SAMPLE DISCOVERY SPRINT · PROPERTY ENQUIRIES
What a clearer workflow looks like on paper.
A worked example of the thinking and deliverables behind an Apex sprint. This fictional scenario uses assumptions, not client evidence or measured results.
WORKFLOW DISCOVERY SPRINT
Property enquiries.
A clear route to the next step.
Shared inbox → Named owner → Human review → Customer response
01 / CURRENT-STATE MAP
A viewing enquiry has no clear owner.
Scope: from a new viewing enquiry arriving to the applicant receiving a confirmed next step. The example ends before a viewing takes place.
- ApplicantSends a viewing enquiry to the shared inbox.
- AdministratorCopies contact and property details into a tracker.
- Unassigned handoffNo rule identifies who checks availability or replies.
- ApplicantChases the team when no response arrives.
Evidence to gather in a real sprint: walkthroughs with staff, a permitted sample of enquiry timestamps, handoff rules, tracker fields and exception cases.
02 / DIAGNOSIS
Capture is happening. Assignment is not.
| Observed pattern in this scenario | Working diagnosis | How to validate |
|---|---|---|
| Information is copied twice | The intake record does not follow the enquiry | Trace the same enquiry across each system |
| Follow-up depends on somebody noticing | No named owner or assignment rule | Ask staff who owns an enquiry at each step |
| Incomplete enquiries wait indefinitely | No agreed exception route | Review how missing information is requested |
The redesign below is conditional on validating these causes. Faster copying alone would leave the ownership gap unresolved.
03 / FUTURE-STATE DESIGN
One record, one owner, a visible next action.
- Capture onceCreate one enquiry record with the minimum agreed fields.
- Assign responsibilityRoute it to a named person using agreed coverage rules.
- Review the exceptionA person checks missing details, suitability questions or unclear requests.
- Confirm next stepsThe owner responds and records the outcome.
What could automation support?
Extracting details, suggesting an assignment and prompting follow-up, subject to technical validation. A person owns judgement, exceptional cases and customer commitments. No specific integration is assumed.
04 / PRIORITIES AND MEASURES
A plan your team can assess.
| Priority | Intervention | Proposed owner | Dependency |
|---|---|---|---|
| First | Agree required intake fields and assignment rules | Team lead | Staff walkthrough and coverage agreement |
| Next | Test the revised workflow manually with a small set of enquiries | Operations lead | Owners briefed and exceptions defined |
| Then | Assess automation for the proven routine steps | Technical lead | Access, integration and quality checks |
Establish the baseline before setting targets
- Time to meaningful response: elapsed time from receipt to a useful reply.
- Unassigned enquiries: records with no named owner at an agreed review point.
- Rework: corrections or repeated data entry per enquiry.
- Exceptions: cases requiring human judgement and whether they reach the right person.
Collect an agreed baseline, choose a comparable review period and set targets with the team. This sample deliberately makes no savings claim.
YOUR WORKFLOW WILL BE DIFFERENT
Bring the process your team keeps chasing.
A paid Discovery Sprint delivers the evidence, redesign and scoped plan. Implementation is agreed separately.