Go-to-market strategy
Positioning
For product and engineering leaders who plan work across constrained teams, Resource Radar is a lightweight scenario workspace that connects staffing decisions to initiative risk. The initial wedge is the planning review immediately before a quarterly or launch commitment.
It is positioned against spreadsheet-plus-meeting workflows where availability assumptions and initiative consequences are separated. The hypothesis is clearer inspection, not faster delivery or an automated answer.
Proposed audience
- Primary: portfolio leads, product operations, and engineering managers at B2B SaaS companies.
- Secondary: initiative owners who need a clear view of staffing assumptions.
User versus funding decision
The planning participant needs to explain the effect of a constraint or allocation. A potential sponsor would be the product operations or engineering leader responsible for the planning process, who would need evidence that the review is worth changing. This is a buying-role hypothesis, not a validated purchasing process.
Before discussing packaging, ask who currently owns the planning process, what recurring decision is difficult, and what would justify adopting another tool. Compare the prototype with the team's existing spreadsheet and meeting practice. If participants understand the arithmetic but see no reason to change that practice, a new planning application may not be the right investment.
A future pilot should first establish a baseline for explanation errors and the effort of resolving a known conflict. Any time-saving or commercial claim requires observed evidence; the sample does not demonstrate ROI, willingness to pay, or a staffing recommendation.
Pilot motion
First complete five formative sessions using the seeded fictional scenario. If the model is understood, consider three to five internal planning teams for a four-week assisted pilot with an agreed data boundary. Before inviting a team, name one sponsor who owns the recurring planning review, the participant time the pilot will consume, and the current-method comparison to preserve. The pilot question is whether the team can inspect and resolve a known capacity tradeoff with enough additional clarity to justify that effort; it is not a pricing, ROI, or time-saved claim. Exit if the sponsor cannot name a recurring decision, participants need the same or less context from the existing process, or a minimal data boundary cannot be agreed.
Decision tests before a pilot
| Decision maker | Decision to test | Evidence that permits the next step | Stop condition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Planning participant | Is the capacity explanation useful beside the current method? | The participant can explain the seeded constraint, its initiative consequence, and the draft boundary without assistance. | The participant understands the math but prefers the existing method because it serves the same decision with less effort. |
| Product operations or engineering sponsor | Is a bounded pilot worth funding? | A recurring planning decision is documented, the current process has a defined comparison baseline, and an owner agrees to a data boundary. | There is no recurring problem, no accountable sponsor, or no acceptable boundary for planning data. |
| Product team | Should the sample gain shared or imported data? | Formative work shows comprehension, and a concrete handoff need includes provenance, permissions, and recovery expectations. | The next request is only for feature breadth or an automated staffing answer. |
Message
“See the days you actually have before you commit the work.” The proof points should focus on visible constraint math, reversible scenario planning, and initiative impact.
Proposed launch gates
- Complete five formative sessions and address material comprehension failures before a threshold.
- In a later ten-person task study, test the proposed 90% unassisted edit-and-apply target using the consent-aware denominator in Measures.md.
- No severity-one errors in capacity calculations.
- A documented data import path and privacy review before any real customer pilot.
These are proposed adoption assumptions, not evidence of demand, conversion, retention, or operational impact.