The hardest problem in a multi-role system is rarely the number of screens. It is defining who can do what to shared business data at each state.
Splitting a project into customer, employee, and admin screens too early often creates permission patches, conflicting states, and duplicate workflows. Start with roles, business objects, and state changes instead.
Separate role names from operating responsibility
User, employee, and administrator are identity labels, not sufficient requirements. Define which objects each role creates, views, reviews, confirms, or closes.
One person may hold several roles. Clarify switching, default entry points, and data scope instead of copying menus.
Build state machines around business objects
Orders, requests, candidates, courses, and service records need explicit states. Every transition needs an actor, precondition, outcome, and reversal rule.
Names must reflect real operations. Recommended is not selected, and interview pending is not awaiting placement. Merging these stages breaks notifications, reporting, and permissions.
Authorization includes navigation, actions, and data scope
Seeing a page does not grant every action, and editing one record does not imply access to another department or channel.
A durable model separates page entry, actions, and data scope, while preserving critical reviews and changes.
Complete one journey before adding more roles
The first release should take one valuable workflow from start to result. Add settlement, reviews, reporting, or more channels after it works.
This validates definitions earlier and prevents features from accumulating on unstable processes.
Questions for requirements review
- What is each role responsible for and unable to see
- What explicit states exist for each business object
- Who can trigger, reverse, or approve transitions
- How rejection, exceptions, and resubmission work
- Which first-stage journey must form a complete loop