Loading this page.
Loading this page.
WHO IT IS FOR
A cube is worth building for a process that repeats. This page sets out what makes one a good first candidate, four that usually qualify and what counts as evidence in each, and the cases where two7 is the wrong tool. That last part is cheaper to read now than to discover later.
THE TEST
Three things, and a process needs all three.
A process that fails one of the three is not a bad process. It is a bad first process.
FOUR THAT USUALLY QUALIFY
Drawn from the retained templates. These describe how the method applies, not results a business has recorded.
The process runs from a first enquiry through qualification and an offer to a confirmed outcome. The source decides the instructions at the front of it: a referral and a search enquiry arrive knowing different amounts, so they are met with different questions. The stages behind that are the same either way, which is what makes the process comparable across sources rather than four processes wearing one name.
Evidence at each stage: the recorded conversation or note that qualified the need, the scope that was offered, and the dated confirmation of the outcome.
Hiring is a supporting process rather than a customer one, and it is often the easiest place to see the method work, because the outcome is close and the cost of getting it wrong is obvious. Training is followed by a practice attempt, and the retest happens on separate real work rather than on the practice. Nobody signs off their own attempt, which is the part most onboarding checklists quietly skip.
Evidence at each stage: the training completed, the practice attempt and its review, and the separate piece of real work the retest was carried out on.
Some work is finished when somebody says it is finished. That is the process worth putting a cube around, because the gap between done and verifiably done is where disputes, rework and unpaid hours live. Each stage carries the proof it owes rather than leaving all of it to a final sign-off, so a problem surfaces at the stage that caused it instead of at the invoice.
Evidence at each stage: what was produced, who reviewed it, which required checks passed, and what was returned for rework.
Time is recorded against the action it was spent on rather than against a week, so effort attaches to a stage of a named process. That makes it possible to ask which stage is expensive rather than which person is busy. Labour costs are partial today and are labelled partial wherever they appear, because a cost figure that quietly omits half the inputs is worse than no figure.
Evidence at each stage: recorded time against each action, the assignments it belonged to, and the descriptive counts the stage produced.
Illustrative processes drawn from the retained templates. Not case studies, and not customer results.
A one-off project. There is nothing to compare a second run against, so the documentation costs more than it returns and the evidence has nobody to convince.
A process whose outcome nobody has agreed. Writing down the steps will not settle the argument about what finishing means, and a cube built on an unsettled definition inherits the argument rather than resolving it.
A team that wants to assemble arbitrary workflows. There is no customer process builder in this version. two7 authors the templates; a business installs an approved, versioned copy and fills fixed setup slots. If the requirement is a blank canvas, this is not it.
A process already running well with evidence somebody trusts. Leave it alone and start somewhere that hurts.
START WITH ONE
Bring the process, the people involved and the outcome you need. We will work out together whether it passes the three tests above, and say so if it does not.
Start a conversationHow an implementation runs →