How to Select Robo Claw Use Cases for NGOs Partnering with Local Governments
Evaluate candidate workflows by their impact on service recipients' rights and interests; whether they involve final decision-making; the handling of personal and sensitive information; external transmission to local governments or third parties; system write access; the availability of human review, escalation, and correction; and whether they can be operated within your NGO's staffing and budget. We recommend starting with low-risk workflows focused on reading, organizing, and drafting, with final human review.
When selecting workflows for Robo Claw, NGOs and NPOs partnering with local governments should prioritize work that: 1) does not directly affect service recipients' rights or interests; 2) does not delegate final decisions to AI; 3) has clear rules for handling personal and sensitive information; 4) limits transmission to local governments and third parties or requires approval before transmission; 5) retains human review and escalation; and 6) can be operated sustainably with limited staff and budget. Workflows that meet these criteria are easier to evaluate in a Pilot and carry lower risk.
Who This Is For
Who This Is For
This guide is for executive directors, program managers, community partnership and local-government liaisons, counseling support staff, and others deciding which workflow to begin with when implementing Robo Claw.
What You'll Decide
What You'll Decide in This Step
In this Discover STEP, you will identify candidate Robo Claw workflows, prioritize them based on their impact on service recipients and associated risks, and select the first program and workflow to begin with. Detailed design of requirements, authority, and responsibility boundaries takes place in the next Refine STEP.
Fit Check
Suitable and Unsuitable Work
Suitable work
- High-frequency, standardized workflows, such as organizing local-government notices and searching program guidelines and policies
- Tasks that allow humans to easily check and modify the primary decision draft, such as the primary classification of inquiries.
- Support work that requires humans to make the final judgment and submission, such as summarizing consultation records and creating report drafts.
- Workflows that do not directly affect service recipients' rights or interests and can require approval before any transmission
- Workflows that use internal documents or program materials, where confidentiality is easier to manage
Unsuitable work
- The final decision on whether or not to accept support recipients, whether or not to provide benefits and support, and the level of risk and urgency.
- Work that involves determining the treatment of children, the elderly, people with disabilities, etc.
- Workflows that automatically share personal information externally or submit official reports to local governments without approval
- Businesses with unorganized rules for handling personal information and sensitive information
Industry Challenges
Challenges Specific to NGOs and NPOs Partnering with Local Governments
When selecting candidate workflows, many NGOs and NPOs partnering with local governments face the following challenges.
Too many candidate workflows to narrow down
Potential uses range from consultation-record summaries and report preparation to multilingual notices and daily-report aggregation, making it difficult to know where to start.
No consistent criteria for assessing risk
Without a consistent way to assess the risk level of each workflow, candidate selection tends to depend on individual judgment.
Uncertainty about handling personal and sensitive information
Organizations may need to determine the classification and permitted use of data handled by a candidate workflow without specialist or legal expertise.
Uncertainty about workflows that transmit information to local governments
There are no clear criteria for deciding whether workflows that submit reports to local governments or send notices to residents are suitable candidates.
Method
Implementation Steps
1. Identify candidate workflows
Inventory workflows within your organization, such as organizing local-government notices, summarizing consultation records, drafting reports, and aggregating daily reports.
2. Evaluate the impact on those supported
We confirm whether the candidate work will affect the rights, interests, and safety of the person receiving support.
3. Confirm who makes the final decision
Confirm that the design does not allow AI to make final decisions on acceptance, eligibility for benefits, risk or urgency assessments, and similar matters.
4. Confirm data classification
Confirm whether the workflow handles personal or sensitive information and whether it involves external transmission to local governments or third parties.
5. Confirm system write access, transmission, and human review requirements
Identify whether the workflow writes to systems or sends information externally, and determine the level of human review that must remain in place.
6. Determine your priorities
List the evaluation results and decide which project/work to start first.
Evaluation Table
Candidate Workflow Evaluation Table
The following is an example evaluation table. Adapt it to your organization's candidate workflows. Workflows with a limited impact on service recipients and no AI final decision-making should receive a higher priority in the Discover step.
| Candidate Workflow | Impact on Service Recipients | Final Decision-Maker | Personal or Sensitive Information | External Transmission | Human Review |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organizing Local-Government Notices and Program Guidelines | None | Not Applicable | Not Handled | None | Not Required |
| Primary classification of inquiry | none | human | treat in a limited manner | Internal only | Recommended |
| Consultation Record Summary | Indirect | Human or Qualified Professional | Handled | None | Required |
| Draft Subsidy or Contracted-Program Report | Indirect | Human | Handled in a Limited Manner | Submitted to a Local Government | Required |
Data & Systems
Data and Systems Used
In the Discover STEP, review the following data and systems to evaluate candidate workflows.
Human-in-the-loop
Where Human Review Is Required
Implementation does not take place during the Discover step. However, when assessing candidate workflows, make sure the following decisions are made by a human or qualified professional.
- The final decision on whether a workflow may be selected as an automation candidate
- The decision on whether workflows that handle personal or sensitive information may be included as candidates
- Confirmation that final decisions have not been delegated to AI
- Advance consultation with qualified professionals and local-government contacts
Measurement
KPI Candidates
During the Discover step, record the following as hypotheses for each candidate workflow to support validation in later steps.
Current Effort Required
An estimate of the staff time currently required for each candidate workflow
Effect hypothesis
Hypothesis of man-hours and time that can be expected to be reduced by automation
Risk Score
A risk assessment based on factors such as impact on service recipients, final decision-making, and data classification
Pitfalls
Common Pitfalls
Selecting only workflows with obvious benefits
If you skip risk assessment and select only workflows with highly visible benefits, you may need to redesign authority and responsibility boundaries in later steps.
Delaying data classification checks
Confirming how personal and sensitive information will be handled only after choosing candidate workflows causes rework in later steps.
Start multiple projects at the same time
If you proceed with multiple projects and multiple regions in parallel from the beginning, authority design and pilot evaluation will become complicated, and verification will take longer.
FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
How many workflows should we start with?
In most cases, we recommend starting with one program, one region, and one workflow. Beginning with several workflows at once makes authority design and Pilot evaluation more complex.
Should workflows that handle personal or sensitive information be excluded as candidates?
Not necessarily. However, this is appropriate only when data classification, purpose of use, consent, and access permissions have been confirmed, and the design ensures that a human or qualified professional makes the final decision.
Can consultation workflows be considered as candidates?
They can be candidates when used to support consultation-record summaries or information organization. However, we do not recommend delegating the consultation itself or risk and urgency assessments to AI.
Who should evaluate candidate workflows?
We recommend a joint evaluation by the program manager and counseling support staff or qualified professionals. The assessment must consider both the practical workflow and its impact on service recipients.
Continue
Next Step
Once you have selected a target workflow, the next step is to define its requirements, authority, and responsibility boundaries in detail.
Would you like help clarifying your target workflows?
Based on your current workload, risks, and data classification, our team can help you identify and prioritize suitable Robo Claw use cases through the official landing page.