Case 1 — Invest & Deliver | Digital Polygraph

1. Problem

A tram operator needs a passenger access control system: validators on trams, driver information devices, and a central database server connected via a heterogeneous message exchange network. Requirements are defined. No technical unknowns.

The investor sets a hard condition: Production Release within 12 months — otherwise a competitor closes the window. The team wants to start. The question is not whether to build — but how to configure the team to meet the deadline.

2. Choice

TA → PP → TP → WP → IM Full cycle — Choice #1

The full lifecycle is chosen deliberately. It preserves all intermediate artifacts: Prototype (PP), MVP (TP), Release Candidate (WP) — each is a control point where the investor can verify progress based on a real deliverable, not a promise.

3. Target Stage

Production Release Horizon H4

4. Mapping Note

For this project, 5 functions were selected via the Function Mapping Procedure (FMP). Full function composition is available inside the calculator.

Technical Complexity Hard Real-Time Constraints

Hardware Adaptation Proprietary Hardware Adaptation

Architectural Complexity Real-Time Interactive Experience

Innovation Evolutionary Innovation

Standard Software Reuse 20–40% — New module on existing platform

5. Report View

Team configuration: TA=2, PP=2, TP=2, WP=10, IM=5 | Fund: 235 days/year per FTE

Horizon	Stage	Product Stage	Labor (pd)	Team (FTE)	Time from Start
H0	TA — Technical Assignment	Requirements Baseline	363	2	0.77 yrs
H1	PP — Preliminary Project	Prototype	282	2	1.37 yrs
H2	TP — Technical Project	MVP	282	2	1.97 yrs
H3	WP — Working Project	Release Candidate	1 968	10	2.81 yrs
H4	IM — Implementation	Production Release	645	5	3.36 yrs
Total			3 541 pd	—	3.36 years

Key observation: With 1 developer per stage — 15.07 years. With the right team configuration — 3.36 years. A 4.5× difference achieved not by magic, but by concentrating 10 developers on WP (Release Candidate), where 55% of total labor is concentrated (1 968 pd out of 3 541 pd).

6. Decision

The project is feasible within 3.36 years with the team configuration TA=2, PP=2, TP=2, WP=10, IM=5. The key decision is not whether to fund — but to fund the right team size. Reducing the WP team to save costs adds 4+ months and turns an Open Path into a deadline miss.

The full cycle (Choice #1) is selected to preserve all four control horizons. Each horizon delivers a real artifact — Prototype, MVP, Release Candidate, Production Release — that the investor can evaluate independently.

7. VC Interpretation

Open Path

The project passes the market window at the correct team configuration. The key investment decision here is not "to fund or not" — but "to fund the necessary team size."

Saving on one developer at WP adds 4 months and converts an Open Path into a deadline miss. The calculator makes this cost visible before the contract is signed.

Financing can be structured by horizons: H1 (Prototype) as the first checkpoint, H2 (MVP) as the technical validation gate, H3 (Release Candidate) before the final tranche. Each horizon delivers a verifiable artifact — not a report.

Delivery model: Full Turnkey | Patent Pending — Ukraine