Discovery brief
Objective. Run a first discovery conversation that leaves you able to name the underlying problem, its cost, its owner, the urgency and the buying constraints - and to capture it in a form a CSM or a manager can reuse.
A one-page fillable brief you take into a discovery call and finish straight after. It forces the six slots that separate a qualified, value-anchored opportunity from a feature wishlist, and it records which problem class you are actually looking at so nobody demos the wrong application. This is the tool version of S02 - copy the structure, fill it live.
What it is and when to use it
A discovery brief is the structured capture of one discovery call. Use it on the first real conversation with a prospect or a new stakeholder, and reuse it whenever a sponsor changes or a second buying centre appears. It exists because deals stall when nobody established what the problem costs, who owns it and why it must change now - and because the symptom a prospect names ('utilization is low', 'AR is too high') is often a measurement artifact or a different problem underneath. Fill it live, mark unknown slots as follow-ups, and do not open a demo URL until the problem class is named.
The brief - copy this
ACCOUNT: ____ DATE: ____ STAKEHOLDER(S) + ROLE: ____
PROBLEM CLASS (pick, do not assume): time-visibility / output / process / planning / quality / revenue-cycle / not-yet-clear
- CURRENT PROCESS - how they do this today, which tools, who touches it, where manual reconciliation lives: ____
- COST OF THE PROBLEM (their units - paid hours, overtime, SLA penalties, AR days, denials, rework, attrition): ____
- EVIDENCE - how they know it is a problem today and how good that evidence is (spreadsheet / gut feel / board complaint): ____
- OWNER - who is accountable for the number vs who would fund the fix (separate the two): ____
- URGENCY - the event forcing action (renewal, audit, displacement threat, growth target, cost mandate) and the cost of doing nothing this quarter: ____
- CONSTRAINTS - buying process, security review, employee-comms / works-council exposure, integrations, incumbent contract term: ____
SYMPTOM STATED vs PROBLEM SUSPECTED: ____
FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS (unfilled slots): ____
NEXT STEP AGREED: ____
How to fill it
Ask open, process-first questions and let them talk; you are filling slots, not pitching. For a staffing problem: 'Walk me through how you decide how many people you need next month, and how you check it afterwards.' For an output problem: 'When a team looks busy, how do you confirm they actually produced the expected work, at what quality?' Make them quantify the cost or give a range - if they cannot, that absence IS the problem and becomes the pilot baseline (KIT-02). Separate the person with the pain from the person with the budget in slot 4. Any slot you cannot fill becomes a written follow-up question, never a guess. Name the problem class last, from what you heard, not from what they called it.
The honest caveat
A completed brief is a qualified problem, not a qualified fit - a prospect can have a real, expensive, owned, urgent problem that is still a no-fit for Time Champ (for example a pure headcount-budget decision with no process to measure). Qualifying fit is a separate step (S03). Never let a cost figure you invented sit in slot 2, and never let discovery enthusiasm become an implied commitment on outcomes, integrations or packaging - those are confirm-with-specialist items. The brief captures what was said; it does not make it true.
Interpretation check
The symptom a prospect names is not necessarily the problem. The brief exists to find the underlying problem class, its cost and its owner - not to confirm the symptom and demo to it.
In the field
KnackGlobal discovery brief: problem class = revenue-cycle output visibility; urgency = active ProHance displacement led by an ex-Omega CTO; cost = output per FTE and cost per claim across ~6,000 seats; evidence = weak today (they feel the incumbent is not proving value), which is exactly the gap a defensible baseline fills.
Practical task
Take the brief into a real or role-played discovery call, fill all six slots live, name the problem class separately from the stated symptom, and leave every unknown as a written follow-up question rather than a guess. Hand the completed brief to a colleague and have them tell you the problem class and cost without further explanation.
Self-check
Name the six slots of the brief.
Current process, cost of the problem, evidence, owner, urgency, buying constraints.
The prospect cannot quantify the cost. Is the brief a failure?
No. The inability to see the number is itself the problem and becomes the pilot baseline. Record it honestly as a follow-up; do not invent a figure.
Why separate owner-of-the-number from owner-of-the-budget in slot 4?
The champion who feels the pain often cannot fund the fix; without the economic owner named, the deal stalls in no-decision even with a strong problem.
A brief is fully completed. Does that mean the deal is qualified to pursue?
It qualifies the problem, not the fit. A real owned urgent problem can still be a no-fit; S03 turns the brief into a fit or an honest no-fit case.
Verified vs demo. The brief structure is process and reusable anywhere; the cost figures, owners, urgency and constraints come only from the customer and must never be invented. Any product capability raised in the call is confirm-with-specialist until checked, not a brief entry you can promise.