Business process automation often fails before the first workflow is built.
The failure happens during selection.
Organizations see dozens of manual activities in SharePoint, Microsoft 365, email, and spreadsheets and naturally ask which ones can be automated. But “can we automate it?” is a technical question. “Should this be our first automation?” is a business and operational question.
Microsoft supports SharePoint and Power Automate as complementary tools for workflows involving lists, libraries, approvals, notifications, reminders, and other recurring activities. The technology may make many processes possible, but that does not make every process a sensible starting point.
The first automation project has a second purpose beyond improving one workflow: it teaches the organization how to design, test, operate, monitor, support, and govern automation.
That makes sequencing important.
What Makes a Process a Good Automation Candidate?
A strong candidate normally has five characteristics:
- It happens often enough to matter.
- It consumes meaningful manual effort.
- Its normal path is reasonably predictable.
- Errors are manageable.
- People are willing to use the new process.
These characteristics sound simple, but they eliminate many attractive-looking projects.
Consider a contract approval process. It may involve significant manual effort, but perhaps every contract follows different rules. Some require legal review, some require procurement, some involve international entities, and others have unusual commercial terms.
That may still be an excellent automation opportunity.
It simply may not be the best first opportunity.
By contrast, an employee equipment request might follow a relatively consistent path:
Employee submits request → manager reviews → IT checks availability → fulfilment → record updated.
That predictability makes the process easier to model and test.
Frequency Matters More Than Visibility
A common selection mistake is choosing the process that receives the most executive attention.
Visibility is not the same as automation suitability.
A workflow used 1,000 times a year gives the organization many opportunities to measure improvement. A workflow used five times a year may have high strategic importance but provide little operational learning.
Frequency also compounds small improvements.
If automation removes five minutes of administrative work from a process used 2,000 times a year, that is materially different from removing five minutes from a process used 20 times.
But frequency should not be considered alone.
A high-volume process that is already efficient may be a weaker candidate than a lower-volume process with substantial administrative overhead.
The useful question is:
How much friction does this process create over its entire lifecycle?
That includes submission, routing, review, follow-up, data entry, status requests, reporting, and recordkeeping.
Measure the Entire Manual Process
Organizations often underestimate automation opportunities because they measure only the visible task.
Suppose employees submit purchase requests through email.
The obvious manual work is writing the email.
But the actual process might involve:
- An employee preparing the request
- A manager checking the request
- Finance validating budget information
- Procurement determining the next action
- Someone updating a spreadsheet
- The requester asking for status
- A coordinator sending reminders
- Finance reconciling the final purchase
- Someone archiving the supporting documentation
Automating only the initial form may not eliminate much work.
A useful process assessment therefore follows the request from trigger to outcome.
Microsoft’s process-mining capabilities are designed around this idea: event logs can be analyzed to identify inefficiencies and performance issues across processes.
You do not necessarily need process-mining software for a small workflow. A workshop, process map, and sample of recent transactions may be enough.
The principle is what matters: measure the process, not merely the task.
Score Process Stability Separately
One of the most important distinctions in automation planning is between a process that is complex and one that is unstable.
Complexity can sometimes be automated.
Instability is more difficult.
A process with eight predictable steps can be automated successfully.
A process with four steps that change constantly can be harder.
For example:
Stable process
- Submit request
- Check amount
- Route to manager
- Route to finance if above threshold
- Record decision
- Notify requester
Unstable process
- Submit request
- Someone decides who should review it
- Reviewer may ask another department
- Finance sometimes participates
- Certain managers handle requests differently
- Exceptions are resolved through email
The second process needs clarification before workflow construction.
Otherwise, the automation simply hard-codes organizational ambiguity.
Add Risk to the Selection Model
Not every automation error has the same consequence.
If an automated office-supply request is incorrectly routed, someone may have to correct it.
If an access request is incorrectly approved, the consequences can be much more serious.
If a compliance record is incorrectly classified, the issue may extend beyond operational inconvenience.
Risk therefore belongs in the initial selection model.
A simple scoring system can evaluate:
| Frequency | Rare | Monthly | Frequent |
| Manual effort | Minimal | Moderate | Significant |
| Predictability | Variable | Mostly defined | Highly defined |
| Adoption potential | Low | Moderate | High |
| Risk suitability | High risk | Moderate | Low/manageable risk |
This is not a mathematical model of ROI.
It is a decision aid.
You should also score implementation complexity separately.
A process may score highly on value while also scoring highly on complexity. That tells you something useful: it may belong in the automation roadmap, but not necessarily in the first pilot.
Why the First Project Should Be Manageable
The first project establishes more than a workflow.
It establishes patterns.
The team learns:
- How requirements are documented
- How exceptions are handled
- How users interact with forms
- How approvals are routed
- How errors are detected
- Who owns the workflow
- How changes are tested
- How performance is measured
That learning becomes reusable.
Microsoft’s Power Platform adoption guidance explicitly emphasizes governance, operations, security, readiness, and measurement alongside technology adoption.
This is why a smaller, well-designed automation can be strategically valuable even if it is not the organization’s largest theoretical opportunity.
Good First Candidates
Several categories often have characteristics that make them reasonable candidates, although context matters.
Employee requests
Leave, equipment, facilities, and similar requests often have clear triggers, defined approvers, and measurable outcomes.
Expense processes
Expense submissions can contain structured information, approval rules, notifications, and recordkeeping requirements.
Simple document approvals
A document library can trigger an approval workflow when a document is submitted, with the result written back to SharePoint. Microsoft documents this pattern directly for SharePoint content approval. Microsoft Learn
Routine internal service requests
IT, HR, facilities, and operations requests can often be structured into forms, routing rules, tasks, and status updates.
The common characteristic is not the department.
It is the repeatability of the process.
When a High-Value Process Should Wait
A process may deserve automation eventually but still be unsuitable as the first project.
Examples include:
- Highly variable contract negotiations
- Security-sensitive access changes
- Complex regulatory workflows
- Processes involving many external systems
- Workflows with unclear ownership
- Processes undergoing major policy changes
The answer is not necessarily “do not automate.”
Instead, ask whether the organization can first isolate a stable subset.
For example, rather than automating every contract review, it may be possible to automate intake, document classification, routing, and status tracking while leaving legal judgment to people.
That creates a narrower and safer automation boundary.
Build a Portfolio Instead of Picking One Winner
Automation prioritization becomes easier when you stop asking which process is “best” and instead classify the pipeline.
One practical approach is:
- Quick wins: High frequency, low complexity, low risk.
- Strategic projects: High value, but requiring more integration or process redesign.
- Exploration candidates: Potentially valuable but poorly understood.
- Defer: Low volume, low effort, or high complexity without a clear business case.
This avoids a common mistake: forcing every process into the same ranking system.
Different categories deserve different treatment.
Define the Baseline Before Building
If you cannot describe the current process, you will struggle to demonstrate improvement.
Before automation, capture a baseline such as:
- Average processing time
- Number of manual handoffs
- Number of status inquiries
- Approval turnaround time
- Error or rework frequency
- Number of people involved
- Volume per month
- Percentage of requests requiring exceptions
The exact metrics depend on the process.
The goal is to establish enough evidence to answer:
Did the automation improve the process?
| Frequency | Rare | Monthly | Frequent |
| Manual effort | Minimal | Moderate | Significant |
| Predictability | Variable | Mostly defined | Highly defined |
| Adoption potential | Low | Moderate | High |
| Risk suitability | High risk | Moderate | Low/manageable risk |
Why the First Project Should Be Manageable
The first project establishes more than a workflow.
It establishes patterns.
The team learns:
- How requirements are documented
- How exceptions are handled
- How users interact with forms
- How approvals are routed
- How errors are detected
- Who owns the workflow
- How changes are tested
- How performance is measured
This is why a smaller, well-designed automation can be strategically valuable even if it is not the organization’s largest theoretical opportunity.
Good First Candidates
Microsoft’s guidance also emphasizes defining measurable goals and communicating business value when establishing Power Platform governance and adoption
Avoid the “Automate Everything” Trap
A common mistake is treating automation as an end in itself.
Some manual activities exist for good reasons.
A human may need to make a judgment, resolve an exception, negotiate an outcome, or review sensitive information.
Automation does not mean eliminating people.
It means reducing unnecessary coordination around the parts of the process that are predictable.
That distinction becomes particularly important as AI and more autonomous automation capabilities enter business workflows. Microsoft’s 2026 Work Trend Index discusses the changing relationship between human work and AI-driven execution, reinforcing the importance of organizational design rather than simply adding more automation. Microsoft
A Practical First-Project TestBefore approving a SharePoint automation project, ask:
Before approving a SharePoint automation project, ask:
- Does this process happen frequently?
- Can we quantify the current manual effort?
- Can we describe the normal workflow clearly?
- Are the business rules understood?
- Do we know who owns the process?
- Can we tolerate an automation error while learning?
- Will users actually use the new process?
- Can we measure improvement?
If most answers are yes, the process deserves serious consideration.
If several answers are no, do not immediately start building.
The process may need discovery or redesign first.
Final Recommendation
Choosing the first SharePoint automation project is a prioritization exercise, not a technology exercise.
Look for the intersection of:
Meaningful manual effort + repeatability + measurable value + manageable risk + user adoption.
Then separate that business assessment from implementation complexity.
The result is a more realistic automation roadmap—and a first project that can teach the organization how to automate well.
FAQ
What should a company automate first in SharePoint?
A frequent, predictable, measurable, relatively low-risk process is often a strong starting point. Common candidates include routine requests, simple approvals, expenses, and internal service workflows.
How do I prioritize SharePoint automation projects?
Evaluate frequency, manual effort, process stability, risk, adoption, and implementation complexity. Keep business value and technical difficulty as separate dimensions.
Should complex processes be avoided?
Not necessarily. Complex processes can be excellent automation candidates, but they may require process redesign, integration work, or stronger governance before implementation.
How do I measure automation ROI?
Establish a baseline for volume, processing time, manual effort, rework, errors, and other process-specific costs. Compare those measures after implementation.
Is Power Automate required?
Power Automate is a common way to automate SharePoint processes and connect SharePoint with other Microsoft services, but the appropriate architecture depends on the process and existing technology environment.
