Open Delivery Path
Surface Electric Transport Access Control System
1. Problem
A municipal operator needs a unified passenger access control system for the surface electric transport network of a large city: trams and trolleybuses. The system includes validators installed across different generations of rolling stock, driver information devices, and a central database server operating within an existing heterogeneous message-exchange environment. Requirements are defined. No technical unknowns.
The project sponsor wants to understand whether the full delivery cycle can fit within a municipal planning cycle of roughly 3–4 years and become a manageable engineering route rather than an uncontrolled multi-year effort. The team is ready to start. The question is not whether to build the system, but how to configure the team across stages in order to reduce calendar duration to an acceptable planning horizon without losing the control artifacts: Prototype, MVP, Release Candidate, and Production Release.
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 project sponsor can verify progress based on a real deliverable, not a promise.
3. Target Stage
4. Mapping Note
For this project, 5 functions were selected via the Function Mapping Procedure (FMP). Full function composition is available inside the calculator.
5. Report View
Engineering resource allocation: TA=2, PP=2, TP=2, WP=10, IM=5 | Annual working time: 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 | ||
6. Engineering Conclusion
The calculated Production Release duration is 3.36 years, which fits within the municipal 3–4-year planning cycle under the required engineering resource allocation per stage: TA=2, PP=2, TP=2, WP=10, IM=5. The key engineering planning question is not whether a path exists, but whether the required stage-level resource allocation is acceptable to achieve a manageable planning horizon.
The concentration of engineering capacity on WP is the main schedule-control lever. Reducing the WP allocation increases total duration and reduces the schedule margin relative to the upper boundary of the planning cycle, so any alternative resource configuration should be recalculated before commitment.
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 project sponsor can evaluate independently.
7. Engineering Feasibility Analysis
The delivery path is open at the required engineering resource allocation per stage. The key engineering planning conclusion here is not "to proceed or not" — but "to allocate the necessary engineering capacity."
Reducing the WP team increases total duration and reduces the schedule margin relative to the upper boundary of the planning cycle. The calculator makes this engineering impact visible before commitment, instead of leaving it as an assumption.
Delivery can be structured by engineering horizons: H1 (Prototype) as the first checkpoint, H2 (MVP) as the technical validation gate, H3 (Release Candidate) before the final delivery phase. Each horizon delivers a verifiable artifact — not a report.
Delivery model: Full Turnkey