Measure engagement and resistance before procuring the technology.
The FireScore is an assessment instrument employees use to evaluate their own activities and decide whether they should be automated. The decision lies neither with us, nor with management, nor with HR. It lies with the person who does the task every day.
Four separate dimensions, one scale, two metrics.
Each recurring task is rated on a scale from 10 to 0 across the four dimensions Fulfillment, Identity, Resistance and Energy. The mean of the four values is the FireScore of the task.
Fulfillment
How important is it to me to accomplish this task myself?
Identity
How strongly do I identify with this activity?
Resistance
How great would my resistance to automation be?
Energy
Does this task give me energy, or drain it?
The self-test, on request.
In the self-test you rate one of your own tasks with four sliders and see the evaluation with mean and span. We are happy to share the test and the orientation for the four dimensions with you. A short email is all it takes.
The timeframe: 6–8 weeks
Three phases, high level. The detailed procedure, the interview guides and the questionnaire are part of the engagement and we walk through them in the intro call.
Frame & co-determination
Kickoff with executive management, Works Council and the DPO. Anonymity clarified, framework works agreement, selection of the pilot area, preferably where the skepticism sits.
Survey & heatmap
Activities are collected in the team and then rated anonymously, roughly 30 minutes per person. The team sees the heatmap first, the manager in the same session, not in advance.
Selection & pilot start
Prioritization in the steering committee along the green zone, feasibility with IT, then the first automation starts, together with the person who performs the activity themselves.
Pace vs. predictability
The method is not fast. It is predictable. After 8–10 weeks the first productive automation is running, not because we work faster, but because we need fewer consensus loops. The prioritization comes from the team and doesn’t have to be argued through.
The effort
The FireScore itself is determined in the first 3–4 weeks. This requires roughly 2 consultant days per team.
Why the mean and not sum or weighting
The four dimensions are weighted equally. That is a deliberate decision, not a placeholder. We tried weighted variants, and the results then needed explaining on slides. As soon as a number needs explaining, no one believes it any more.
The mean also stays in the same range as the individual values. Anyone who sees a task at 3.2 understands immediately that this is low. A sum of 12.8 on a scale up to 40 would first have to be converted.
The second metric: the span
The mean has a serious disadvantage. It hides contradictions. F=9, I=9, R=1, E=2 yields the same mean as four fives, but is a completely different case. So we always read two metrics side by side, mean and span.
If a person’s span is over 5, the answer is contradictory. Usually the task drains energy and is still part of their identity. Such cases are more frequent than theory suggests, and diagnostically very valuable.
The span is the distance between the highest and the lowest of the four answers. It measures how much a person agrees with themselves. A mean of 5.0 can signal agreement, or it can hide an inner contradiction. Only the span tells the two cases apart.
This team member is consistent. The number is reliable, and the conversation usually just confirms it.
The same number, but a contradiction. The task is part of this person’s identity (F and I high), yet drains them and would be given up without a fight (R and E low). A case for an individual conversation, not for automation by default.
The score-5 rule doesn’t depend on us. It is a resolution.
“Activities with a FireScore mean above 5 or a span above 4 are not automated without the affected persons being heard individually and granted a right of cancellation.”
The resolution sits in the kickoff minutes and binds successor consultants, the business unit and executive management. In three of nine projects the right of cancellation was invoked. Each time, the supposed business case was beneath it. The resolution’s protective threshold deliberately sits one step below the diagnostic threshold. People are heard earlier than the statistics warn.
Works Council involvement before week zero
The method falls under § 87 (1) No. 6 BetrVG (German Works Constitution Act). A framework works agreement before the start is usually sufficient; the concrete form can be left open in it.
Data protection from day one
DPA under Art. 28 GDPR, DPIA under Art. 35 depending on the setting, carried out in five of nine projects. Free-text fields are redacted before forwarding; raw data encrypted, deleted after the second survey at the latest.
Managers see the heatmap simultaneously, not in advance
The manager sees the heatmap in the same session as the team and does not comment for the first 30 minutes. The interpretation belongs to the team first.
What the score cannot do
The FireScore measures human readiness. It says nothing about whether an automation is economically worthwhile or technically feasible. Full prioritization needs two further axes. It replaces neither IT’s feasibility check nor Controlling’s economic assessment.
FireScore
Human readiness. What do the people affected want to automate?
Business impact
Economics. Does the effort pay off over time?
Feasibility
Technology & regulation. Can the task be solved cleanly and conservatively?
The sweet spot and the harder quadrant
The sweet spot lies where all three axes point the right way, meaning a low FireScore, high impact and high feasibility. In the sample project that was 17 activities, and we started with those. Three activities with a high score and high impact were openly named and not tackled in this program. The Works Council audibly relaxed. The CFO didn’t until three months later.
Common objections, honest answers
“Won’t everyone score high to protect themselves?”
A handful try, and they stand out immediately. If nine people rate a manual invoice check 1 to 2 and one rates it 9, the one person remains, not the average. What matters is that nobody has to believe high values protect their job. If they do, the question was wrongly posed. The instrument isn’t wrong.
“And what if the most expensive task gets a 10?”
Then we don’t automate it. Forced automation against high scores, calculated over three years, costs more than it saves. Disengagement and silent sabotage are expensive, and resignations more so. That’s not a thesis; those are the numbers from two projects where we’ve seen it. The score doesn’t override economics. It only forces the full price to be honestly written down.
“Isn’t this just psychology, not strategy?”
It’s about professional meaning, not preferences. Take a meaningful activity away from a person and you don’t get a grateful employee with time for higher-value work, you get internal resignation and work-to-rule. The FireScore measures that risk.
“Does this scale to 5,000 employees?”
Then you don’t score people but roles, with samples of eight to twelve per role. Honestly, that means the majority isn’t asked directly, and the Works Council must agree to the procedure in advance. What’s interesting then is not the mean but the spread. A role where three people rate an activity 1 and three rate it 9 is not an automation case but a redistribution case.
“Is this a one-time measurement?”
The start is a single survey. If tasks change or new ones arise, the measurement can be repeated in reduced form. We discuss that when the time comes.
What would this look like in your organization?
An intro call clarifies scope and the possible pilot area.