Understand the Buyer’s Workaround Before Replacing It
Map the hidden functions of a current workaround with a completed exception-sheet inventory and a synthetic replacement test that preserves essential safeguards.
10/23/20263 min read
A workaround often exists because it solves a problem the formal process does not. Replacing it without understanding that function can remove useful safeguards, visibility or flexibility. Before proposing a new tool, ask what the current workaround makes possible and what would break if it disappeared tomorrow.
This does not mean every workaround should be preserved. Some are fragile or burdensome. The useful decision is which functions to retain, which costs to reduce and which risks need attention, rather than assuming informal automatically means ineffective.
Observe the job the workaround performs
Ask the buyer to describe a recent use in process terms. What triggers it? Who updates it? What decision does it support? What happens afterward? Keep the discussion focused on roles and workflow evidence rather than unnecessary customer or employee details.
Separate visible mechanics from hidden functions. A spreadsheet may not only store information; it may create a shared review moment, expose disagreements or make an exception visible. A replacement that copies the columns but removes that coordination can fail even if it looks more sophisticated.
Worked example: the Friday exception sheet
Fictional buyer Willow Services keeps a Friday spreadsheet of unresolved account assignments. The seller initially sees duplicate data entry and proposes eliminating the sheet. A walkthrough shows that three team leads use it to identify disputed ownership before the following week's work starts.
The completed capability inventory has four rows. Information: unresolved assignments. Coordination: one weekly cross-team review. Safeguard: no disputed account enters active work until an owner is confirmed. Cost: manual copying and occasional stale rows. The spreadsheet's weakness is not the same as its purpose.
A proposed alternative therefore has to preserve the unresolved state, the review responsibility and the stop condition. It may reduce copying by using an approved view of the existing system, but that capability must be verified in the actual environment. A dashboard that shows assignments without supporting disagreement resolution would not meet the requirement.
Ask what users would miss
Include people who maintain the workaround, not only the executive who wants it removed. Ask which exceptions it handles and which signals are absent from the formal system. A field that looks redundant to the seller may explain a decision to the team using it.
Distinguish preference from necessity carefully. A familiar color scheme may be negotiable, while the ability to flag disputed ownership may be essential. Let the buyer confirm those classifications. Do not label every existing practice resistance to change simply because it complicates the proposal.
Test replacement by function
Choose a small synthetic case that exercises the important functions. In the example, create an account with two plausible owners and conflicting evidence. The replacement process should keep the dispute visible, identify the reviewing role and prevent premature action until resolution. It should also show who made the final decision and what evidence supported it.
Then test a normal case. A process designed only around exceptions can add unnecessary effort to routine work. Compare the burden honestly and include maintenance responsibilities. An apparently automated replacement may still require someone to review discrepancies and update rules.
Decide whether replacement is necessary
The best next step might be improving the current workaround: clarifying ownership, removing unnecessary fields or linking to a reliable source rather than copying data. A full tool change should have a reason beyond making the process look modern.
Record the retained functions, unacceptable losses, proposed changes and unresolved tests. Keep source and decision history visible so a later reviewer understands why a seemingly simple spreadsheet mattered. NIST privacy considerations remain relevant if the workaround contains personal information, but the capability inventory is an original process-analysis method.
The final artifact is a preservation specification, not just a list of complaints. It tells the buyer what a better process must continue to do, what it should improve and what evidence would justify replacing a method that already solves part of the problem.