Decision-rights conflict resolver

An MVP, or minimum viable product, is the smallest version that your users can actually work with. It is not a cheap version of the full solution. It is a test, built to answer the questions that decide whether the rest is worth building.

1. Pick the riskiest assumption. Here: will department heads sharing cross-functional work use it to solve "teams escalate work because decision authority is unclear"?
2. Build only what tests it. One team, one use case, a few core modules. People do the rest by hand for now.
3. Run a paid pilot. Agree the acceptance criteria, input limits and reviewer responsibilities before starting.
4. Measure, then decide. Track unowned decisions and escalation cycles. Then expand, change course or stop, with evidence instead of opinions.

MVP scope for this solution. Costed pilot: Role design; no individual performance ratings. Start with one buyer organization and a bounded set of representative inputs. Implement the first two modules: extract decision roles; flag overlapping authority. Support the third task through an assisted review queue: identify missing owners. Handle the remaining required functions manually until validated. Include input upload, source references, user correction, a reviewer approval step and export of approved decision-rights map. Authentication, account isolation, deletion controls and basic operational logging are included. Specialized production certification, live write integrations and broader rollout are not included unless explicitly stated.

After the MVP. After paying customers repeatedly accept approved decision-rights map, automate draft escalation paths; capture leader agreement; export responsibility guide. Add one tested read integration, reusable customer configuration and scheduled repeat delivery. Increase supported formats or teams only when evaluation cases and reviewer capacity cover the new scope. Role design; no individual performance ratings.

What the build depends on. A defensible calculation model, explicit units, constraint validation and representative boundary tests. Advanced forecasting or optimization needs adequate historical data. Obtain representative authorized inputs, an agreed review rubric and a buyer-side owner. Specific scope: Role design; no individual performance ratings.

Pricing to test

Test USD 750-3,000 for a scoped planning setup and review, then USD 200-900 monthly for refreshes within agreed complexity. Data integration and optimization are separately scoped. All ranges are hypotheses. For this buyer, package the first sale around map ten contested decisions and the defined approved decision-rights map. Record actual review effort before offering a recurring allowance. The commercial pilot fee is distinct from the platform development budget.

Message to test

Resolve authority conflicts using concrete recurring decisions. Demonstrate the result with map ten contested decisions for department heads sharing cross-functional work. Use a concrete before-and-after example without promising unmeasured savings.

Where to find buyers

Management consultants and operations leaders

Lead magnet

Map ten contested decisions

The first 30 days

1. Week 1: interview five prospective buyers from department heads sharing cross-functional work and inspect how they handle teams escalate work because decision authority is unclear.
2. Week 2: prepare map ten contested decisions using authorized or synthetic material.
3. Week 3: share the demonstration through management consultants and operations leaders and seek one bounded paid pilot.
4. Week 4: measure unowned decisions and escalation cycles, review delivery effort and ask for a repeat purchase. This is a validation schedule, not a promise that the full product can be built in thirty days.

Paid pilot

Agree the acceptance criteria, input limits and reviewer responsibilities before starting. Run map ten contested decisions and deliver approved decision-rights map. Compare unowned decisions and escalation cycles with the buyer's current process on comparable cases; include corrections, missed issues and reviewer time. Seek payment and repeat use. Stop or revise the scope if data access, accuracy or unit economics fail.

Success metrics

Unowned decisions and escalation cycles

Retention and expansion

Build repeat use around approved decision-rights map. Save approved configurations and review decisions with permission, revisit unresolved exceptions and show progress on unowned decisions and escalation cycles. Offer a recurring volume allowance after repeat demand; expand to adjacent tasks only when the buyer asks and delivery quality remains acceptable.

Why clients would pick it

A validated domain model, customer-approved constraints and forecast or decision history that improves practical planning. For this concept, accumulate permissioned examples and reviewer corrections around resolve authority conflicts using concrete recurring decisions. The durable asset is reliable task-specific execution and trusted customer configuration, not access to a general-purpose AI model.

Alternatives and positioning

Spreadsheets, planners, specialist forecasting tools and existing scheduling or configuration software. Position this concept around resolve authority conflicts using concrete recurring decisions. Compare it against the customer's current process on the same representative task. This is proposed differentiation; no exhaustive competitor study or uniqueness claim has been established.

Main delivery costs

Data preparation, domain modeling, validation, scenario computation, reviewer support and ongoing assumption maintenance. Initial validation additionally budgets for facilitated leadership workshop. Track model usage, storage, reviewer minutes, exception handling and customer support per accepted deliverable.