One knowledge centre, built for every role that depends on it
Twelve roles, from the rep on a call to the auditor testing controls. Find yours to see what gets in the way today, what Hazel gives you, and two examples of it at work.
Frontline staff
Member service and branch staff, contact-centre agents, operations clerks.
What gets in the way
Search returns dozens of Word files and three versions of the same procedure
Asking a colleague is faster than searching, so answers depend on memory
Changes arrive by email and get buried
What Hazel gives you
Search in your own words and jump to the section that answers the question
See what changed since you last read an article
Confirm required reading in one click
ExampleA member calls about a scam, mid-call
A member says someone claiming to be from the credit union phoned and asked for a one-time passcode. The member is upset and wants to know whether their money is safe.
Without Hazel
The rep searches the shared drive for "scam" and gets 40 Word files, including three versions of the fraud procedure. Rather than guess, they put the member on hold and message a supervisor, who answers from memory. Whether the rep asks the critical first question (did the member share a passcode or move money?) depends on who happens to be asked.
With Hazel
The rep types "scam" and Hazel suggests the topic Impersonation scams as they type. Synonyms mean "vishing" or "phishing" find the same procedure. The approved procedure is pinned as the recommended result, and the result names the best-matching section and links straight to it. Staff only ever see the approved version, so there is no wrong copy to land on.
The rep reaches the right step during the call, and every rep asks the same first question in the same order.
ExampleA procedure changed while they were on vacation
A teller comes back from two weeks off. While she was away, the card replacement procedure changed: a new identity check is now required before a card is reissued.
Without Hazel
The change went out as an all-staff email that is now buried under 300 others. The procedure on the drive was overwritten, so nothing shows what changed. She follows the old steps until a supervisor notices.
With Hazel
A banner on her home screen lists her required reading. The procedure carries a "Changed in v3.1" marker and a summary of the change. She reads it and confirms with "I have read and understood v3.1", and that confirmation is recorded against that version.
Staff learn about changes inside the tool they already use to find procedures, and there is a record that the change reached them.
Supervisors and team leads
Branch managers and contact-centre team leads.
What gets in the way
You’re the human search engine, answering the same questions all shift
You can’t tell who on your team has read the latest change
Paper reading sheets and binders that nobody finds again
What Hazel gives you
Recommended results for the questions your team asks most
Required reading for your team’s audience, with a confirmation window
Completion figures that show whether a change has reached the team
ExampleThe same five questions, all day
A contact-centre team lead with 14 agents is interrupted 30 or more times a shift. The questions repeat: the hold period on a cheque deposit, how to reset online banking, what to do when a caller can't pass verification.
Without Hazel
The answers exist, but agents don't trust the shared drive, so they ask her. Her time goes to answering questions instead of coaching. When she gets one wrong, the mistake spreads across the team.
With Hazel
She sends agents to Hazel, where the common questions have recommended results pinned to the top. When she finds a gap, such as a question with no clear article, she uses Tell the owner or Request content from the article screen. The request goes to the knowledge owner instead of into a side conversation.
Fewer interruptions, the same answer for every agent, and gaps reported to the person who can fix them.
ExampleA new funds-hold procedure takes effect Monday
A revised funds-availability procedure takes effect on Monday. A branch manager has 22 staff across two shifts and needs every one of them on the new rules before the doors open.
Without Hazel
She prints the procedure, asks staff to initial a sheet, and chases the people who were off that day. The sheet goes into a binder nobody will find again. She can't tell who read the current version and who read a draft that was circulated earlier.
With Hazel
The author set a future effective date, so the new version publishes on schedule. Required reading goes to the branch audience, drawn from Entra ID groups, with a confirmation window. Completion figures show who has seen the change, and each confirmation is recorded against the exact version. For policies people must formally sign on a schedule, see Beacon.
No paper reading sheets. The manager knows the change has reached her team, and the record already exists if someone asks for it later.
People who keep content governed
They write, review and approve, and answer for what staff follow.
Authors and subject-matter experts
Procedure writers, operations specialists and product owners.
What gets in the way
Retyping and reformatting Word documents
Chasing approvals by email
No reminder when a review is due
What Hazel gives you
Start from a Word template or import an existing document
Guidance for each section and a checklist before you submit
One queue for drafts, changes requested and reviews coming due
ExampleTurning a 14-page Word procedure into something staff can use
A knowledge specialist inherits the wire transfer procedure: a 14-page Word file last edited in 2023. It has inconsistent headings, no named owner, and a contacts table at the end that is half out of date.
Without Hazel
Rewriting it means starting from a blank page or whatever template the last writer used. Nothing tells her which sections a procedure must have. Before it goes for approval, a colleague has to proofread it by hand for missing escalation steps or vague wording.
With Hazel
She chooses New article, then Procedure, then Import a Word document. Hazel maps the Word headings to the procedure's sections, matching exactly, by alias or by suggestion, and reads the owner and topic from the template's details table. She resolves the sections that didn't match, such as moving Contacts into Exceptions and escalation. The editor shows guidance for each section, and the Ready to submit? checklist flags gaps, including link text like "click here".
The writer works from an existing document instead of retyping it, every procedure ends up with the same structure, and avoidable gaps are caught before a reviewer sees them. Images and complex layouts still need rework after import.
ExampleJuggling 60 articles with reviews coming due
A deposit operations specialist owns 60 articles. Some are in review, one came back from a reviewer with a comment, and eight are due for their annual review next month.
Without Hazel
She tracks all of this in her inbox and a personal spreadsheet. Reviews get missed because nobody reminds her, and she finds out an article is stale when a staff member complains.
With Hazel
My content shows what needs her attention: changes requested (with the reviewer's comment), drafts, and reviews coming due. Review reminders arrive before a due date. Before she submits, she sees the approval route, the due dates and how many people the article will reach, and she can withdraw a draft from review if something changes.
One work queue instead of an inbox and a spreadsheet, and reviews are done before an article goes stale instead of after.
Reviewers and approvers
Department heads and operations managers who check content in their own area.
What gets in the way
Attachments with track changes on for half the document
Rereading nine pages to find what changed
Reviews stuck in someone’s inbox with no due date
What Hazel gives you
A task list with due dates and escalation flags
A word-by-word compare with the version staff see now
Approve, request changes or reject, with a reason required to send it back
Example"What actually changed in this version?"
A payments operations manager receives a revised card replacement procedure to review. The previous version was 9 pages. The author says "minor updates".
Without Hazel
The procedure arrives as an email attachment with track changes on for part of the document and off for the rest. She either rereads all 9 pages or trusts the author's summary and approves. A substantive change goes through unnoticed, and an examiner finds it later.
With Hazel
Her Tasks list shows the review with its due date. The decision screen compares the draft word by word with the version staff see now, so only real changes are highlighted. She can approve, request changes or reject, and a reason is required to send it back. Staff keep seeing the approved version while the draft is in review.
Reviews take minutes instead of a full reread, the reviewer can see exactly what she is approving, and "approved without reading" becomes harder to do.
ExampleReviews stuck in someone's inbox
Four procedures are waiting on a lending manager's review. One has been waiting 12 business days and is holding up a product launch.
Without Hazel
Nobody knows where the review is stuck. The author asks around, the manager says he never got it, and the email turns up in his junk folder. Escalation depends on someone noticing.
With Hazel
Each stage has a due date in business days, and the reviewer's task list flags overdue and escalated items. The workflow assigns reviewers by the article's category, so the right reviewer is chosen by topic instead of by whoever the author remembers. The author can see which stage the article is at.
Reviews have owners and due dates, stuck items are visible, and approval no longer depends on one person's inbox.
Compliance, risk and legal
Compliance officers, AML officers, risk managers and in-house counsel.
What gets in the way
Days spent rebuilding which version was in force before an exam
Procedures overwritten on the drive, with no history
Separation of duties that depends on people remembering
What Hazel gives you
Look up the version in effect on any date
No approving your own work, and no skipping a stage
An audit log you can export for examiners
ExampleThe examiner asks what was in force last January
During a FINTRAC examination, the examiner reviews a transaction from 15 January 2026. She asks which version of the AML compliance procedure was in force that day, and who approved it.
Without Hazel
The procedure on the drive has been overwritten twice since then. Compliance rebuilds the history from email threads, a tracking spreadsheet and file metadata. It takes three days, and the answer is still "we believe it was this version".
With Hazel
In Version history she enters the date. Hazel returns the version in effect on 15 January 2026 with its effective dates, author, approver and change summary. The audit log can be filtered and exported to CSV for the examiner.
The examiner's question is answered in minutes with a system record instead of a reconstruction. Hazel supports the evidence; it doesn't make the credit union compliant.
ExampleMaking sure nobody approves their own work
The compliance officer owns the BSA/AML guidelines and also sits on the approval route for operational procedures. Last year's internal audit noted that one person had drafted and approved the same procedure.
Without Hazel
Separation of duties depends on people remembering not to approve their own work. Approvals happen by email reply, with no formal statement of what the approver checked.
With Hazel
Authors can't approve their own work, and each stage needs a different person. When the officer opens an article she owns, Hazel blocks her approval. The outcome line shows what approval will do, for example publish v3.1 to about 349 people and open a 14-day reading window.
Separation of duties is enforced by the workflow instead of by memory, and the audit log records every approval.
Committees and senior officers
The committee or senior officer who gives final approval to high-risk procedures.
What gets in the way
Approving a PDF in a board pack that may not match what staff later see
Approval recorded in minutes stored somewhere else
Unchanged procedures either skipped or rewritten for no reason
What Hazel gives you
Approve the exact version staff will see, as the final stage of the route
Your approval recorded against that version
Mark an unchanged procedure reviewed, without a rewrite
ExampleThe annual AML procedures approval
The BSA/AML procedures manual is due for its annual approval. It needs a subject-matter review, then compliance approval, then the risk committee, which meets once a month.
Without Hazel
The manual goes around by email as a Word attachment, and comments arrive in three different copies. The committee approves the version in the board pack, a PDF that may not match the file staff later see. The approval is recorded in meeting minutes stored somewhere else, so linking the minutes to the exact text means digging through folders.
With Hazel
The procedure content type uses a three-stage route: subject-matter review, compliance approval, then committee approval, each with a due date. The committee approves the same version staff will see, compared word by word with the current one, and the approval is recorded against that version.
One version moves through every stage, the committee's approval is tied to the exact text it approved, and the record is held in the same system as the procedures.
ExampleConfirming a procedure that hasn't changed
Several procedures reach their review date with no changes needed. The senior officer still has to confirm they remain appropriate.
Without Hazel
Unchanged procedures either get skipped, which an examiner may cite, or go through a full rewrite cycle that wastes everyone's time. Staff are asked to re-read documents that haven't changed.
With Hazel
At periodic review the owner can mark the article reviewed, start a new version or retire it, each through an approval route. Marking it reviewed records the review without a substantive change, and doesn't send staff another reading request.
Reviews that need no changes are fast and still recorded, and staff are only asked to read what has changed.
Knowledge managers
Whoever owns the knowledge centre day to day, often in operations, member experience or compliance.
What gets in the way
The responsibility without the tools
No view of what’s overdue or what staff can’t find
Migrations that move the mess to a new site
What Hazel gives you
One console for content types, workflows, taxonomy and search
Migration in tracked batches, with the documents that need a decision listed
Insights on content health, reviews due and searches with no results
ExampleMoving 1,200 Word documents without losing control
The credit union is retiring its old intranet. The knowledge manager has to move about 1,200 procedures, policies and job aids into the new knowledge centre over one quarter, while staff keep working.
Without Hazel
Past migrations were copy-and-paste by a contractor, and nobody knew which documents had moved, which were duplicates and which should have been retired. The result was a new site with the same mess.
With Hazel
The Word parser that reads one document also runs in bulk. The migration screen in Administration tracks each batch and lists the documents that need a decision, such as an unmatched heading or a missing owner. Every migrated document becomes a structured article with a content type, owner, category and review date. Duplicates and retired content are dealt with during migration, not afterwards.
Migration is tracked batch by batch, and the knowledge centre starts clean. Images and complex layouts need rework, and a large migration can take a day or more to appear in search.
ExampleFinding out what staff can't find
Three months after launch, the knowledge manager wants to know whether people are finding answers, and where the content is weak.
Without Hazel
On a shared drive she has no data. She learns about gaps from complaints and about stale content from audit findings.
With Hazel
Insights shows top searches, searches with no results, feedback, content health by category and a 12-month review calendar. When staff search "e-transfer" and get nothing because the articles say "Interac", she clicks Add synonym on that search. She can pin a recommended result for a seasonal question with start and end dates, and add a new content type, such as a regulatory bulletin, without code.
She works from evidence about what staff search for and can't find, and fixes gaps the same day.
People who sponsor, support or protect it
They pay for it, keep it running, or rely on its records.
Operations and member experience leaders
VP Operations, VP Member Experience, contact-centre directors.
What gets in the way
The same question answered differently across branches and channels
Complaints and rework, with no view of the cause
Launch content that lands after launch day
What Hazel gives you
One approved answer for every branch and the contact centre
Completion figures that show whether a change reached the front line
Content scheduled to publish together on launch day
ExampleForty branches, forty versions of the answer
Member complaints show the same question answered differently by branch: whether a mobile cheque deposit can be put on hold, and for how long. One complaint reaches the ombudsman.
Without Hazel
Each branch has its own folder of printed procedures and local workarounds. Head office updates the master file, but nothing confirms that branches use it.
With Hazel
One approved version of each procedure, searchable from every branch and the contact centre. Printed copies carry an "uncontrolled when printed" notice, which discourages local binders. Required reading goes to the audiences who need each change, and figures show which branches have seen it.
Every channel works from the same answer, and the VP can see whether a change has reached the front line instead of assuming it has.
ExampleA product launch that every channel needs on day one
A new no-fee youth account launches on 1 November. Branches, the contact centre and lending all need the procedure, a job aid and an FAQ ready that morning.
Without Hazel
Content is written in separate Word files by different teams and approved by email. Some of it lands the week after launch. Staff improvise, and the first month of accounts needs clean-up.
With Hazel
Authors write the procedure, job aid and FAQ from their content-type templates, each through its own approval route. All three share a future effective date, so they publish together on launch day. Required reading goes to the affected audiences ahead of time, and the knowledge manager can pin a recommended result for launch-week searches.
Launch content is approved and live on day one across every channel, and the operations leader can see it's ready before launch instead of finding out afterwards.
Executives
COOs, CROs and CEOs.
What gets in the way
Estimates instead of figures when the board asks about procedure risk
AI pilots answering from stale drafts
What Hazel gives you
Content health and overdue reviews by category, exportable for a board pack
A governed source that makes Microsoft 365 Copilot answers trustworthy
ExampleThe board's risk committee asks how exposed the credit union is
FINTRAC publishes another penalty against a Canadian credit union that cites out-of-date written procedures. The board's risk committee asks the CRO how many of our procedures are past their review date, and whether staff are working from current ones.
Without Hazel
Nobody can answer quickly. The CRO commissions a manual inventory that takes six weeks, is out of date when finished, and leaves the board with an estimate.
With Hazel
Content health in Insights shows, by category, how many articles are current, coming due and overdue. The 12-month review calendar shows the workload ahead. Each view exports to CSV for a board pack. Version history shows what was in force on any date.
The board gets a current figure instead of an estimate, and the CRO can report on procedure risk every quarter rather than once after a scare.
Example"Can we trust Copilot's answers?"
The credit union is piloting Microsoft 365 Copilot. In the pilot, an agent asked Copilot about wire transfer limits and got an answer drawn from a 2022 draft on the shared drive.
Without Hazel
Copilot answers from whatever it can reach, approved or not, current or not. Leadership is now unsure whether AI can be used for member-facing answers at all.
With Hazel
Hazel makes sure there is one approved, current version with an owner and a review date, and search only shows approved content. AI answers in Hazel are optional and off by default. When turned on, they quote only published content the person can see, never restricted content, and cite the section. A deployment needs Microsoft 365 Copilot (or pay-as-you-go agent billing) or the intranet's own AI, and compliance should agree before it's switched on.
The AI investment rests on governed content, and the sponsor can present Hazel as the condition for using Copilot safely, not a competitor to it.
IT and Microsoft 365 admins
IT managers and Microsoft 365 administrators.
What gets in the way
Another vendor platform to assess, integrate and renew
Content stored outside your tenant
Hand-maintained user lists that break in a reorganization
What Hazel gives you
One installation package, built for your organization and installed by iomer
A SharePoint solution in your own tenant, with no second sign-in
Audiences and roles from the Entra ID groups you already maintain
Standard Power Automate connectors covered by Microsoft 365 licences
ExampleAnother vendor platform to secure and integrate
Operations has shortlisted a hosted knowledge-base product. IT receives a 120-question vendor security assessment, a single sign-on request and a data residency question from the privacy office.
Without Hazel
Each new platform means another vendor review, another identity integration, another place procedures are stored outside the tenant, and another renewal. The IT team of six is already stretched.
With Hazel
Hazel is a SharePoint web part backed by SharePoint lists, the term store, Entra ID groups and Power Automate, all in the credit union's own tenant. Content follows the existing Microsoft 365 security, retention and data residency settings. Staff sign in with the accounts they already have. The flows use the standard Approvals connector, which Microsoft 365 licences cover.
No new hosting platform and no second login. The security review becomes a review of a SharePoint solution on infrastructure IT already runs.
ExampleA reorganization shouldn't break the knowledge centre
The credit union merges its payments and deposit operations teams. Forty people change departments, and a new manager takes over approvals.
Without Hazel
In a standalone tool, IT or the vendor updates user lists, approval routes and permissions by hand. Something is always missed, and approvals go to someone who has left.
With Hazel
Audiences and roles come from Entra ID groups IT already maintains, resolved through Microsoft Graph. Approval routing follows the article's category, and the knowledge manager can reassign category reviewers in Administration without IT. Update the groups once, and required reading and routing follow.
Organizational change is handled where IT already handles it. Routing is only as good as the groups: dynamic groups need Entra ID P1, and messy groups need cleaning up before go-live.
Records and privacy
Records managers and privacy officers.
What gets in the way
Sensitive procedures emailed, printed and saved to desktops
Old versions overwritten, or kept forever just in case
What Hazel gives you
Restricted articles hidden from search and unprintable outside the named teams
Microsoft Purview retention labels on articles and their versions
An archive for retired content, kept for audit
ExampleFraud investigation procedures that only the fraud team should see
The fraud and security team keeps procedures that describe how suspicious activity is detected and investigated. If circulated widely, they would show an insider how to avoid detection.
Without Hazel
The procedures sit in a restricted folder, but copies have been emailed, printed and saved to desktops. A general search sometimes surfaces a file name or a snippet. Nobody can say who has a copy.
With Hazel
Articles are classed as Internal, Confidential or Restricted. Restricted articles use item-level permissions: they are hidden from search, browse and suggestions for anyone outside the named teams, and they can't be printed. Printed copies of other articles carry an "uncontrolled when printed" notice.
Sensitive procedures sit in the same knowledge centre as everything else without being exposed to everyone. Restriction is enforced through permissions because Purview sensitivity labels don't apply to list items.
ExampleKeeping superseded versions as long as the rules require
The records schedule requires superseded compliance procedures to be kept for a set number of years after replacement. Retired content must not stay visible to staff.
Without Hazel
Old versions are overwritten, deleted in clean-ups, or kept forever on a drive "just in case". The records manager can't apply the schedule to content she can't find.
With Hazel
Every version is kept with its effective dates. Microsoft Purview retention labels apply to articles and their versions under the credit union's own retention policies. Retired articles move to an archive that staff don't see in everyday search but that stays available for audit.
Retention is applied to procedures the same way it is applied to other records in Microsoft 365, and nothing disappears or lingers by accident.
Internal audit
Internal auditors, as occasional read-only users.
What gets in the way
Fieldwork that depends on owners producing evidence
No way to see whether a control itself was changed
What Hazel gives you
Version history and approvals per version
An audit log of content, workflow, permission and configuration changes
Export the full population, not just a sample
ExampleThe annual procedure governance audit
Internal audit samples 25 procedures. For each one it tests that the procedure was approved by the right people, reviewed on schedule and still current.
Without Hazel
For each sample the auditor asks the owner for evidence. Owners hunt through email for approvals, dig out old file versions and explain gaps. Fieldwork takes weeks, and findings often come down to "evidence could not be produced".
With Hazel
For any article, version history shows each version's dates in effect, author, approver and change summary. Approvals are recorded per version. Content health shows overdue reviews by category. The audit log can be filtered and exported to CSV, so the auditor can test the full population instead of a sample.
Evidence comes from the system rather than from each owner, fieldwork is shorter, and findings concern real control failures rather than missing paperwork.
ExampleDid anyone weaken a control?
The auditor wants assurance that nobody removed the compliance stage from the procedure approval route during the year, or gave themselves admin rights.
Without Hazel
With email-based approval there is no control configuration to inspect, so the auditor relies on interviews. In many standalone tools, configuration changes aren't logged.
With Hazel
The audit log records content, workflow, permission, taxonomy, configuration and read-confirmation events. The auditor filters to workflow and permission changes for the year and exports them. Separation of duties is part of the workflow itself, so the auditor tests the rule once instead of checking each approval.
Changes to the controls are as visible as changes to the content, which is what an auditor needs before relying on the control.
The examples are set in a credit union of about 900 staff. The same patterns apply to insurers, utilities, health organizations, the public sector and other regulated organizations. Names, figures and screens are illustrative.
Bring the people in your organization who need this
Watch the 30-second tour, then book a walkthrough with someone from operations, compliance and IT. We’ll show each of them the part that matters to them.
