Start with the failure, not the feature list
Write down the last few times the process went wrong. Perhaps two people contacted the same enquiry, a job reached the field without its photos, or a quote sat unanswered because everybody assumed somebody else owned it. Record what happened, where the relevant information lived, and who needed to make the next decision. This gives you a concrete problem to solve. A request for a dashboard is less useful until you know which decisions it must support.
Keep the spreadsheet when it still fits
A spreadsheet can be a good tool when a small group understands it, the structure changes often, and mistakes are easy to spot and reverse. Try consistent fields, protected formulas, a clear owner and a simple status convention before commissioning software. If those changes solve the problem, keep them. The purpose of the review is better work, not a predetermined technology purchase.
Look for the handoffs a spreadsheet cannot manage well
Consider a different system when several people change the same records, access needs to differ by role, attachments lose their context, or work depends on reminders nobody trusts. Follow one request from arrival to completion. For each stage, note the input, the owner, the decision and the output. Include exceptions: a cancelled visit, incomplete information, a duplicate customer or a failed message. Those exceptions often reveal more about the required system than the successful path.
Compare configuring, connecting and building
Test an existing product against the real workflow before rejecting it. Configuration is attractive when the product already handles your main process and permissions. An integration may be enough when the tools work individually but information is copied between them. Custom software becomes more useful when the workflow is important, sufficiently stable, and repeatedly constrained by available products. Compare the ongoing work as well as the build: subscriptions, vendor access, support, upgrades, exports and the person responsible for maintaining the system.
Define one useful first version
Choose one starting point, one finishing point and the roles between them. For example: an enquiry arrives, the office assigns it, the responsible person follows up, and the outcome becomes visible. Agree what the first version will deliberately leave manual. Define how a user corrects a mistake and how the team notices a failed integration. Review a working version with the people who handle the process every day before expanding into unrelated functions.
Treat migration as its own piece of work
List which records are still needed and which system owns each field. Inspect a representative sample for duplicate contacts, inconsistent dates, missing identifiers and attachments. Agree an import preview, a correction process and a way to reconcile totals. Keep the original source recoverable during the agreed transition. A new interface does not fix unclear data ownership; that decision needs to happen before the migration.
Measure whether the change helped
Record a small baseline before the new workflow starts. Useful measures include the time between arrival and assignment, the number of items without an owner, repeated data entry and corrections required to finish a job. After adoption, compare the same measures over a comparable period and ask staff where they still work around the system. Separate improved workflow visibility from claims about revenue: sales outcomes can change for many reasons outside the software.