Appearance
WS 1 — Immersion & Validation
| Duration | 1 week |
| Objective | Build a shared understanding of Manulife's existing technology landscape, target state vision, business objectives and work completed to date |
| Focus | Rapid immersion and validation of existing materials |
| Deliverables | D1.1 · D1.2 |
Tasks
| ID | Activity (SOW Schedule "A") | Output | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| WS1-A1 | Project kick-off — align on objectives, scope, approach, roles and responsibilities, key stakeholders, engagement governance | Kick-off record, stakeholder map, governance model | ⚪ |
| WS1-A2 | Review and assess existing client-provided materials — current state technology assessment, architecture artifacts, technology inventories | Client resources — one page per artifact | 🟡 |
| WS1-A3 | Assess the existing target state vision and architecture direction, including alignment to business objectives and technology strategy | Assessment feeding D1.1 | 🟡 |
| WS1-A4 | Identify architectural questions, ambiguities, dependencies, risks and decisions to be addressed during the engagement | Open questions register | 🟡 |
| WS1-A5 | Align on objectives, success criteria and the decision-making process for developing and socializing the target state and roadmap | Agreed success criteria and decision forum | ⚪ |
WS1-A2 — sub-tasks
| ID | Artifact | Status |
|---|---|---|
| WS1-A2a | Unified customer architecture — strategy | 🟢 |
| WS1-A2b | The Architecture Decision — options comparison | 🟢 |
| WS1-A2c | GARB ADS (MVP Phase) | 🟢 |
| WS1-A2d | Segment architecture assessment | 🟢 |
| WS1-A2e | MVP Canada EA analysis — readiness review | 🟢 |
| WS1-A2f | Manulife Canada API landscape | 🟢 |
| WS1-A2g | UCX Canada experience map | 🟢 |
| WS1-A2h | Confirm the input set is complete — nothing else outstanding from the client → Client requests | 🟡 |
All seven have been read end to end and summarised with citations. WS1-A2 stays 🟡 until A2h closes — and A2h has already answered part of itself: reading the seven against SOW Schedule "A" produced 38 requests for material, access and people the set does not contain. The seven are not the whole picture.
Working notes
What the material actually establishes
There is a well-articulated target state (June 2026, Canada Segment EA), a well-articulated MVP that deliberately excludes most of it, and two client-authored critiques of that MVP — one recommending re-architecture, one returning a NO GO on the October date. Alongside them, two machine-derived inventories showing an estate in considerably better functional shape than the critiques alone would suggest.
The five cross-cutting observations are recorded on the client resources index. They are preliminary and need validating before they are shown to anyone.
The question this work stream really has to answer
"No agreed North Star" is concern #2 of the client's own executive readiness review, and finding F-02 of their own architecture assessment. It is stated, by them, in writing, twice.
That makes WS 1's validation activity narrower and sharper than it looks. We are not establishing what the vision is — there are candidate statements of it. We are establishing which one is of record, and who says so. Until that has a name attached, WS 2 is documenting a target state whose authority is unclear, and the client's own words say every decision built on it risks being reversed.
Things to raise at kick-off
- Walk the client requests register — at minimum the 22 High items, which block named deliverables or sit on the critical path (
WS1-A2h). - Confirm the calendar: the SOW's timeline is a graphic that did not survive conversion, so the schedule in Deliverables is derived, not quoted.
- Establish who validates the vision, and in which forum.
- Settle the handoff format, or at least agree when it will be settled — it gates both executive presentations. See open questions, items 1 and 3.
- Establish access to the people behind each artifact. Several of our questions are answerable in ten minutes by their authors and not at all from the documents.
Ambiguities to resolve before WS 2
| # | Ambiguity | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Is the June 2026 strategy still Canada Segment EA's position? | It is the only candidate North Star |
| 2 | Is di-dashboard-services (Fastify, in DEV) the same thing as the ADS's Next.js Dashboard BFF? | One is promote-to-PROD, the other is a build — different roadmaps |
| 3 | Is the criticality dispute (Gold vs Critical Digital Properties) resolved? | Every recovery number depends on it |
| 4 | Is the ADS being revised, against which conditions, and on what date? | Determines whether our target state lands into a moving or settled base |
| 5 | Does our WS 2 output become the North Star of record? | Changes what the deliverable has to be and who must approve it |