APPROACH / DISCOVERY
Software discovery and requirements grounded in the work.
Discovery establishes what a proposed system must accomplish before implementation decisions become expensive to change. It examines the people, records and decisions in the current process and identifies which problems software can reasonably address.
The outcome is not a long feature wish list. It is a shared basis for scope: required behavior, boundaries, priorities, dependencies and the evidence needed to accept the result.
Start with a real case and follow it through the process.
Bring current forms, redacted sample records, existing tools and a representative completed case. Include a case that stalled or failed. A clean example shows the intended route; an exception reveals the missing decision, unavailable information or manual workaround.
Identify users by role and name the person authorized to resolve requirements. Note access restrictions, existing contracts or platform limitations that affect what can be changed. Initial discovery does not require sharing passwords or unrestricted production data.
Distinguish the requirement from a proposed feature.
“Send daily reminders” is a proposed feature. “Every pending review has an accountable owner and is surfaced before the agreed decision point” describes the operational need. Discovery checks whether reminders, a review queue or a different handoff best addresses that need.
Map what enters the workflow, which information is required, who can make each decision and what ends the process. Separate mandatory controls from user preferences. Record unresolved questions with an owner instead of silently filling them with assumptions.
Produce requirements that guide implementation and review.
Scoped outputs can include the current and proposed workflow, a role-and-permission outline, record definitions, integration inventory, prioritized requirements and acceptance examples. Assumptions, exclusions and dependency risks sit alongside the desired behavior rather than in an unrelated note.
A requirement can state: when an incomplete request is submitted, the user sees the missing fields and no ready-for-review record is created. This gives the builder a rule and the reviewer an observable check. “Make intake seamless” does neither.
Resolve contradictions before they become defects.
Process owners explain the work; users test whether the description matches practice; technical review identifies feasibility constraints. The authorized client decision owner approves priorities and resolves conflicts between teams. These responsibilities should not be left to whichever person attends a demonstration.
Discovery is ready to support implementation when the agreed first workflow can be explained end to end, important exceptions have a handling decision and acceptance criteria can be evaluated. Remaining uncertainties need an explicit investigation or deferred-scope decision.
Can we begin with only an idea?
Yes. Start with the intended users and the problem they face. Early work may focus on testing assumptions and defining a small first use case rather than producing a complete implementation specification.
No. Define enough detail for the next responsible decision. Keep later ideas visible without treating them as current commitments. Excess detail on uncertain features can distract from the workflow that needs to work first.
Do we need to document every future feature?
That is a useful discovery result. Compare configuration and integration against custom development using the actual requirements, ongoing administration and limitations rather than assuming a new application is necessary.
What if an existing tool already solves the problem?
Technology Solutions & Business Services