Rivington Solutions · AI Workflow DiagnosticSample output · Fictional

Customer onboarding: diagnostic summary

This page shows the shape of a diagnostic output for one recurring workflow. The company, cases and details are invented to illustrate the format.

Workflow: Sales to onboarding handoff
Organization: Fictional
Scope: One workflow
Status: Illustrative

Sample

Illustrative sample. Fictional scenario and data. This is not a client engagement or a measured Rivington result.

Current workflow and observed friction

A customer is handed from sales to onboarding. The signed agreement, sales notes and setup request contain conflicting start dates. The implementation owner is not consistently recorded, and missing information is discovered only after work reaches the onboarding team.

Current sequence

01Sales handoff
02Manual information gathering
03Clarification requests
04Owner assignment
05Setup
06Completion check

Conflicting information

Three records carry the start date, and nothing establishes which one governs.

Incomplete intake

Gaps surface only when onboarding starts work, triggering clarification requests.

Unclear ownership

The implementation owner is assigned late or not recorded, so questions have no clear destination.

Hypothetical sources of friction for this fictional scenario.

Proposed workflow and decision ownership

Proposed sequence

01Receive handoff
02Retrieve agreed source records
03Check required information and conflicts
04Resolve exceptions
05Prepare onboarding brief
06Assign accountable owner
07Perform authorized setup
08Verify completion

Example ownership

Sales owner	Resolves commercial handoff questions.
Onboarding owner	Confirms readiness and coordinates delivery.
Authorized reviewer	Approves customer commitments or access changes.
Technical owner	Resolves setup failures.

Operating rules

Incomplete cases remain open with a named next action.
Conflicts must be resolved before dependent work proceeds.
Failed completion checks return to the responsible owner.

Implementation requirements and acceptance criteria

Requirement	Example specification	Rule
Required intake fields	Customer legal name, primary contact, contracted products, agreed start date, implementation owner, special terms.	Case cannot be marked ready while any field is empty.
Authoritative source records	Signed agreement for commercial terms and start date; CRM record for contacts; setup request for configuration.	Where sources disagree, the agreed authoritative record is named for each field.
Routing rules	Commercial questions to sales owner; readiness and delivery to onboarding owner; setup failures to technical owner.	Every open case shows one named next owner.
Approval requirements	Changes to customer commitments or system access need an authorized reviewer.	Approval recorded with approver and date before dependent work.
Exception handling	Missing information and conflicts open an exception with an owner and named next action.	Dependent work stays blocked until the exception is resolved.
Completion evidence	Setup checklist results, customer access confirmed, onboarding brief attached.	A failed check returns the case to the responsible owner.

Permissions and approvals must be enforced in the systems used, not by written instructions alone.

Example acceptance criteria

AC-1A missing required field prevents a case being marked ready.
AC-2A conflicting start date creates an exception for a named owner.
AC-3An action outside defined authority requires approval.
AC-4A failed setup check keeps the case open.
AC-5A resumed case retains its prior approval and completion history.

Measurement and rollout

A real engagement would establish a baseline before forecasting any benefit. This sample therefore shows what would be measured, not results. No figures are given because none have been measured.

Measure	What it captures	Baseline
Human effort per completed onboarding	Time spent by each role, including gathering and clarification.	To be measured
Elapsed time to readiness	From handoff received to case confirmed ready.	To be measured
Correction and rework frequency	How often information or setup is redone.	To be measured
Exception frequency and reasons	Share of cases with missing or conflicting information, by cause.	To be measured
Completion quality	Completion checks passed first time; issues found after handoff.	To be measured

Staged approach

Stage 1
Baseline
Measure the current workflow before forecasting any benefit.
Stage 2
Limited pilot
Run the redesigned workflow on a bounded set of cases.
Stage 3
Review
Compare pilot evidence with the baseline and review exceptions.
Stage 4
Decide
Expand, revise or stop, based on the evidence.

Sample

Illustrative sample. Fictional scenario and data. This is not a client engagement or a measured Rivington result.

Simulation

Inspect how three cases move through the proposed checks

Runs entirely in your browser. No AI service, no business system, no production functionality.

Handoff received: Halden Freight (fictional)

Agreement start date: 3 March
Sales notes start date: 3 March
Setup request start date: 3 March
Implementation owner: Recorded
Primary contact: Recorded

Required information present
All required fields complete.
Source records consistent
Start date agrees across all three records.
Within defined authority
No change to commitments or access.

Ready. Onboarding brief prepared.

Next owner: Onboarding owner

Next action: Assign accountable owner and perform authorized setup.

Simulation. Illustrative sample. Fictional scenario and data. This is not a client engagement or a measured Rivington result.