Scope
1 area implies 2 topics across 3 modules
You did not pick these
Security & Identity, Human Capital Management, Financial Accounting
Your streams cross into these modules, so the work happens there too. That is the part most scoping exercises miss.
The end-to-end
Identity-to-Access
Security & Identity → Human Capital Management
Control-to-Evidence
Security & Identity → Financial Accounting
Integration points
Every module boundary a stream crosses is an interface. The ones marked straddle your scope — you are changing one side and not the other, which is the interface most often missed at scoping and found during testing.
Security & Identity→Human Capital Management
Identity-to-Access
Security & Identity→Financial Accounting
Control-to-Evidence
The order to do it in
Access & SoD
Nothing in scope blocks these — they can start together.
Sequence is a delivery judgement rather than a fact about the taxonomy. These are proposals from common tier-1 ordering — argue with them.
Assumed already in place
This scope depends on Core HR without including it. Fine if it is already standing and staying as it is — a gap in the plan otherwise.
Concerns raised
Australian obligations in scope
Nothing AU-specific in this scope.
Everything in scope — 2 topics
The ones you chose, and the ones they brought with them. An implied topic cannot be dropped on its own — it is here because of a pick, and the pick is named.
You picked these — 1
Came with them — 1 you did not pick
Next
This is a diagnosis, not a plan
Build takes the same scope and turns it into the documents somebody has to write — the investment brief, the business case, the plans — starting with what each one needs as an input before its headings can be answered honestly.
Build it →Share this scope
The scope is in the address bar. Send the link and the other person sees the same picture.