Skip to content

Use cases

Search the history behind the business.

Seven situations where the right answer already exists somewhere in the company: in a quotation, a steering minute, a support ticket or an email from three years ago. For each one, the problem, the questions people actually ask, and what Paměť answers from the demo workspace.

Book a demoExplore Paměť

How each use case is laid out

7 situations
  1. 01

    The problem

    Where the time goes today, and why the answer is hard to assemble.

  2. 02

    Example questions

    Asked the way a colleague would ask them, not the way a database would.

  3. 03

    Example answer

    What Paměť returns from the demo workspace, with the records it drew on.

  4. 04

    Business value

    What changes for the company once the answer takes a minute, not an afternoon.

  5. 05

    Relevant sources

    The kinds of system the answer typically comes from.

01 · Sales

Every deal has a history. Most of it never reaches the CRM.

Preparation for the next conversation, drawn from every previous one.

Who asks

  • Sales Director
  • Account managers
  • Bid and proposal teams

The problem

Before the second meeting, a salesperson needs three things: the last quotation, the objections it met and the reason the deal stalled. The quotation is in SharePoint, the objection is in an email thread and the loss reason is a two-word CRM note. Assembling them takes an afternoon, and only if the person who sent the quotation still works here.

Business value

  • The quotation, the objections and the loss reason arrive together, before the meeting.
  • Objections are answered before they are raised again.
  • Lost deals become a plan to reopen, not a closed record.

Relevant sources

  • Email
  • CRM
  • SharePoint
  • Teams

Example questions

  • What did we quote this customer last year?
  • Which objections came up?
  • Why did the deal fail?

Example answer

AnswerGrounded

Illustrative — demo workspace

The last quotation to Novatek was Q-2025-0914, sent on 14 September 2025 for the Warehouse Automation project: WMS implementation, ERP integration and a 24-month support package. It did not close because of the timeline: Novatek's board wanted the new line live within eight weeks, against the twelve proposed, and price was not the deciding factor. The CRM opportunity was marked lost on 3 October 2025 with the note “revisit Q1 — client open to phased delivery next year”.

Sources

3 records · Sep–Oct 2025

  1. Q-2025-0914Commercial quotation — Warehouse AutomationQuotation · SharePoint · 14 Sep 2025
  2. Novatek / Warehouse Automation — timelineEmail · Outlook · 22 Sep 2025
  3. CRM opportunity — Novatek WMSCRM record · CRM · 3 Oct 2025

02 · Onboarding

A new colleague should inherit the context, not just the login.

The projects, people and precedents a new hire would otherwise take months to find.

Who asks

  • New hires
  • Team leads
  • HR and people teams

The problem

A new colleague spends the first months rebuilding context the company already has: which projects the team delivered, who the client trusts, how a similar situation was handled last time. That context lives with the busiest people in the building. So the questions are asked late, answered from memory, or not asked at all.

Business value

  • New colleagues are useful in weeks rather than quarters.
  • Senior people are interrupted less, and only for the questions that need them.
  • Team knowledge survives the reorganisation, the parental leave and the resignation.

Relevant sources

  • Email
  • SharePoint
  • Teams
  • Helpdesk
  • Shared drive

Example questions

  • What projects has this team worked on?
  • Who knows this customer best?
  • How have we handled similar situations?

Example answer

AnswerGrounded

Illustrative — demo workspace

Three people have substantial history with Argo Systems. Anna Nováková has led the account since 2022 and negotiated the ERP Migration contract; Petr Dvořák managed the delivery in 2025; Martin Král designed the integrations and remains the escalation contact for support. The most recent interaction is support ticket #4821 from August 2026, handled by Martin Král.

Sources

3 records · 2022 – Aug 2026

  1. Steering committee minutes — ERP Migration, 11 Mar 2025Meeting notes · SharePoint · 11 Mar 2025
  2. #argo-erp — cutover weekendChat · Teams · 17 May 2025
  3. #4821Support ticket — reporting performanceSupport ticket · Helpdesk · 12 Aug 2026

Try it

The Monday-morning question, answered before Monday.

Pick a question. Paměť answers from the demo workspace and shows where each part of the answer came from. Switch the interface language in the navigation to see the same answer in Czech or Slovak.

Octopus MemoryPaměťDemo workspace
EN

Ask your company: What should I know about the Prague Logistics Hub project before Monday's meeting?

AnswerGrounded in your company's records
Confidence: High3 sourcesTime span: Jan–Aug 2026

Prague Logistics Hub is a K2 Engineering project that started in January 2026. Phase 1 (site systems and inbound automation) was handed over in June 2026; phase 2 (outbound and reporting) is in progress.

Open items from the handover note: the reporting layer is waiting on K2's data warehouse access, and change request CR-03 for a second loading-dock scanner is still unsigned.

Petr Dvořák is the project manager and Martin Král owns the integration design. The last client steering meeting was on 20 August 2026.

Sources

People

Projects

03 · Projects

Before you solve it again, check whether you already have.

Decisions, rationale and mitigations from the last project, available on the next.

Who asks

  • Project managers
  • Delivery leads
  • PMO

The problem

Project teams meet the same problems in a different order: a slipped cutover, a scope change after sign-off, a supplier that cannot deliver. Someone in the company has already solved each of them. The decision and its reasoning are in steering minutes, a risk register and a chat thread that nobody will reopen.

Business value

  • Decisions are reused with their reasoning, not reinvented.
  • Risk registers and lessons learned are actually read.
  • Fewer surprises on the project that resembles the last one.

Relevant sources

  • SharePoint
  • Spreadsheets
  • Teams
  • Shared drive
  • Project management

Example questions

  • Have we solved something like this before?
  • What decisions were made on the previous project?

Example answer

AnswerGrounded

Illustrative — demo workspace

Yes. The Argo Systems ERP Migration slipped its cutover by three weeks in 2025 when master-data cleansing ran behind plan, and the steering committee of 11 March 2025 moved to a phased cutover: finance first, then logistics. The risk register (v3) records the mitigation steps, and a shorter version of the same approach was reused on the Prague Logistics Hub in early 2026.

Sources

3 records · Feb 2025 – Jan 2026

  1. Steering committee minutes — ERP Migration, 11 Mar 2025Meeting notes · SharePoint · 11 Mar 2025
  2. v3Risk register — ERP Migration (v3)Spreadsheet · Excel · 27 Feb 2025
  3. Project brief — Prague Logistics HubDocument · Shared drive · 9 Jan 2026

04 · Customer relationships

The client remembers what was promised. So should the company.

One account history, however many people have owned it.

Who asks

  • Account owners
  • Customer success
  • Service desk

The problem

Clients remember what they were promised, especially once the person who promised it has moved on. Commitments are made in emails, on calls, in meeting notes and in contract addenda, and they rarely end up in one place. When an account changes hands, the new owner inherits a folder and a phone number, not the relationship.

Business value

  • The relationship survives a change of account owner.
  • Promises are kept because they can be found.
  • Renewal conversations start from the record, not from recollection.

Relevant sources

  • Email
  • CRM
  • SharePoint
  • Helpdesk

Example question

  • What commitments have we previously made to this client?

Example answer

AnswerGrounded

Illustrative — demo workspace

Two commitments to Argo Systems are on record. On 13 March 2025 Anna Nováková confirmed by email that the ERP Migration would proceed as a two-phase cutover and that a contract addendum would follow. Since go-live, Martin Král has remained the escalation contact for support, most recently on ticket #4821 in August 2026, where the reporting slowdown was resolved and confirmed by the client.

Sources

3 records · Mar 2025 – Aug 2026

  1. Argo Systems — confirmation of phased approachEmail · Outlook · 13 Mar 2025
  2. Steering committee minutes — ERP Migration, 11 Mar 2025Meeting notes · SharePoint · 11 Mar 2025
  3. #4821Support ticket — reporting performanceSupport ticket · Helpdesk · 12 Aug 2026

05 · Operations

The process is documented. The exceptions are not.

How the exception was actually handled, not how the handbook says it should be.

Who asks

  • COO
  • Operations managers
  • Finance and back office

The problem

Processes are documented in the handbook and carried out in the exceptions. The month-end run that needed a manual fix, the supplier onboarding that needed one more approval, the report that slowed after an update: how each was actually handled lives in a ticket, a chat and the memory of whoever was on duty.

Business value

  • The answer no longer depends on who happens to be on duty.
  • Repeat incidents start from the previous fix, not from a blank ticket.
  • Handbooks stay short because the exceptions are searchable.

Relevant sources

  • Helpdesk
  • Teams
  • Spreadsheets
  • Email
  • Shared drive

Example question

  • How did we handle this process last time?

Example answer

AnswerGrounded

Illustrative — demo workspace

The last time month-end reporting slowed for Argo Systems was after the July 2026 update. Ticket #4821 of 12 August 2026 records the root cause in the logistics view; Martin Král added an index and the client confirmed the resolution. The module itself went live in the second cutover window of the ERP Migration: its interface tests are noted in the #argo-erp channel and its rollback plan in the risk register (v3).

Sources

3 records · May 2025 – Aug 2026

  1. #4821Support ticket — reporting performanceSupport ticket · Helpdesk · 12 Aug 2026
  2. #argo-erp — cutover weekendChat · Teams · 17 May 2025
  3. v3Risk register — ERP Migration (v3)Spreadsheet · Excel · 27 Feb 2025

06 · Leadership

Patterns are only visible to someone who can see the whole record.

What recurs across accounts and projects, not only what was reported this quarter.

Who asks

  • CEO
  • Board and management team
  • Heads of department

The problem

Leaders see the company through summaries: pipeline reviews, status decks, quarterly numbers. The reasons sit in the correspondence beneath them: why deals stall, which risks recur, what an account really thinks of you. Getting to that detail means asking people who are already stretched.

Business value

  • Decisions rest on the record, not on the most confident voice in the room.
  • Recurring risks are visible across projects, not only within them.
  • An account review takes minutes to prepare and covers the whole history.

Relevant sources

  • CRM
  • Email
  • Shared drive
  • SharePoint
  • Teams

Example questions

  • What do we know about this account?
  • What patterns are appearing across projects?

Example answer

AnswerGrounded

Illustrative — demo workspace

Across the automation opportunities lost since 2024, the correspondence shows one recurring pattern: the client's expected go-live date was shorter than the standard delivery plan, and it surfaced only after the commercial proposal. Novatek in 2025 is the clearest case. The lessons-learned document from November 2025 recommends asking for the target go-live date in the first discovery call and offering a phased scope where the timeline is tight.

Sources

3 records · 2024 – Dec 2025

  1. CRM report — lost opportunities 2024–2025CRM record · CRM · 1 Dec 2025
  2. Lessons learned — automation opportunities 2024–2025Document · Shared drive · 20 Nov 2025
  3. Novatek / Warehouse Automation — timelineEmail · Outlook · 22 Sep 2025

07 · Knowledge retention

Knowledge shouldn’t leave when people do.

What an individual holds, made visible before the handover and searchable after it.

Who asks

  • HR
  • Line managers
  • Knowledge managers

The problem

When an experienced colleague resigns, the company has a few weeks to capture what they know. Handover documents record the tasks. They rarely record the relationships, the reasons and the exceptions, so the rest leaves with the person and is missed only when someone needs it.

Business value

  • Handovers start from a map of what the person actually holds.
  • Expertise stays searchable after the leaving date.
  • Key-person risk is visible before it becomes a crisis.

Relevant sources

  • Email
  • Teams
  • SharePoint
  • Helpdesk
  • CRM

Example question

  • What knowledge would disappear if this employee left tomorrow?

Example answer

AnswerGrounded

Illustrative — demo workspace

Martin Král is the only person active on all three client accounts. He designed the integrations for the Argo Systems ERP Migration, owns the integration design for the Prague Logistics Hub and checked the phased-scope option for Novatek in September 2025. He is also the escalation contact for Argo support, most recently on ticket #4821, so a handover should start with those four threads.

Sources

3 records · Sep 2025 – Aug 2026

  1. #4821Support ticket — reporting performanceSupport ticket · Helpdesk · 12 Aug 2026
  2. Handover note — Phase 1Document · SharePoint · 26 Jun 2026
  3. Project meeting notes — 18 Sep 2025Meeting notes · Teams · 18 Sep 2025

The common thread

Seven different questions. The same shape of answer.

Every example on this page needed more than one system, more than one date and more than one person to answer. That is the shape of most useful questions inside a company, and the reason ordinary search has not solved them.

The business caseHow Paměť works

  • The answer crosses systems

    A quotation in SharePoint, an objection in an inbox, a loss reason in the CRM. No single search box sees all three, so the person asking becomes the integration.

  • The answer has a date

    What was promised in March outranks what was promised in 2022. Paměť keeps the record in order, so the answer says what came first and what changed.

  • The answer can be checked

    Every answer cites the record it came from, so you can open the original before you act on it. When the company has no record, Paměť says so.

The systems named on this page are example source categories. Which connectors are available depends on your deployment. See the integration overview or talk to us about your systems.

Bring us the question your team asks every week.

We'll show you how Paměť would answer it from records like yours, and where each part of the answer would come from.

Book a demoSee how Paměť works
  • EU data storage
  • GDPR-conscious
  • Access-controlled
  • Enterprise-ready