MKT.12:4.3 - Investigate results of performing the work

Start with an executor and an activity described independently of a preferred product. Ask the person to walk through a concrete attempt: what started it, what they did, what they tried to achieve, what made success difficult and what happened afterward. Observe the relevant work or inspect its permitted traces where that can challenge the account. Separate a requested feature from the result it is expected to improve.

Use the attempt to sketch what must be accomplished for the activity to succeed. Start with its central work, then recover the preparation and completion it depends on. Ask what each part achieves and whether it is merely a feature of the present solution. “Open spreadsheet A” may serve “establish which source values are valid”; another solution can perform that purpose differently. A small map or list helps retain these relations. Keep the boundary tied to the decision instead of expanding into everything the person does.

Challenge the sketch with a materially different attempt, including an interrupted or unsuccessful one when it could expose a missing part. Examine handovers and combinations of tools that the initial account treated as incidental. Ask what was omitted, repeated or repaired and what outcome mattered there. Test a proposed addition against an actual attempt or relevant participant; a suggested possibility alone does not establish an unmet need. If the addition describes another activity, either revise the inquiry’s boundary explicitly or leave it outside this answer.

Turn a vague desire into a result that can be interpreted consistently. “Make reporting easy” might conceal time spent locating missing entries, risk of sending an incomplete report, or effort correcting discrepancies. State the direction of improvement, the thing affected and the relevant circumstances. Ask participants to explain the wording in their own situation; split an item when people are rating different things. A product-independent statement helps compare solutions, but it may still omit an important concern.

Check coverage before ranking the surfaced results. For each relevant part of the activity, determine whether the inquiry has a usable account of success, an unresolved question or a reason it cannot affect this decision. Ask what a plausible missing outcome could change: the target group, proposed contribution or next inquiry. Pursue the smallest missing observation when it could alter that choice. If it cannot be obtained, return the affected choice as unresolved or narrow the recommendation to what the evidence supports. When the remaining uncertainty cannot change the bounded next move, stop at that scope; more interviews are not required merely to lengthen the list. Existing sufficient material can supply this comparison without a new mapping exercise.

Once meanings and coverage support the intended comparison, compare importance and present attainment for the people and work under consideration. Keep the two questions distinct. A result can be important and already adequately attained, or poorly attained but irrelevant to the current decision. Inspect combinations within and across cases before using an aggregate. A priority score is a decision aid under its assumptions; it does not prove demand, causal benefit or a stable segment.

Return candidate target results, the activity and contrasting attempts they cover, the relevant differences between executors and their evidence. Identify any unresolved omission that can change the receiving decision and the smaller answer needed to settle it. MKT.1 uses this to qualify customer groups; MKT.2 uses it to construct an offer. If the activity or meaning of a measure changes, revisit that part of the comparison before carrying forward its ranking.