HR workflow design and bounded AI pilots
I help People teams turn one recurring, hard-to-run process into a workflow with clear intake, trusted sources, named owners, human review, and a record of what happened.
Sometimes that includes AI. It never includes handing AI an employment decision.
How I approach the work
Clear intake and ownership.
Sources and review rules.
Human decisions stay human.
Services
We start with the process, its evidence, and the person accountable for the outcome. If a prototype is not justified, the recommendation can be not to build one.
Map one workflow, find where context or follow-through breaks, and decide whether a pilot is worth building.
Build and test one functional prototype using synthetic, public, or explicitly approved low-sensitivity data.
Review exceptions, test changes, and decide what should be improved, handed off, or stopped.
Good work starts with a clear fit
The strongest engagements are not “bring AI into HR.” They start with a recurring operating problem that a real team is prepared to examine and own.
A good fit
Not a fit
Independent build lab
HR Mission Control is a private alpha I use to test HR workflow patterns. The public library documents selected non-sensitive patterns. Each item is labeled as built, specified, or documented. It is proof of a working method—not a claim that the software is production-ready for a client.
Compliance source-to-action workflow
HR Mission Control monitors selected sources, prepares review packets, assigns ownership, and preserves human decisions through policy work, implementation, and closeout. It is early-warning and workflow support—not legal advice or a claim of complete legal coverage.
Policy answers with citations
This pattern organizes an answer around approved sources, missing facts, and escalation rules. Sensitive questions, conflicting sources, and legal interpretation stay with accountable HR and Legal reviewers.
HRBP weekly decision brief
This pattern organizes facts, open questions, owners, manager follow-ups, and unresolved decisions for HRBP review. It supports judgment; it does not make decisions about employees.
Case study · July 2026 private alpha
During testing, a tracked legislative item changed titles after a source update. HRMC displayed it twice: one version retained the earlier watch decision, while the refreshed version appeared undecided. An HR team could repeat the review, assign two owners, or send the same issue down conflicting paths.
I added stable case identity so the human decision follows the case when source text changes. Then I wrote regression tests and reran the relevant workflow checks.
A source-title change created two cases and split the decision history.
Stable identity keeps the review, owner, and decision attached to one case.
Before I build
We identify the real failure point: intake, missing context, ownership, handoff, timing, or follow-through.
Sensitive People decisions, legal interpretation, policy approval, and accountable judgment remain with named reviewers.
Sources, missing facts, owners, edits, approvals, exceptions, and next steps stay attached where they matter.
For a scoped pilot, I define acceptance checks, edge cases, stop conditions, known limits, and an operator handoff.
Working boundaries
A functional prototype for one narrow workflow, tested with the people who would use it. It includes review rules, test cases, known limits, and an operator handoff. It is not the same as a production deployment.
Discovery starts with the current process and a small set of sanitized artifacts. Demos use synthetic or public data. Any work with live company data requires a client-approved environment, named access, and agreed retention rules.
No. I can help structure monitoring, intake, evidence, routing, and follow-through. Qualified HR and Legal reviewers remain responsible for applicability, interpretation, policy decisions, and approval.
The client’s technology, security, privacy, and engineering owners do. I define the workflow, build and test the bounded prototype, document the gaps, and support a responsible handoff or joint implementation plan.
No. OpenClaw is the framework I use in my independent build lab. The engagement starts with the workflow and its constraints. The right implementation depends on the client’s systems, security requirements, and technical ownership.
We spend 30 minutes on one workflow: where it starts, where it breaks, who owns the decision, and what a useful next step would be. No sensitive employee data and no polished pitch deck are needed. If I am not the right fit, I will say so.
About Mike
I'm a Senior People Business Partner who builds. I work close to the moments where People operations get difficult: competing context, unclear ownership, time pressure, and decisions that need a real person behind them.
I built HR Mission Control independently, outside employer systems, using public and synthetic inputs. It gives me a place to test where AI can support the workflow without owning employment decisions. I bring that same discipline to advisory work: understand the work, preserve the human boundary, test the hard cases, and be honest about what is not ready.
Start here
Tell me what gets dropped, where context disappears, and who has to reconstruct the whole story every time.
Discuss a workflowA 30-minute working conversation. No sensitive employee data and no pitch deck required.
Prefer email? mike@mikewinkleradvisory.com