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.
Who it's for
One decision, experienced four different ways.
The leadership team is deciding the same thing from four seats. Each one needs a different half of the same evidence.
Four seats, one call. Each needs a different half of the same evidence.
Operating model
You are making operating model decisions without a picture of what AI is actually doing to how work gets done. We tell you which workflows change, in what order, what each is worth, and what stays human on purpose.
Work redesign
You know which tools you have deployed. We tell you which workflows have actually been redesigned around them, where the productivity you were promised is sitting uncaptured, and what the future-state design needs to be.
Value and capital
Redesign decisions made without workflow-level evidence are expensive guesses. We give you a defensible basis: per workflow, in ranges, every assumption named, upside quarantined from the base case.
Capability
You are being asked to carry the people half of a decision your CEO, COO and CFO each experience differently. We give you the capability picture that follows from the operating model decision, and a position you can hold under scrutiny from all three.
The output
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.
One thing we are asked constantly
What happens to people?
People inside a transformation ask whether their role survives it. Pretending they are not asking reads as evasion, so we answer it.
Our work is framed at the level of capability and work, never at the level of an individual. We name which capabilities now take precedence and which are no longer worth selecting for. We show which work becomes more valuable as AI absorbs the routine volume — and there is always more of it than leaders expect. Every hour AI frees up carries a named destination, because capacity without a destination quietly refills with the same backlog.
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.
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.
Rajeev, who runs the engagement. Not a qualifier.
Bring one workflow you already know is painful. We trace it one or two layers out loud with you, tell you what we would need to see to answer it properly, and say what we could not answer.