Before you begin
Use the case as a reusable pattern, not as a promise that every project has identical requirements.
Map each step to your own systems, reviewers, controls, and production risks.
The pattern
A multi-site healthcare organization needed to coordinate employee onboarding across systems that did not share the same rules.
The first release did not try to replace every system.
It accepted an onboarding request, used the HR system as the source of truth for role and location, applied the organization’s access rules, and showed the proposed accounts and groups for review.
Conflicts were visible
Missing location data
Systems that disagreed
Requests outside the normal policy
Access that required approval
The team used a test environment and shadow mode before creating real accounts. That let them compare recommendations with the existing process and refine the rules safely.
The reusable pattern is
Request → source of truth → rules → proposed action → exception review → approved action
You can use the same pattern for access, scheduling, billing review, vendor approvals, and other controlled workflows.
Common mistakes
Trying to replace every identity and onboarding system in the first release.
Acting on conflicting source data automatically.
Skipping shadow mode and test accounts.
Frequently asked questions
Can we copy this architecture exactly?
Use the sequence as a pattern, then adapt it to your systems of record, policies, data, reviewers, and risk level.
What made the project safer?
The live system remained available, the new workflow was tested separately, exceptions were visible, and a person controlled the production change.