Problem-led discovery
Objective. Uncover the current process, the cost of the problem, the evidence behind it, the owner, the urgency and the buying constraints - for a staffing or an output scenario.
Teaches discovery that produces a qualified, value-anchored opportunity instead of a feature wishlist. You will learn a six-part frame (current process, cost, evidence, owner, urgency, constraints) and real questions for both a staffing problem and an output problem, so a new AE can run a credible first discovery call this week.
See it in the demo
The customer problem
Deals stall because the AE never established what the problem costs, who owns it and why it must change now. Business impact: you build a demo and a proposal around a problem the economic buyer does not feel, the champion cannot fund it, and the deal dies in 'no decision'. In our space the trap is specific: prospects describe a symptom ('our utilization is low', 'our AR is too high') that is actually a measurement artifact or a different problem underneath. If you take the symptom at face value you demo the wrong application. Good discovery separates the stated symptom from the underlying problem class - a time-visibility problem, an output problem, a process problem or a planning problem (see S03) - and attaches a cost and an owner to it before you ever open a demo URL.
The six-part discovery frame
Run every discovery through six slots and leave the call able to fill each one: (1) CURRENT PROCESS - how they do this today, which tools, who touches it, where the manual reconciliation lives. (2) COST OF THE PROBLEM - in their units: paid hours lost, overtime, missed SLA penalties, denials/AR days, rework, attrition. Make them quantify or give a range. (3) EVIDENCE - how they know it is a problem today and how good that evidence is (a spreadsheet someone maintains? a gut feel? a board complaint?). (4) OWNER - who is accountable for the number and who would fund a fix; separate the person with the pain from the person with the budget. (5) URGENCY - what event forces action (a renewal, an audit, a displacement threat, a growth target, a cost mandate) and what happens if they do nothing this quarter. (6) CONSTRAINTS - buying process, security review, works-council/employee-comms concerns, integration dependencies, incumbent contract term. Missing slots are your follow-up list, not a reason to pitch.
What to say / do - staffing scenario questions
For a staffing/capacity problem (the Workforce Management suite): 'Walk me through how you decide how many people you need next month - what drives the number and how do you check it afterwards?' (current process + evidence). 'When you are short, how do you find out, and how long after the day starts?' (cost + urgency - sets up Real-Time Adherence and Intraday Management). 'How often is a schedule built on a forecast that has already moved?' (surfaces the interpretation trap: a draft on an old forecast can look valid while failing current coverage). 'When someone is on-shift and active but the queue still is not clearing, how do you see that today?' (separates schedule adherence from output adherence - an employee can be adherent and active yet below the output standard). 'What does an hour of under- or over-staffing cost you in overtime, penalties or missed volume?' (cost). 'Who owns the staffing plan, and who signs off when you want to change the model?' (owner + constraints). Point of proof later: https://rta.demo.timechamp.io/#/control and https://idm.demo.timechamp.io/#/tower.
What to say / do - output scenario questions
For an output problem (Work Output, Work Understanding): 'When a team looks busy - high activity, high utilization - how do you confirm they actually produced the expected work?' (this is the core time-to-outcome gap). 'How do you define a completed unit of work today, and is that definition trusted across teams?' (completion definitions and standards - the thing most prospects cannot answer cleanly). 'When output drops, how long does it take you to find whether it is volume, complexity, quality or a process stuck somewhere?' (cost of slow root cause). 'Can you compare two teams fairly today, accounting for work type, complexity, tenure and quality?' (sets up the honest limit that you only compare after aligning those). 'Where does rework or waiting eat time that nobody has measured?' (Work Understanding friction). 'What would one clean unit more per paid hour be worth to you?' (cost/value anchor). Proof later: https://work-output.demo.timechamp.io/#/transactions and https://work-understanding.demo.timechamp.io/#/explorer.
Objections and honest limits
'We do not have those numbers.' - Good - that absence IS the problem; note that today they cannot see available hours vs output cleanly, and that becomes the baseline you build in the pilot (S08). Do not fabricate a number to fill the cost slot. 'Why all these questions, just show me the product.' - Honest response: 'I can show you anything, but a generic tour wastes your time; two minutes on what this actually costs you lets me show the three screens that matter and skip the forty that do not.' Honest limit: discovery does not qualify fit by itself - a prospect can have a real, expensive, owned, urgent problem that is still a no-fit for us (for example a pure headcount-budget decision with no process to measure); S03 handles turning discovery into a fit or a no-fit. Never let enthusiasm in discovery become an implied commitment on outcomes, integrations or packaging.
Interpretation check
The symptom the prospect names is not necessarily the problem. Low utilization, high AR or 'busy but behind' are often measurement artifacts or a different problem class. Discovery exists to find the underlying problem, its cost and its owner - not to confirm the symptom and demo to it.
In the field
KnackGlobal discovery: the urgency slot is an active ProHance displacement attack led by an ex-Omega CTO, the cost slot is output per FTE and cost per claim across ~6,000 seats, and the evidence slot is weak today (they feel the incumbent is not proving value) - which is exactly the gap a defensible baseline fills.
Practical task
Produce completed discovery notes for either a staffing scenario or an output scenario, with all six slots filled (current process, cost, evidence, owner, urgency, constraints). Where a slot is genuinely unknown, write it as an explicit follow-up question rather than a guess.
Self-check
Name the six slots of the discovery frame.
Current process, cost of the problem, evidence, owner, urgency, buying constraints.
A prospect says 'our utilization is low'. Why not immediately demo the utilization dashboard?
Low utilization may be a denominator/measurement artifact or a symptom of an output or process problem. You must find the underlying problem class and its cost first, or you will demo the wrong application.
Why separate the person with the pain from the person with the budget?
The champion who feels the pain often cannot fund the fix. Without the economic owner identified, the deal stalls in no-decision even with a strong problem.
The prospect cannot quantify the cost of the problem. Is that a dead end?
No. The inability to see the number is itself the problem and becomes the baseline you build in the pilot. Note it honestly; do not invent a figure.
Give one discovery question that separates schedule adherence from output.
'When someone is on-shift and active but the queue still is not clearing, how do you see that today?' - it surfaces that adherence and output are different measures.
Verified vs demo. The screens you will later use as proof are demo-shown; the customer's cost figures, owners, urgency and constraints come only from discovery and must never be invented or assumed.