Article 25 · Use the toolkit

Workflow catalogue template

Use a workflow catalogue to maintain the purpose, boundary, unit, evidence and ownership of the product behaviours that matter.

A workflow catalogue is the durable record of the product behaviours a team has decided are important enough to define and maintain.

It is not a list of screens and it is not a backlog of tracking requests. Each item should explain why the workflow matters, where it begins and ends, what one instance represents, which evidence supports it and who is responsible for keeping the definition current.

Toolkit relationship map

Which artefact owns which definition

The catalogues hold durable meaning. A delivery-specific instrumentation specification references them when a product or measurement change must be implemented.

Workflow catalogue

defines behavioural context

  1. Owns Purpose, unit, boundary, routes, evidence needs, limitations and stewardship.

Event catalogue

defines observable evidence

  1. Owns Claims, fire rules, sources, properties, interpretation limits and validation expectations.

Metric catalogue

defines reusable measures

  1. Owns Questions, units, populations, calculations, windows, limitations and owners.

Instrumentation specification

references all three for one change

  1. Owns Implementation detail, schema change, rollout, tests, reconciliation and acceptance for a delivery item.
The specification is an implementation contract, not a fourth permanent catalogue.

Template and example

Workflow catalogue template

The blank version defines the fields. The filled service-quotes example shows how to handle multiple actors, repeated activity, off-platform evidence and digital completion without forcing the workflow into a funnel.

Blank template

Template Workflow catalogue Version 2.0

Workflow catalogue item

Define one important workflow, its boundaries and the decisions its measurement should support.

1. Purpose and identity

Workflow name

[Plain-language verb phrase]

Name the behaviour, not the feature, page or team.

Primary question

[What the team needs to understand]

Decision or use

[What may change once the team has the evidence]

Be specific: monitor, diagnose, evaluate, prioritise, improve, maintain or retire.

User or organisational intent

[What the person or organisation is trying to achieve]

Ground this in research and context. Do not infer intent from events alone.

Actors and unit

[Who participates, and what one workflow instance represents]

Examples: one customer request, one application, one account or one organisation-level plan.

2. Boundaries and routes

Entry condition

[Observable condition that makes an instance eligible]

Define the start for this question rather than relying on a convenient page view.

Completion condition

[Condition that counts as completion for this question]

Separate digital completion from later real-world value where necessary.

Time window

[How long an instance has to reach the completion condition]

Meaningful steps and routes
  • [Required step or state change]
  • [Optional, repeated or conditional route]
  • [Shared or external step]
Pauses, exits and off-platform activity
  • [Expected pause or waiting state]
  • [Exit, withdrawal or blocked state]
  • [Relevant activity the product may not observe]

3. Evidence and metrics

Related events or evidence
  • [event.name]
  • [operational or research evidence]
Related metrics
  • [Headline or outcome measure]
  • [Diagnostic or guardrail measure]
Known gaps and limitations

[What the workflow measurement cannot observe or conclude]

4. Ownership and review

Accountable owner

[Person, role or team accountable for the question and use]

Definition steward

[Person, role or team maintaining the workflow definition]

Review triggers
  • [Product, policy or service change]
  • [Instrumentation or metric change]
  • [Confidence, ownership or decision change]
Status
Draft Active Needs review Retired

Filled example

Filled example Workflow catalogue Service quotes

Workflow catalogue item: Request, compare and accept service quotes

This example defines a multi-sided workflow without collapsing customers, providers, quotes and jobs into one unit.

1. Purpose and identity

Workflow name

Request, compare and accept service quotes

The name describes the customer outcome rather than a marketplace page or feature.

Primary question

Can customers publish an eligible request, receive useful choice and accept a suitable quote?

Decision or use

Decide whether to improve request quality, provider coverage, quote comparison, customer-provider communication or the acceptance experience.

User or organisational intent

The customer wants to find a suitable provider and agree to proceed with a service. Providers want to assess opportunities and submit viable offers.

Actors and unit

Customer, one or more providers and the platform. One workflow instance is one eligible service request, not one quote or message.

2. Boundaries and routes

Entry condition

A service request passes eligibility checks and is published to suitable providers.

Completion condition

The customer accepts one valid quote and the acceptance state is persisted.

This is digital workflow completion, not proof that work was scheduled, completed or satisfactory.

Time window

Thirty days from request publication for the example completion metric. Recent requests remain incomplete cohorts until the window closes.

Meaningful steps and routes
  • Publish an eligible service request.
  • Notify and match suitable providers.
  • Receive, revise or withdraw one or more quotes.
  • Ask questions, compare offers and arrange any required visit.
  • Accept one valid quote or close the request without acceptance.
Pauses, exits and off-platform activity
  • Providers may decline, wait for more information or not respond.
  • Customers may pause, withdraw the request or reject every quote.
  • Telephone calls, site visits and price discussions may happen outside the platform.
  • Accepted work may later be cancelled or fail to deliver value.

3. Evidence and metrics

Related events or evidence
  • service_request.published
  • quote.submitted
  • quote.revised
  • quote.withdrawn
  • conversation.message_sent
  • quote.accepted
  • Customer and provider research
  • Operational records about scheduling, cancellation and reported completion
Related metrics
  • Quote coverage rate
  • Multi-quote coverage rate
  • Median and 90th percentile time to first valid quote
  • 30-day request acceptance rate
  • Reported downstream outcome rate
Known gaps and limitations

The platform may not observe off-platform conversations or independently verify completed work. Quote acceptance records a digital agreement, not service quality or customer confidence.

4. Ownership and review

Accountable owner

Marketplace product lead accountable for the customer decision and improvement priorities.

Definition steward

Product and analytics representatives maintaining the workflow boundary, units and completion rule.

Review triggers
  • Matching, eligibility or quote-comparison changes.
  • New provider routes, off-platform integrations or acceptance states.
  • Changes to the 30-day window, eligible-request rule or downstream outcome evidence.
  • A material loss of confidence in request, quote or acceptance data.
Status
Active

What belongs in the catalogue

Catalogue the workflow when it supports an important decision, outcome, risk or shared definition. The artefact should make five things clear:

  1. Purpose — the question and decision that make measurement worthwhile.
  2. Boundary — the eligible entry condition, meaningful routes, completion rule and time window.
  3. Unit — what one workflow instance represents and which actors may participate.
  4. Evidence — the events, operational records and research that can support interpretation.
  5. Stewardship — who owns the use, who maintains the definition and what should trigger review.

A catalogue item does not need every interface interaction. It should be stable enough to survive small product changes while remaining specific enough to guide event and metric design.

Catalogue, workflow map or instrumentation specification?

These artefacts solve different problems.

Artefact Main job Expected lifespan
Workflow catalogue Maintains the durable definition and importance of a workflow As long as the workflow remains relevant
Workflow map Shows the steps, branches, pauses and hand-offs needed for a particular discussion Updated whenever the workflow or question requires more detail
Instrumentation specification Defines how a specific measurement change will be implemented and tested Normally tied to a delivery change or release

The catalogue can link to a more detailed map and to current specifications. It should not absorb all their detail.

Define the unit before linking metrics

The unit is easy to overlook in a simple single-user flow. It becomes essential in marketplaces, applications and organisational products.

For the service-quotes example, one workflow instance is one eligible service request. Several providers may respond, and each may submit or revise several quotes. Counting quotes as workflow instances would reward repeated provider activity even when no additional customer reaches a decision.

State the unit plainly before attaching events or metrics. Useful units might be:

  • one account-creation attempt
  • one eligible service request
  • one application
  • one organisation-level plan
  • one support case

The unit should match the decision being supported, not whichever identifier is easiest to query.

Keep completion and value separate

The catalogue should state what counts as completion for the selected question. That does not make completion identical to value.

In the service-quotes workflow, quote.accepted is a defensible digital completion point. The product can observe that a customer and provider reached a recorded agreement. It cannot conclude from that event alone that work was scheduled, completed well or valued by the customer.

Make the distinction visible through the completion condition, known limitations and related downstream evidence.

Maintain by trigger, not by habit alone

Review a workflow item when:

  • the question or decision changes;
  • entry, eligibility, steps or completion rules change;
  • a new role, route, hand-off or off-platform dependency appears;
  • source events or related metrics change;
  • the unit or time window is disputed;
  • confidence drops;
  • ownership changes;
  • the workflow or its measurement should be retired.

A quarterly catalogue review can help, but it should not be the only safeguard. Product changes are stronger triggers than the calendar.

Keep the catalogue selective

Do not catalogue every interaction before the team can use the first item. Start with workflows that carry meaningful value, cost, risk or uncertainty.

A small catalogue that informs decisions is healthier than a comprehensive inventory that nobody trusts. Retire entries when the workflow no longer matters, but preserve enough history to explain which definitions and metrics were valid at a given time.

The catalogue earns its place when another team can understand the workflow boundary, find the relevant evidence and know who to speak to without reconstructing the original project conversation.