MKT.2:4 - Solution

MKT.2:4.1 - Establish the receiving result and what could contribute

Recover the customer’s activity, important difficulty, existing alternative and the roles that can change the proposal. Ask what useful difference is sought, who receives it and how it could be recognised. If the purchaser wants a lower fee while users need less repeated work, retain both questions. Do not let one convenient indicator become the goal of every participant.

When the useful result is contested or not yet known, use DOCA.3 to separate the problem, proposed contribution and acceptance expectation. The people involved can then choose a shared limited result, retain distinct goals, or decline the wider proposal. A narrower agreed contribution may be possible without pretending that all goals coincide.

Connect a candidate capability to that result through a concrete use: who would use what, under which conditions, to change which part of the work? A new or changed product-service arrangement may need SYSE.2’s linked use and system concept, followed by the relevant engineering and supply work. Ask its owner for the needed result and constraint; do not replace a missing function with stronger promotional wording.

MKT.2:4.2 - Select a truthful context for comparison

Recover what the intended customer could actually do instead. Compare the contribution with those alternatives, identify the useful difference that its capabilities can support, and identify the circumstances in which that difference matters. Then choose a familiar description or category that helps the intended people interpret it without implying an unavailable result.

For example, “automated reporting platform” may invite an expectation of continuous integration and unattended reports. “Assisted file-mapping trial for periodic reports” gives a different context. Choose between them from the actual proposal and its receivers, not from which phrase sounds larger. A category can help recognition while a qualifier makes the material boundary clear.

If the customer already has an adequate alternative, determine whether the proposal offers a worthwhile difference in result, effort, access, risk or terms. It need not be unique in the world. If no worthwhile difference is supported for this situation, change the contribution, select a different appropriate situation or stop. Competitor claims and the provider’s own claims both need grounds where comparison relies on them.

Ask each relevant participant two questions: what supported difference favours this option among feasible alternatives, and what missing condition would exclude it? Use the first answer to explain preference and the second to retain the conditions for choice or supply. Classify the capability for this situation: dependable support can be a prerequisite in one acquisition and a reason to switch or renew in another.

Keep the comparison open when evidence changes. A new feasible alternative can defeat the proposed advantage without altering the product. A misunderstood category can require another explanation while the underlying contribution remains suitable.

MKT.2:4.3 - Construct the complete proposal

Make the customer able to recover the following content from the offer’s actual presentation:

Use the amount of detail the decision needs. An ordinary standard service may already carry this content in established terms. A new compound service may need explicit coordination among providers. The purpose is a recoverable proposal, not a mandatory form.

Distinguish the provider’s deliverable, the customer’s later result and the evidence for each. A prepared report is different from a timely management decision; a course place is different from an acquired ability. State the contribution and the conditions on which a further benefit depends. A guarantee is a specific stronger commitment whose means and terms require their own support.

Construct price and terms alongside the contribution. Identify the unit—such as a trial, period, case or available capacity—and the costs or obligations outside the headline figure. Use ECO.3 to compare the parties’ contributions and alternatives. Use ECO.5 when private information, later effort or risk makes a choice of terms consequential. Their economic construction does not establish a legal permission or enforceability claim.

MKT.2:4.4 - Obtain a supply answer before relying on the promise

Ask the responsible supplier for the result that can actually be provided under the named conditions: configuration, available capability, people, time, access, dependencies, support and unresolved constraints. Separate a planned improvement from an available contribution. Include preparation and continuing support when comparing feasible versions.

For each important promise, follow the required contribution to a responsible provider or to an explicit gap. Resolve incompatible timings, shared scarce resources and conflicting claims made to different roles. A technically possible service can still be unavailable in the proposed window. Return an unsupported part for engineering, operational or organisational work, or reduce the proposal to a supported part.

The supply answer constrains both the offer and its positioning. If only batch processing is supported, “continuous” must disappear from the current promise. If an operator must inspect every output, the offer must leave that work visible.

MKT.2:4.5 - Test the uncertain connection

Choose a test from the uncertainty that could change the proposal. For understanding, present the actual description to an appropriate person and ask what they expect to receive, what they must do, what it costs and where it would not fit. Let them explain before supplying the intended answer. Compare their account with the proposed content; a repeated sentence can reflect recall without usable understanding.

For usefulness, place the proposal beside the person’s actual alternative and ask them to work through a concrete situation. What would change? Which required contribution is missing? A suitable sample or limited trial can expose a mismatch that an opinion about attractiveness cannot. If willingness to acquire is the unresolved question, use an attainable next choice with honest terms through MKT.4. Do not report hypothetical enthusiasm as a completed purchase.

For supply, obtain the provider’s relevant demonstration, observation or qualified answer. Customer understanding cannot establish supplier capacity. For a claimed benefit caused by the intervention, use the distinct causal question and evidence design; a successful presentation is not that evidence.

After the test, identify the failed connection. Misunderstanding may change wording or context; an unwanted result may change the target or contribution; an unavailable prerequisite may change supply or scope. Return to MKT.12 only for a question whose answer is still needed. Keep adequate parts instead of repeating the whole inquiry.

MKT.2:4.6 - Use and revise one coherent offer

Return the proposal, grounds, test result and unresolved conditions at the strength supported. Keep its expressions consistent across a quotation, demonstration, acquisition interface and delivery instruction. Different roles can need different explanations, but they must not receive incompatible commitments.

Pass MKT.4 enough content to make the next choice feasible. Pass the delivery owner the result, scope and conditions actually agreed if an acquisition occurs. A material change in target, alternative, result, price, supplier capacity or conditions of data use reopens the dependent part. Editing the words without changing the affected operating arrangement leaves the inconsistency in place.