← viggomeesters.nl
Born from Real Work
- Distilled from an SAP data migration gap analysis for Universiteit Utrecht
- 329 migration objects compared against 112 client scope items — reduced to ~25 actionable gaps
- The analysis document became the methodology: what worked was turned into a repeatable pattern
1. Question
→
2. Sources
→
3. Compare
→
4. Funnel
→
5. Confirm
→
6. Findings
→
7. Action
Overview
1
The Question
"What do we want to know?"
2
The Sources
"What are we comparing?"
3
The Comparison
"How do we match them?"
4
The Funnel
"How much drops off at each step?"
5
The Confirmation
"What's already covered?"
6
The Findings
"What's missing and why does it matter?"
7
The Action
"What needs to happen now?"
The Funnel in Action
Example: SAP Migration Objects
↓ remove already covered (−31)
↓ remove wrong system (−12)
↓ remove irrelevant sectors (−261)
~25
Relevant gaps to review
The 7 Steps
What do we actually want to know?
Audience: everyone
| Section | Content |
|---|
| The question | One sentence, plain language, no jargon |
| Why it matters | What happens if we don't answer this? |
| For whom | Who will act on the answer? |
Rules of Thumb
- One question, one sentence — if you need a comma, it's too complex
- Write it as if asking a colleague in the hallway
- No abbreviations, no system jargon
What are we comparing?
Audience: everyone
| Section | Content |
|---|
| Dataset A | Name, origin, size, who created it |
| Dataset B | Name, origin, size, who created it |
| What's in them | Columns/fields per dataset, with an example row |
| The join field | Which field connects the two datasets? |
Rules of Thumb
- Always show an example — a concrete row from each dataset
- Mention the version and date — datasets change
- Name the owner — who assembled this?
How do we lay them side by side?
Audience: analysts
| Section | Content |
|---|
| The method | Which comparison do we perform? |
| The raw numbers | How many matches, how many gaps? |
| What the numbers mean | Translation to plain language |
Rules of Thumb
- Describe the comparison as a recipe — step 1, step 2, step 3
- Numbers must add up — the reader should be able to verify
- Always give numbers context — "298 of 329 (90%)"
- No judgement yet — that comes in the funnel
How many of those gaps are actually relevant?
Audience: decision makers
The funnel is the heart of the analysis. It transforms an overwhelming number into a manageable shortlist through progressive filtering.
| Section | Content |
|---|
| The funnel | Visual diagram: each filter level with count |
| Per filter | Why this filter? Which items drop off? |
| The final number | What remains after all filters? |
Rules of Thumb
- Each filter must explain why items drop off, not just how many
- Numbers must be traceable — top to bottom should add up
- Use concrete category names ("41 EHS objects") not just abstract counts
- The funnel tells the story: from overwhelming (329!) to manageable (~25)
What's going well? What don't we need to do?
Audience: stakeholders
| Section | Content |
|---|
| Covered items | What's already matched, by category |
| What we skip | Irrelevant categories with brief explanation |
| Percentage covered | How much of the relevant work is done? |
Rules of Thumb
- This step is psychological: show it's not as bad as it looks
- Name specifically what's covered — not "many objects" but actual names
- After this step the reader should think: "OK, most of it is handled"
What exactly is missing, and why is it relevant for us?
Audience: functional team
| Section | Content |
|---|
| High priority | Items almost certainly needed, with explanation |
| To discuss | Items that may be relevant, depending on usage |
| Per finding | (1) What is it? (2) Why relevant for you? |
Rules of Thumb
- Two sentences per finding: sentence 1 = what it is, sentence 2 = why it matters to you
- Group by urgency, not by technical category
- Mark the biggest gap explicitly
- "To discuss" items always have an if-then: "if you do X, then this is relevant"
What needs to happen now?
Audience: project lead
| Section | Content |
|---|
| Direct actions | What can be picked up now (numbered) |
| Discussion points | What needs to be discussed, with whom |
| What we skip | Explicit confirmation of what does NOT need action |
Rules of Thumb
- Actions are numbered and start with a verb
- Every action has an owner
- "Skip" is also an action — state it explicitly
- Close with the next meeting: who discusses this with whom?
Why This Order Works
The 7 steps follow a deliberate psychological arc:
| Phase | Steps | Effect on reader |
|---|
| Orient | 1–3 | "I understand what we're looking at" |
| Reassure | 4–5 | "It's not as bad as 298 gaps sounds" |
| Focus | 6 | "These specific items need attention" |
| Activate | 7 | "I know exactly what to do next" |
The Key Insight
- Present findings after building trust, never before
- The funnel reduces anxiety: 329 → ~25 is a relief, not a threat
- By step 6, the reader is ready to hear about gaps — they already know most is covered
When to Use Which Method
| Situation |
Method |
| Building something (software, process) |
Helicopter to Detail |
| Researching a topic (product, decision) |
Knowledge Pyramid |
| Comparing two datasets for gaps |
Funnel Analysis |
| Convincing a non-expert with data |
Funnel Analysis |
Depth Variations
| Goal | Steps |
|---|
| Quick check (chat message) | 1 + 3 + 4 (question, comparison, funnel) |
| Management summary | 1 + 4 + 7 (question, funnel, action) |
| Team working document | All 7 steps |
| Interactive HTML document | All 7 steps with visual funnel |
Core principle: The reader should never have to think.
Every step explains itself completely — no prior knowledge required.