Skip to the Blueprint
HourFound · Inside the deliverableFictional firm · Illustrative assumptions

Sample · AI Capacity & Governance Blueprint

Two workflow changes.
One 90-day plan.

For Calloway & Co., a fictional 11-person independent RIA. The brief: reduce the administration around client work without replacing the firm's core systems or removing human review.

A worked example, not a case study. No client interviews or results are represented here. The firm, workflow inputs, costs and outcomes are illustrative. A client Blueprint uses the firm's own diagnostic inputs and includes named vendor recommendations and supporting evidence.
11 peopleincluding three advisors
Existing core stackCRM, planning, reporting and archive
One operations leadlimited capacity for implementation
Start with the recommendation ↓

The decision

Start with the handoffs. Keep the core systems.

In this scenario, advisors repeat the same meeting information in notes, CRM tasks and follow-up emails. Operations tracks onboarding across email and a separate checklist. The problem is repeated handling of information, not a shortage of software.

Approve two small pilots, with controls first.

  1. Meeting follow-up: test one draft-to-review workflow with one advisor before buying seats for all three.
  2. Onboarding: standardize ownership and status in the existing CRM. This is a process change first; AI is not required.
  3. Governance: document current AI use, permitted data and approval responsibilities before either pilot uses client information.
348 hoursmodeled annual capacity across the two workflows after full rollout
30 staff-hoursillustrative setup and training allowance, additional to routine work
Day 90a go, revise or stop decision based on the pilots—not automatic expansion

The 348-hour model includes ongoing review time. It does not deduct initial setup or rollout delays, and is not a first-90-days savings estimate. See every input and the lower-benefit scenario.

Exhibit A · Firm-wide opportunity map

Five areas. Different decisions.

Rank by useful capacity, implementation effort and review burden—not by how much AI a workflow could use.

  1. Meeting follow-up

    Pilot first

    Friction: three advisors turn one meeting into three separate drafting tasks. Change: create a common draft of notes, tasks and follow-up, then review before filing or sending.

    276 hours/year modeledOwner: lead advisor · Dependency: tool, data and records approval

  2. New-client onboarding

    Standardize next

    Friction: the partner counts form preparation; operations also carries document chasing, corrections and status updates. Change: one CRM checklist, named owners and a visible exception queue.

    72 hours/year modeledOwner: operations lead · Dependency: current CRM configuration check

  3. Recurring service-request routing

    Defer

    Friction: incoming requests need classification and assignment. Decision: fix task ownership during the first two pilots before introducing another routing layer. Revisit once request categories and exception handling are stable.

    138 hours/year explored—not included30 requests/week × 46 weeks × 6 minutes ÷ 60. Excludes onboarding and meeting follow-up.

  4. Client-facing AI chatbot

    Do not pursue now

    Decision: this example firm has not established enough demand or an owner for reviewing answers and handling exceptions. Improve internal work first. No capacity benefit is assumed.

  5. Existing AI use and oversight

    Before the pilots

    Scenario premise: some staff already use personal AI accounts for drafting, but the firm has no shared inventory. Change: identify those uses and have the CCO decide what may continue, change or stop. No time savings are assigned to this work.

Before treating this as evidence: a real diagnostic would reconcile different accounts of the same workflow, document frequency and time inputs, and mark estimates separately from measured observations. These sample inputs have not been validated.

Exhibit B · Tool decisions

One potential addition. Two things not to buy.

Evaluate · Advisor meeting assistant

Check the current stack before adding a specialist tool.

First test whether an existing licensed feature can produce usable notes and tasks with a review step. If not, shortlist a specialist meeting assistant. Compare total editing time, CRM handoff, records export, access controls and the proposed data terms.

Purchase gate: the pilot must demonstrate the complete draft → advisor approval → CRM/archive workflow. A polished summary alone is not enough. Do not buy three seats before testing one.

Use existing · CRM onboarding workflow

Configure the process before shopping for a platform.

Check whether the current CRM can support a shared checklist, task owners, reminders and status views under the firm's existing license. If it cannot, revise the scope and cost model before selecting an alternative.

Do not buy a second core platform or a chatbot.

Neither addresses the first two priorities in this scenario. A migration would consume the same operations capacity needed for the pilots, and the chatbot has no established business case.

This sample shows selection logic using tool categories, not current vendor endorsements. The client deliverable names the vendors under consideration, documents relevant plan-level capabilities and costs, and identifies evidence still needed before purchase.

Exhibit C · Before and after

Change the sequence, not just the writing tool.

01 · From a finished meeting to approved follow-up

Current process · 35 minutes assumed

  1. Reconstruct the meeting notes.
  2. Re-enter actions and owners as CRM tasks.
  3. Draft the client follow-up separately.
  4. Cross-check the three records for consistency.

Pilot target · 20 minutes including review

  1. Produce draft notes, actions and follow-up from an approved source. Recording is only used if the firm's consent and data requirements are met.
  2. Advisor checks facts, commitments, owners and due dates.
  3. File approved records through the agreed CRM/archive process; send only the approved email.

Test: one advisor, ten eligible meetings. Log total handling time, corrections, missing tasks and filing failures. Retain manual handling for exceptions; do not count meeting duration or preparation as saved time.

02 · From a new client to a complete onboarding file

Current process · 6 staff-hours assumed

  1. Assemble the document request manually.
  2. Track replies across inboxes and a separate checklist.
  3. Chase missing items and reconcile status by hand.
  4. Review and close the file.

Pilot target · 4 staff-hours including review

  1. Open one standardized CRM workflow with a named owner.
  2. Use a shared status view and assigned reminder tasks.
  3. Route incomplete or unusual items to an exception queue.
  4. Operations verifies the file before closing it.

Test: replay three anonymized historical cases, then track the next three eligible onboardings. Measure active staff time separately from elapsed days. Do not claim faster account funding without observing it.

Exhibit D · Capacity and cost model

The arithmetic is visible. The outcome is still to be tested.

Meeting follow-up · 276 hours/year

3 advisors × 8 meetings each/week × 46 weeks × 15 minutes returned ÷ 60.

Onboarding · 72 hours/year

36 new households/year × 2 staff-hours returned per household.

Total: 348 hours of modeled annual capacity at full rollout. The reductions are net of routine checking and corrections assumed in the target workflows. Initial setup and training are additional. Deferred opportunities are excluded, and the two workflows do not count the same tasks twice.

What if the time reductions are half as large?

At 7.5 minutes per meeting and one hour per onboarding, annual capacity falls to 174 hours. Fewer eligible meetings, lower adoption or a delayed rollout would reduce it further. Replace these inputs with pilot results before expanding.

What the firm would need to budget

Software allowance
$600/month · $7,200/yearAn illustrative budget for the meeting workflow after expansion, not a vendor quote. Confirm seat costs, integration charges and existing-license coverage.
Blueprint fee
$2,500 one-timeThe published diagnostic fee. Implementation is led by the firm's team; optional ongoing support is not included in this model.
Setup and training
30 staff-hours · $2,400 of internal timeAssume 12 hours for the meeting pilot and 18 for onboarding and initial controls, valued at an illustrative blended $80/hour. Further remediation would add effort.

The example therefore allows $9,700 in first-year external spending, plus internal setup time. It assumes a full year of software charges; actual contract and rollout timing would change the spend.

Capacity value is not cash savings. Using illustrative loaded rates of $100 per advisor-hour and $60 per operations-hour, 276 × $100 + 72 × $60 = $31,920 of gross annual capacity value before costs. The half-benefit case is $15,960. Neither figure is profit, additional revenue or a first-year return forecast; salaries may stay exactly the same.

These annualized scenarios do not deduct rollout delays or guarantee adoption. The decision is whether the firm can use the released time well enough to justify actual spending and effort—not whether a spreadsheet can show a large multiple.

Exhibit E · First 90 days

Each phase has an owner and a decision to make.

  1. Days 1–15 · Operations lead + CCO

    Establish the baseline and permissions.

    Time ten recent or current meeting follow-ups, review three onboarding files and inventory current AI use. Confirm the approved data, source material, reviewers and record-handling process.

    Proceed when: baseline inputs and the pilot's permitted use are documented. Otherwise, keep using test data and resolve the gaps.

  2. Days 16–30 · Lead advisor

    Run the meeting pilot with one advisor.

    Test ten eligible meetings. Log handling time including corrections, verify task ownership and check that approved records reach the intended systems.

    Proceed when: average handling time meets the 20-minute target and there are no unresolved material omissions, unauthorized sends or record-handling failures. If not, revise or stop.

  3. Days 31–60 · Operations lead

    Standardize onboarding and test exceptions.

    Configure the checklist, status view and ownership rules. Replay three historical cases before using the process on the next three eligible onboardings. Expand the meeting pilot only if its first review passed.

    Proceed when: required items and exceptions remain visible, and actual handling time supports the four-hour target. If live volume is too low, extend the test instead of calling it a success.

  4. Days 61–90 · Managing partner + CCO

    Decide what to scale, revise or stop.

    Replace modeled inputs with observed results. Compare costs, review effort and adoption; update the controls. Assign the next review date and decide whether deferred service routing deserves a pilot.

    Decision: buy additional seats only for a workflow with acceptable quality and a supported business case. A missed target is a reason to reconsider, not to automate more.

This is the firm's implementation plan, not a promise that HourFound installs or operates the tools as part of the $2,500 diagnostic.

Exhibit F · Governance materials

Make approval and review part of the workflow.

Below are example inventory entries and draft controls for discussion with the firm's CCO or counsel. They are not adopted policies, a complete compliance program or legal advice.

Inventory entry · Meeting follow-up pilot

Status & owner
Proposed; lead advisor owns output quality, operations owns filing checks, CCO reviews the proposed use.
Permitted input
Synthetic examples until the firm approves the tool, source material and data handling. Client information requires the firm's specific authorization.
Human checkpoint
Advisor verifies facts, commitments, task owners and due dates before CRM filing or client communication.
Records & exceptions
CCO determines what must be retained and where. Incorrect output, failed filing or unexpected data exposure is escalated; the affected workflow returns to manual handling.

Inventory entry · Personal AI accounts used for drafting

Status: review required. Identify users, use cases and data entered. The CCO decides which uses must pause, which may move to an approved workspace and what follow-up is needed. Do not assume a paid account by itself resolves the issue.

Example draft control · For CCO/counsel review

Staff may use AI only for the tools, tasks and data categories approved by the firm. AI-generated content remains a draft until the designated reviewer checks it. Client communications must not be sent, and client records must not be changed, without the approval required by the firm's workflow. Suspected data exposure or a material output error must be reported to the designated owner before the affected use resumes.

Vendor-review questions left open until evidence is collected

  • What data is stored, for how long, and by which subprocessors? What do the actual contract terms say about training, deletion and incident notification?
  • Can the firm control access, revoke a departing employee and restrict automatic sending or record changes?
  • Can approved outputs and the required review records reach the firm's designated archive? What happens when an integration fails?
  • Which capabilities are included in the proposed plan, and which require extra seats, add-ons or implementation work?

Handoff: each item needs an owner, a decision and a next review date. An unanswered vendor question stays open; it is not converted into a reassuring checkmark.

Your firm will have different priorities.

Find out which work is worth changing.

The HourFound Blueprint starts with your team's workflows and systems. $2,500 one-time, including up to six interviews, six deliverables and a live walkthrough.

Ask about your firm