Document Purpose
This document captures the business requirements behind the Bontle operating model. It is a reconstructed portfolio document based on the case study and is intended to show how the operational problem, business needs, scope, and success measures were framed.
Executive Summary
Bontle was designed to solve an operational visibility problem rather than only a booking problem. Service teams were able to create and manage bookings, but that did not automatically give managers a clear view of what was happening once work moved into execution. Ownership, handoffs, delays, reassignment, and backlog pressure were difficult to track in one place.
The business need was therefore to create a workflow structure that made service delivery easier to manage day to day, while also supporting clearer reporting for branch management and leadership. The solution direction was a state-based operating model supported by role-based workflow control and KPI reporting tied to actual movement through the process.
Business Problem
The business was not lacking activity data. It was lacking operational control and visibility. Teams could see bookings, but not always the true flow of work once execution started. This weakened decision-making in several ways:
- issues were picked up late
- ownership was not always clear
- managers had limited visibility into stalled work
- branch comparison was inconsistent
- KPI reporting lacked a strong link to actual workflow behaviour
Business Objectives
- improve visibility across work in progress
- make ownership and handoffs explicit
- create a measurable operational workflow
- support management reporting at branch and leadership level
- build KPI logic that reflects real operating performance
Stakeholders
Frontline Consultants
Need clear ownership and day-to-day visibility over assigned work.
Operations Leads
Need live queue visibility, exception detection, and a view of pressure points in the process.
Branch Managers
Need branch-level comparison and a clearer understanding of throughput, delays, and capacity.
Leadership
Need reporting that links operational performance to business outcomes and supports review decisions.
Current-State Assessment
The existing state made it difficult to answer simple management questions such as:
- What is currently in progress?
- Where is work getting stuck?
- Which branches are falling behind?
- How often is work being reassigned?
- Which delays are affecting overall output?
The problem was not only one of reporting. The operating workflow itself needed clearer control points before reporting could become more reliable.
Proposed Business Response
The proposed response was to manage service delivery as a state-based operational flow rather than as isolated bookings. This created an operating structure where each piece of work had:
- a clear state
- an identifiable owner
- a visible transition history
- a measurable effect on queue and performance reporting
Scope
In Scope
- state-based workflow control
- queue and handoff visibility
- KPI definitions for throughput, quality, backlog, utilization, and related performance views
- event history and traceability
- reporting views for operations and leadership
Out of Scope
- payroll and workforce compensation processes
- broader finance planning functions
- unrelated branch administration outside service workflow
Business Requirements
- The operating model must make work in progress visible by state and owner.
- Managers must be able to identify stalled work and exceptions earlier.
- The workflow must support branch-level performance review.
- Reporting must be based on actual workflow movement rather than static counts alone.
- The model must support both operational use and leadership review.
Success Measures
- better visibility into backlog and work in progress
- faster identification of exceptions and delays
- clearer ownership and handoff control
- more reliable branch comparison
- KPI reporting that can be defended against workflow records
Assumptions
- state discipline is necessary for meaningful reporting
- users will adopt the workflow if it improves operating clarity
- leadership value depends on KPI definitions that answer real management questions
Risks and Dependencies
- inconsistent workflow usage weakens KPI quality
- branch comparison is only meaningful if definitions are common
- operational adoption matters as much as system capability
Recommendation
The business case supports a workflow-led operating model with reporting built around actual state movement. The next priority should be strengthening branch-level operating review and using the workflow data to identify recurring delay, reassignment, and capacity issues.