Strategy Matrix
Funicular Access Control System
1. Problem
A city authority needs a passenger access control system for a funicular — a compact system with a single route, limited number of stations, and specialized equipment. Requirements are well-defined. No technical unknowns. The system fits a standard engineering profile.
The customer faces a choice between four implementation strategies — and is not sure which one is optimal for their context. Some scenarios require full regulatory documentation. Others prioritize speed. One asks whether the prototype stage adds value here at all.
The question: how do the four available lifecycle configurations compare — in labor, duration, documentation completeness, and control horizons?
2. Choice
All four available configurations are calculated with the same team and the same project parameters.
TA→PP→TP→WP→IMTA→TP→WP→IMTA→PP→TWP→IMTA→TWP→IM3. Target Stage
4. Mapping Note
For this project, 4 functions were selected via the Function Mapping Procedure (FMP). Full function composition is available inside the calculator.
5. Report View — Strategy Matrix
Uniform team configuration across all choices: TA=2, PP=2, TP=2, WP/TWP=6, IM=2 | Fund: 235 days/year per FTE | Delivery model: Full Turnkey
| Choice #1 TA→PP→TP→WP→IM |
Choice #2 TA→TP→WP→IM |
Choice #3 TA→PP→TWP→IM |
Choice #4 TA→TWP→IM |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Labor | 3 160 pd | 3 160 pd | 3 122 pd | 3 084 pd |
| Total Duration | 4.23 yrs | 4.23 yrs | 3.85 yrs | 3.46 yrs |
| Saving vs C1 | — | 0 pd / 0 yrs | −38 pd / −0.38 yrs | −76 pd / −0.77 yrs |
| Horizons available | H0 H1 H2 H3 H4 | H0 H2 H3 H4 | H0 H1 H3 H4 | H0 H3 H4 |
| Documentation | Full | No PP | No TP/WP separately | Minimal |
| Risk level | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium-High |
Horizon detail by choice
| Horizon | Product Stage | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | Time (C1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H0 | Requirements Baseline | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 0.69 yrs |
| H1 | Prototype | ✓ | — | ✓ | — | 1.23 yrs |
| H2 | MVP | ✓ | ✓ | — | — | 1.76 yrs |
| H3 | Release Candidate | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 3.01 yrs |
| H4 | Production Release | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 4.23 yrs |
6. Decision
| Context | Recommended Choice | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Full documentation required (regulator, state contract) | Choice #1 | All artifacts, all horizons, lowest risk |
| PP not required, otherwise same as #1 | Choice #2 | Same cost as #1, no Prototype artifact |
| Speed priority, experienced team, RC target | Choice #3 | Best balance of speed and scope |
| Maximum speed, minimal artifacts acceptable | Choice #4 | Fastest path, fewest control horizons |
The difference between the most complete (Choice #1) and the fastest (Choice #4) route is 76 pd and 0.77 years. This is the measurable cost of full documentation. The investor decides whether that cost is justified by the regulatory context — not by intuition, but by comparing calculated numbers.
7. VC Interpretation
This case demonstrates the sixth and most important capability of Digital Polygraph: the calculator does not prescribe a single path — it compares all available paths and makes the cost of each visible.
The strategic choice — full documentation vs. speed, PP vs. no PP, TWP vs. separate TP+WP — is no longer a matter of judgment or negotiation. Each option has a number: labor, duration, horizons, artifacts.
For the investor, the matrix answers the question that usually stays implicit: "What exactly are we paying for when we choose the longer route?" The answer here is: 76 pd and 0.77 years. That is the price of full regulatory documentation for this project. The investor decides whether it is worth it.
This is what the transition from a labor calculator to a strategy selection instrument looks like in practice.
Delivery model: Full Turnkey | Patent Pending — Ukraine