Working with existing material
Businesses often have existing material that can enrich the emerging design, including process maps, data schemas, operational records, policies, and working documents. These sources can reveal business rules, constraints, exceptions, terminology, and operating details that may not surface fully in conversation.
The Solution Designer evaluates what each source contributes, how it relates to the agreed outcome and application context, and how it should influence the design in Pega Blueprint™.
What existing materials contribute
Process maps can reveal workflows and decision points, data schemas identify the information the business uses, operational records show volume and exceptions, and policies document requirements for which the design must account.
Existing material may:
- confirm information already established with stakeholders;
- add operational detail that has not yet surfaced in conversation;
- identify constraints, dependencies, or exceptions;
- reveal assumptions that require validation;
- or raise questions that require further stakeholder clarification.
The value of existing material lies in the evidence it provides, not in reproducing every detail or structure it contains. The Solution Designer works with stakeholders to interpret that evidence and determine how it should influence the Blueprint.
Evaluating what to carry forward
The Solution Designer evaluates what existing material reveals, how it relates to the agreed outcome and application context, and whether its current structure should influence the design. Use the following guide to determine what evidence should inform the Blueprint and which sources may be useful as supporting assets:
| Type of evidence | What it can reveal | How to evaluate it |
|---|---|---|
| Operational constraints | Regulatory checkpoints, capacity limits, safety requirements, data-ownership boundaries, and other conditions within which the business must work. | Confirm whether the constraint remains valid and determine how the Blueprint should account for it. |
| Business data structures | The entities, fields, relationships, and record structures the business uses to support its work. | Identify the information the future design requires, then evaluate whether the existing data structure should be retained, adapted, or reconsidered. |
| Operational reality | Work volumes, seasonal patterns, exceptions, dependencies, and the practices that keep the operation moving. | Determine which details define what the design must support and which reflect conditions the business intends to change. |
| Current process structure | The sequence of activities, handoffs, approvals, and decisions in the existing process. | Evaluate which parts represent necessary business logic or constraints and which can be reshaped to support the agreed outcome. |
The distinction is especially important when reviewing current process structure. An approval may represent a regulatory requirement, a valid business decision, or a practice introduced because of an earlier tool or operating model. The Solution Designer works with stakeholders to determine why the structure exists, what evidence remains relevant to the intended future, and how that evidence should influence the Blueprint.
Reconciling material with the agreed outcome
Existing material can reflect an earlier objective, operating model, or understanding of the business. The Solution Designer compares that material with the agreed outcome and application context to identify where they align and where further clarification is needed.
A difference does not automatically make the material inaccurate or irrelevant. It may indicate:
- Changed business priorities or operating conditions
- A valid decision not yet reflected in the current work
- Different stakeholder interpretations of the intended future
- A proposal that was documented but never adopted
The Solution Designer makes the differences visible and works with stakeholders to determine what remains relevant. Information that supports the agreed outcome can inform the Blueprint. Information that reflects a legitimate constraint or business decision should be accounted for, even when it requires the direction or application context to be refined. Material based on an earlier or unadopted direction can remain part of the engagement record without shaping the current Blueprint.
Uploading supporting assets purposefully
Pega Blueprint provides the opportunity to upload supporting assets before entering the application context. Adding relevant, business-specific assets early can strengthen the evidence available for the initial generation.
The Solution Designer works with business stakeholders to select assets that clarify the business, its processes, data structures, constraints, operating environment, or intended direction. Assets can be uploaded initially or as additional evidence becomes relevant.
Before uploading a supporting asset, the Solution Designer evaluates:
- Relevance: What business-specific evidence does this asset provide?
- Alignment: How does that evidence relate to the agreed outcome and application context?
- Readiness: Has the material been reconciled with stakeholders and the intended future?
- Purpose: Which aspect of the Blueprint or design decision should this asset help shape or clarify?
The Solution Designer reviews how the Blueprint reflects the evidence provided and determines whether stakeholder clarification, additional supporting assets, or further refinement would strengthen the emerging design.
Tip: Work with business stakeholders to summarize and synthesize relevant insights from existing tools, processes, and materials. A focused summary can provide Blueprint useful, business-specific evidence while keeping attention on the information that should shape the design.
Scenario: Existing material at U+ Travel
U+ Travel has several sources that can add business-specific evidence to the Blueprint: the booking spreadsheet that supports the current operation, a homegrown customer database schema, an operator handbook, and a summary of recurring customer correspondence.
The following table shows the insights each source contributes and how the Solution Designer applies them to the Blueprint:
| Existing material | Insights it contributes | How to apply the insights |
|---|---|---|
| Booking spreadsheet | Booking patterns, seasonal volumes, operational exceptions, and the way work is currently distributed across operators. | Work with U+ Travel stakeholders to summarize the relevant operating patterns. Use those insights as evidence, rather than carrying forward the separate operator structure of the spreadsheet. |
| Customer database schema | The customer information and relationships represented in the current data structure of U+ Travel. | Identify the business information the future design requires, then evaluate how the existing structure should inform the data represented in the Blueprint. |
| Operator handbook | Documented operating procedures, safety requirements, and business rules that may need to be reflected in the design. | Confirm which requirements remain current and determine where they should influence Workflows, decisions, or operating constraints. |
| Summary of customer correspondence | Recurring customer questions, communication needs, booking exceptions, and the terminology customers and operators use. | Work with U+ Travel stakeholders to summarize and synthesize the relevant patterns. Use those insights as business-specific evidence for the Blueprint. |
After evaluating the sources, the Solution Designer recommends which materials or summaries should become supporting assets and clarifies what each should inform. Stakeholders confirm that the evidence remains accurate, relevant, and aligned with the intended future of U+ Travel.
| How would you respond? | What if Elena shares a process map that a consultant developed two years ago for a booking system U+ Travel did not implement? The map routes every booking through a manager approval step, although approvals have not surfaced in current conversations about how U+ Travel operates. |
|---|
In practice
Compare your response with the practices below. Use them to determine what the process map contributes, whether the manager approval remains relevant, and how it should influence the Blueprint while its purpose is being clarified.
| Practice | Why it matters | Questions to ask |
|---|---|---|
| Identify the evidence each source contributes | Existing materials can reveal business rules, operational details, exceptions, constraints, and assumptions that have not surfaced in conversation. | What does this source reveal about how the business operates? |
| Evaluate what should carry forward | The evidence may remain valuable even when the current structure does not reflect the intended future. | What must the future design preserve, and what can be reconsidered? |
| Reconcile differences with stakeholders | Differences between existing material and the current direction can reveal changed priorities, valid decisions, or information that requires clarification. | How does this compare with the agreed outcome and application context? |
| Upload supporting assets purposefully | A clear purpose connects each supporting asset to the business evidence or design decision it is intended to inform. | What should this asset help Blueprint interpret or clarify? |
| Review how supporting assets shape the Blueprint | Reviewing the result helps the Solution Designer determine whether the relevant business information is reflected appropriately and what requires further refinement. | How is the relevant business information reflected in the Blueprint, and what should we examine further? |
Once the relevant evidence has been selected and reconciled, the Solution Designer can use it to generate and purposefully shape the initial Blueprint.
Knowledge check
Check your knowledge with the following interaction.
This Topic is available in the following Module:
If you are having problems with your training, please review the Pega Academy Support FAQs.
Want to help us improve this content?