Decision-rights conflict resolver

01The offer

For department heads sharing cross-functional work, turn approved responsibility charts and process examples into approved decision-rights map. Address this specific problem: teams escalate work because decision authority is unclear. The aim: resolve authority conflicts using concrete recurring decisions. The pilot tests whether that benefit holds up against reviewer effort and real operating costs.

For

Department heads sharing cross-functional work

Takes in

Approved responsibility charts and process examples

Delivers

Approved decision-rights map

Message

Resolve authority conflicts using concrete recurring decisions. Demonstrate the result with map ten contested decisions for department heads sharing cross-functional work. Use a concrete before-and-after example without promising unmeasured savings.

Lead magnet

Map ten contested decisions

02How it works

1. Extract decision roles
2. Flag overlapping authority
3. Identify missing owners
4. Draft escalation paths
5. Capture leader agreement
6. Export responsibility guide

Workflow

The buyer creates a project, supplies approved responsibility charts and process examples, and confirms scope and access. The working sequence is: 1. Extract decision roles. 2. Flag overlapping authority. 3. Identify missing owners. 4. Draft escalation paths. 5. Capture leader agreement. 6. Export responsibility guide. Users correct extracted facts, resolve flagged uncertainties and approve the final approved decision-rights map before use. Retain source links and a version history for the next cycle.

AI and people

Suggest ambiguity questions without assigning authority autonomously. Keep model suggestions separate from verified facts. Link factual outputs to authorized input evidence and show missing information explicitly. Use deterministic checks for counts, dates, identifiers and arithmetic where applicable. A designated reviewer validates consequential outputs and signs off the delivered result.

Screens

Key screens: Decision map, Conflict cases, Agreement record. Place editable drivers and constraints beside a clearly labeled scenario output. Include a baseline view, comparison chart or schedule, and an assumptions history. Let users trace a proposed quantity or date back to its inputs. Keep forecasts distinct from actual results. Open with decision map; move into conflict cases for the detailed task; finish in agreement record for review and handoff. Show the source record, uncertainty and approval status beside each proposed output.

Admin

Scenario versions, baseline reconciliation, constraint checks, assumption ownership, reviewer approvals, plan exports and actual-versus-plan tracking. Include organization-scoped access, named project owners, review queues, usage limits, export history and retention settings. Never reuse private customer material for other accounts without permission.

03Market gap

Alternatives buyers use today

Spreadsheets, planners, specialist forecasting tools and existing scheduling or configuration software. Position this concept around resolve authority conflicts using concrete recurring decisions. Compare it against the customer's current process on the same representative task. This is proposed differentiation; no exhaustive competitor study or uniqueness claim has been established.

Where this wins

A validated domain model, customer-approved constraints and forecast or decision history that improves practical planning. For this concept, accumulate permissioned examples and reviewer corrections around resolve authority conflicts using concrete recurring decisions. The durable asset is reliable task-specific execution and trusted customer configuration, not access to a general-purpose AI model.

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 escalate work because decision authority is unclear.

05Proof & signals

Channels where buyers gather: Management consultants and operations leaders. Metrics that prove it works: Unowned decisions and escalation cycles.

Paid pilot

Agree the acceptance criteria, input limits and reviewer responsibilities before starting. Run map ten contested decisions and deliver approved decision-rights map. Compare unowned decisions and escalation cycles with the buyer's current process on comparable cases; include corrections, missed issues and reviewer time. Seek payment and repeat use. Stop or revise the scope if data access, accuracy or unit economics fail.

06Execution plan

MVP

Costed pilot: Role design; no individual performance ratings. Start with one buyer organization and a bounded set of representative inputs. Implement the first two modules: extract decision roles; flag overlapping authority. Support the third task through an assisted review queue: identify missing owners. Handle the remaining required functions manually until validated. Include input upload, source references, user correction, a reviewer approval step and export of approved decision-rights map. Authentication, account isolation, deletion controls and basic operational logging are included. Specialized production certification, live write integrations and broader rollout are not included unless explicitly stated.

First 30 days

Week 1: interview five prospective buyers from department heads sharing cross-functional work and inspect how they handle teams escalate work because decision authority is unclear. Week 2: prepare map ten contested decisions using authorized or synthetic material. Week 3: share the demonstration through management consultants and operations leaders and seek one bounded paid pilot. Week 4: measure unowned decisions and escalation cycles, review delivery effort and ask for a repeat purchase. This is a validation schedule, not a promise that the full product can be built in thirty days.

After the pilot

After paying customers repeatedly accept approved decision-rights map, automate draft escalation paths; capture leader agreement; export responsibility guide. Add one tested read integration, reusable customer configuration and scheduled repeat delivery. Increase supported formats or teams only when evaluation cases and reviewer capacity cover the new scope. Role design; no individual performance ratings.

Retention

Build repeat use around approved decision-rights map. Save approved configurations and review decisions with permission, revisit unresolved exceptions and show progress on unowned decisions and escalation cycles. Offer a recurring volume allowance after repeat demand; expand to adjacent tasks only when the buyer asks and delivery quality remains acceptable.

Integrations

Team updates, calendars, project records and agreed management routines. Read-only operational exports, calendars and finance or inventory records as relevant. Start with plan exports and retain human approval for execution. Begin with uploads and exports of approved responsibility charts and process examples. Any named system or connector is a candidate requiring current access and compatibility checks; no live connection is included by default.

07Investment and running costs

Revenue model to test

Test USD 750-3,000 for a scoped planning setup and review, then USD 200-900 monthly for refreshes within agreed complexity. Data integration and optimization are separately scoped. All ranges are hypotheses. For this buyer, package the first sale around map ten contested decisions and the defined approved decision-rights map. Record actual review effort before offering a recurring allowance. The commercial pilot fee is distinct from the platform development budget.

Cost drivers

Data preparation, domain modeling, validation, scenario computation, reviewer support and ongoing assumption maintenance. Initial validation additionally budgets for facilitated leadership workshop. Track model usage, storage, reviewer minutes, exception handling and customer support per accepted deliverable.

Safeguards

Confirm owners, decisions and commitments. Keep employee discussion notes access-controlled and avoid covert individual performance inference. Role design; no individual performance ratings. Require appropriate access and publication approval. Preserve source material, label AI drafts and make corrections traceable. Measure false positives and missed cases alongside speed.