Clear next steps
Job seekers can understand, save and act on a pathway without staff translating every screen.
← Back to portfolio
Simulated implementation exercise · June 2026
Thirty-day AI SaaS implementation playbook
A practical deployment plan for moving a fictional workforce agency from fragmented tools to one consistent career-navigation workflow—without losing customer trust.
- Customer
- Northern Pathways (fictional)
- Product
- Pathway North workforce SaaS
- My role
- Implementation lead
- Timeline
- 30 days to controlled launch
18Staff to enable
3Service locations
5Delivery phases
8Go-live gates
The mandate
Make the new workflow useful, trusted and supportable—not merely switched on.
Northern Pathways Employment Network is a fictional, three-location organization serving job seekers affected by layoffs and career transitions. Staff currently move between spreadsheets, email templates and separate training-provider directories.
The implementation introduces one platform for intake, career exploration, pathway recommendations, training referrals and progress tracking. The controlled launch must protect continuity of service, clarify staff responsibilities and create reliable customer feedback loops.
Outcome definition
What success means
One dependable process
Advisors know what to do, where to document it and how to recover when something goes wrong.
Visible adoption
Managers can see usage, completion, friction and support trends without manual reconciliation.
Supportable launch
Issues have owners, escalation paths, response expectations and sufficient diagnostic context.
Discovery
Questions I would resolve before configuration
Customer journey
- Where does intake begin and what creates a successful handoff?
- Which decisions require staff judgment rather than automation?
- Where do customers currently abandon or need repeated explanation?
Process & policy
- Which fields are mandatory, conditional or prohibited?
- What must be reviewed before a pathway is shared?
- What are the retention, consent and audit expectations?
Data & integrations
- Which data must migrate and which should remain archived?
- What is the system of record for customer identity?
- How will duplicate, incomplete and outdated records be handled?
Readiness & support
- Who can approve workflow and content decisions?
- What support volume and response time can each team sustain?
- What evidence will determine launch, delay or rollback?
Delivery plan
Thirty days, five controlled phases
Each phase ends with a decision or accepted output—not a vague status update.
-
01Days 1–5Gate: design authority confirmed
Discover & align
Confirm outcomes, workflow, decision owners, constraints, scope and measurable launch criteria.
-
02Days 6–12Gate: configuration review passed
Configure & prepare data
Configure roles and workflows, clean pilot records, draft customer content and document assumptions.
-
03Days 13–20Gate: critical scenarios accepted
Validate & correct
Run end-to-end scenarios, role and permission checks, accessibility review and user acceptance testing.
-
04Days 21–25Gate: staff readiness ≥ 80%
Enable & rehearse
Train by role, confirm support scripts, rehearse cutover and test the escalation path with realistic cases.
-
05Days 26–30Gate: expand, hold or rollback
Launch & stabilize
Release to a controlled cohort, monitor adoption and incidents, communicate daily and close the feedback loop.
Ownership
Stakeholder and decision map
| Role | Owns | Consulted on | Decision authority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Executive sponsor | Outcomes, resources, escalation | Major scope or timeline changes | Launch / delay |
| Program manager | Current service model and staff readiness | Workflow, communications, training | Operational acceptance |
| Implementation lead | Plan, dependencies, risks and delivery cadence | All workstreams | Delivery recommendation |
| Product / build | Configuration feasibility and defect resolution | Workflow and technical tradeoffs | Technical acceptance |
| Privacy / security | Consent, access and data-handling review | Migration and support practices | Compliance acceptance |
| Advisor champions | UAT, peer support and field feedback | Usability, training and job aids | User acceptance input |
RAID log
Known risks, assumptions, issues and dependencies
Every item has a signal, an owner and an action—not simply a colour.
RiskHigh
Staff continue parallel spreadsheet tracking after launch.
Signal: platform completion is lower than appointment volume.
Response: simplify required fields, remove duplicate reporting and review adoption daily with managers.
RiskHigh
Training recommendations appear authoritative when they require advisor judgment.
Signal: staff or customers treat a recommendation as an eligibility decision.
Response: revise language, add review checkpoints and test comprehension with advisors and customers.
AssumptionMedium
Ten clean sample records are sufficient to validate migration rules.
Signal: additional source patterns appear during the full dry run.
Response: stratify samples by site, age and completeness; retain a rollback copy.
IssueMedium
Training-provider names are inconsistent across source files.
Signal: duplicate providers appear in reports and search results.
Response: create a canonical mapping, flag unresolved records and prevent new free-text variants.
DependencyHigh
Privacy review must approve the consent language before UAT.
Signal: no approved text by Day 10.
Response: book the review during kickoff, provide a decision-ready draft and escalate at Day 8.
DependencyMedium
Advisor champions require protected time for testing and peer support.
Signal: UAT participation or training attendance falls below plan.
Response: secure manager commitment, publish schedules and provide asynchronous alternatives.
Enablement
Training by role and moment of need
Complete the customer workflow
Practice intake, pathway review, referral, note quality and recovery from common errors.
Evidence: scenario completion + knowledge checkCoach adoption and exceptions
Use operational views, identify stalled cases and respond without creating shadow processes.
Evidence: dashboard interpretation exerciseTriage with useful context
Distinguish guidance, configuration and defects; capture reproduction details and customer impact.
Evidence: three ticket simulationsReinforce real work
Answer questions, spot recurring friction and feed prioritized learning back to the delivery team.
Evidence: question and pattern logGo-live readiness
Eight gates before customer use
A launch decision should be supported by evidence, not calendar pressure.
All critical workflows pass UAT with named business acceptance.
No open severity-one defects; severity-two items have accepted workarounds.
Roles, permissions and inactive-user handling are verified.
Migration dry run reconciles totals and exceptions are documented.
Privacy, consent and customer-facing language are approved.
At least 80% of staff complete role-based readiness evidence.
Support routing, severity definitions and escalation contacts are tested.
Rollback steps, owner and communication are rehearsed.
Decision rule
Launch only when every gate has evidence.
A missed gate is not automatically a delay: the sponsor may accept a documented residual risk when customer safety, data integrity and service continuity remain protected. Unowned risk or missing evidence means hold.
Stabilization
First thirty days after launch
These are proposed pilot thresholds, not claimed results. Daily reviews would examine customer completion, staff adoption, support demand, recurring friction and data quality. The team would adjust workflow or training based on evidence rather than forcing usage.
What this demonstrates
I can turn a broad implementation goal into decisions, evidence and customer-safe execution.
- Outcome-focused discovery and scope control
- Clear stakeholder ownership and decision rights
- Risk, assumption, issue and dependency management
- Role-based training and adoption evidence
- Evidence-based go-live, hold and rollback judgment
- Closed-loop learning across customer success, product and support
Disclosure: Northern Pathways and Pathway North are fictional. All people, volumes, processes, data and thresholds are synthetic and were created for this public portfolio exercise. No protected client, employer or Government of Canada information is used.