Identify Which Agents to Build Before Staffing a Team
Pyze turns observed execution and your procedure estate into an executable specification: the trigger, the inputs, the systems, the rules, the handoffs and the controls.
Structural facts about the method rather than engagement outcomes. What a given estate yields depends on how much of the procedure corpus is current.
Most agent programmes stall between the decision to build and the first delivery. The limiting factor is the lack of a precise specification: which work should become an agent, what it needs, what it is not allowed to do, and where it hands back to a person. That specification is usually assembled from workshops against documentation that is years out of date.
Questions Asked of This Role
A platform commitment already made and a backlog that is still a list of ideas
Discovery that consumes months of business analyst time and produces a presentation
Agents that pass a demo and fail in production because the edge cases were never written down
No defensible way to decide which candidates are not worth building
Key Questions and Outcomes
Each question shows the answer available today, why that answer is insufficient, and what changes with Pyze.
Which work should become an agent?
A workshop-derived backlog ranked on perceived effort.
Workshops surface the work people remember, which skews toward tedious work over expensive work. Duration-based discovery finds mechanical work and misses decisions, which are fast and do not register in duration measures.
Candidates derived from observed execution joined to the procedure estate, so the ranking reflects what the work costs rather than perceived effort.
What exactly does this agent need to do?
A requirements document written from interviews.
It captures the standard path. Exceptions, informal rules and reasons for escalation determine whether the agent works in production, and interviews tend to miss them.
An executable blueprint per candidate: trigger, inputs with availability, systems and actions with reversibility, business rules with their source, the procedure constraints it cannot cross, human handoffs with the reason, and the controls that make it auditable.
Which of these should we not build?
Rarely asked, and almost never answered before a team is staffed.
Every candidate in a backlog looks fundable until someone puts a build cost next to the value at the same population. Discovering a negative payback after staffing is expensive and damages trust in the programme.
Each blueprint carries its build cost, run cost and payback, plus the preconditions that are still outstanding.
Engagement Sequence
Instrument the process and ingest the procedure estate. Both run in parallel and neither requires a workshop programme.
Candidates ranked and specified. Each one is a scoped build brief rather than a line in a backlog.
Build against the specification, with measurement still running so effectiveness is measured on arrival rather than assumed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Pyze build or run the agents? +
No. Pyze specifies what should be built and measures the result after delivery. Independence from the build keeps the measurement credible.
How does this fit with the platform we already bought? +
It sits upstream of it. Your platform is the runtime; Pyze produces the specification the runtime needs and then measures the result. Pyze complements the platforms it feeds and does not compete with them.
What if our procedure documents are out of date? +
That is the normal case and it is itself a finding. Comparing the documented procedure against observed execution is how the drift becomes visible and quantified, and in practice the defects found in the procedure estate arrive before any telemetry does.