Rung 1 · ₹1.5–3L
Adoption Diagnostic
Two weeks to a scored report naming which three workflows to automate, which to leave alone, and why.
The Adoption Diagnostic is a two-week engagement (8 to 12 interviews, two shadowed workflows and a licence-utilisation audit) that ends in a scored report naming three workflows to automate, which to leave alone, and why. It is Chokmah's paid entry point, priced ₹1.5–3L, and the wedge for everything that follows.
- Two weeks: 8–12 interviews, two shadowed workflows, a licence-utilisation audit.
- Output is a scored report naming three workflows to automate and which to leave alone.
- It decides what to build and whether to build. It is not itself a build.
- It is the wedge: a paid diagnostic disqualifies tyre-kickers and de-risks the sprint.
- Priced ₹1.5–3L, indicative and quoted per engagement; the next rung is the Workflow Sprint.
- Rung
- 1
- Duration
- 2 weeks
- Price
- ₹1.5–3L
- Shape
- 2 weeks · interview 8–12 people · shadow 2 workflows · audit existing licence utilisation
Indicative. Priced per engagement.
Who this is for
A transformation owner at a mid-market GCC, nano-GCC or funded product team who has AI licences in place and no measurable P&L movement, and needs an evidence-based decision on where to start, which workflows are worth building against, which are traps, and whether the organisation is ready to build at all. This is the paid entry point and the wedge for everything that follows.
What you get
- A scored report naming three workflows to automate, ranked, with the reasoning for each.
- An explicit list of workflows to leave alone, and why automating them would fail.
- A licence-utilisation audit showing what you already pay for and how little of it is used.
- A readiness read: whether your data, controls and teams can actually support a build yet.
- A defensible basis to approve (or decline) a Workflow Sprint, rather than a hunch.
Deliverables
Scored workflow report
The three recommended workflows ranked by feasibility and value, each with its baseline, its human-in-the-loop boundary and its risks named.
Do-not-automate list
The workflows we would refuse to build against in your environment, with the reason each one fails, made explicit rather than left unsaid.
Licence-utilisation audit
What AI tooling you already pay for, actual usage against it, and where the gap between licences bought and workflows changed sits.
Readiness assessment
A plain read on data access, controls, and team capacity, and what would need to be true before a build starts.
What this rung will not do
We name what we refuse to sell before we start. The honesty constraint is the product.
- No build. The Diagnostic decides what to build and whether to build; the Workflow Sprint builds it.
- No engagement we cannot name the workflow for. If we cannot name a candidate workflow by the end, we do not recommend proceeding.
- No generic maturity score. You get named workflows and reasoning, not a coloured quadrant.
- No Prompt Engineering 101 curriculum bundled in. The free tier already covers that.
- No discounted rate in exchange for using your logo. The positioning is not for sale.
95% of enterprise GenAI pilots produced no measurable P&L return.
The failure is organisational, not technical: pilots skip the friction of redesigning a workflow. A paid diagnostic that names the workflow before any build is the cheapest insurance against joining that 95%. The MIT figure rests on 52 executive interviews, 153 survey responses and 300-plus deployments and has been challenged as a small base; we cite it as directional, not settled.
Frequently asked questions
Two weeks. In that time we interview 8 to 12 of your people, shadow two workflows end to end, and audit how much of your existing AI licensing is actually used. It ends with a scored report that names three workflows worth automating, the ones to leave alone, and the reasoning for each. Two weeks is enough to be evidence-based and short enough to keep the cost proportionate to a decision.
Because MIT found 95% of enterprise GenAI pilots produced no measurable P&L return, and the cause was organisational: teams built before they understood the workflow. A paid diagnostic names the workflow, its baseline and its boundary before any money goes into a build. It is the cheapest way to avoid joining that 95%, and it is what enterprise procurement actually wants before a larger commitment.
Three ranked workflows to automate, each with a baseline, a human-in-the-loop boundary and its risks; an explicit do-not-automate list with the reason each one would fail; a licence-utilisation audit of what you already pay for; and a readiness read on data, controls and team capacity. It is named workflows and reasoning, not a coloured maturity quadrant.
Indicatively ₹1.5–3L, quoted per engagement. The price is an opening hypothesis and is set against the size and complexity of the workflows in scope. It is deliberately a real, paid engagement rather than free discovery, because a paid diagnostic filters for organisations serious about acting on the result.
Then we say so, and we do not recommend a Workflow Sprint. We do not proceed to a build we cannot name a workflow for. A diagnostic that honestly concludes now is not the time is a better outcome for you than a sprint that produces something nobody uses, and it protects the one thing the whole practice runs on: being the honest vendor in the room.
Not sure which rung fits?
Start with a free AI Reality Check. Ninety minutes, on-site, one real workflow built live.