Find the waiting point in a handoff
Trace a sample request through review and failure. Find where missing inputs create waiting and who owns recovery.
This example runs in your browser without AI. You can also copy a starter to continue in ChatGPT.
A working local example. Your changes stay in this page until you choose to save, copy or download. No AI model is called.
Illustrative handoff draft
Choose the person responsible for every step, including steps with assistance.
- Repetitions per week
- 5
- Original weekly estimate
- 100 min/week
- Target weekly estimate
- 100 min/week
- Original minus target
- 0 min/week
Make the handoff clear
- Trigger
A fictional internal request is ready for review
Steps and owners
- 1. Organize the request details
Owner: Choose an owner. Handled by the named person. Original: 5 min; target: 5 min. Planned; no work has run
- 2. Check that required evidence is present
Owner: Choose an owner. Human review required. Original: 4 min; target: 4 min. Planned; no work has run
- 3. Prepare the review record
Owner: Choose an owner. Handled by the named person. Original: 3 min; target: 3 min. Planned; no work has run
- 4. Make the approval decision
Owner: Choose an owner. Human review required. Original: 6 min; target: 6 min. Planned; no work has run
- 5. Update the agreed destination
Owner: Choose an owner. Handled by the named person. Original: 2 min; target: 2 min. Planned; no work has run
Original example context
- Organize the request details
Assistance can prepare a structured summary.
- Check that required evidence is present
A person confirms that the evidence is sufficient.
- Prepare the review record
Consistent formatting can reduce re-entry.
- Make the approval decision
Authority remains with the designated reviewer.
- Update the agreed destination
The approved result can be recorded consistently.
Final approval
- Final approver
Choose who gives final approval.
Pause and recovery
- Pause and recovery
Agree who checks a failed step, how to avoid duplicate work and who can approve restarting.
Try one handoff together
- Work with Kevin
Walk through one agreed example with the people named. Check each handoff, record the actual time and revise the plan.
This is a planning checklist. It records proposed responsibilities and time estimates; it does not run or approve any real work. These are estimates, not measured savings. Check the time taken in a real, agreed trial before relying on a difference. Assistance choices and reasons still describe the original example after you rename a step. Bring a different process to Kevin for review.
Work with KevinFor the moments like this.
A recurring request moves between several people, often returning because one detail was missing. The problem may be unclear inputs rather than slow reviewers. Explore a fictional process and inspect where assistance could prepare information, where a person must decide, and what should happen when the destination cannot accept the update.
What becomes possible
Follow a fictional request from preparation to approval and recording. Try the failed destination update and inspect its recovery path; the sample makes no real approval or connection.
Put this to work.
Use the starter in ChatGPT or work with Kevin on your own situation.
Try it in ChatGPT
Copy the starter, open ChatGPT and paste it into a conversation. Add only the details you want to share. Nothing is sent automatically.
Review the starter for ChatGPT
ChatGPT access and features depend on your account. Keep private details out until you understand the settings of the service you use.
Choose how you want help.
Get guidance while you do the work, or ask Kevin to scope and deliver an agreed result.
Guidance and finished work are priced separately. You and Kevin agree the scope and price before work begins.
Sources, capability notes and how this example works
This local experience uses authored sample content and deterministic controls. Changing an input updates the example; no model runs, outside records are checked, or real-world actions are performed. Use the sources for the underlying AI capabilities and audience context, and the human check above when you apply the idea.
Microsoft 2026 Work Trend Index ↗May 5, 2026 report; survey excludes nonusers of AI. Accessed September 11, 2026.
ChatGPT capabilities overview ↗Current writing, document, and explanation capabilities; no live model runs in these examples. Accessed September 11, 2026.
Research checked September 11, 2026. Access to specific AI features depends on your account, plan and region. Sample amounts, timings, scores and feedback illustrate the method rather than claim measured outcomes.