A meeting assistant can change several kinds of work: taking notes, checking a draft, preparing the final record and finding an earlier discussion. Measure those activities separately. A faster processing time is not automatically the same as employee time saved.
Define the workflow and its start and end.
Choose a repeatable unit, such as preparing and distributing one set of project minutes. Record the people involved and the steps included. Use the same definition for the baseline and pilot cases.
Count review and correction time, not just the time required to create the first draft. If one workflow includes distribution and the other does not, the comparison is incomplete.
Record observations before calculating value.
Track minutes of active work for each person, elapsed time until a usable record is available, and whether the output met the agreed standard. These are different measurements.
- Use similar meeting types and note meaningful differences in length, language mix or complexity.
- Keep failed or difficult cases in the log. They reveal operating effort.
- Do not treat time spent waiting as active labour unless someone actually has to remain occupied.
Show the arithmetic and its limits.
For an illustrative case only: if preparing a record takes 30 active minutes before the pilot and 18 during it, the difference is 12 minutes per meeting. Across 20 comparable meetings, that is four hours. At an assumed internal planning rate of 120 currency units per hour, the gross time value is 480 currency units.
Subtract additional subscription, setup and operating costs that are not already captured in the active-work comparison before discussing a net estimate. The time difference is potential capacity; it is not necessarily a payroll saving or revenue gain.
| Input | Type |
|---|---|
| Active minutes per completed record | Measured observation |
| Number of comparable meetings | Measured or forecast, label which |
| Internal hourly planning rate | Assumption supplied by the organisation |
| Setup and recurring cost | Confirmed cost or labelled estimate |
| Rework, missed decisions and retrieval quality | Separate observations, not invented money values |
Make the decision broader than one number.
Include output quality, user effort, missed cases and the ability to retrieve the record. Present the sample size and range of observations rather than only the best example.
Use the result to decide what to keep, improve or test next. A useful pilot can expose a workflow mismatch even when the initial time estimate looks attractive.
MAKE IT YOURS
Your editable template.
Replace the bracketed prompts, remove what you do not need, and save a version for your team.
MEETING WORKFLOW VALUE WORKSHEET Workflow being measured: [Definition] Baseline period / pilot period: [Dates] Meeting types included: [Types] Start point / end point: [Definitions] Quality requirement: [What counts as usable] OBSERVATION PER MEETING Case ID: [Reference] Length / language / complexity notes: [Details] Baseline active work minutes: [Person and step breakdown] Pilot active work minutes: [Include review and correction] Elapsed time to usable record: [Separate from active work] Quality met: [Yes / No / Notes] Exceptions or rework: [Details] ESTIMATE Average active minutes difference: [Baseline minus pilot] Comparable meeting count: [Measured or forecast] Potential hours: [Minutes difference × count ÷ 60] Internal planning rate: [Assumption and currency] Gross time value: [Potential hours × rate] Additional setup and recurring costs: [List and period; exclude labour already counted above] Net planning estimate: [Gross value minus additional costs not already counted] INTERPRETATION Number of observed cases: [Count] Range and difficult cases: [Details] Quality / retrieval observations: [Notes] Assumptions needing validation: [List] This estimate represents: [Capacity / cost / other, explain] Decision / next measurement: [Action] Prepared with the MeetriX resource library. Adapt to your organisation. https://meetrix2.lisan.com/resources/meeting-value/
