.
Baseline measurement
Before any change is made, current performance is documented. This record cannot be recovered after the fact, so we take it before anything moves.
Parallel operation
The automated approach runs alongside the existing method for six weeks. Both handle real work. Both are observed under the same conditions.
Decision review
A written comparison is delivered and discussed. You have the figures for both methods. The decision about what follows is made from those figures, not from impressions.
Working together
What the nine weeks look like in practice
The engagement begins with a short discovery session — typically one or two conversations — in which we look at candidate processes together. There's no pressure to select a large or complex one; the pilot is designed to produce a result on something modestly scoped.
Once a process is selected, we spend the first week recording its current state. This is often less complicated than it sounds: for most administrative processes, a few hours of observation and some records from your systems are sufficient to establish the baseline figures.
The automated setup is built and checked in weeks two and three, then both methods run in parallel from week three through week eight. During this period, your team continues using the existing process as normal — there is no disruption to how work is currently handled.
Week nine is the review. We bring the comparison document, walk through it together, and discuss what the figures suggest. No conclusion is predetermined. If the automation has not produced a clear benefit for the investment, that finding is in the document.
Weeks 1–2
Process scoped and baseline figures recorded. Your team is not required to change anything at this stage.
Weeks 2–3
Automated handling configured and validated. Brief check with your team before parallel operation begins.
Weeks 3–8
Parallel operation. Both methods run. Observations collected on the same metrics for both. No disruption to existing work.
Week 9
Written comparison delivered. Decision review meeting. You leave with a document and a clear sense of what the next reasonable step looks like.
Investment
¥38,000 for the full nine-week engagement
This covers everything from the initial scoping conversations through to the written comparison and decision review at the close. There are no recurring costs attached to this pilot, and no expectation of a follow-on engagement.
What's included
- Process selection sessions with your team
- Baseline measurement and documentation before any change
- Build and configuration of the automated handling
- Six weeks of parallel operation with both methods observed
- Written comparison document at the close of the pilot
- Decision review meeting with structured framework
- Engagements conducted in English or Japanese as preferred
Cost structure
No recurring costs. No software licenses sold. Payment terms discussed on enquiry.
Who this suits
Organisations that have one process in mind for automation but would rather test the idea at small scale before committing further resources. Also suited to teams that have already adopted tools and want a structured retrospective.
Measurement framework
What gets measured, and how the comparison is made
The metrics recorded depend on the process selected, but the framework for comparison is consistent across all pilots.
| Measurement point | Typical metrics | When recorded |
|---|---|---|
| Before automation | Time per task, error frequency, volume handled per period | Week 1–2, before build begins |
| During parallel operation | Same metrics under both methods, observed over the same six-week window | Weeks 3–8 continuously |
| Written comparison | Both sets of figures side by side, differences noted without editorial interpretation | Week 9, delivered before review meeting |
No vendor alignment
Kirameki does not sell the tools used in the pilot. The comparison is produced to inform your decision, not to support a product recommendation.
Discontinuing is valid
The decision framework at week nine presents stopping as a reasonable outcome. If the figures do not support continuing, that is in the document clearly.
You keep the records
All measurement data and the written comparison remain with you. They can be used in future planning, stakeholder reporting, or further procurement decisions.
How we approach commitment
A pilot designed so that stopping is not a failure
The engagement is designed from the start with the possibility of discontinuation in mind. This is not a precaution — it is a structural feature. When both outcomes are treated as equally valid, the measurement is honest. When stopping is framed as failure, it tends to produce motivated reasoning rather than clear records.
The written comparison document is structured so that someone who was not part of the pilot can read it and understand what happened. It is not a pitch for the next engagement. It is a record of what was tried and what was found.
If you have questions before committing to the pilot, a short initial conversation is available with no charge and no pressure to proceed. The purpose of that conversation is to check whether the process you have in mind is a reasonable candidate — not to sell the engagement.
Fixed scope, fixed fee
The engagement does not expand beyond the agreed process without a separate discussion. The ¥38,000 fee covers everything described.
No-obligation initial conversation
Before any commitment, you can speak with us about the process you have in mind. If it's not a good candidate, we'll say so.
Existing process continues uninterrupted
During parallel operation, your current method keeps running. If the pilot were stopped mid-way, nothing would be broken.
How to proceed
Starting is a conversation, not a commitment
The path from initial enquiry to a running pilot is straightforward. There are no complicated intake processes or lengthy proposals before a decision is needed.
Send a message
Use the contact form to describe the process you have in mind — or just to say you're curious. There's no expected level of detail to get started.
Short initial conversation
We'll arrange a brief call or meeting — in English or Japanese — to look at the process together. We'll tell you honestly whether it's a good candidate for a pilot.
Pilot begins on agreed date
If both sides are satisfied that the pilot makes sense, we agree a start date. The nine-week engagement follows from there, with the structure already described.
Workflow Automation Pilot
If you have a process in mind, it's worth a conversation
The initial conversation is free and carries no obligation. If the process you describe is a reasonable candidate, we'll say so. If it's not, we'll say that too.
Nine weeks · ¥38,000 · Tokyo consulting, Japan · info@domain.com
Other services
Other engagements from Kirameki
6–8 weeks · ¥40,000
Data Preparation Engagement
Work on the records that automated systems will rely on — addressing duplicates, gaps, and inconsistencies before any automation begins.
View this service →
5 weeks · ¥31,000
Governance and Policy Setup
Establishing the internal rules under which automated tools are used — approved applications, data limits, review requirements, and a register template.
View this service →