Solutions, URD, and a worked-example demo on mfgusecases.com — the survey-to-roadmap chain is finally end-to-end
The last update's "Coming Soon" list was solution mapping + auto-generated URDs. Both shipped this week, plus a new public demo on mfgusecases.com that walks the entire chain end-to-end — from an ExampleCo plant's survey gaps all the way to a downloadable User Requirements Document. The two halves of the platform now talk to each other in a way they didn't before.
The new ExampleCo demo on mfgusecases.com
This is the headline. mfgusecases.com/demo/exampleco (corporate level) is the new flagship. Five plant URLs underneath (Waco, Boise, Topeka, Dayton, York) plus the two divisions. Each is the use-case-side companion to the existing surveys-side sample report.
The chain reads in one direction: take a survey → priority gaps fall out → the gaps map directly to specific use cases → those use cases cluster into solution categories → the solution categories drive a draft requirements document. Each level has been visible in isolation for a while. Now they're stitched into a single page that walks visitors through the whole flow.
Per-plant personalities still drive the picture. Waco's standard-work governance signature produces a Connected Worker / MES / QMS heavy roadmap. Topeka's volume-vs-quality tradeoff produces an inspection + defect-prevention list. Boise — the mature leader plant with no hard gaps — automatically shifts into "margin opportunities" mode and surfaces analytics-and-optimization use cases instead. Same algorithm; very different shapes from very different data.
The corporate-level demo is the most useful single URL because it shows the platform handling tree-wide aggregation correctly. Aggregating across all five plants produces a deliberately short list (6 use cases at corporate vs 50 per plant) because averaging softens individual-plant extremes. The "shorter list higher up the tree" pattern is what you want: corporate consensus gaps are rare and meaningful when they exist; plant-level gaps are abundant and specific.
Link: mfgusecases.com/demo/exampleco.
Solutions categories — every use case mapped to its software archetypes
A new "Solutions" panel ranks the categories of software (MES, QMS, CMMS, EAM, APS, Connected Worker, SCADA/Historian, …) that address each use case. 22 canonical archetypes total — every Tier 1 software category in the manufacturing stack. Each capability the use case requires is mapped to one or more archetypes with a strength (core / common / optional), and the panel ranks archetypes by an IDF-weighted opportunity score so catch-all categories don't dominate.
Two surfaces use this today:
- Individual use case pages (mfgusecases.com/use-cases/[slug]): a "Solutions" section in the Implementation tab shows the archetypes most likely to address that single use case.
- Saved lists (mfgusecases.com/lists/[id] and any shared link): a list-level Solutions tab aggregates across every use case in the list. When you've curated 20-30 use cases from a survey, the rolled-up Solutions tab tells you which vendor categories matter most for that mix.
The math underneath is open: ranking uses a calibrated combination of within-list frequency and database-wide rarity. The full algorithm is in apps/usecases/lib/solutions/ranking.ts for anyone who wants to read it.
URD Draft — auto-generated requirements document from any saved list
This is the one we were most curious about. Once a list of use cases has a Solutions fingerprint, the platform can walk the underlying capabilities and emit a draft User Requirements Document. Every capability has functional + non-functional requirements pre-written by the platform's canonical Tier 3 library (~4,500 requirements covering ~300 capabilities). The URD pulls the relevant ones, groups them by solution archetype, and presents the full document with a clear disclaimer that the buyer needs to review every quantitative anchor (response times, throughput, user counts) before issuing.
Every saved list now has a URD Draft tab with:
- A collapsible archetype-by-archetype breakdown — closed by default reads as a clean list of solution categories
- Per-capability functional + non-functional requirements with confidence ratings
- Markdown export (for the RFI cover letter) and CSV export (for vendor-side analysis)
The intended use case is RFI authoring. Buyers historically write these from scratch (or copy/paste from a prior RFI which usually doesn't fit the new use case set). The URD Draft is a 80-90% starting template — saves the buyer days of work and forces a discipline of "what capabilities do we actually need?" before the vendor conversation.
Tighter surveys ↔ mfgusecases integration
The two sites now share the same gap-detection algorithm. A few changes worth flagging:
- Aggregate gap rule across both sides. A subsection is a "gap" when the team's aggregate importance is high (avg ≥ 3.5) and aggregate maturity is low (avg ≤ 3.0) — averaged across all respondents in scope (plant, division, or corporate). The earlier per-respondent rule overcounted: any single person flagging a subsection counted, which inflated lists at every level. The new rule produces honest variation: tight at corporate, wider at plants, and a "margin opportunities" fallback for mature plants where nothing crosses the gap threshold.
- Priority Gaps table on mfg-surveys.com now leads with the use case. Each row in the Priority Gaps section shows the use case (its short label, same name everywhere across both sites), followed by Department, Gap Score (the new ranking signal — importance × (5 − maturity), range 0..20), avg maturity, avg importance, and members flagging. The use case is the actionable artifact; the subsection that produced it is shown as supporting context.
- Curated use case lists on mfgusecases.com link back to the corresponding surveys side. The companion demo button on every surveys plant page points to the matching mfgusecases roadmap, and the mfgusecases demo links back to the surveys gap report. Same visitor, same data, two complementary views.
Capability fingerprint — the at-a-glance visual on the use-case side
The mfgusecases demo includes a new "Capability fingerprint" accordion that visualizes which canonical capabilities the curated use cases require. Rows are capabilities (top by within-list frequency), columns are use cases, cells shaded by capability category (technology, process, people, organizational, etc.). Rows with darker shading are the "spine" capabilities — a single platform investment that addresses them serves many of the use cases at once.
Collapsed by default because it's deep-dive content for vendor evaluation. Easy to skip; valuable when you need it.
Coming soon
The "Action Plan" non-software-first surface — process changes, training, organizational habits before software — is in design. The V1 we tried this week didn't land right and got pulled to be redesigned. The intent is to lead with the things you can start this week (Eliminate, Standardize, Train) before the things you have to buy (Automate, Integrate, Invest), and tie each suggestion to specific use cases in your curated list.
A variance chart on the survey reports — the natural counterpart to the new aggregate-rule algorithm. Aggregate gaps tell you what the team agrees about; high within-team variance tells you where individuals see the same data differently. Both are interventions, but different kinds.
A scaled gap-rule threshold — the current avg_imp ≥ 3.5 AND avg_mat ≤ 3.0 rule is right at the corporate level but a little noisy at the plant level (smaller respondent counts → less averaging stability). Tightening at the plant level + a minimum-respondent gate per subsection is the next refinement.
Questions, feedback, or want to walk an ExampleCo plant together? Reply to this email — or hit the Feedback button on any page on either site. We read everything.
— Tim Stuart, Visual Decisions