Agree Workflow Acceptance Examples Before Handover

1. Start with the agreed workflow boundary

Suggested workflow practice: adapt the following acceptance records to your agreed scope and actual responsibilities. This is a practical review method, not a legal requirement or a claim of measured client results.

Use this guide when a custom workflow has been described, built or is close to handover. Bring the dated scope, the latest agreed process notes, any approved field list and the people who will use and review the workflow. The aim is to agree what someone can observe and check, rather than to reopen the design discussion.

A useful acceptance example follows one realistic work item from its starting point to its intended end. It names the actor, starting information, action, expected record or status, and the person able to confirm the result. A statement such as “the booking flow works” is too broad. “An admin can create a booking with the agreed required details, assign it, and later find the same record and its current status” can be checked.

Keep the boundary visible while writing examples. Do not turn a test discussion into a new wish list. If an example needs a field, role, automation, report or integration that is absent from the agreement, mark it as a decision for the responsible people. It may be an ambiguity, a defect, a training issue, or new scope; it is not automatically an acceptance failure.

• Use the dated agreed scope as the baseline.
• Name the workflow, users and reviewer.
• Choose representative real-work situations without exposing unnecessary personal data.
• Record the version of the workflow being reviewed.
• Keep unagreed ideas separate from acceptance checks.

2. Write examples that can be observed

For each important path, write a short scenario in plain operational language. Start with a condition: a new enquiry arrives, a job is assigned, a payment is recorded, or a task is completed. Then state the action and the visible outcome. Include only details needed to test the agreed workflow. This makes the scenario usable by an owner, staff member and implementation partner without requiring them to interpret technical wording.

Use an actor, need and purpose to keep the example grounded. For example: “As the admin handling a confirmed job, I need to record the assigned staff member and current job status so that the next person can see who is responsible.” Then add acceptance checks beginning with “Done when”. The checks should describe evidence, such as a saved record, a visible status, a linked note, or a list that includes the item.

Cover normal work first, then choose a small set of meaningful boundaries. Useful boundaries include missing required information, a cancelled item, a reassignment, a duplicate attempt, a status change attempted by the wrong role, or an incomplete payment record. Do not assume every possible exception must be built. The agreed scope decides which exceptions are handled now and which are recorded for later review.

• State the starting condition and named actor.
• Describe one action sequence per example.
• Write outcomes that a reviewer can see or retrieve.
• Include the expected owner, status and next action where they are in scope.
• Add selected failure cases, not an unlimited list of edge cases.

3. Turn failures into clear decisions

A failed example is useful only when the team can say why it failed. Record the scenario identifier, what was expected, what actually happened, the evidence reviewed, and a provisional classification. Avoid deciding from memory or from a vague comment that something “feels wrong.” Re-run the same scenario with the agreed data where practical, then compare the observed result against the agreed wording.

Classify a result carefully. It is likely a defect when the agreed behaviour cannot be completed or produces the wrong saved result. It is likely clarification when the agreement is incomplete or two reasonable readers understand it differently. It may be training or data preparation when the workflow works as agreed but the user does not know the agreed sequence or test data is unsuitable. It is new scope when the requested result adds a new capability beyond the documented boundary.

Do not hide an unresolved classification inside a handover sign-off. Give it an owner and a decision date or review point. If it is a defect, agree the correction and a retest scenario. If it is clarification, update the acceptance wording only after the responsible people agree. If it is new scope, record it separately for prioritisation after handover rather than allowing it to silently alter the current build.

• Capture expected and actual results separately.
• Attach or name the evidence used for review.
• Classify as defect, clarification, training/data issue, or new scope.
• Name who decides unresolved cases.
• Retest corrected defects using the same observable example.

4. Use one explicitly fictional example

Fictional example: Bright Path Services is an invented business used only to show the method. Its agreed first workflow lets an office coordinator create a service job, assign one technician, record a job status, and note whether payment is pending or received. The scope does not mention route planning, customer self-booking, stock control or automatic messages.

Scenario A: a coordinator creates a job for 14 October with the customer contact, service location, assigned technician and status “Assigned.” Done when the saved job appears in the agreed daily list, shows the same technician and can be opened without creating a second job. Scenario B: the technician is changed before the work starts. Done when the record shows the replacement technician and the previous assignment is not presented as current responsibility.

Failure case: the coordinator asks for the system to automatically notify the technician through a new messaging channel. The request may be sensible, but no notification capability appears in the fictional agreed scope. Record it as new scope, not as failure of Scenario A or B. By contrast, if the agreed technician field does not save, the daily list omits a saved job, or a reassignment changes the wrong record, the matching scenario has failed and should be reviewed as a possible defect.

• Label examples fictional unless they are approved internal test cases.
• Keep fictional names and records clearly separate from client claims.
• Test the agreed normal path before the exception path.
• Show the evidence a reviewer should inspect.
• Record additional useful requests outside the acceptance result.

5. Run a short, repeatable handover review

Prepare a small review pack before the session: the scope baseline, acceptance examples, test records, any known exceptions, and a decision log. Ask a person who performs the daily work to run the examples where possible. A reviewer should observe the resulting records and lists, not only a demonstration by the person who built the workflow. This helps expose missing steps, unclear labels and handoff gaps.

Review each example one at a time. Read the starting condition aloud, complete the steps, inspect the evidence, and mark pass, fail or needs decision. A pass means the agreed observable result is present for that example; it does not mean the workflow will solve every future operational problem. A needs-decision result means the baseline is unclear or an exception needs an agreed classification.

End with a concise handover record. List passed examples, failed examples, decisions still open, the accountable owner for each action, and what users should do when they meet a known limitation. If the parties use sign-off, make it specific: identify the reviewed scope version and the status of each exception. Do not make sign-off imply approval of additions that were not assessed.

• Share the review pack before the session.
• Have a daily user perform representative checks.
• Mark each scenario pass, fail or needs decision.
• Record known limitations and the operational workaround, if any.
• Document the reviewed scope version and follow-up owners.

6. Keep acceptance useful after handover

Store the approved examples with the workflow record so that future staff, reviewers and implementers can see what the first version was meant to do. This is especially helpful when a later request sounds similar to an existing feature. Compare the request with the original scenario and result before assuming it is included. The examples create a shared reference, not a promise that every related variation is already covered.

After initial use, collect observations separately from acceptance evidence. A user may discover a better status name, a missing report, or a different approval step. Those observations can inform a later scope review, but should not rewrite the historical result of handover. Preserve the original examples and note the date, reason and owner of any approved change.

This practice supports a modest first workflow: one clear process, records that show responsibility and status, and evidence that the agreed path can be used. It does not choose a product category or prescribe a dashboard layout. Outcomes are not promised; the practical value comes from making expectations, exceptions and follow-up decisions visible before responsibility moves into daily use.

• Keep the accepted examples with the workflow documentation.
• Separate post-handover improvement ideas from past acceptance results.
• Use original scenarios to assess apparently similar requests.
• Record approved changes with date, reason and owner.
• Review only the workflow boundary that is actually changing.