The decision this supports
Use the checklist as a decision record. A critical gap in ownership, access, or acceptance is a reason to resolve that gap before release, even when the other answers look strong.
For business, technology, and operating owners
01 / Workshop guide
Business value
Begin with a bounded workflow and bring examples of the work as it happens today. Separate measured evidence from an estimate. If the value proposition is time saved, include review and correction effort as well as preparation.
- Can we describe the work and its accountable owner?
- Do we know the current volume, effort, quality, and cost?
- Would a simpler tool or process change solve the problem?
- Have we agreed what improvement would justify investment?
Evidence to bring: a process walkthrough, representative cases, a baseline, and the owner’s explanation of how an improvement would be used. An unsupported savings estimate is an open question.
02 / Workshop guide
Context & access
Inspect the actual source and integration environment. A demonstration using a copied document does not establish that production access, refresh, and removal can work under the organization’s rules.
- Are the required sources available, usable, and owned?
- Can access be limited to the appropriate information and actions?
- Are sensitive data and retention requirements understood?
- Have we checked the actual integration environment?
Evidence to bring: a source inventory, named owners, a tested permission boundary, and a confirmed integration path. Missing permission is a prerequisite to resolve, not a lower score to average away.
03 / Workshop guide
Evaluation & controls
Describe acceptable work and unacceptable behavior before testing. Include the correct response when a source is missing or an external action has an unknown outcome. An escalation can be a successful result when the case requires human judgment.
- Do representative cases include exceptions and missing information?
- Can the workflow identify when it should stop or seek review?
- Are consequential actions subject to the required approvals?
- Can we examine the evidence behind a result?
Evidence to bring: evaluation cases, grading criteria, observed results, release blockers, and the person who accepts them. Use the evaluation case template to make those decisions inspectable.
04 / Workshop guide
People & operations
Have the receiving team walk through a normal case, an exception, and a pause or recovery. Confirm that the workload includes review, source maintenance, and support. Ownership means having the means and authority to operate.
- Will the people doing the work participate in evaluation?
- Are the operating owner and escalation path named?
- Are documentation, training, and handover included?
- Are recurring costs, support coverage, and change reviews understood?
Evidence to bring: a responsibility map, support arrangement, demonstrated runbook, and an agreed change process. Use the operating handover worksheet with the receiving team.
05 / Workshop guide
Turn the answers into a decision
For each question, record one of three states: evidence confirmed, assumption to test, or prerequisite unresolved. Attach the evidence or the next action, its owner, and a review date. Discuss disagreements instead of reducing the workshop to a single readiness percentage.
Scroll across the table to read all columns.
| Finding | Next step |
|---|---|
| Value is unclear | Measure the current workflow before committing to implementation. |
| Sources or access are unresolved | Confirm ownership and authorization with the relevant team. |
| Acceptance cannot be tested | Define observable outcomes and representative evaluation cases. |
| Operations are unowned | Assign responsibilities and demonstrate the operating procedures. |
| Prerequisites are supported by evidence | Agree a bounded implementation or release, with explicit acceptance and monitoring. |
No email required. Download the workflow decision brief and keep your completed assessment in your own environment.