Test the requested feature against the questions customers actually ask

“We need better product search” is a useful starting hypothesis, not yet a complete project brief. A buyer who already knows the item may be missing delivery information rather than a way to find it.

This fictional first conversation uses six customer questions supplied as invented examples. The aim is to decide what should be investigated first, without claiming that a small sample represents the whole business.

Read the questions before choosing a feature

Four questions name an exact item and ask whether the supplier's delivery service includes unloading at the receiving site. Two questions describe an application and ask which part of the range to explore.

The current catalogue has a search field that finds the four exact references. Their item pages, however, link to a delivery paragraph saying only “Delivery arranged.” The commercial owner confirms that the unloading responsibility depends on the agreed delivery option and must be established before a quotation is finalised.

The two range questions may still justify search or navigation work. The four delivery questions cannot be solved by improving item retrieval alone.

Separate the two hypotheses

The team writes down two possible projects. One would improve exploration of the range. The other would clarify delivery scope and ensure the inquiry reaches staff with the relevant receiving-site question.

The first conversation does not merge them into a broad promise to improve conversion. It identifies different missing information and different owners. The product owner can explain the range; the commercial or logistics owner must approve the delivery explanation.

For the six fixtures, the delivery issue is the better-defined first investigation. That selection follows the evidence available, not a conclusion that search is unimportant.

Agree a bounded next step

The first paid scope is to review the delivery explanation and its inquiry handover. The deliverable is an approved account of the available options, clear wording about unloading responsibilities and a way for staff to recognise when that detail remains unresolved.

It does not include changing the warehouse process, promising a delivery method or automatically deciding what a particular site can receive. Those rules must come from the responsible business owner and any necessary provider review.

The separate search question remains in the planning record with the two exploratory examples. It can be investigated when the product owner is available and the intended selection task is defined.

Check whether the smaller scope answers the question

In the fictional review, the approved explanation distinguishes the available delivery options and tells a buyer when unloading arrangements need confirmation. A new reader opens one of the four exact item pages, follows the delivery information and identifies that their receiving-site arrangement is still a question for staff.

The inquiry records the exact item and that question. The receiving colleague can discuss the correct delivery option without asking which product the buyer meant or assuming unloading is included.

This completes the selected information and handover test. It does not prove a reduction in support volume or establish that all delivery cases are covered. The unresolved range-navigation task remains visible.

What to bring to your own conversation

A small set of representative questions is more useful than a feature name alone. Include the starting page, what the person already knew, what they could not determine and who answered them. Remove private customer details.

Also identify the source owner. A page cannot explain a delivery responsibility that the business itself has not settled. That dependency belongs in the scope and schedule.

The project planning guide helps organise the first task. Contact Faith Forge Labs with the hypothesis and the evidence you already have; you do not need to choose the final software solution first.