STR.14:4 - Solution
Recover the concrete conflict and the unlike structures that change its answer. Compare different configurations, including continuation or stopping, and preserve the actual authority and realization conditions of the selected response.
For example, the order required by a trial method must fit the proposed work schedule and the availability of capable participants, while current service continues. C.32.MWA helps build one coherent account from these different relations when no single account settles the conflict. Reuse an adequate synthesis when available; relate its answer to the strategic direction, horizon and commitments.
STR.14:4.1 - Anchor the conflict in actual or proposed work
Name the strategic subject, receiving decision, useful contribution, relevant horizon and specific interference. Distinguish an observed conflict in performed work from a prospective conflict in a plan or intended-use case.
For actual practice, recover the qualified occurrence and conditions that support the claim. For a possible arrangement, state the proposed configuration, its assumptions and what would realize and later test it. A plausible plan is not evidence of successful performance.
Recover the relations that can change the conflict’s answer. The following questions illustrate different relations to examine; use those relevant to the case.
| Question | Relation to recover |
|---|---|
| How is the required result obtained? | The parts of the way of working and any required order among its actions. |
| Which work interferes with other work? | Actual or planned work that overlaps, depends on another result or competes for the same person’s time or other means. |
| What is being changed? | The work’s relation to the product, organization, person or platform it changes. |
| What does the description represent? | The plan or model’s correspondence to the work or subject being described, including a material condition it omits. |
| What makes performance possible? | The participant’s needed capability and access, and the provider contribution on which the work depends. |
| Who can change the commitment? | Each decision holder’s authority over the scope, timing, resources or permitted use at issue. |
In SensorCo, the proposed trial needs preparation before customer use and interpretation, but current incident response must remain available during that work. The same engineers contribute to both. The trial’s order of actions and the staffing plan therefore answer different questions: what must precede customer use, and whether the required people can cover the overlapping demands. Compare them together.
Preserve these relations when comparing a narrower trial, changed timing or a qualified substitute. A sequence-only roadmap would hide the continuing incident demand, while a monthly total can hide the critical-day collision examined in section 5.1.
STR.14:4.2 - Trace the joint contribution and its binding conditions
For each material commitment, identify what it must obtain, when it is needed, who supplies it and which shared resources or permissions it uses. Include exception handling, support, recovery and closeout where the promised result depends on them.
Compare the same time window and units before adding quantities. A monthly person-day total can expose overload but conceal a critical-day collision, unavailable skill or forbidden use. Recover those conditions when they can change feasibility.
Distinguish authority over operating conditions, provision of means and capability gaps. The customer can control data access, the service owner can protect operating limits, the platform provider can supply a means, and a learner can need qualified capability. A strategy decision cannot replace their actual contributions.
Ask what a description leaves out. A roadmap may show milestones but omit overlapping support; an organization chart may show responsibility but not available performance. Add the missing relation to the decision account rather than treating the picture as the practice.
STR.14:4.3 - Construct and compare whole configurations
Consider alternatives that differ materially: narrow the promised result, shift timing, substitute a qualified provider, retain current service while deferring change, or stop a proposal that lacks a worthwhile feasible increment. Use internally sustained improvement when it can supply the missing contribution without a separate large transformation.
For each candidate compare the full finite change from the current arrangement: delivered and protected results, resources, timing, authority, uncertainty, displaced work, reversibility and affected interests. C.11.CRC supplies a missing configuration-relative comparison; reuse an adequate one.
Track moved burden. Reducing trial staff can increase provider support; moving training outside work hours can burden participants; delaying a platform feature can remove a fallback. Show the alternative work or contribution actually sacrificed.
Distinguish a feasible smaller whole from an unfinished fragment. A two-customer service promise still needs its permitted delivery and exception return. Do not call a demonstration successful delivery when the missing support is essential to the promise.
STR.14:4.4 - Reconcile the bounded commitments with their holders
Return the supported configuration and trade-off to the holders of the relevant decisions. They may alter scope, allocate work, change an authorized sequence, retain the current course or reject the proposal. State the actual decision separately from the recommendation and from conditions that remain pending.
A sum within capacity supports only that arithmetic result under its assumptions. It does not establish financing, participant agreement, capability, permission, value or safety. Obtain the missing professional result when the receiving choice depends on it, rather than requesting every neighbouring discipline by default.
Use OCE for a selected organization-capability change and OPS for actual service operation. Use the applicable human-capability and platform or systems-engineering contribution when those are the missing conditions. The practitioners responsible for those contributions retain their own work and authority.
If no feasible authorized configuration exists, name the conflict and its effect on the strategic choice. Deferral or a viable rival can be preferable to launching incomplete work.
STR.14:4.5 - Close the reconciliation and name its reconsideration condition
Return what can coexist, what changes, what is displaced, which limits remain and who holds any next required decision. Preserve enough of the comparison for participants to recognize the same configuration.
State the observation that would invalidate a material assumption and ensure it can arrive in time, using STR.12 where needed. Do not keep every independent commitment provisional because one branch awaits a contribution.
Close when the material conflict has a supported bounded resolution or an explicit external blocker. Reopen when timing, performance, capacity, provider conditions, authority or a newly exposed moved burden changes that resolution. The existence of several horizons alone does not require continual architecture work.