Workbounty
An internal workflow catalog and usage ledger that routes approved departmental credits under finance, security and people-policy controls.
Employees build useful AI workflows that remain invisible or are copied without ownership. The supplied research confirms external creator marketplaces and internal developer portals, but no reviewed intra-company royalty layer. One of three proposed capabilities remains unverified.
Workbounty catalogs workflows with author, supported use, data classification, review status and maintenance owner. Authorized teams request execution under policy; the ledger records accepted usage and a finance-approved allocation rule. Initial rewards are departmental credits, never automatic payroll or individual performance evidence.
Publication, security review, execution request, policy authorization, provider readback, useful outcome, attribution, budget proposal, finance approval, ledger transfer and compensation decision remain separate. A run count does not prove value or authorship.
The first release should use synthetic workflows and simulated credits between two teams. It excludes shadow-tool amnesty, automatic pay, employee ranking, sensitive-data access and claims that a signed execution proves business benefit.
AI enablement, operations or finance leader trying to surface reusable employee-built workflows under company governance
Rewards can surface useful supply, while execution-based pay can encourage spam, surveillance and unsafe reuse.
Growth in employee-built AI workflows makes incentives timely without a hard deadline.
The gap is clearer than the historical barrier; existing portals can add metering.
The incentive mechanism is distinctive, internal catalogs and external marketplaces validate the components, and a usage ledger can compound.
Value attribution is hard, compensation creates labor and tax complexity, one capability is unverified and no structural incumbent barrier is evidenced.
Discussion
No comments yet — be the first to weigh in.