CUST.Reference:5 - Connected Worked Applications

These examples are constructed to show operations and consequential choices. Their numerical assumptions and outcomes are not observations of business performance.

CUST.Reference:5.1 - A monthly analytical service with a private deployment

A provider offers a hosted monthly eligibility report. A new customer needs private hosting, enterprise sign-on, a different meaning of “active,” a local report layout and urgent support. Treating this as one customization price would conceal several different problems.

CUST.1 first places the existing provision beside the customer’s required result. CUST.2 separates the linked deltas. Enterprise sign-on may fit a supported adapter. Private hosting changes preparation and support. The meaning of “active” requires an explained correspondence or a distinct profile. The report layout may remain a local service. Urgent support changes capacity even if no code changes.

CUST.3 constructs a candidate family: a common monthly reporting purpose, qualified input meanings, an ordinary hosted member and a private member with stated access and preparation conditions. A disconnected immediate-response service is excluded because its operation and support do not fit the common basis. This exclusion makes the family usable; it does not deny the other customer’s need.

CUST.4 helps the customer choose between the hosted and private members and makes the necessary customer work visible. CUST.5 investigates the unsettled access condition through a permitted bounded attempt. The field result supports local use with assistance, but reveals manual input correction that was absent from the shared-delivery claim.

CUST.6 reconstructs that correction, makes input interpretation and exception handling explicit, and supplies preparation and scheduled help. Another prepared performer then performs the work. If extra author assistance remains necessary, the provider can retain it as explicit assisted provision, improve the method or narrow the supported class. Declaring the archive of scripts complete cannot decide among those options.

CUST.7 compares the full work at the intended volume. Under illustrative assumptions, six bespoke cases at six hours each require 36 hours; twelve hours of common preparation plus six deliveries at three hours each require 30. At two cases the shared arrangement requires 18 hours against 12. A ten-hour transition obligation makes the six-case shared arrangement require 40. These comparisons support only the stated work boundary; they still need timing, capability, funding and service conditions.

CUST.8 then asks what a changed “active” rule does to existing reports. Technical interface compatibility does not preserve an old report’s meaning. The provider constructs a supported old profile, an agreed transition or another feasible continuation before changing that customer’s provision.

Change one premise: the customer’s data and worked examples may be used locally but not for a later customer or partner. Local success can remain valid. The common package needs a permitted alternative basis and requalification of any affected property. Its additional work belongs in CUST.7; technical portability supplies no permission.

CUST.Reference:5.2 - Repeatable public learning provision

A public library offers digital-skills sessions. Another branch asks for translated materials, evening access, device help and a different route for residents who cannot attend in person. There is no requirement that every participant generate revenue.

The useful result is participation in a specified learning activity with the needed help, not merely distribution of a translated deck. CUST.2 distinguishes language, access, device preparation and facilitator capability. CUST.3 constructs a family around the common learning activity and its acceptance basis, with supported language and delivery variations. A need for continuing individual device repair falls outside the session offering and receives a separate service decision.

CUST.4 compares an assisted group session, a supported remote session and a local individualized arrangement. The choice includes the resident’s actual preparation and access. CUST.5 uses permitted participation to learn whether the obstacle is the language, the device or missing help; it does not infer a general causal effect from one session.

CUST.6 prepares another facilitator through examples and practice, supplies device support and lets the receiving branch perform the session under the promised conditions. If one central expert is still needed for every difficult device, the method may be repeatable with that help, but expanding branches has not removed the central constraint.

CUST.7 compares the common preparation, facilitation, equipment, travel, coordination and continuing help against the programme’s resource basis and public purpose. Donated time and residents’ effort remain real contributions. A positive financial margin per participant is not an acceptance condition.

If a new remote platform replaces the old access route, CUST.8 constructs an attainable transition for current participants or preserves a bounded alternative. A more efficient provider workflow cannot by itself justify making the promised activity inaccessible to them.