A buyer does not pay for the folder structure, the software subscriptions, or the manual in the cabinet. He pays for the certainty that work keeps going without him being dependent on whoever happens to be sitting in the chair right now. Processes and systems are the evidence of that, or of its absence.
That weight is shifting. As long as processes mainly consisted of agreements between people, the question was: is it on paper, and does someone stick to it afterwards. Now that parts of that work are being taken over by AI, partly with human oversight and partly fully, the question changes to: which part of this process keeps running if the people who currently do it are no longer there, and which part depends on knowledge that exists only in people's heads.
Three categories run through every process. Some steps AI can already take over today: entering data, checking documents for completeness, compiling standard reports. Other steps remain partly human work, with AI making a proposal and an employee approving or rejecting it, for a reason. And part remains human work because it requires judgment that cannot be captured in rules.
The difference between companies is not in the sector or the size, but in how the process has been laid down. A process that is captured in a system, with fixed steps and clear handover points, is more easily partly transferred to AI than a process that lives in the experience of one employee. Companies where work has already been laid down in systems see AI quickly taking over a part of it there. Companies where work still moves around through emails, phone calls, and unspoken agreements do not yet see that shift, and that is exactly what a buyer notices.
A buyer does not look at intentions but at traces. Is there an up-to-date process description, or does the process only exist in the owner's calendar. Do the systems run on standard configuration or on customization that no one can explain anymore. Is there a log of who approved which step, or does that have to be asked about verbally. And, increasingly: which part of the process already runs with AI support, and is that laid down so it is transferable, or does that knowledge sit only with the person who set it up.
The owner-dependency index touches directly on this: a process that only works as long as the owner is watching weighs more heavily against the price than a process that stands on its own. How this relates to the person of the owner is described in how you become less indispensable as an owner for your own company.
There is no percentage that applies to every company; that depends on the sector, the complexity of the process, and how recently the systems were set up. What can be determined: per process, which part of the steps can already be carried out today without people, which part can be done with oversight, and which part remains human work. Next: is that laid down in a system, or does it lean on someone who remembers it.
Three questions give a first picture. Is there a written description of the core processes that someone else could also follow. Are the systems set up for repeatability, or for exceptions that are solved anew each time. And is there an identifiable part of the work of which it is already established that AI carries it out or checks it, with a human assessing the outcome.
Improvement does not start with purchasing a new system, but with laying down what already happens. A process that has been mapped out shows which steps lend themselves to being transferred to AI and which steps continue to require judgment. That distinction is also where profit quality starts to weigh differently: a saving that sits in the process itself weighs more heavily than a saving that depends on one tool or one supplier, as described in why profit quality is valued differently now that AI is taking over work.
If this topic touches on decisions about personnel, separate statutory requirements apply to that; that is not part of this assessment. What does happen here: establishing which work is contained in the process, which of that is transferable to AI, and which of that is explainable to a buyer. That last question, which work in this specific company can genuinely be taken over by AI, is answered per task with the work scan from FTE TO AI.
Processes rarely stand on their own. How visible the company is to new customers relates to how repeatable the work behind it is, see what AI does to a company's market position, and the question of whether contracts and files are in order touches on the same point of documentation, see what AI does to a company's legal hygiene. A complete overview of how a company becomes sale-ready can be found in how to make your company sale-ready.
The free value check consists of eight short questions, one per value driver, and gives a picture of which driver is putting the most pressure on your price today. The full value scan, with maturity scores per driver, the owner-dependency index, and a two-year calendar toward the exit moment, is under construction.