Skip to content

Automation & Orchestration

Human-in-the-loop workflows: judgement is a step, not an interruption

Automation handles the cases the rules cover. The rest usually break it: a photo that doesn't show the work, a charge the customer disputes, a part that cost more than quoted. A human-in-the-loop workflow stops at a defined point, shows a person what they need to decide, offers real options, and carries on down the branch they choose.
Discuss your systemSee the five kinds of human step ↓
job.completedchecksneeds a personoffice leadJ-612 · close-outphotos: 2 of 3kitchen not shownT4's note:“kitchen access blocked”rule can't decide:finished work not shownAccept as isinvoice nowAsk T4 for a photowait, then invoiceAsk T4 for a photowait, then invoiceSend someone backrevisit bookedphoto in 16:40 · INV-2290 sent

Rules handle most cases. Not all of them.

Every workflow meets cases its rules didn't foresee. Usually that means the automation fails, or worse, carries on and does the wrong thing, and someone finds out later. The fix is often to add another rule, until the rules become harder to understand than the work.

A human-in-the-loop workflow places judgement on purpose. At a defined point, the case stops in a saved state with an owner, the person sees the context and a short list of real options, and each option leads somewhere the workflow already knows how to go. The choice is recorded with the case.

Five kinds of human step

  1. 01

    Approve

    Yes or no

    A decision with an owner and a deadline: a discount, a refund, a large order.

  2. 02

    Choose

    One of a few paths

    When the next step depends on judgement: accept, ask for more, or send someone back.

  3. 03

    Correct

    Fix what the system got wrong

    A person edits a value before it moves on, and the edit is recorded beside the original.

  4. 04

    Complete

    Supply what's missing

    A detail only a person can provide, like an access code or an on-site measurement.

  5. 05

    Handle an exception

    When nothing fits

    A case outside every rule goes to a named person with everything known so far, not to a shared inbox.

Real options, not a free-text box

Each human step offers choices the workflow knows how to carry out. Free text is for the reason, not the decision.
Photos don't show the finished workOffice leadAccept as is / ask the technician for a photo / send someone back
Customer disputes a chargeFinanceAdjust the invoice / explain and keep it / escalate to the owner
Parts cost more than estimatedOperations managerApprove the difference / requote the customer / pause the job
New customer outside the usual areaOffice leadAccept / refer elsewhere / ask the area's manager

What a human-in-the-loop workflow hands off

In

The case
and what the rules found
Options
what this step can do
Owner
who decides, by when
Human step
pause → decide → continue

Out

Chosen branch
carried out
Decision
who, what, why
Reminders
when it waits too long

Worth building where rules run out

Good fit

  • A workflow mostly runs itself but regularly meets cases that need judgement.
  • Those cases get lost, or get handled differently every time.
  • You can name the options a person would choose between.

Not the right fit

  • Every case needs judgement. That's a manual process; support it with good tools instead.
  • The judgement is really a rule nobody has written down yet. Write it.

Where it's built in

Next to human-in-the-loop workflows

Questions about human-in-the-loop workflows

How is this different from an approval?

An approval is one kind of human step: yes or no. Others ask a person to choose a path, correct a value, supply something missing or handle an exception. They all pause the workflow the same way.

What if nobody makes the decision?

The step has an owner and a deadline. Reminders go first, then the backup, and the case is visible as waiting the whole time.

Where does the person decide?

Wherever they work: a notification with the options, an internal screen, or the job app. The choice goes straight back into the workflow.

Doesn't this slow things down?

Only for the cases that need it. Everything the rules can settle carries on by itself; the rest waits for a decision instead of going wrong quietly.