Clear Path Solutions is a demonstration workspace, open to anyone and read-only. The documents behind it are a real consulting engagement; the states, conflicts and supersessions are what OIDA derived from them.Create your own workspace

← All sources
Source

Requirements collected in discovery

Ingested 1 hr ago by priya.anand@clearpath-solutions.it. The text submitted to this workspace, kept exactly as it arrived.
TypespecificationAuthority0.80Referenceclearpath-requirements-v1Locator01-scope/requirements.mdEvent date29 Sep 2025Ingested23 Oct 2026Records supported8Length5863 charactersContent hashsha256:ca02b22edc3b…PermalinkNot recorded
# Requirements — ClearPath Process Review **Collected during:** Discovery phase, Weeks 1–3 **Compiled by:** Yuki Tanaka **Last updated:** September 29, 2025 --- ## Source These requirements were gathered from the project brief, kickoff meeting, and initial stakeholder interviews (Thomas Reed, Priya Anand, David Park, plus 4 team leaders). They are listed as-received, without prioritization or feasibility assessment. Some are deliberately vague — the discovery phase is expected to sharpen them. --- ## R1. Onboarding - **R1.1** Reduce time-to-independence for new consultants from the current ~6 weeks to 3 weeks or less. - **R1.2** Create a standardized onboarding checklist that applies across all teams, while allowing team-specific modules. - **R1.3** Formalize the mentorship pairing process — currently it's "whoever has capacity," which often means nobody. - **R1.4** Ensure new hires have access to all required systems and templates on Day 1. Priya noted that IT provisioning currently takes 3–5 days post-start. - **R1.5** Develop a "readiness assessment" mechanism — currently there's no formal check on whether a new consultant can work independently. It's a subjective call by the team leader. ## R2. Client Intake & Scoping - **R2.1** Standardize the client intake process across teams. Currently each of the team leaders (4? 6? — conflicting information received) has their own approach. - **R2.2** Create a unified intake template that captures all information needed for scoping, resourcing, and pricing. - **R2.3** Establish clear handoff criteria from sales to delivery — multiple interviewees cited this as a pain point without specifying what exactly breaks down. - **R2.4** Improve internal communication between teams during the intake phase. *(Note: this was raised by Thomas Reed in the brief but remains undefined. What does "improve" mean? Frequency? Channels? Content? To be explored.)* - **R2.5** Reduce the average time from initial client contact to kickoff. Current estimate: 3–4 weeks. Target: 2 weeks. (Priya's estimate; David thinks the current timeline is fine and that rushing intake causes downstream quality issues.) ## R3. Audit & Quality Workflow - **R3.1** Reduce audit queue backlog from 5–8 business days to ≤2 business days. - **R3.2** Identify the specific stage(s) where the audit bottleneck occurs — current assumption is review-and-sign-off, but this is unverified. - **R3.3** Define clear SLAs for internal audit turnaround. - **R3.4** Explore whether a tiered review system could help (e.g., senior-only review for complex deliverables, peer review for routine ones). - **R3.5** Reduce dependency on David Park as final sign-off authority — he currently reviews ~40% of all deliverables personally, which doesn't scale. ## R4. Reporting - **R4.1** Standardize client report templates. Current state: each consultant has their own Excel-based templates, many of which contain outdated formatting or broken formulas. - **R4.2** Reduce time spent on report assembly. Estimated current state: senior staff spend 15–20% of time on manual report preparation. Target: reduce by at least half. - **R4.3** Explore centralized data sources for report generation — currently data is pulled manually from multiple systems (CRM, project tracker, email). - **R4.4** Ensure reporting consistency for international clients who require English-language deliverables. ## R5. Knowledge Management & Sharing - **R5.1** Reduce risk of knowledge loss when consultants leave or are reassigned. Three departures in the last year caused measurable disruption, though "measurable" was described only anecdotally — no data exists on recovery cost or time. - **R5.2** Create some form of knowledge repository — wiki, shared drive, internal portal — where consultants document their regulatory expertise, client-specific learnings, and methodological insights. - **R5.3** Implement regular knowledge-sharing sessions. *(Note: Priya mentioned that "we tried brown-bag lunches two years ago and nobody came." Need to understand why before recommending the same approach.)* - **R5.4** Improve cross-team visibility — teams don't know what other teams are working on, which leads to duplicated research and missed opportunities for collaboration. - **R5.5** Formalize the process for updating internal regulatory knowledge when laws change. Currently this is done informally by whichever consultant notices first. ## R6. Cross-Cutting / General - **R6.1** Any process changes must be implementable without a major technology investment. Budget for tools is limited to what's within the existing €380K IT annual budget. - **R6.2** Recommendations should be phased — the organization cannot absorb a complete process overhaul simultaneously. - **R6.3** The roadmap must be presentable to the board by early December 2025. - **R6.4** Changes should account for a bilingual working environment (Italian primary, English for international). - **R6.5** The final deliverable should include estimated implementation effort per recommendation (person-weeks, not just priority labels). --- ## Open Questions - Exact number of team leaders and their scope of authority (conflicting information — Thomas said 6 in the brief, Priya said 4 in interview). - Whether the CRM system can be extended or if it's effectively locked-in for the near term. - How much historical performance data is actually available vs. estimated. - Whether there are compliance or regulatory constraints on changing the audit process itself. - Budget allocation flexibility within the €380K — can some be reallocated from other IT line items? --- *This document will be updated as discovery progresses. Items marked with conflicting sources will be resolved in observation phase.*

What was taken from it

Show all
“- **R1.1** Reduce time-to-independence for new consultants from the current ~6 weeks to 3 weeks or less.”✓ Verified · Characters 544–648, found at the stored offsetsHighlight this oneSupersededTime to independence for a new consultant must fall from about six weeks to three weeks or less.
“- **R2.4** Improve internal communication between teams during the intake phase. *(Note: this was raised by Thomas Reed in the brief but remains undefined. What does "improve" mean? Frequency? Channels? Content? To be explored.)*”✓ Verified · Characters 1725–1954, found at the stored offsetsHighlight this oneAssertedWhat "improve internal communication between teams" means has not been defined: frequency, channels and content are all open.
“- **R2.5** Reduce the average time from initial client contact to kickoff. Current estimate: 3–4 weeks. Target: 2 weeks. (Priya's estimate; David thinks the current timeline is fine and that rushing intake causes downstream quality issues.)”✓ Verified · Characters 1956–2196, found at the stored offsetsHighlight this oneProposedProposed: cut the time from first client contact to kickoff from three or four weeks to two.
“- **R3.1** Reduce audit queue backlog from 5–8 business days to ≤2 business days.”✓ Verified · Characters 2235–2316, found at the stored offsetsHighlight this oneSupersededThe audit queue backlog must fall from five to eight business days to two or fewer.
“- **R3.5** Reduce dependency on David Park as final sign-off authority — he currently reviews ~40% of all deliverables personally, which doesn”✓ Verified · Characters 2670–2812, found at the stored offsetsAssertedDavid Park personally reviews about 40% of all deliverables, which does not scale.
“- **R4.2** Reduce time spent on report assembly. Estimated current state: senior staff spend 15–20% of time on manual report preparation. Target: reduce by at least half.”✓ Verified · Characters 3024–3194, found at the stored offsetsHighlight this oneAssertedSenior staff spend an estimated 15–20% of their time assembling reports by hand; the target is to halve it.
“- **R6.1** Any process changes must be implementable without a major technology investment. Budget for tools is limited to what”✓ Verified · Characters 4539–4666, found at the stored offsetsHighlight this oneApprovedProcess changes must be implementable within the existing €380K annual IT budget, without a major technology investment.
“- Exact number of team leaders and their scope of authority (conflicting information — Thomas said 6 in the brief, Priya said 4 in interview).”✓ Verified · Characters 5206–5348, found at the stored offsetsHighlight this oneAssertedThe number of team leaders and their authority is an open question: the brief says six, the interview said four.