Arrange a free call

Case studies / Illustrative examples

Less admin.
More time back.

Finance, marketing, reporting, customer service. Ten specific jobs your team could hand to an agent or workflow, with a clear output and a person in control.

Find your department ↓

These are illustrative applications, not customer success stories. Every saving is an explicit workload assumption, ready to test against the way your team works.

Choose your
department.

Ten specific jobs across eight industries. Choose the team that owns the work, then see its inputs, workflow, finished output and assumed time saving.

10 examples

Finance

Supplier invoice enquiries

Industry example: Manufacturing / Agent + workflow

Give accounts payable a source-backed draft reply and a clear queue of questions that need the invoice owner to intervene.

4h 10mback per weekAssumed time saving
Open or close illustrative case study

Answer supplier invoice questions with the evidence already gathered.

The accounts payable team repeatedly searches invoice and payment records, checks what has been approved and drafts replies to supplier status enquiries.

Proposed setup / illustrative case

Supplier Enquiry Agent

The inputs
  • Supplier enquiry messages and the approved invoice register
  • Approved payment-status records and named invoice owners
  • Agreed enquiry templates and escalation rules

Human owner: Accounts payable lead

supplier-enquiry-review.xlsxFICTIONAL OUTPUT

Illustrative invoice enquiry review

  • INV-041: invoice found in the approved register.
  • Payment status: confirmation required from the invoice owner.
  • Supplier reply: draft awaiting accounts-payable approval.

Example content only. No customer records are shown.

  1. Identify

    Read the enquiry and identify the invoice reference and question.

  2. Check

    Use fixed matching rules to retrieve the approved invoice and payment-status evidence.

  3. Draft

    Prepare a reply using only the supported status and agreed wording.

  4. Approve

    Accounts payable resolves exceptions, checks the reply and sends it separately.

When something is missing: A missing or conflicting status goes to the invoice owner. The agent does not promise payment dates, change bank details, make payments or send replies.

The time-saving assumption

Weekly workload
50 queries
Before, per item
8 min
After, per item incl. review
3 min
Total active time each week
6h 40m → 2h 30m

50 × (8 − 3) = 250 minutes back / week

After-time allowance, per item: 1 min check evidence; 1 min review reply; 1 min average exception handling.

How we would prove the value

Compare handling minutes for similar supplier queries, including evidence checks, corrections, review and exceptions. Exclude waiting for owners to respond; record setup separately.

These are planning assumptions, not measured results. After-time includes human review and an allowance for exceptions. Setup, ongoing maintenance and waiting time are excluded.

Discuss a similar workflow →

Marketing

Campaign content briefs

Industry example: Hospitality / Agent + workflow

Give marketing a consistent campaign brief and channel-specific drafts, with unsupported claims flagged before creative work or publication.

2h 55mback per weekAssumed time saving
Open or close illustrative case study

Turn approved campaign inputs into a brief the team can use.

The marketing team gathers campaign goals, checks offer details and brand guidance, then rewrites the same information for each channel brief.

Proposed setup / illustrative case

Campaign Brief Agent

The inputs
  • Approved campaign goals, audience and intended channels
  • Approved product facts and offer terms
  • Brand guidance, channel requirements and briefing template

Human owner: Marketing lead

campaign-content-brief.docxFICTIONAL OUTPUT

Illustrative campaign brief

  • Core message: linked to the approved product facts.
  • Email and social variations: drafted for marketing review.
  • Offer wording: held until approved terms are complete.

Example content only. No customer records are shown.

  1. Gather

    Collect approved campaign material and check required briefing fields.

  2. Assemble

    Organise the goals, audience, approved facts and deliverables into a structured brief.

  3. Draft

    Prepare channel variations grounded only in the supplied approved facts and terms.

  4. Approve

    Marketing checks every external claim and approves the brief. Publication is a separate decision.

When something is missing: Missing or conflicting offer terms return to marketing. The agent does not invent prices, testimonials, performance claims or offer terms, and does not publish.

The time-saving assumption

Weekly workload
5 briefs
Before, per item
60 min
After, per item incl. review
25 min
Total active time each week
5h → 2h 5m

5 × (60 − 25) = 175 minutes back / week

After-time allowance, per item: 5 min prepare inputs; 15 min review and approve; 5 min average exception handling.

How we would prove the value

Compare active preparation and review minutes for similar briefs, including factual checks, revisions and exceptions. Exclude asset production and publishing; record setup separately.

These are planning assumptions, not measured results. After-time includes human review and an allowance for exceptions. Setup, ongoing maintenance and waiting time are excluded.

Discuss a similar workflow →

Reporting

Weekly trading report

Industry example: Retail / Agent + workflow

Give the trading meeting a checked pack, a short account of what changed and a clear list of questions to resolve.

2h 45mback per weekAssumed time saving
Open or close illustrative case study

Start the week with decisions, not spreadsheet assembly.

The retail reporting team copies weekly sales into a reporting template, checks the comparison period and writes the same opening commentary each Monday.

Proposed setup / illustrative case

Trading Report Agent

The inputs
  • Weekly sales export with agreed channel and product fields
  • Prior-period file and approved reporting definitions
  • Report template and trading-team notes

Human owner: Trading or finance lead

weekly-trading-pack.pdfFICTIONAL OUTPUT

Illustrative trading review

  • Period check: current and comparison files aligned.
  • Channel movement: ready for trading-lead review.
  • Cause of channel movement: awaiting trading-lead confirmation.

Example content only. No customer records are shown.

  1. Collect

    Gather the agreed files for the reporting week.

  2. Check

    Apply fixed checks to periods, missing fields and source totals.

  3. Draft

    Prepare commentary linked to the checked figures; label possible explanations as questions.

  4. Approve

    The trading lead resolves exceptions and approves the pack for circulation.

When something is missing: A missing comparison file holds the affected analysis and gives the file owner a specific request.

The time-saving assumption

Weekly workload
1 report
Before, per item
240 min
After, per item incl. review
75 min
Total active time each week
4h → 1h 15m

1 × (240 − 75) = 165 minutes back / week

After-time allowance, per item: 20 min prepare inputs; 40 min review the pack; 15 min average exception handling.

How we would prove the value

Time report preparation over four comparable weeks, including corrections and review. Compare the same scope; record initial setup separately.

These are planning assumptions, not measured results. After-time includes human review and an allowance for exceptions. Setup, ongoing maintenance and waiting time are excluded.

Discuss a similar workflow →

Reporting

Client project status reports

Industry example: Professional services / Agent + workflow

Give the project lead a consistent update with source references, missing decisions and clear next actions before the client meeting.

2h 30mback per weekAssumed time saving
Open or close illustrative case study

Turn scattered project updates into a review-ready brief.

The project reporting team reads meeting notes and task lists, chases owners for context and rewrites the material into a weekly client status report.

Proposed setup / illustrative case

Project Status Agent

The inputs
  • Agreed project task export and milestone plan
  • Approved meeting notes and owner updates
  • Client-report template and status definitions

Human owner: Project lead

weekly-project-status.docxFICTIONAL OUTPUT

Illustrative project brief

  • Design review: completed in the task register.
  • Implementation date: conflicting updates; confirmation needed.
  • Client report: draft awaiting project-lead approval.

Example content only. No customer records are shown.

  1. Collect

    Gather updates for the agreed project and reporting period.

  2. Check

    Apply fixed checks for missing owners, overdue dates and stale updates.

  3. Draft

    Summarise progress and unresolved questions with links back to the source material.

  4. Approve

    The project lead checks interpretation, confirms commitments and approves sharing.

When something is missing: Conflicting dates remain an explicit question for the owner. The agent cannot commit to a new delivery date or change the project status itself.

The time-saving assumption

Weekly workload
10 project reports
Before, per item
25 min
After, per item incl. review
10 min
Total active time each week
4h 10m → 1h 40m

10 × (25 − 10) = 150 minutes back / week

After-time allowance, per item: 5 min review source-backed draft; 3 min edit and approve; 2 min average exception handling.

How we would prove the value

Compare weekly preparation minutes across similar projects, including source chasing, edits and approval. Check omissions and corrections as well as time. Record setup separately.

These are planning assumptions, not measured results. After-time includes human review and an allowance for exceptions. Setup, ongoing maintenance and waiting time are excluded.

Discuss a similar workflow →

Customer service

Repair enquiry handling

Industry example: Property / Agent + workflow

Give the property manager a complete draft job, the available evidence and the missing information before they assign work.

4hback per weekAssumed time saving
Open or close illustrative case study

Get each repair request ready for the right person.

The customer service team receives maintenance requests as free-text messages, repeatedly identifies the property, asks for access details and retypes the problem into a job record.

Proposed setup / illustrative case

Maintenance Enquiry Agent

The inputs
  • Maintenance messages and supplied photographs
  • Property and authorised-contact register
  • Agreed routing rules and emergency instructions

Human owner: Property manager

maintenance-intake-review.xlsxFICTIONAL OUTPUT

Illustrative repair intake

  • JOB-031: leaking tap reported; photograph attached.
  • Access window: missing; information request drafted.
  • Dispatch: awaiting property-manager approval.

Example content only. No customer records are shown.

  1. Summarise

    Turn the message into a draft fault description without diagnosing it.

  2. Check

    Match the property and identify missing contact or access information.

  3. Route

    Apply agreed escalation rules and prepare an acknowledgement or information request.

  4. Approve

    The property manager confirms urgency, authorises work and selects the contractor.

When something is missing: Urgent or ambiguous safety concerns go directly to a person under the agreed emergency process. Automated interpretation is not an emergency service.

The time-saving assumption

Weekly workload
40 requests
Before, per item
10 min
After, per item incl. review
4 min
Total active time each week
6h 40m → 2h 40m

40 × (10 − 4) = 240 minutes back / week

After-time allowance, per item: 2 min review the draft job; 1 min approve the next action; 1 min average exception handling.

How we would prove the value

Compare intake handling time for similar requests, including follow-up drafting, corrections and review. Exclude repair time and response waiting; record setup separately.

These are planning assumptions, not measured results. After-time includes human review and an allowance for exceptions. Setup, ongoing maintenance and waiting time are excluded.

Discuss a similar workflow →

Customer success

Sales-to-onboarding handover

Industry example: Software / Agent + workflow

Give the onboarding owner a concise handover showing the customer's agreed scope, named contacts and questions that need resolving before kickoff.

3hback per weekAssumed time saving
Open or close illustrative case study

Start onboarding with the promises and gaps in one place.

Customer success teams search sales notes, order documents and messages to reconstruct what was agreed before starting a new customer.

Proposed setup / illustrative case

Customer Handover Agent

The inputs
  • Approved order documents and scope summary
  • Sales handover notes and confirmed customer contacts
  • Onboarding checklist and responsibility template

Human owner: Customer onboarding lead

customer-onboarding-brief.docxFICTIONAL OUTPUT

Illustrative handover brief

  • Scope: linked to the approved order document.
  • Customer data owner: missing; sales follow-up required.
  • Kickoff preparation: awaiting onboarding-lead review.

Example content only. No customer records are shown.

  1. Gather

    Collect the authorised handover material for the confirmed customer record.

  2. Extract

    Draft a source-linked account of the agreed scope, contacts and dependencies.

  3. Check

    Flag missing checklist fields and disagreements between notes and approved documents.

  4. Approve

    The onboarding lead resolves gaps and approves the internal brief before kickoff.

When something is missing: A promise in sales notes that conflicts with the approved scope is escalated to the account owner. No account access or contractual commitment is created.

The time-saving assumption

Weekly workload
15 handovers
Before, per item
20 min
After, per item incl. review
8 min
Total active time each week
5h → 2h

15 × (20 − 8) = 180 minutes back / week

After-time allowance, per item: 4 min review the brief; 2 min confirm next actions; 2 min average exception handling.

How we would prove the value

Compare active handover preparation and review time for similar onboarding cases, including corrections and follow-ups. Exclude implementation work; record setup separately.

These are planning assumptions, not measured results. After-time includes human review and an allowance for exceptions. Setup, ongoing maintenance and waiting time are excluded.

Discuss a similar workflow →

Purchasing

Supplier order confirmations

Industry example: Manufacturing / Agent + workflow

Give the buyer one review queue showing which supplier confirmations agree with the order and which need a decision.

5hback per weekAssumed time saving
Open or close illustrative case study

Spot changed delivery dates before they disrupt the plan.

The purchasing team reads confirmation emails and attachments, compares them with purchase orders and copies discrepancies into a tracker.

Proposed setup / illustrative case

Supplier Confirmation Agent

The inputs
  • Supplier confirmation messages and attachments
  • Open purchase orders with line identifiers
  • Agreed quantity, date and escalation rules

Human owner: Purchasing lead

supplier-confirmation-review.xlsxFICTIONAL OUTPUT

Illustrative confirmation queue

  • PO-1042 / line 3: confirmed date differs from order.
  • PO-1048 / line 1: quantity and date match.
  • PO-1051: unreadable attachment; buyer review required.

Example content only. No customer records are shown.

  1. Read

    Extract proposed dates, quantities and order references from each confirmation.

  2. Match

    Use fixed checks to compare identified lines with the purchase order.

  3. Flag

    Prepare a discrepancy summary and draft clarification where the evidence conflicts.

  4. Approve

    The buyer approves tracker updates and sends any supplier response.

When something is missing: An uncertain line match stays unresolved. The agent does not amend the purchase order or promise a delivery date.

The time-saving assumption

Weekly workload
60 confirmations
Before, per item
8 min
After, per item incl. review
3 min
Total active time each week
8h → 3h

60 × (8 − 3) = 300 minutes back / week

After-time allowance, per item: 1 min review the match; 1 min approve or respond; 1 min average exception handling.

How we would prove the value

Compare hands-on minutes per confirmation across a representative week, including rejected matches, corrections and buyer review. Record setup separately.

These are planning assumptions, not measured results. After-time includes human review and an allowance for exceptions. Setup, ongoing maintenance and waiting time are excluded.

Discuss a similar workflow →

Operations

Missing delivery paperwork

Industry example: Logistics / Agent + workflow

Help the operations team find missing delivery evidence and answer status questions from a single checked queue.

6h 40mback per weekAssumed time saving
Open or close illustrative case study

Turn missing delivery paperwork into a clear chase list.

The transport operations team searches shared folders and carrier messages for proof of delivery, then prepares individual follow-ups for missing documents.

Proposed setup / illustrative case

Delivery Evidence Agent

The inputs
  • Completed-delivery register with shipment references
  • Carrier messages and proof-of-delivery documents
  • Agreed evidence requirements and contact list

Human owner: Transport operations lead

delivery-evidence-queue.xlsxFICTIONAL OUTPUT

Illustrative evidence review

  • SHIP-2201: matching delivery document found.
  • SHIP-2202: signature field missing; review required.
  • SHIP-2203: no document; carrier request drafted.

Example content only. No customer records are shown.

  1. Read

    Extract shipment references and relevant details from received documents.

  2. Reconcile

    Match references to the register and check required evidence fields.

  3. Prepare

    Create an unresolved-items queue and draft evidence requests.

  4. Approve

    Operations checks the queue and approves each outward message.

When something is missing: A mismatched shipment reference is held for operations. A document match alone does not settle a delivery dispute or authorise invoicing.

The time-saving assumption

Weekly workload
100 deliveries
Before, per item
6 min
After, per item incl. review
2 min
Total active time each week
10h → 3h 20m

100 × (6 − 2) = 400 minutes back / week

After-time allowance, per item: 1 min review evidence; 0.5 min approve follow-up; 0.5 min average exception handling.

How we would prove the value

Record active search, checking and follow-up time for comparable deliveries. Include unresolved cases and review; exclude waiting for carrier replies. Record setup separately.

These are planning assumptions, not measured results. After-time includes human review and an allowance for exceptions. Setup, ongoing maintenance and waiting time are excluded.

Discuss a similar workflow →

Operations

Weekly rota preparation

Industry example: Hospitality / Workflow

Bring availability, coverage needs and unresolved gaps into one draft so the manager can focus on the staffing decisions.

3h 40mback per weekAssumed time saving
Open or close illustrative case study

Give managers a rota to review, with gaps already visible.

Venue operations managers gather availability from several places, build each weekly rota and manually check coverage before publishing it.

Proposed setup / illustrative case

Rota Preparation Workflow

The inputs
  • Staff availability, approved leave and recorded role skills
  • Venue opening hours and agreed staffing requirements
  • Manager-approved scheduling constraints and existing commitments

Human owner: Venue manager

weekly-rota-draft.xlsxFICTIONAL OUTPUT

Illustrative venue rota review

  • Friday closing shift: supervisor cover unresolved.
  • Approved leave: excluded from proposed assignments.
  • Publication: held for the venue manager.

Example content only. No customer records are shown.

  1. Collect

    Bring the agreed availability and coverage inputs into one schedule.

  2. Build

    Use fixed rules to propose assignments against the supplied constraints.

  3. Check

    List unfilled shifts, clashes and assignments that need a manager's decision.

  4. Approve

    The manager checks suitability, makes adjustments and approves publication.

When something is missing: An uncovered shift remains a visible gap. The workflow does not invent availability or override the agreed constraints; no legal-compliance guarantee is implied.

The time-saving assumption

Weekly workload
4 venue rotas
Before, per item
90 min
After, per item incl. review
35 min
Total active time each week
6h → 2h 20m

4 × (90 − 35) = 220 minutes back / week

After-time allowance, per item: 10 min check availability; 15 min review and adjust; 10 min average gap handling.

How we would prove the value

Compare hands-on preparation and review time for similar venue rotas, including amendments and uncovered-shift handling. Record configuration and rule maintenance separately.

These are planning assumptions, not measured results. After-time includes human review and an allowance for exceptions. Setup, ongoing maintenance and waiting time are excluded.

Discuss a similar workflow →

HR & recruitment

Interview scheduling

Industry example: Recruitment / Workflow

Give the coordinator a ready-to-confirm interview slot, the right attendees and a consistent invitation without repeated calendar checking.

3h 30mback per weekAssumed time saving
Open or close illustrative case study

Spend less time finding a slot that works.

HR and recruitment coordinators compare interviewers' availability, check candidate preferences and draft invitations by hand as interview arrangements change.

Proposed setup / illustrative case

Interview Coordination Workflow

The inputs
  • Candidate-provided availability and confirmed contact details
  • Authorised interviewer availability
  • Interview duration, time zone and invitation template

Human owner: Recruitment coordinator

interview-schedule-review.xlsxFICTIONAL OUTPUT

Illustrative scheduling review

  • INT-017: candidate and panel availability overlap.
  • Time zone and interview duration: checked.
  • Invitation: draft awaiting coordinator confirmation.

Example content only. No customer records are shown.

  1. Collect

    Gather availability for candidates already selected for interview by a person.

  2. Find

    Use fixed scheduling rules to identify mutually available slots.

  3. Prepare

    Populate an invitation and checklist with the agreed interview details.

  4. Confirm

    The coordinator rechecks availability and approves the invitation before sending.

When something is missing: A withdrawn slot or conflicting time zone returns to the coordinator. The workflow does not score, shortlist or reject candidates.

The time-saving assumption

Weekly workload
30 interviews
Before, per item
12 min
After, per item incl. review
5 min
Total active time each week
6h → 2h 30m

30 × (12 − 5) = 210 minutes back / week

After-time allowance, per item: 2 min check the proposed slot; 2 min review and confirm; 1 min average rescheduling.

How we would prove the value

Measure coordination minutes per completed booking, including rescheduling and review. Compare similar panels; exclude candidate assessment and waiting for replies. Record setup separately.

These are planning assumptions, not measured results. After-time includes human review and an allowance for exceptions. Setup, ongoing maintenance and waiting time are excluded.

Discuss a similar workflow →

A fair way to read the numbers. Each figure is a separate illustrative scenario. Saving = weekly volume × (manual minutes − minutes with the workflow). Time after automation includes preparation, checking, approval and an allowance for exceptions. These estimates exclude setup, maintenance and time spent waiting; they are not measured customer results or cash savings. A real build starts with your baseline and is checked on agreed trial runs.

Work you can inspect

Explore the work
behind the examples.

The department examples above show possible applications. These links distinguish built Clerq capabilities from worked examples.

Built workflow

Month-end, connected.

A workflow connecting Xero records, close tasks and generated progress summaries, with task states and completion records.

Inspect the built workflow →
Built and available

Agents for recurring work.

The Trading Report, Month-End and Supplier Enquiry Agents are three examples of Clerq's built agent range.

Explore the available agents →
Fictional worked example

See the assessment outputs.

A review of one team and its systems, opportunities to save time, and a prioritised plan with a price for each workflow.

Read the sample assessment →

Walkthroughs use synthetic information. More to inspect: Renewl and the supplier contract register. Tool compatibility, permissions, delivery scope and support are agreed for each implementation.

Which job keeps coming back to your desk?

Tell us where the copying, chasing or checking happens. We will discuss what a useful output would look like and whether a workflow is worth building.

Arrange a free introductory call →Choose a time in Calendly. Any build is agreed separately.
Ask Clerq: scripted answers

What does it cost?

Assessment £499 with a two-hour systems walkthrough and report. Simple workflow £995; connected workflow £1,500-£3,000; bespoke work individually quoted. Basic care £150-£250/month; active improvement from £750/month. Scope and final price agreed first.

Where should I start?

Start with a free introductory call. Choose a time in Calendly. The optional £499 assessment includes a two-hour walkthrough of one team and its systems, preparation, a prioritised report and a short follow-up call. A defined build can be quoted directly.

Do you work with Xero / QuickBooks / Sage?

We start with your current tools. We confirm suitable connections, access and file hand-offs before agreeing a build. The Xero example does not establish support for every accounting platform.

Is it safe? Who approves?

Payments, supplier decisions and customer replies stay under human approval. We agree the inputs, secure sharing method, access permissions and responsibilities before work starts. Use only a brief description in the public enquiry form. Do not send confidential records. See our privacy policy for website data handling.

Is my business too small?

Sometimes AI is not worth it yet. If the process is unclear, automating it makes it faster and worse, and we will tell you so. Try the readiness check.