Investigating the Business Situation
Investigation is about gathering reliable evidence before proposing change. Candidates must know the elicitation techniques and when each fits: interviews (depth, rapport, costly), workshops (consensus, breadth, can be dominated), observation (reveals actual vs stated practice), document analysis (context, rules), questionnaires (reach, low depth), focus groups, prototyping and shadowing. Alongside techniques, understand investigation frameworks such as the CATWOE root definition, rich pictures, and the 'as-is' versus 'to-be' distinction. Know the difference between quantitative evidence (volumes, cycle times, error rates) and qualitative evidence (opinions, culture, pain points), and the principle of triangulation - corroborating findings from more than one source.
Traps
A frequent error is choosing a technique by popularity rather than fit; for example, a questionnaire cannot uncover tacit knowledge that observation or interviews would. Another trap is accepting the stated process as the real one - people describe the official version, not the workaround. Questions may also test whether you record sources and assumptions; unsourced findings are weak evidence. Watch for options that skip validation and treat a single stakeholder's view as fact.
Rule of thumb
Use at least two independent techniques for any significant finding, and always distinguish what you observed from what you were told.
Worked example
Staff say invoice approval takes two days; observation shows it averages six, with a manual re-keying step. The gap between stated and actual is the real finding, and it justifies deeper investigation of that step.