Framing the Opportunity and Technology Bet

Review questions

Module 1 synthesis: Framing the Opportunity and Technology Bet

A portfolio begins with a service or work outcome, rather than a tool name. The problem card identifies the beneficiary, unit of analysis, period, baseline, current alternative and a harm measure that prevents cosmetic improvement. In the maintenance case, 54 of 120 critical requests were resolved within four hours: a 45% baseline conditional on how a request and resolution are defined. That number does not show that automated routing will cure delay. Decomposing elapsed time exposes parts, assignment and approval waits. A changed mix of districts can raise the overall rate without improvement inside either district.

The module distinguishes a proposed idea from an innovation made available to users or brought into use, within the Oslo Manual's scope. Record what changed, for whom, where and when use began; keep that status separate from an impact yet to be measured. Map the value system across user, payer, operator, data owner and supplier. Technical transfer of information differs from permission to use it and from the recipient acting on it. Compare build, buy, partner and improvement of the existing arrangement against hard conditions before considering cosmetic scores or price. A lower cost does not cure the absence of a required data export.

Finish with an initial investment case: comparable options, explicit assumptions, a stoppable learning tranche, a decision threshold and a benefits owner. Expected time saved is not realized cash until the time is measured and the use of released capacity is known. A sound first commitment purchases information that could change an option's rank or eligibility, while keeping revision and stop rights visible.

Review questions

Test your understanding with these questions. Marking and saved results are available with a free account.

Question 1What evidence is needed before claiming service value? Restoration time under a stable definition Technician dashboard opens The app vendor opinion The app feature count
Question 2What innovation state does this evidence support? Implemented product innovation Proven service impact A development-stage candidate A process used in all branches
Question 3What has been established about physician use? Better clinical decisions Limited technical transfer success Permission for every later use Complete physician adoption
Question 4What is its status before weighted scoring? Eligible because price is lower Eligible if design weight rises Held pending proof of export, or excluded Selected on a vendor roadmap promise
Question 5How many proposed hours, and what is their limit? 250 potential hours, not verified cash saving 15,000 hours of realized cash One thousand hours because there are one thousand approvals Zero hours because no trial has run
Question 6Which decisive hypothesis remains open? Acceptance of interface color Valid data arriving before scheduling Measure planners' acceptance of the alert in the demo Measure only how quickly the prototype displays an alert
Question 7What is the difference between changes? 23 points 15 points Seven percentage points Eight percent relative gain
Question 8What is the observed difference? Twelve points because the threshold is twelve Eight percentage points Eight percent of cases Zero because the gate was not met
Question 9What has been demonstrated? Performance on the well-lit sample only Complete operating readiness Ninety-eight percent on every shift Proven cash benefit
Question 10How long is this path? Four weeks Five weeks Seven weeks Nine weeks
Question 11How should the register treat this entry? Verified benefit because the figure is precise Unknown pending assumptions, source and verification owner Always zero A full strategy score
Question 12What is its status? Automatic winner because it scores highest Eligible if benefit weight rises Held at eligibility until the right is established Sent to operations for learning
Question 13What is the set's status even if cash is sufficient? Feasible because the gap is only five Feasible if its score rises Infeasible under current capacity Guaranteed to benefit
Question 14How should their risk be recorded? Fully independent because names differ Shared exposure that may affect both Diversified because budgets are separate Automatically ready to scale
Question 15What is the central gap? Name a broad progress goal without decision-changing evidence Estimate tranche cost without a falsifiable learning question Set a results presentation date without a decision gate A learning question, evidence output and continue/stop condition
Question 16What decision-right correction is needed? Treat the sponsor's assertion as sufficient Remove the harm measure A distinct governance review of guardrail evidence before release Fund fully to shorten the meeting
Question 17What is the appropriate first phase? Transfer records, then negotiate Use synthetic data and define elements, purpose and parties before live data Publish the supplier interface publicly Treat the partner promise as permission
Question 18What is most needed? Add a numeric likelihood without evidence or response Delegate the risk to the vendor without an internal owner A fixed score without a date Cause, signal, threshold, owner and response
Question 19What is the scaling status? Ready because the demo worked Held until service and rollback conditions are tested Permanently canceled Acceptable after renaming the prototype
Question 20How should the decision treat sunk spending? Fund expansion to recover it Conceal the failure to protect the team Compare future commitments with benefits and current evidence Change the prior success threshold
Question 21What has been established about the service benefit? An output delivered, not a proven benefit Realized cash saving Certain user satisfaction Lower service risk
Question 22What is the initial incremental benefit for comparison? 130 because all benefit belongs to the option 100 because it is baseline benefit 230 by adding alternatives 30 before option cost and evidence checks
Question 23What correction is needed? Treat green as benefit proof Remove the outcome field Show activity completion and outcome evidence gap separately Give the whole portfolio one color
Question 24What is the first action? Continue because the plan was once approved Recheck feasible sets, commitments and dependencies Hide shortage until year end Cancel all initiatives equally
Question 25What is missing? A counterfactual test and monitoring gate Add baseline detail without a reversal condition Add one benefit forecast without a sensitivity range Set a review date without naming a reversal event