Contract Change Management Prototype

For a facilities/services leader managing site-specific contract scope changes: today, requests typically move through emails, spreadsheets, change forms, and signature routing. That works at low volume, but repeated scope changes multiply inconsistent intake, weak margin visibility, approval ambiguity, and missing audit history. The prototype reframes the work around a single Contract Change Request object that can support site, region, finance, legal/commercial, and client approval paths.

Smartsheet-first workflow architecture with a standardized change-request object, contract/site master model, approval matrix, document/signature status path, finance-system handoff fields, and dashboard-ready rollups. The clickable Next.js prototype visualizes the workflow, while the Phase 0 SOW keeps production build, API work, active system integrations, and e-signature integration out of scope until the tenant and process gates are validated.

• Single structured Contract Change Request (CCR) object capturing identity, scope, operational impact, financial impact (proposed price + modeled margin), approval/signature path, and finance handoff/history.
• Approval matrix with threshold bands, triggers, delegation, and escalation rules (validation-dependent placeholders to be confirmed in Phase 0).
• Status tracking for documents and e-signature path (signing itself remains on the existing manual path outside any prototype).
• Finance-system handoff readiness checks with field-level exceptions and package export surface (readiness states illustrative only).
• Portfolio and regional rollups, status views, service-line exposure, recurring vs. one-time impact — all with explicit "modeled / illustrative" markers.

Mapped the client brief into a requirements-traceability matrix: 21 confirmed requirements, 8 inferred requirements, and 2 meeting-promoted requirements, each tied to a Phase 0 deliverable, Phase 1 solution element, dependency, alternate-platform path, and decision owner. The core correction was product judgment, not UI polish: the attached AI design had no explicit proposed-price input, which would break margin and routing for several change types.

• 31 total requirements traced with clear Phase 0 validation targets.
• 9 decision forks defined across intake, routing, approval, and handoff.
• 8 Phase 0 deliverables scoped (tenant, access, workflow, pricing, documents, handoff, etc.).
• 16 validation gates surfaced (0 validated in the prototype; all marked for Phase 0 confirmation).

This is a conceptual prototype and diagnostic package, not a production Smartsheet build. No real client data is used in the public portfolio sample. Client identity is anonymized. The work avoids claims of completed finance-system integration, e-signature integration, legal-compliance coverage, or AI workflow automation. Phase 0 is framed as the next validation step that closes tenant, routing, document, and integration gates before Phase 1 is priced.

• Unpaid initial-review package: Not paid, paid-adjacent, sold, closed, or contracted as of verified date 2026-05-28.
• Phase 0 not started:All gates shown as open / "to validate in Phase 0." Thresholds, rate cards, burden models, and access rules are placeholders.
• No production claims: No live Smartsheet instance, no API integrations executed, no e-signature automation, no real approvals or notifications.
• Illustrative only: Every price, margin delta, count, and status in the prototype carries explicit markers. Submitting, approving, or exporting performs no backend action.

• 11-screen clickable Next.js prototype (hash-routed, shared mock data source for internal consistency across all views).
• Requirements-traceability matrix: 31 total (21 confirmed + 8 inferred + 2 meeting-promoted), mapped to 8 Phase 0 deliverables and 9 decision forks.
• 16 validation gates defined (Platform & Tenant, Access & Sharing, Workflow & Approvals, Finance & Pricing, Documents & Handoff); zero validated in prototype.
• 6 core CCR sections modeled: identity/scope, operational impact, financial impact, approval/signature, finance handoff/history, risk/dependencies.
• Approval matrix, threshold triggers, delegation/escalation, document version history, and handoff readiness surfaces demonstrated visually.