{"slug":"research-update-subscription","name":"Research update subscription","category":"Healthcare","customer":"Specialists monitoring one clinical research topic","problem":"Broad literature alerts create too much reading overhead.","value":"For specialists monitoring one clinical research topic, turn published papers and a clinician-defined research scope into source-linked specialty research briefing. Address the recurring problem: broad literature alerts create too much reading overhead. The value hypothesis is a more complete, reviewable deliverable with less repeated preparation; the pilot must establish whether that benefit is real.","format":"Research evidence workspace with reviewed deliverables","screens":"Key screens: Topic feed, study evidence, digest editor. Organize work by research question. Show a source library, an evidence matrix and a draft findings panel with linked quotations. Keep contradictory findings and unanswered questions visible. Allow reviewers to inspect the original context before accepting an interpretation. In this product, the first view is topic feed, followed by study evidence and digest editor.","functionality":"1. Screen relevance. 2. Extract study design. 3. Summarize results. 4. Show limitations. 5. Link original papers. 6. Obtain clinical editorial review.","workflow":"Agree the decision and research questions, define permitted sources or participants, collect evidence, code findings, compare supporting and contradictory material, review interpretations, and deliver a cited brief with next questions. Start with published papers and a clinician-defined research scope and finish with source-linked specialty research briefing.","ai":"Assist with retrieval, transcription, structured extraction and thematic synthesis. Preserve source passages and methodological context. Human researchers validate inclusion, quotations and conclusions. Use real participants when customer research is required.","inputs":"Published papers and a clinician-defined research scope","deliverables":"Source-linked specialty research briefing","admin":"Source provenance, participant consent where applicable, research questions, coding definitions, reviewer disagreements, citations and versioned conclusions.","mvp":"Begin with specialists monitoring one clinical research topic and one recurring use case. Build the first two modules: screen relevance; extract study design. Provide operator assistance for the third module: summarize results. Deliver source-linked specialty research briefing through a manual review queue. Perform other necessary full-scope functions manually during the pilot. Include all applicable access, accuracy and professional-review controls from the start.","expansion":"After paid pilots establish value, automate the remaining modules: show limitations; link original papers; obtain clinical editorial review. Add one validated source integration, reusable customer configuration and recurring delivery. Expand to additional teams, document formats or languages only after testing the new scope.","usp":"Narrow specialty coverage with study limitations visible beside findings.","defensibility":"Niche research protocols, credible researcher relationships and a rights-cleared evidence archive with consistent interpretation methods. For this solution, build around narrow specialty coverage with study limitations visible beside findings. This advantage requires execution and accumulated customer trust; the base model alone is not a defensible asset.","alternatives":"Research consultants, internal analysts, literature databases and general search or summarization tools. Differentiate on this specific proposed advantage: narrow specialty coverage with study limitations visible beside findings. Test it against the buyer's current method on the same task. Competitor coverage and uniqueness have not been established.","revenue":"Test USD 750-3,000 for one tightly bounded research question and evidence pack. Participant recruitment, specialist review and licensed data are separately scoped. Repeat tracking can become a retainer. Prices are hypotheses.","costs":"Researcher time, source access, participant recruitment, transcription, evidence coding, expert review and report revisions.","integrations":"Clinic-approved content and administrative exports. Clinical integrations require separate assessment. Permitted research libraries, interview recording imports, citation exports and document editors. Preserve original source metadata throughout the workflow. These are candidate integration categories, not verified supported connectors.","dependencies":"A clear research protocol, source access, citation tracking and qualified interpretation. Interview work also needs relevant participants and consent management.","pilot":"Answer one practical question using a bounded evidence set. Ask a domain expert to review citations and reasoning, identify contrary evidence and assess whether the deliverable supports the intended decision. For this solution, use published papers and a clinician-defined research scope and evaluate source-linked specialty research briefing. Agree success thresholds with the buyer before starting; collect a baseline for relevant inclusions, citation accuracy. A positive signal is payment and repeat use with acceptable quality and delivery cost, not a favorable demo reaction alone.","plan30":"Week 1: interview five prospective buyers in this segment: specialists monitoring one clinical research topic. Ask to see a recent example of the problem and their current process. Week 2: prepare this demonstration using authorized or synthetic material: a clinically reviewed literature digest. Week 3: present it through specialty professional communities and seek one narrowly scoped paid pilot. Week 4: review relevant inclusions, citation accuracy, total delivery effort and a concrete renewal decision before increasing scope.","metrics":"Relevant inclusions, citation accuracy","channels":"Specialty professional communities","leadMagnet":"A clinically reviewed literature digest","message":"Research update subscription for specialists monitoring one clinical research topic. Narrow specialty coverage with study limitations visible beside findings. Demonstrate the claim through a clinically reviewed literature digest.","retention":"Maintain the research question and evidence archive, offer follow-up studies and refresh important sources. Build repeat work around the buyer’s decision cycle.","controls":"Begin with administrative scope or clinician-reviewed material. Minimize sensitive patient data, restrict access and obtain required organizational review before connecting clinical systems. Validate source access and reviewer availability during the pilot. Maintain customer-level access, data deletion controls and a record of final approvals.","crossSector":"Education; Operations; Science and Research","fn":["Screen relevance","Extract study design","Summarize results","Show limitations","Link original papers","Obtain clinical editorial review"],"sc":{"opp":8,"pain":6,"feas":5,"now":8},"phases":[{"name":"MVP","scope":"One buyer segment, one recurring use case; first modules: screen relevance; extract study design. Manual review in the loop.","time":{"days":7,"label":"7 days"},"usd":11500},{"name":"Paid pilot","scope":"Accounts, roles, review states, audit trail and the first integration, hardened for two to three paying pilot customers.","time":{"days":8,"label":"8 days"},"usd":15500},{"name":"Full product","scope":"Remaining modules: show limitations; link original papers; obtain clinical editorial review. Self-serve onboarding, billing, monitoring and the wider integration set.","time":{"days":14,"label":"3 weeks"},"usd":21000}],"running":[{"stage":"MVP and paid pilot","note":"about 3 customers","hosting":[50,100],"ai":[80,160],"total":[130,260]},{"stage":"Full product","note":"about 50 customers","hosting":[190,380],"ai":[880,1750],"total":[1070,2130]}],"total":48000,"complexity":0.94,"days":29,"shot":true,"demo":true}