fpf.tools
Library / Strategy Principles Framework
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 65–86

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 11:52:20 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 11:53:41 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 12:10:10 UTC

STR-CARD-01 - Move from disrupted assumptions to a bounded commitment with invalidation signals

  • Situation: A changed premise makes a direction doubtful, while current obligations and several proposed initiatives compete for the same resources.
  • Question: What can be recommended or committed now, and what would require reconsideration?
  • First useful result or blocker: A recommendation or authorized commitment for a stated scope, with its supporting comparison and remaining conditions, or the missing result that prevents it.
  • Start with: STR.1 for an unsettled decision; STR.2 for a changed premise in a decision already formed.
  • Stop or return: Finish at the result the receiving decision needs. A frame or comparison can finish without a commitment; a missing permission blocks its dependent action.

In SensorCo’s application, falling generic-inspection prices challenge expansion but do not invalidate current service funded by existing contracts. STR.2 separates these uses of the old premise. It also leaves demand and cost for a proposed integrated service unresolved: the price fall does not establish either. STR.3 uses this distinction and the available uncertainty account to frame the twelve-month choice while preserving viable device-only continuation.

STR.4 compares futures that could change that choice. A full-horizon purchasing freeze would make a paid trial unable to inform it in time. Under the case’s initial conditions, two customers might instead discuss a trial, subject to agreement and permitted use. STR.5 distinguishes continuing devices, integrated service, licensing and exit. STR.6 explains whole ways of obtaining the service, including support and exceptions. Missing reuse rights exclude the dependent licensing option; an experiment cannot supply those rights.

STR.7 compares using existing records and complete travel-and-support costing with additional inquiry. If complete costing rules out every relevant service configuration at the customers’ acceptable price, the inquiry can finish with device-only continuation and no trial. Otherwise, four internal preparation days can improve the cost and trial-design answer, at the accepted sacrifice of a four-day device improvement. A later trial needs its own worthwhile question, participant conditions and authorization; local use by two customers would not establish general demand.

The proposed service also needs people, platform work and learning support. STR.8 identifies those contributions; STR.14 compares their shared demand with current service. The first-month proposal needs 52 service days + 8 reserve + 16 preparation/use + 8 platform + 6 learning/support = 90 engineer-days against 80 available. A narrower proposal totals 78: 52 + 8 + 8 preparation/use + 6 platform + 4 learning/support. Two of the six platform days preserve the device fallback, postponing a service-diagnostic enhancement. They are already included, not added from the two unallocated days. This arithmetic leaves skills, critical-day collisions and delivery conditions to be established; it does not demonstrate a feasible service.

STR.9 compares the options and the cost of preserving later choice; STR.10 carries the commitments, affected interests and displaced work into that comparison. STR.11 uses their result to bound the present decision. In the case, the team recommends and the Board separately authorizes four internal preparation days from the eight-day envelope. It does not authorize the whole eighteen-day development proposal, trial execution or the twelve-month service direction.

STR.12 connects later observations to the affected decision in time. An overload identified during preparation returns an infeasible allocation; there is no trial yet to suspend. After a trial is separately authorized, an applicable suspension rule can support stopping it within that authority. Sufficient adverse costing can end the inquiry; a missing cost component leaves the comparison unresolved. Independent device commitments continue where their basis remains adequate.

Different purposes change the comparison. In the personal-practice case, six study hours plus six client-development hours exceed the person’s eight available hours. A smaller exploration, substitution or deferral must be compared under that person’s livelihood and other purposes. In the public-service case, a protected access condition excludes an otherwise attractive pilot. Among two eligible options, minimizing worst waiting time favours A while minimizing maximum regret favours B. STR.9 needs the responsible body’s criterion; more observations cannot choose that criterion or remove the protection.