Solution Database / Management
Decision register service
Teams cannot locate the current decision or its rationale. Shows which decision is current and why earlier choices changed.
01The offer
For department heads handling frequent cross-team decisions, turn approved meeting notes and decision records into versioned decision register. Address the recurring problem: teams cannot locate the current decision or its rationale. The value hypothesis is a more complete, reviewable deliverable with less repeated preparation; the pilot must establish whether that benefit is real.
- For
- Department heads handling frequent cross-team decisions
- Takes in
- Approved meeting notes and decision records
- Delivers
- Versioned decision register
- Message
- Decision register service for department heads handling frequent cross-team decisions. Shows which decision is current and why earlier choices changed. Demonstrate the claim through a searchable department decision register.
- Lead magnet
- A searchable department decision register
02How it works
- Capture decisions
- Name owners
- Attach evidence
- Record alternatives
- Identify superseded decisions
- Schedule reviews
Workflow
Create a case from approved inputs, identify required actions, confirm owners and dates, request missing information, approve proposed communications or changes, track completion, and retain a handover record. Start with approved meeting notes and decision records and finish with versioned decision register.
AI and people
Extract candidate actions and relevant context, classify requests and draft communications. Use explicit rules for scheduling, state transitions and permissions. People confirm obligations and approve consequential actions before execution.
Screens
Key screens: Decision search, rationale card, review calendar. Use a queue or timeline as the opening view, with clear owners, dates and current states. Each case opens into its source context, proposed actions and discussion. Give external participants a limited form or status page. Make the next required action visible without opening every record. In this product, the first view is decision search, followed by rationale card and review calendar.
Admin
Role permissions, task ownership, deadlines, reminders, approval gates, exception handling, action history, duplicate prevention and reversible configuration.
03Market gap
Alternatives buyers use today
Shared inboxes, spreadsheets, task boards and existing workflow automation products. Differentiate on this specific proposed advantage: shows which decision is current and why earlier choices changed. Test it against the buyer's current method on the same task. Competitor coverage and uniqueness have not been established.
Where this wins
Customer-specific workflow rules, reliable handoffs, operational history and integrations that make the service part of daily work. For this solution, build around shows which decision is current and why earlier choices changed. This advantage requires execution and accumulated customer trust; the base model alone is not a defensible asset.
04Why now
Management teams are adopting AI for exactly this kind of repeatable work, and the cost of language and vision models has dropped far enough that a narrow, reviewed workflow pays back quickly. The buyer already feels the problem: teams cannot locate the current decision or its rationale.
05Proof & signals
Channels where buyers gather: Operations consultancy partners. Metrics that prove it works: Retrieval success, contradictory instructions.
Paid pilot
Run one recurring workflow with a small team. Track every handoff and exception, verify completed actions, and compare handling time and missed commitments with the prior process. For this solution, use approved meeting notes and decision records and evaluate versioned decision register. Agree success thresholds with the buyer before starting; collect a baseline for retrieval success, contradictory instructions. A positive signal is payment and repeat use with acceptable quality and delivery cost, not a favorable demo reaction alone.
06Execution plan
MVP
Begin with department heads handling frequent cross-team decisions and one recurring use case. Build the first two modules: capture decisions; name owners. Provide operator assistance for the third module: attach evidence. Deliver versioned decision register 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.
First 30 days
Week 1: interview five prospective buyers in this segment: department heads handling frequent cross-team decisions. Ask to see a recent example of the problem and their current process. Week 2: prepare this demonstration using authorized or synthetic material: a searchable department decision register. Week 3: present it through operations consultancy partners and seek one narrowly scoped paid pilot. Week 4: review retrieval success, contradictory instructions, total delivery effort and a concrete renewal decision before increasing scope.
After the pilot
After paid pilots establish value, automate the remaining modules: record alternatives; identify superseded decisions; schedule reviews. 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.
Retention
Report completed actions and recurring exceptions. Maintain the workflow as policies change, then add one adjacent handoff with clear ownership.
Integrations
Team updates, calendars, project records and agreed management routines. Calendars, email, task managers and relevant business records. Use draft actions and supervised handoffs first, then enable only specifically authorized writes. These are candidate integration categories, not verified supported connectors.
07Investment and running costs
| Phase | Scope | Time | Budget |
|---|---|---|---|
| MVP | One buyer segment, one recurring use case; first modules: capture decisions; name owners. Manual review in the loop. | 5 days | $9,500 |
| Paid pilot | Accounts, roles, review states, audit trail and the first integration, hardened for two to three paying pilot customers. | 6 days | $12,000 |
| Full product | Remaining modules: record alternatives; identify superseded decisions; schedule reviews. Self-serve onboarding, billing, monitoring and the wider integration set. | 2 weeks | $17,000 |
| Total | $38,500 | ||
| Running | Hosting | AI usage | Total a month |
|---|---|---|---|
| MVP and paid pilot (about 3 customers) | $30–$60 | $40–$90 | $70–$150 |
| Full product (about 50 customers) | $110–$210 | $280–$560 | $390–$770 |
Revenue model to test
Test USD 750-2,500 setup plus USD 200-800 monthly for one bounded workflow and team. Cap case volume and implementation scope. Larger operational integrations need separate quotes. Prices are hypotheses.
Cost drivers
Workflow configuration, integration maintenance, model calls, notification delivery, exception support and monitoring.
Safeguards
Confirm owners, decisions and commitments. Keep employee discussion notes access-controlled and avoid covert individual performance inference. Validate source access and reviewer availability during the pilot. Maintain customer-level access, data deletion controls and a record of final approvals.
Take it further
Concept proposal expanded from the 315-solution conversation. Demand, pricing, differentiation, build scope and integration feasibility are hypotheses, not verified market findings. Category link is inspiration rather than evidence of business viability.