Value-feasibility Matrix

Three conditions that prevent a useful comparison

First, pause if the candidates have different scopes. A removable-box pilot and a permanent paid service require different resources and permissions. Define the same test window and beneficiary before comparing them. A small estimate is meaningful only when it covers the work actually proposed.

Second, resolve hard limits before discussing attractive positions. A candidate that exceeds the agreed cash or staff-hour cap cannot be rescued by a strong value hypothesis. Keep an explicit exclusion or condition rather than averaging the problem away. Unknown implementation conditions should remain unknown, not become a low numerical score.

Third, stop if an axis is ambiguous. In this guide value increases upward and feasibility increases rightward. That is different from a chart where greater effort or cost increases rightward. Define high and low in words, retain the evidence and disagreement, and avoid a total score or implied success probability.

Choose the comparison that the evidence can support

This matrix is useful when concepts are concrete enough to discuss both a beneficiary’s task and implementation conditions. It is not a game-theory payoff table. Use other methods if the team still needs concepts, a traceable operating sequence, or a more explicit tradeoff among several feasible options.

Compare four Starbridge concepts within one pilot boundary

The complete fictional C4 comparison is a one-off pilot with cash no more than CNY1000 and effort no more than eight staff-hours. A provides information only: CNY80, one hour, with noticeboard permission. B uses a removable box: CNY800, six hours, with permission for one controlled pilot only. C uses a locker: CNY4000, twenty hours, exceeding both limits. D uses a partner counter, but quote, staffing, and agreement are unknown. All estimates and permission records are synthetic; no pilot has run.

High value means an expected after-hours return with a traceable reference; low value means information only. Both are untested judgments against this stated task, not a statement that information is worthless. High feasibility requires fitting both caps and the relevant pilot permission. B’s venue permission does not authorize a permanent or paid service and does not replace a separate execution decision.

A is low-value/high-feasibility; B high/high. C is described as high-value/low-feasibility but explicitly excluded from this pilot. D remains unplaced. The proposed next step is preparation for a possible B test, subject to safety, capacity, collection duties, and the lead’s decision. A high/high label does not supply those missing checks.

Turn a position into a conditional test request

Before requesting execution, describe what B would do, where it would operate, the allowed scope, who would collect returns, and how the trial could stop. Reconcile the complete proposed work against both caps. CNY800 leaves CNY200 within the cash cap, and six hours leaves two staff-hours, but neither remainder proves contingency is sufficient.

Check that the proposed communication distinguishes a numbered reference, deposit, and confirmed inventory receipt. Define what readers should understand and what staff would record. Agree the safety and capacity conditions with the appropriate authority. The fictional venue permission is evidence for its stated scope, not proof that every operating condition is satisfied.

If the lead authorizes a test, preserve the actual decision and any conditions before starting. During a later review, separate estimated from actual cash and effort, participation from demonstrated understanding, and completion from benefit. Include exceptions and unresolved cases rather than reporting only successful returns. No outcome figures are supplied here.

Revisit the placement when scope, estimates, permission, or the beneficiary’s task changes. D may become assessable when evidence arrives; C needs a separately agreed scope or changed limits before reconsideration. The matrix supports a transparent discussion, while stopping, continuing, or expanding the service remains a distinct decision.