Assisted handling
Prepared replies and pre-sorting for work that would otherwise wait.
A share of incoming work is always the same: the same questions, the same classification, the same routing. It still needs a person, because nobody trusts it when it happens automatically.
Why this happens
That distrust is well founded. A system that answers without grounding and acts without a record is a liability dressed as a feature. The answer is not more autonomy; it is a clear boundary and an approval step.
Approach
What we actually do
- 01We separate the work that genuinely needs judgement from the work that follows a clear rule.
- 02Each assisted task gets exactly one responsibility and a defined boundary. Outside it, nothing is improvised.
- 03Answers are grounded in your own documents, not in general knowledge.
- 04Anything going outside the business is drafted and approved by a person.
- 05Every action is logged: what, when, on what basis, approved by whom.
Outcome
What changes afterwards
- Routine enquiries are answered before anyone has seen them — as a draft.
- Your team still decides what goes out.
- There is a record when someone asks why something was said.
- Escalation is a rule rather than an improvisation.
Scope
What is included, and what is not
Included
- Task boundaries, written down
- A knowledge base built from your own documents
- An approval step before anything leaves the business
- A complete audit trail
- Escalation rules
Not included
- An assistant that answers without grounding
- Anything sent without approval
- Replacing your people
Next step
A conversation, not a pitch
Collect one week of questions that were asked more than three times. That is the scope worth discussing.