The work as performed
End-to-end process views and task-level detail for the agreed scope, including the variants and exceptions that do not appear in the documented process.
Prove value
Thirty days, one defined scope, a value leakage number you can defend.
The Value Leakage Audit takes one agreed operational scope, maps how the work is actually performed, quantifies what the leakage is worth in hours and dollars, and hands your team a measured baseline for what to improve, automate or transform next.
- $50,000 USDFixed fee, per operational scope — creditable toward a licence
- 30 daysFrom scope sign-off to delivered findings
- One operational scopeBoundary, volumes and success metric agreed in writing before work begins
What it is
A paid diagnostic, on a scope you agree before it starts.
Most operational business cases are built on an estimate of the current state. The audit replaces that estimate with a measurement — taken from the work as it is actually performed, inside a scope narrow enough to finish in thirty days and large enough to matter.
- A defined operational scope. One agreed slice of operational work, with the boundary, the volumes and the metric it will be judged against written down before anything begins.
- How the work is actually performed, mapped. Observed rather than interviewed — including the exceptions, the re-keying, the cross-application steps and the handoffs that no system recorded.
- Value leakage quantified in hours and dollars. Where time and effort are lost, how often, and what it is worth using your own cost assumptions rather than ours.
- A measured baseline for what to improve next. A measured before-state your finance function can interrogate and your transformation team can build on.
Why the baseline has to come first
Automating or applying AI to a process nobody has measured automates the waste inside it, and leaves the saving unprovable afterwards because there is no before-state to compare against. The audit exists to remove that problem in a controlled scope, at a controlled cost.
Where this sits
The fourth step, not the first ask.
Nobody buys a diagnostic from a web page. The audit is what a serious evaluation turns into once the earlier steps have done their job.
Relevance
You recognize the operational problem — cost, capacity, cycle time, standardization, or an automation programme that needs a defensible starting point.
Confidence
You test whether Stereologic is credible and deployable: the differentiation, the customer evidence, and whether it can pass your security review.
Conversation
Twenty-five minutes on one workflow, with no customer data and no installation, to see what would become visible.
Paid evidence
The audit. A controlled scope, a fixed period, and a quantified answer you own at the end of it.
What you get
What you keep afterwards.
The audit is designed to produce operational artifacts rather than a consulting narrative — material that stays useful after the thirty days, and stays useful if you choose a different vendor for whatever comes next. The exact deliverable set is confirmed with you when the scope is agreed, and is fixed in writing before work begins.
Where the value leaks
Time, frequency and variation measured activity by activity, so the loss is attributed to specific steps rather than to a department.
The number, in hours and dollars
Leakage converted using your own volumes and cost assumptions, with the calculation method shown so it survives review.
A prioritized set of next moves
What to standardize, what to improve, what is genuinely worth automating, and what should stay human — ranked by evidence.
Illustrative view. This is the level at which leakage is attributed — activity by activity, not department by department.
What the outputs are used for afterwards
The same artifacts feed the next decision: process maps and SOPs for a standardization programme, requirements for an automation build, and the measured before-state that makes any later saving provable rather than asserted.
How the thirty days run
How a thirty-day engagement is shaped.
The period is fixed so the answer arrives while the decision is still open. The phases below describe the shape of the engagement; the calendar, the access required and the deliverables for each one are set with you when the scope is agreed.
Agree the scope
Fix the boundary of the work, the volumes inside it, the metric it will be measured against, and who signs off the result. Deployment and security review happen here rather than at the end.
- the process or operational scope, written down
- the metric the business case will be measured against
- the deployment environment and the review it has to pass
- the named owner on both sides
Record the work non-intrusively
Work is recorded non-intrusively as it is performed across and inside applications — including email, spreadsheets, desktop, legacy and custom environments — no-install, with non-intrusive desktop-recording software, no change to how people work, and no log-extraction project standing in front of the first evidence.
Reconstruct and quantify automatically
Activity is connected into the actual process end to end and at task level, then measured: timing, frequency, variation, bottlenecks, rework and the undocumented steps. The measurement is converted into hours and dollars against the cost assumptions agreed in phase one.
Hand over the value baseline
The findings are walked through with the people who own the process, not just the sponsor: what the work actually looks like, where the leakage is, what the number is and how it was calculated, and which moves the evidence supports next.
What holds the thirty days together
Two things: a scope that does not move, and a decision-maker who is available at the start and at the end. Discovery itself does not wait on an integration backlog or a data-preparation project, which is why a fixed period is realistic at all.
Who it suits
Four situations where a measured baseline pays for itself.
01
You are being asked to defend an operating cost
The target is set, the number is contested, and nobody can evidence where the hours actually go. The audit produces the evidence inside one scope instead of arguing about the whole function.
02
A transformation or migration is about to be funded
Systems, workflows or an operating model are about to change, and the current state is documented as somebody believes it to be rather than as it is performed.
03
An automation or AI programme needs a defensible starting point
Pilots are stalling on exceptions nobody mapped, or the business case for the next wave depends on a before-state that was never measured.
04
One process runs four different ways
Teams, sites or acquisitions have drifted apart, and the variation has to be visible before a standard can be written that people will actually follow.
When it is not the right first step
If you cannot yet name one scope and one metric, the audit is premature — start with the conversation instead, and use it to find the scope worth measuring. Twenty-five minutes, no customer data, no obligation.
Commercial shape
A paid, time-boxed engagement on one agreed scope.
- The audit is paid and time-boxed to thirty days.
- It runs on one operational scope agreed in writing before it starts.
- The fee, what it includes and the contracting terms are confirmed with you when that scope is agreed, because the effort depends on the scope.
- The outputs are yours to keep and remain usable if you choose a different vendor for whatever comes next.
What a controlled scope can produce
Back-office customer management at Pitney Bowes delivered 30% lower operational cost, 56% faster customer service response and servicing errors from 20% to 0%, measured in under 90 days — from Stereologic’s published case study.
Four lenses
Where operational value leaks.
Once the real operation is understood, leakage is evaluated across four business lenses. Different leak, different intervention — then re-measured against the same baseline.
Labor & capacity
Where is workforce time being consumed or misallocated? Low-value manual work, task switching, workload imbalance.
What you do: rebalance roles and workload to recover usable capacity.
Process & velocity
Where does work wait, loop or move backward? Bottlenecks, handoffs, rework.
What you do: redesign routing and handoffs to improve throughput.
Technology & data friction
Where do systems and data create unnecessary work? Manual copy and paste, duplicate or fragmented data, screen delays.
What you do: fix integration and data, and automate where the evidence supports it.
Execution & quality
Where does actual execution differ from expected performance? Skipped steps, workarounds, errors and execution variation.
What you do: standardize SOPs and controls, and coach the teams that drift.
Commercial terms
What the audit costs, and what is fixed.
| Fee | $50,000 USD, fixed, per operational scope. Creditable toward a Stereologic licence. |
|---|---|
| Duration | 30 days from scope sign-off to delivered findings. |
| Scope | One agreed slice of operational work. The boundary, the volumes and the metric it will be judged against are written down before anything begins. |
| Deliverables | Process views and task-level detail for the agreed scope; leakage quantified in hours and dollars using your volumes and cost assumptions, with the calculation method shown; and a prioritized set of next moves. Confirmed in writing at scope sign-off. |
| Ownership | The artifacts are yours to keep and remain usable if you choose a different vendor for whatever comes next. |
| Deployment | Non-intrusive, no-install desktop-recording software and no Administrator-level endpoint access. Deployment and security review are completed during scope agreement, not at the end. |
Fee stated in US dollars for a single operational scope. Engagements beyond the audit are quoted separately.
Take the next step
Find out what one scope is actually costing you.
Start with twenty-five minutes on one workflow. If it is worth quantifying, we will agree a scope, a metric and a period — and you will end up with a baseline you can take to your own finance function.
Not ready to meet? See an anonymized claims analysis