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.