STR.11:5.1 - SensorCo selects four days, not a service business

In this constructed case, SensorCo’s device-only continuation can meet existing service obligations for twelve months. The StrategyTeam advises; the Board has the separately supplied authority to select direction and the bounded internal commitment.

The comparison retains devices, integrated service, licensing and segment exit as different strategic directions. Six interviewed customers expressed interest, but that supports only those responses. Two may discuss a bounded paid trial next quarter at a price ceiling, subject to agreement and permitted use. Full travel and incident-support costs are not yet known, and licensing lacks an established required reuse right.

The team’s recommendation is:

Use four funded internal days to complete service costing and specify the smallest worthwhile trial against the prospective customers’ terms. Postpone the four-day device-diagnostic improvement. Protect current service and reserve, retain viable device continuation and leave the twelve-month service direction open.

The stated reason is comparative: an attainable cost-and-trial answer can open or reject a relevant repeat paid contribution less exposed to generic price competition, at the sacrifice the Board is willing to make. Device continuation is a serious viable rival, not a straw alternative.

The Board then selects that preparation and authorizes those four days. This is a separate constructed decision, not an event inferred from the recommendation. No new purchase or new customer-data use is part of the preparation.

The team also has a possible first-month development configuration: 8 days for preparation and, only when permitted, initial trial use and interpretation; 6 for platform work; and 4 for learning/support. With 52 days of current service and an 8-day incident reserve, that is 78 of 80. The four authorized days lie inside the eight-day envelope. The remaining development work is not authorized by that arithmetic or by the preparation decision.

The three development contributions are candidates for joint use in that configuration, not three independently funded projects. Their supporting conditions and actual later inclusion must be decided at the relevant scope. The four strategic directions remain alternatives; retaining them does not schedule them together.

The reconsideration conditions also remain explicit. A sufficient complete-costing result that rules out every relevant permitted service configuration supports device continuation without a trial. A full-horizon purchasing freeze removes the preparation’s stated opportunity. A missing required right blocks its dependent use. For later permitted trial use, a shared-work forecast received before the next allocation and exceeding the 80-day ceiling while preserving reserve causes the service owner to suspend the dependent trial activity within its agreed authority; the Board reconsiders scope.