Nw Jtbd Workflow Selection

JTBD Workflow Selection

Classify incoming work by job type and recommend the appropriate nWave workflow entry point. Use during Phase 1 (GATHER) to triage before crafting stories.

ODI Two-Phase Framework

Determine which phase applies before proceeding.

Phase 1: Discovery -- when you do not know what to build

[research] --> discuss --> design --> distill
    |            |           |          |
GATHER        WHAT are    HOW should  WHAT does
evidence      the needs?  it work?    "done" look like?

Phase 2: Execution Loop -- when you know what needs to change

[research] --> baseline --> roadmap --> split --> execute --> review
    |            |            |           |          |          |
GATHER        MEASURE      PLAN it     BREAK it   DO each    CHECK
evidence      first        completely  into atoms  task       quality
                                          |
                              <-----------+ (loop per task)

Key insight: research is a cross-wave capability invocable at any point for evidence-based decisions.

When to Skip Discovery

Skip discovery and enter execution loop directly when ALL hold:

• User already understands the problem domain
• Problem is identified and scoped
• No stakeholder alignment needed
• User can articulate what "done" looks like

If any fail, start with discovery (DISCUSS wave).

Five Job Types

Job 1: Build Something New (Greenfield)

> "I need to create something that doesn't exist yet"

[research] -> discuss -> design -> [diagram] -> distill -> baseline -> roadmap -> split -> execute -> review

| Step | Purpose |

|------|---------|

| research | (Optional) Gather domain knowledge before requirements |

| discuss | Gather requirements -- you don't know what's needed yet |

| design | Architecture decisions, technology selection |

| diagram | (Optional) Visualize architecture for stakeholders |

| distill | Define acceptance tests -- what does "done" look like? |

| baseline | Measure starting point for tracking improvement |

| roadmap | Comprehensive plan while context is fresh |

| split | Break into atomic, self-contained tasks |

| execute | Do each task with clean context |

| review | Quality gate before proceeding |

Job 2: Improve Existing System (Brownfield)

> "I know what needs to change in our system"

[research] -> baseline -> roadmap -> split -> execute -> review (repeat)

Skip discovery: system understood and problem identified. Baseline is blocking gate -- measure current state before planning. Prevents "optimizing the wrong thing."

Job 3: Complex Refactoring

> "Code works but structure needs improvement"

Simple refactoring:

[root-why] -> mikado -> refactor (incremental)

Complex refactoring with tracking:

[research] -> baseline -> roadmap (methodology: mikado) -> split -> execute -> review

Mikado Method explores dependencies before committing. Reversible at every step.

Job 4: Investigate and Fix Issue

> "Something is broken and I need to find why"

[research] -> root-why -> develop -> deliver

Minimal sequence -- focused intervention only.

Job 5: Research and Understand

> "I need to gather information before deciding"

research -> [decision point: which job to pursue next]

No execution -- pure information gathering feeding into other jobs.

Quick Reference Matrix

| Job | You Know What? | Sequence |

|-----|---------------|----------|

| Greenfield | No | [research] -> discuss -> design -> [diagram] -> distill -> baseline -> roadmap -> split -> execute -> review |

| Brownfield | Yes | [research] -> baseline -> roadmap -> split -> execute -> review |

| Refactoring | Partially | [research] -> baseline -> mikado/roadmap -> split -> execute -> review |

| Bug Fix | Yes (symptom) | [research] -> root-why -> develop -> deliver |

| Research | No | research -> (output informs next job) |

Items in [brackets] are optional. Cross-wave commands (usable anytime): research, diagram, root-why, git.

Baseline Type Selection

When workflow includes a baseline step, advise on which type to create.

Performance Optimization

Use when improving speed, reducing resource usage, or optimizing throughput.

Required: timing measurements with breakdown | bottleneck ranking | target metrics with evidence | quick wins identified.

Process Improvement

Use when fixing workflow issues, preventing incidents, or improving reliability.

Required: incident references or failure modes | simplest alternatives considered (with why insufficient).

Feature Development

Use when building new capabilities (greenfield or brownfield).

Required: current state analysis | requirements source and validation.

Workflow Anti-Patterns

Operate at project/feature level, distinct from story-level anti-patterns in leanux-methodology skill.

| Anti-Pattern | Problem | Solution |

|--------------|---------|----------|

| Skip research | Decisions without evidence | Research when unfamiliar with domain |

| Skip baseline | Optimize the wrong thing | Always baseline before roadmap |

| Monolithic tasks | Context degradation | Use split for atomic tasks |

| Skip review | Quality issues propagate | Review before each execute |

| Architecture before measurement | Over-engineering | Baseline identifies quick wins first |

| Forward references in tasks | Tasks not self-contained | Each task must have all context embedded |

Common Workflow Recipes

| Situation | Entry Point | Key Characteristic |

|-----------|------------|-------------------|

| New feature on existing codebase | baseline (skip discovery) | Existing system, new capability |

| Performance optimization | baseline (type: performance) | Measurement-first |

| Legacy system modernization | research + root-why + baseline | Deep understanding first |

| Quick bug fix | root-why + develop + deliver | Minimal sequence |

| Pure research task | research | Output informs next job selection |

| Data-heavy project | research + baseline | Specialist agent involvement |

Job Categories Summary

| Category | Core Job |

|----------|----------|

| Understanding | Know what to build and why |

| Planning | Break work into safe, trackable chunks |

| Executing | Do work without context degradation |

| Validating | Catch issues early with quality gates |

| Communicating | Share understanding via diagrams and docs |

| Investigating | Find truth before acting |

For deep opportunity analysis with ODI scoring, defer to product-discoverer agent. Product-owner applies simpler prioritization (MoSCoW, Value/Effort) for story-level ordering -- see leanux-methodology skill.