
Product migration friction experiment lab
Reduce avoidable customer disruption during approved transitions.
- For
- Software vendors replacing older products
- Solves
- Migration plans underestimate users' task and learning burden.
- Delivers
- Researcher-reviewed migration improvement plan
- Built in
- about 4 weeks of creation time, MVP in 4 days
- Investment
- $16,500 for the MVP, $50,000 for the full product
- Run it
- Inside your business, or as part of your offer to clients
What it does
Reduce avoidable customer disruption during approved transitions.
- Map disrupted tasks.
- Prototype transition aids.
- Test completion on representative cases.
- Compare the reviewed result with the recorded baseline and value assumptions.
- Capture corrections and named-owner approval before consequential use.
- Export a versioned researcher-reviewed migration improvement plan with source references and unresolved questions.
What goes in, what comes out
- Consented workflow studies
- Approved migration options
AI drafts, people review. Research evidence workspace with reviewed deliverables.
- Researcher-reviewed migration improvement plan
How it works
The workflow
- InStart with
Consented workflow studies and approved migration options
- 1
Confirm the buyer's problem and scope
- 2
Collect consented workflow studies and approved migration options
- 3
Then follow this sequence: 1
- OutFinish with
Researcher-reviewed migration improvement plan
AI does the heavy lifting, people stay in charge
Use AI to interpret permitted inputs, suggest structured mappings and generate candidate outputs for the three stated task modules. Use deterministic code for arithmetic, schema validation, hard constraints and reproducible tests. Review source-linked explanations and uncertainty before accepting results. No automatic migration or deletion; users approve changes. A model suggestion is never a verified fact, professional decision or authorization to act.
What your team sees
Primary screens: Research question and consent, Evidence comparison, Reviewed findings and experiment. Organize work by research question. Show a source library, an evidence matrix and a draft findings panel with linked quotations. Keep contradictory findings and unanswered questions visible. Allow reviewers to inspect the original context before accepting an interpretation. Make the task-specific outcome researcher-reviewed migration improvement plan visible beside its evidence, review state and value baseline.
Accounts and administration
Source provenance, participant consent where applicable, research questions, coding definitions, reviewer disagreements, citations and versioned conclusions. Add organization access boundaries, named reviewers, usage caps, data retention controls, export logs and explicit approval for external actions.
Integrations and data access
Product feedback, authorized interviews, usage exports and requirement records. Permitted research libraries, interview recording imports, citation exports and document editors. Preserve original source metadata throughout the workflow. Start with authorized file exchange. Validate current provider access, usage rights and schema behavior before promising a connector.
How we build it
We build with our own AI software development factory, so most implementations take days to a few weeks of creation time, not months. You see working software at every step, and exact timing depends on availability.
- 1
Scoping call
Day 1Thirty minutes on your process, your data and how you want to run it: for your own team, or for your clients. You get a fixed scope and price for the MVP.
- 2
MVP
4 daysOne buyer segment, one recurring use case; first modules: map disrupted tasks; prototype transition aids. Manual review in the loop. Built by our AI software factory.
- 3
Paid pilot
5 daysAccounts, roles, review states, audit trail and the first integration, hardened for two to three paying pilot customers.
- 4
Full product
9 daysSelf-serve onboarding, billing, monitoring and the wider integration set.
- 5
Run and improve
MonthlyWe host, monitor and improve it for a fixed monthly fee, or hand it over to your team. How the retainer works.
Why we start with an MVP
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.
- Pick the riskiest assumption. Here: will software vendors replacing older products use it to solve "migration plans underestimate users' task and learning burden"?
- Build only what tests it. One team, one use case, a few core modules. People do the rest by hand for now.
- Run a paid pilot. Agree quality and outcome thresholds before the pilot using this measure: Successful migrated tasks and support cost change minus implementation cost.
- Measure, then decide. Track successful migrated tasks and support cost change minus implementation cost; accepted-output rate; material error rate; reviewer correction time; actual repeat purchase. Then expand, change course or stop, with evidence instead of opinions.
MVP scope for this solution. Pilot scope: No automatic migration or deletion; users approve changes. Implement one approved input format, a bounded representative case set and the first two task modules: map disrupted tasks; prototype transition aids. Support the third module with operator review: test completion on representative cases. Include source references, corrections, basic organization access, approval states, export and value measurement. Use managed operator assistance for unresolved exceptions. The cost estimate covers this narrow prototype, not unrestricted multi-tenant scale, complex production integrations, specialist certification or physical operations.
After the MVP. Once paid pilots prove usefulness, automate repeatable reviewed steps and add one verified source integration. Expand supported inputs and case volume only after new evaluation cases pass. Build reusable customer configurations and recurring value reports around researcher-reviewed migration improvement plan. Retain the explicit scope boundary: No automatic migration or deletion; users approve changes.
What the build depends on. A clear research protocol, source access, citation tracking and qualified interpretation. Interview work also needs relevant participants and consent management. Obtain representative authorized cases, baseline measurements, qualified reviewers and a buyer-side decision owner. Specific limitation: No automatic migration or deletion; users approve changes.
Investment
A planning range to start the conversation, not a quote. You pay per phase, so you can stop after the MVP.
- Phase 1
MVP
One buyer segment, one recurring use case; first modules: map disrupted tasks; prototype transition aids. Manual review in the loop.
- Phase 2
Paid pilot
Accounts, roles, review states, audit trail and the first integration, hardened for two to three paying pilot customers.
- Phase 3
Full product
Self-serve onboarding, billing, monitoring and the wider integration set.
Indicative total, MVP to full product$50,000about 4 weeks of creation time · start with the MVP from $16,500
Running costs per month
A rough indication of monthly hosting and AI model costs once it is live, not tested. Real costs depend on usage, file sizes and the models chosen.
| Stage | Hosting and infrastructure | AI usage | Total per month |
|---|---|---|---|
| MVP and paid pilotabout 3 customers | $30–$60 | $80–$160 | $110–$220 |
| Full productabout 50 customers | $110–$210 | $880–$1,750 | $990–$1,960 |
Run it or resell it
For your own team
Software vendors replacing older products run it inside the business: consented workflow studies and approved migration options in, researcher-reviewed migration improvement plan out, reviewed by your people.
As part of your offer
Agencies, consultancies and software companies can offer it to their own clients under their brand. We build and maintain it; you sell and deliver it.
Your brand, or this one
Run it under your own brand, or start from this concept style.
- primary
#8f2791 - accent
#58c954 - surface
#f1e4f1 - ink
#22201e
- Headings
- Fraunces
- Text
- Inter
- Voice
- Curious, rigorous, user-led
Selling it to your own clients: the go-to-market playbook
Pricing to test
Test USD 750-3,000 for one tightly bounded research question and evidence pack. Participant recruitment, specialist review and licensed data are separately scoped. Repeat tracking can become a retainer. Prices are hypotheses. Package the initial sale as one bounded researcher-reviewed migration improvement plan. Recurring fees must specify volume, review depth and integration support. For exchanges, test a disclosed coordination or successful-service fee rather than holding customer funds. Reprice only after measuring real delivery labor; platform-build cost is separate from a commercial pilot fee.
Message to test
Reduce avoidable customer disruption during approved transitions. Demonstrate a concrete researcher-reviewed migration improvement plan using the buyer's approved example and show the baseline, corrections and actual delivery effort.
Where to find buyers
Software vendors replacing older products professional communities; specialist consultants serving this buyer; permissioned partner introductions; practical demonstrations at relevant trade or practitioner events.
Lead magnet
A reviewed sample researcher-reviewed migration improvement plan from a small authorized input set, with a transparent calculation of successful migrated tasks and support cost change minus implementation cost and no promised savings.
The first 30 days
- Week 1: interview five software vendors replacing older products and inspect a recent example of migration plans underestimate users' task and learning burden.
- Week 2: prepare a consented or synthetic demonstration of the three task modules.
- Week 3: seek one bounded paid pilot with agreed baseline and acceptance criteria.
- Week 4: measure successful migrated tasks and support cost change minus implementation cost, reviewer effort and repeat-purchase interest. This is a demand-validation plan, not a thirty-day full-product delivery promise.
Paid pilot
Agree quality and outcome thresholds before the pilot using this measure: Successful migrated tasks and support cost change minus implementation cost. Continue only if the buyer accepts the actual output, the intended job outcome improves without unacceptable errors, and measured delivery cost fits willingness to pay. Revise or stop if access is unavailable, qualified review cannot be provided, or apparent savings disappear after corrections and support. Use held-out cases when comparing model quality; use a properly reviewed comparison design before making causal claims. Record missing cases and negative results alongside successful outputs.
Success metrics
Successful migrated tasks and support cost change minus implementation cost; accepted-output rate; material error rate; reviewer correction time; actual repeat purchase.
Retention and expansion
Repeat the workflow when the buyer again needs researcher-reviewed migration improvement plan. Retain permissioned settings and reviewed examples, report realized value honestly, and sell increased volume or adjacent approved workflows only after contribution margin and quality remain acceptable.
Why clients would pick it
Niche research protocols, credible researcher relationships and a rights-cleared evidence archive with consistent interpretation methods. Build a permissioned library of representative task cases, reviewer corrections and verified operating constraints for software vendors replacing older products. Repeatable delivery and useful integrations matter more than access to a base model.
Alternatives and positioning
Research consultants, internal analysts, literature databases and general search or summarization tools. Compare this product with the buyer's present method on successful migrated tasks and support cost change minus implementation cost. Offer a bounded paid workflow instead of claiming broad autonomous expertise. Market uniqueness and competitor coverage are not verified.
Main delivery costs
Researcher time, source access, participant recruitment, transcription, evidence coding, expert review and report revisions. Additional initial validation requires representative authorized sample preparation, buyer interviews, buyer-side evaluation and bounded validation of researcher-reviewed migration improvement plan. Track cost per accepted output, including correction work, unsuccessful cases and support.
Safeguards
Use consented research and preserve contradictory evidence. Separate observed user behavior, proposed explanations and untested product assumptions. No automatic migration or deletion; users approve changes. Keep all consequential actions under authorized human control and do not fabricate missing inputs, permissions, professional judgments or market evidence.