OPS.17:4 - Solution

OPS.17:4.1 - Frame the choice in operating terms

Name the Work family, the result served, the receiving decision and its horizon. Describe the current method through a recent representative case: what triggered action, what inputs and resources were used, what people did, what result was accepted and where work or information waited. Use existing evidence first.

State the consequential discrepancy. “The board has twelve cards” is an observation. “Four ready packages cannot receive their required two-hour rig visits before Friday” names a service problem. If the mechanism is unresolved, state how that uncertainty affects the current choice. OPS.9 helps with a disputed constraint; OPS.15 helps when the existing account cannot make the distinction.

Keep current practice and the least costly adequate response in the comparison. A corrected readiness check may be enough when a wholesale planning change offers no further decision-relevant benefit.

OPS.17:4.2 - Recover candidate operations from their sources

Read each candidate at the level that could actually be reused. Recover its input, sequence or conditional rules, first useful result, required capability and support, evidence for the claimed effect, and conditions for stopping or changing its use. Retain the source and its relevant version or date when that changes the meaning.

For example, an explicit limit on started work requires a start/end definition and a policy for reaching the limit. A rule protecting a scarce resource requires evidence of the resource’s limiting role for the named demand and horizon. A case method requires conditions under which a practitioner may choose or change the next action. These are different claims even when one tool presents them together.

The following repertoire supplies starting comparisons. Select only the row needed by the operating question.

A source’s example is evidence for what it demonstrates. Treat a proposed combination as a candidate whose compatibility and fit still need examination. A tool’s changed version is a reason to inspect its effect on the method, rather than sufficient evidence of a new Method variant.

OPS.17:4.3 - Compare feasible ways of working

First exclude options that violate a supplied protection, authority limit or necessary operating condition. For the remaining options, compare the consequences that could change the decision: accepted service, resource demand, delay, quality, human burden, financial effect and the effort to introduce and sustain the method.

Use the same Work family, horizon and result definition for each option. Carry uncertainty as an interval, scenario or unresolved claim suitable for the use. Separate an observed result from a forecast or causal explanation. A method that worked in one team may still be a useful candidate elsewhere; the evidence for that receiving use must remain visible.

An option is dominated when another feasible option is at least as good on all consequential comparison characteristics and better on at least one, under the stated comparison. Keep non-dominated options when the preference remains unresolved. The authorized decision maker can choose among them by an explicit priority or justified trade-off. For example, earlier service may justify a higher payment; a weighted score cannot make a breached recovery condition acceptable.

Increase comparison effort only where it can change the choice. If every proposed option depends on the same unresolved mandatory staffing condition, obtain that missing result before refining their service scores.

OPS.17:4.4 - Compose compatible moves and state the usable result

Several moves can serve one operation. Readiness-based admission can coexist with case discretion and a reliability stop rule. Check the shared subject and the points at which one rule changes another rule’s permission, priority, resource use or stopping condition.

Resolve a consequential conflict before using the combination. An urgent incident may override a WIP policy under an existing service authority. The exception needs the displaced work, remaining protected conditions and recovery action to be clear. A general “urgent” label cannot supply those facts.

Return the selected use and the actual level of support: an applicable established method, a conditional alternative, a traceable candidate account with an unresolved operating claim, or an unsuitable use with its reason. On the available basis, the repertoire can retain current practice, keep or revise a candidate account, or reject a proposed use. Preserve the gap needed by a later stronger use in that same return. Keep any selected first action, its conditions and evidence limits, burden and reason to reopen close to the consequential choice. An existing operating note or method description can hold this result; maintaining a second catalogue adds value only if someone uses it to choose work.

OPS.17:4.5 - Refresh the affected method claim

Reconsider a method when a relied-on condition changes, its operating result deteriorates, or a credible alternative changes the comparison. Locate the failed claim before replacing the whole repertoire. A change in customer acceptance can affect a service forecast while leaving readiness checks useful.

Use ME.15 when the reusable semantics change: inputs, operations, applicability or result may define a Method variant. Keep changes to the description, supporting tool and one local departure distinguishable. Preserve evidence only for the claims and conditions it still supports. A combination of previously admitted methods needs its own evidence where their interaction changes the claimed result.

Use the available qualified evidence, estimates and judgement to complete the comparison needed by the decision maker, or to document the proposed method’s origins and unresolved claims. Retain the adequate incumbent or bounded candidate account with its actual gap when no further inquiry can make a worthwhile attainable contribution. Use ME.7 for the status of a proposed whole and ME.14 for its practical worth. Maintaining an account or choosing a repertoire supplies no additional Method admission, compatibility, empirical fit or transfer evidence, or permission for operating use.

When an unresolved operating effect could change the decision, compare the attainable contribution of a new trial question or evidence acquisition with its whole burden: design, performance, interpretation, delay and displaced operating Work. Select it only when that contribution is obtainable and worth the burden. For a selected trial, return the effect to observe, protected conditions, authority, stop and comparison basis. When the question concerns competing explanations, include the observation that could distinguish them. ME.11 can guide that trial. The repertoire choice itself establishes neither that the candidate was performed nor that it improved service.