FPF Reference

    FPF.Preface:16.5.4.2 - Compare proposed ways to meet the need

    Preface node heading:fpf-preface-16-5-4-2-compare-proposed-ways-to-meet-the-need:1410

    What this page is

    This is generated FPF reference text from the specification preface or supporting sections. It helps interpret FPF; it is not FPF Reference product documentation.

    Methodology

    Use it to understand how the specification wants to be read, then return to a route, pattern, or work packet for active work. Cite generated IDs only when the wording changes the task decision.

    Content

    The nightly windows require 56 hours of coverage per week. Qualified members of the internal team can cover 12 of those 56 hours without conflicting with their other assignments. It therefore leaves 44 hours uncovered. Rewording the request cannot fill those hours.

    Assume an external provider offers all 56 hours for 600 units per week, within a budget of 800. The proposed service includes a qualified operator and replacement coverage. For the declared incident class, its proposed serial bounds are 0.5 minutes for alarm delivery, 1 minute for the operator to take responsibility for the incident, 1.5 minutes for diagnosis and 1 minute to start mitigation. Their sum is 4 minutes. These are offer terms to verify, not observed performance; the one-minute margin does not establish reliability or cover simultaneous incidents.

    The existing automation can route an alarm but cannot select and start the required mitigation within its current authorized function. A day-only promise would be cheaper, but the stated receiving use requires night coverage. These are consequential reasons for rejecting those alternatives in this case, rather than preferences for a provider.

    Alternative under the stipulated factsResult of comparisonWhat could change that result
    Extend the current internal rosterIncomplete: 12 of 56 required hours are available; obtaining the other 44 hours is unexplainedAvailability, assignments, replacement, response capability and full cost of the additional coverage
    Obtain the offered external provisionOffered price is within the budget and the proposed response bound meets the target; total cost and operating conditions remain to qualifySetup and continuing owner work, unavailable replacement, failed access, a failed bound or unacceptable contractual conditions
    Use the present automation aloneMissing the required diagnosis and mitigation capabilityA separately developed and authorized capability with suitable assurance
    Restrict the promise to daytimeDoes not meet the stated receiving useAn authorized revision of that need and its accepted consequences

    The comparison is unfinished. C.38 exposes the missing internal way: who could cover the other 44 hours, with what replacement, response capability, assignments and full cost? The external offer also leaves setup, verification and continuing owner work to qualify. Those contributions could change the comparison. The service owner must obtain a sufficient basis before C.11 can settle a service choice. The following paragraphs develop the external candidate conditionally; they do not report that choice or an acquired service.

    Last Updated: 2026-10-12 — upstream FPF commit f2bc67dd (github.com/ailev/FPF)