B0336: Customer Value Design Decision Framework

Context

Context: Decision frequency is high, but inconsistent definitions of retention rate and NPS weaken accountability. Under time-to-market pressure, delayed decisions directly reduce execution windows. A one-page standard is required so stakeholders can evaluate options quickly while preserving traceability and governance.

Options

• Option A: Maintain the existing process and defer redesign. Short-term execution risk stays low, yet expected improvement remains incremental.
• Option B: Deploy in phases, track retention rate and NPS, and expand scope only after evidence is confirmed. This balances risk and execution speed.
• Option C: Run a comprehensive reconfiguration from the start. This maximizes redesign scope, but can overwhelm teams if assumptions fail early.

Decision

Decision: Choose Option B and roll out in phases. Start small, validate operating assumptions, and gate each expansion by predefined acceptance criteria.

Rationale

Rationale: Option B provides measurable learning while staying within time-to-market pressure. It supports progressive adjustment of the standardization vs local adaptation balance, improves stakeholder alignment, and limits downside if assumptions fail. The phased structure also reduces coordination overhead and strengthens repeatability for future decisions.

Risks

• Weak instrumentation makes it impossible to compare outcomes and undermines the credibility of the decision process.
• If ownership and deadlines are unclear, execution drifts and teams revert to siloed decision criteria.

Next

Next actions: Confirm pilot boundary, accountable owners, metric formulas, and reporting cadence. Publish review criteria and escalation triggers before launch.