Quick assessment / CSV projects
Start with the work you know. Explore where a shared method could release capacity across your validation projects.
Projects with a similar scope and way of working.
Combined working hours across the team, from validation planning to handover.
How established is AI in your team's validation work today?
How well SAGA's workflows, templates and available knowledge fit the task. The default is a neutral model assumption.
Calendar days from start to finish. Separate from working hours.
Used to value released capacity. No currency conversion is applied.
Example inputs are shown. Replace them with your team's estimates.
Your estimated potential
working hours released per year
41.2% of the selected validation effort
Modelled estimate for a comparable CSV workflow. Assumes consistent use of the shared Hub and standard workflows. Results depend on scope, adoption and the assumptions below. Setup, implementation, training and SAGA fees are excluded.
Let’s assess your workflow →The estimate combines your inputs with Verheim's assumptions about work allocation and activity-specific improvements. Research informs the activities and mechanisms; it does not independently establish the numerical SAGA coefficients.
A smooth curve estimates the reduction in drafting, review and traceability within a selected 40–60% range. Existing AI use reduces the assumed additional potential. Workflow fit influences how much of that potential can be used.
With consistent Hub and standard-workflow use, much of the manual routing, context transfer, dependency follow-up and handover work is assumed to be avoided. Coordination grows from 10% toward 30% of normal project effort; its modelled reduction rises from 35% toward an 80% ceiling as projects grow. Decisions, exceptions and external dependencies retain effort. These are Verheim scenario assumptions. Total project hours are a proxy for collaboration complexity.
A separate weighted signal from documentation and coordination produces a 15–25% cycle-time scenario. This is not a simulation of the project's critical path and is not added to working-hour savings.
Formal test execution and approval receive no direct time reduction. Rework and human review are included in their respective tasks. The default workflow fit is neutral (0.5), unless you change it.
Customer activity records can replace the reference allocation in a subsequent assessment. If unchanged supplier deadlines, test windows or approval queues determine the end date, the cycle-time scenario should be replaced by project-specific planning.
Verheim model 0.6 · 29 October 2026 · Five categories · Coefficients are explicit model choices, pending calibration against comparable projects.
Original sources and exact locations from the research. Their role is stated separately from Verheim's numerical assumptions. Internal experience notes remain part of the accompanying research material.