For leaders
Which workflows do you redesign around AI first, and in what order?
Your organization is making decisions right now about which workflows to redesign, where to redirect human capacity, and what to stop hiring for. Most leaders are making them on incomplete, unverified, or structurally shallow evidence — and the failure is not a reporting failure, it is a decision-making failure.
Effectv is the AI transformation partner that gives you the task and workflow-level picture the decision needs. Our methodology is called the Helix — two strands twisted together, structure and flow, four DNAs. Two passes, one system. Structure tells you what the organization is. Flow tells you how work moves through it. Together they tell you what to change first.
The seven decisions
What a P&L owner actually decides.
Not "an AI strategy." Seven specific, recurring decisions that leadership owns and defends. If your operating cadence does not surface these clearly, it is because the intelligence to make them is missing.
- What work changes, and in what order.
- How a given piece of work is redesigned once AI is in it.
- What stays human, on purpose.
- Whether a piece of the organization is still viable in its current shape.
- What a workflow redesign is worth, and what is being underwritten when we claim it.
- What to stop hiring for, and what to start hiring for.
- Where freed human capacity goes.
A worked example
What the output looks like.
The Meridian sample is a commercial bank, read task by task: the workflow, where the hours go today, where AI absorbs work and where humans decide, the ROI range with every assumption named, and the resolved decisions in capital-allocation order.
Rigor in the open
How we stop ourselves from inventing numbers.
- Every score is anchored. Our task-level Human Agency scores use a published rubric with worked examples for every level. In a 164-task calibration study, independent raters agreed exactly on 89% of scores and within one level on 100%.
- Every ROI number is a range. No point estimates. Every assumption is named on the surface. External comparables are cited by source and date, or the number is labeled as a design estimate.
- No verdict on a team without task-level evidence. If we conclude a team's work should be redistributed, we produce the task-level scan that would falsify the conclusion, before the conclusion locks.
- No verdict on one source. Every consequential call rests on at least two independent evidence classes.
- We name what is ours and what is not. We productized an analytical tradition rather than inventing one, and the Human Agency Scale is Stanford's. What is ours is applying it at task grain across four levels of an organization, and standing behind the result.
The ask
A 30-minute peer perspective conversation.
Not a sales meeting. A conversation about whether this addresses a problem you recognize in your organization, and what you would need to see to hold the answer under scrutiny from your CFO and your board.
Or email Rajeev directly: rajeev@effectv.ai