One workflow, not a transformation
Public offers stay narrow: one named workflow per statement of work, not a multi-quarter transformation programme.
Part of Product Offers (2)
Transformation programmes are how regulated teams postpone production.
They sound responsible: multi-workstream, multi-vendor, multi-quarter. They also guarantee that dual control on the money workflow remains unfinished while workshops multiply.
Our public offers are narrow on purpose.
The rule
One named workflow per SOW. Default: onboarding → first transfer (or the first settlement event that creates real risk).
A second workflow is a change, not a favour.
Why buyers accept this
- Scope fits a three-week fixed fee.
- The readout has a decision: run the 90-day path, or don’t.
- Evidence and controls are testable on one path before you industrialise everything.
Why sellers hate this (and still do it)
Because “transformation” sells decks. Production sells folders. Folders are harder to fake.
If a vendor cannot describe deliverables for one workflow without inventing a programme office, they are not selling production.
How this shows up in the sprint
Week 1 defines production for this book. Week 2 designs dual control and evidence on your systems. Week 3 leaves a 90-day path with owners — not another discovery.
Next step: Bring the workflow name to the fit call. If you cannot name it, do not buy.
Fence: Implementation only. Not a VASP.