Oh sure, you always need to listen to the requests - especially for existing systems. I had one set of legacy workflows I once replaced that rough went like:

Oh sure, you always need to listen to the requests - especially for existing systems. I had one set of legacy workflows I once replaced that rough went like: 1) Export data from system A to a CSV. 2) Remove/reorder a few columns manually in excel 3) Get manual approval from a manager 4) Email to different department 5) Upload to system B via their import function The request was to just give us an "export with the right format," thus replacing step 1 & 2. But we also heard complaints from the team doing step #5 that it was pointless and could be automated, and from the managers in #3 that really they used a simple rule that if X < Y approve otherwise deny. So we thought we could build a workflow automation that connected the two systems via API, with an automated approval and flag those that didn't meet the rule for manual review. So we propose this, everyone agrees. We build a pilot, test it, everyone likes it. Then go to release it and find out that this ignores any number of cases where in #2 there where hidden workflows like "any time you see scenario W, send it to Jenny and she runs a formula on these columns to adjust" or "actually the manager never approves anything from this department related to an acquisition because of factor x, and it needs to go to this different group." There was about a dozen similar requirements. Could we have identified these sooner? On other projects we usually did, but this project went further than most before they were detected. We ended up temporarily building that export button requested by the users originally and were planning to fix the API based workflow ... but then there was a reorg and priorities shifted. We never came back to project and AFAIK those groups still work via email. But they don't do nearly as much excel busywork as before ¯\_(ツ)_/¯