# Product strategy workshop review notes

These checks use fictional inputs, not market research. Read after drafting the workbook. There is no single required strategy.

## Arithmetic checks

| Calculation | Result |
| --- | --- |
| TAM, 11,000 × £1,400 | £15,400,000 per year |
| Target stores, 11,000 × 0.62 | 6,820 |
| Serviceable stores, 6,820 × 0.80 | 5,456 |
| SAM, 5,456 × £1,400 | £7,638,400 per year |
| Active stores at end of year three, 60 × 10 | 600 |
| Exit ARR, 600 × £1,400 | £840,000 |
| Annual chain revenue, 10 × £1,400 | £14,000 |
| Annual included chain serving costs, 10 × £350 | £3,500 |
| Annual chain contribution | £10,500 |
| Monthly contribution, £10,500 ÷ 12 | £875 |
| Acquisition recovery, £6,000 ÷ £875 | About 6.9 months |
| Acquisition and implementation recovery, £9,000 ÷ £875 | About 10.3 months |
| Annual chain contribution at £1,200 per store | £8,500 |
| Combined outlay recovery at lower price | About 12.7 months |
| Extra stores needed at lower price, £1,050 ÷ £850 minus one | About 23.5 per cent |

Exit ARR is a revenue rate at a point in time. Cumulative revenue requires the timing of subscriptions, churn, expansion and price changes. Contribution excludes acquisition, implementation, development and other overheads. Cash timing may differ from the steady monthly contribution assumption.

## A defensible strategy response

The records support investigating parts preparation, but missing parts explain only 18 of 40 repeat visits in a selected sample. Eliminating every observed parts related repeat visit would raise first visit fixes from 60 to at most 78 out of 100 in that same sample, assuming all other causes stay unchanged. This is an optimistic sample bound, not a forecast. Do not promise an 80 per cent fix rate on these observations alone.

A reasonable next commitment is a bounded pilot checking equipment identification, parts availability and preparation in a broader repair sample. Define eligible repairs and compare outcomes under conditions that help distinguish the workflow's effect from differences in job difficulty or engineer availability. Set the required sample and duration with the uncertainty and decision stakes in mind.

The scheduling request can be deferred while its commercial terms and evidence are investigated. State the capacity conflict and the evidence that would reopen the choice. Choosing scheduling instead can be defensible if the recommendation identifies the missing evidence and limits commitment until it is obtained.

## Responding to the new evidence

Six months of supplier access creates a dependency requiring an exit plan, renewal terms or another source. Keep any pilot customer promise within supported coverage. A smaller technical test may be reasonable before a broad rollout.

Interview interest at £1,200 supports a pricing question, not a demand forecast. Contribution falls from £1,050 to £850 per store if included serving costs stay fixed. Test an actual offer with clear scope and record acceptance, implementation needs and reasons for refusal. More stores could offset the lower contribution, but that needs acquisition and capacity evidence.

## Review quality

A strong submission separates evidence from assumptions, compares alternatives and makes a decision within the resource boundary. It identifies at least one way its recommendation could be wrong and explains how the next test would affect funding. A polished document without those connections needs revision.