Skip to content
KoshKramaniti

How-to guideFree templateAdded 1 Oct 2026

Find where work waits by asking the people who do it

A short interview that shows where work waits, repeats or depends on one person, before you decide what to build.

Use it when A family business or small team knows something is slow, but nobody has yet asked the people who do the work where it actually sticks.

Download template

It is a simple text file. Open it in any text editor, or paste it into ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini and ask for help filling it in.

How to use it

  1. Choose one process and book two short conversations: the founder or owner, and one frontline person who does the work day to day.
  2. Ask where work waits, what gets repeated and who is needed for each stuck point. Write what you hear; leave blanks visible rather than guessing.
  3. Agree one bottleneck to address first, name an owner and what better would look like. Money, legal exposure or a customer promise stays with a named human the same day.
What you will need before you start
  • Permission from the owner to talk with the people who do the work
  • One recurring process that already feels slow or fragile
  • A quiet place and enough time for a short, honest conversation

The template

Fill in the blanks for your business. This is what you get when you download or copy it.

Interview header

Business or team:

Interviewer:

Date:

Process under review:

Who was asked (roles, not full personal details unless they agree):

Who to ask

Speak with both of these people when you can.

  • The founder or owner who feels the delay
  • One frontline person who actually does the work (reception, chair-side, warehouse, ops or similar)

If only one conversation is possible, prefer the frontline person and note that the founder view is still missing.

Questions to ask

Ask in plain language. Stay with what happened recently, not the ideal process.

  • Where does work sit waiting before the next person can start?
  • What do you have to do twice, or redo, in a normal week?
  • Which steps only move when one named person is available?
  • What do you check by memory, chat or a scrap of paper that is not written down?
  • If one small change could remove a wait this month, what would it be?

Capture table

Record one row per step or task you hear. Leave cells blank when the answer is unclear.

  • Step or task
  • What happens
  • Where it waits
  • Who is needed
  • How often (only if they said so; otherwise leave blank)

One bottleneck to address first

Pick one stuck point with clear evidence from the interviews.

Evidence from the interview (quotes or paraphrases, not invented numbers):

Why this one first:

Named owner for the next look:

What better would look like (one sentence):

Review date:

Stop rules

  • Do not invent tools, products or vendors from the interview notes.
  • Do not treat interview notes as proof of cost, frequency or revenue impact.
  • Money, legal wording or a promise to a customer stays with a named human owner.
  • If the founder and the frontline person disagree, record both views; do not force a single story.
See an example

A made-up example, so you can see what a filled-in version looks like.

This is an illustrative scenario, not a client case study or a measured result. Do not reuse its details as facts about your work.

A sample four-person family-run dental clinic in Bengaluru runs three chairs. The owners feel that patient flow and follow-up are slow, but nobody has yet asked the people at reception and chair-side where work actually sticks.

Sample inputs

Demonstration inputs only: two short interviews about the path from enquiry to booked appointment and day-of check-in. Roles asked: clinic owner and reception lead. No timing studies, cost figures or patient outcomes are available.

Example output

Interview header

[Fact within this demonstration] Process under review: enquiry to booked appointment and day-of check-in. Who was asked: clinic owner and reception lead.

Capture row 1: phone and WhatsApp enquiries

[Fact within this demonstration] Enquiries land on a shared phone and a WhatsApp account that several people open. Where it waits: unanswered messages when both chairs and reception are busy. Who is needed: whoever is free; no named owner for same-day replies. How often: [Leave blank; not measured in this demonstration]. [Inference] Shared ownership may leave messages waiting. Impact has not been measured.

Capture row 2: confirming chair and dentist time

[Fact within this demonstration] Reception checks the diary, then often waits for the owner to confirm which dentist and chair can take the slot. Where it waits: confirmation before the booking is sent to the patient. Who is needed: the owner for many non-routine slots. [Inference] Owner confirmation may be a one-person bottleneck for non-routine bookings.

Capture row 3: day-of file and consent pack

What happens: paper forms and the digital note are assembled when the patient arrives. Where it waits: [Incomplete pack details not captured in the interviews]. Who is needed: reception and the chair-side assistant. [Recommendation] Do not invent a tool here. First name who owns same-day enquiry replies and which bookings need owner confirmation. This recommendation is not the clinic’s decision.

One bottleneck to address first

Evidence: both interviews pointed to waiting on owner confirmation before many bookings go out. Owner for the next look: [Name the clinic owner]. What better would look like: reception can confirm routine slots against a written rule without waiting. Review date: [Two weeks]. [Recommendation] Write the routine-slot rule before buying any booking product. Keep money and clinical promises with the named owner.

How to tell it is done well

Both who-to-ask roles are covered or the gap is noted; the capture table has visible blanks where answers were unclear; one bottleneck has interview evidence, a named owner and a review date; no tools, costs or frequencies were invented.

Where a person should decide

The interview shows where people say work waits; it does not prove cost, frequency or the right tool. Notes are not a substitute for clinical, legal or financial judgment. Keep consequential actions with the named human owner.

The interview shows where people say work waits; it does not prove cost, frequency or the right tool. Notes are not a substitute for clinical, legal or financial judgment.

Edit your own copy on this site
About this version

New in Kosh at version 1.1. Provider-neutral Markdown instructions; no installation or platform compatibility is implied. Runtime behaviour has not been verified across AI providers. Reuse terms have not yet been published. Background reading: Map the Work-As-Done Before You Build. Mapping where work waits, before you choose a tool, is part of Kramaniti’s Foundation Strategy audit.

How we write Kosh templates