{ "kind": "loop", "value": "38-tradeoff-triangle", "collectionKey": "slides:loop:38-tradeoff-triangle:all-document-kinds:all-producers:all-orientations", "filters": { "documentKinds": [], "sourceTypes": [], "orientations": [] }, "total": 12, "page": 1, "pageSize": 24, "pageCount": 1, "rows": [ { "docId": "019dd923-5de0-76bd-a168-5fad5bdb4442", "docSlug": "1d0e1b7d20818e3d", "documentTitle": "Good times for a change", "authorId": "Bain", "authorName": "Bain", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 42, "slideType": "strategic_options", "function": "present_framework", "notes": "The slide uses a series of slider-like diagrams to represent spectrums between two strategic poles.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Force explicit trade-off choices and crystallize CEO agenda", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a168-5fad5bdb4442/42", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a168-5fad5bdb4442", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a168-5fad5bdb4442#slide-42", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 43, "from": 42, "name": "Tradeoff Triangle", "slug": "38-tradeoff-triangle", "bestFor": "Resource allocation, strategic choices, expectation setting", "matchId": "019dd95a-088c-724c-b312-9aad4d3f6fd3", "evidence": "p42 sliders (Desire-Love, Exclusivity-Inclusivity, etc.) and p43 four-pillar CEO agenda (Refocus/Foster/Favor/Deliver).", "position": 10, "objective": "Force explicit trade-off choices and crystallize CEO agenda", "structure": "Priority A vs Priority B vs Priority C -> What We're Optimizing For -> What We're Sacrificing -> Why This Trade-Off", "confidence": 88, "description": "Show that you can only optimize for 2 of 3 competing priorities" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 43, "from": 42, "beatId": "019dd95a-07a5-761b-9143-bd9163f11037", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Impact & Next Steps", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-impact-next-steps", "evidence": "Trade-off sliders + 4-pillar CEO agenda (Refocus, Foster, Favor, Deliver).", "position": 5, "confidence": 88, "parentBeatName": "Resolution", "parentBeatSlug": "resolution" }, { "to": 43, "from": 37, "beatId": "019dd95a-07a5-761b-9143-cbbf1cf54c1f", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Action (Now What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-action-now-what", "evidence": "Performance levers, trade-offs, CEO agenda.", "position": 3, "confidence": 60, "parentBeatName": "Resolution", "parentBeatSlug": "resolution" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5de0-76bd-a168-5fad5bdb4442", "docSlug": "1d0e1b7d20818e3d", "documentTitle": "Good times for a change", "authorId": "Bain", "authorName": "Bain", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 43, "slideType": "key_messages", "function": "summarize", "notes": "The slide uses a dual-layer structure: a top strategic pillar section and a bottom operational/enabler section.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Force explicit trade-off choices and crystallize CEO agenda", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a168-5fad5bdb4442/43", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a168-5fad5bdb4442", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a168-5fad5bdb4442#slide-43", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 43, "from": 42, "name": "Tradeoff Triangle", "slug": "38-tradeoff-triangle", "bestFor": "Resource allocation, strategic choices, expectation setting", "matchId": "019dd95a-088c-724c-b312-9aad4d3f6fd3", "evidence": "p42 sliders (Desire-Love, Exclusivity-Inclusivity, etc.) and p43 four-pillar CEO agenda (Refocus/Foster/Favor/Deliver).", "position": 10, "objective": "Force explicit trade-off choices and crystallize CEO agenda", "structure": "Priority A vs Priority B vs Priority C -> What We're Optimizing For -> What We're Sacrificing -> Why This Trade-Off", "confidence": 88, "description": "Show that you can only optimize for 2 of 3 competing priorities" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 43, "from": 42, "beatId": "019dd95a-07a5-761b-9143-bd9163f11037", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Impact & Next Steps", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-impact-next-steps", "evidence": "Trade-off sliders + 4-pillar CEO agenda (Refocus, Foster, Favor, Deliver).", "position": 5, "confidence": 88, "parentBeatName": "Resolution", "parentBeatSlug": "resolution" }, { "to": 43, "from": 37, "beatId": "019dd95a-07a5-761b-9143-cbbf1cf54c1f", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Action (Now What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-action-now-what", "evidence": "Performance levers, trade-offs, CEO agenda.", "position": 3, "confidence": 60, "parentBeatName": "Resolution", "parentBeatSlug": "resolution" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-6bb0b886ba16", "docSlug": "83f52fa88d2d9dd9", "documentTitle": "Moving faster: Reinventing compliance to speed up, not trip up", "authorId": "PwC", "authorName": "PwC", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 27, "slideType": "pain_points", "function": "diagnose", "notes": "The slide includes a narrative section on the left discussing health industry compliance trends and a horizontal bar chart on the right detailing specific data challenges.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Surface AI/data tradeoffs — efficiency vs privacy/governance risk", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-6bb0b886ba16/27", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-6bb0b886ba16", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-6bb0b886ba16#slide-27", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 32, "from": 27, "name": "Tradeoff Triangle", "slug": "38-tradeoff-triangle", "bestFor": "Resource allocation, strategic choices, expectation setting", "matchId": "019de8d1-1928-72b5-a1f1-927cb11e9fc3", "evidence": "Data complexity (p27-28), AI usage (p29-30), 89% concerned (p31), levels of concern + actions (p32)", "position": 5, "objective": "Surface AI/data tradeoffs — efficiency vs privacy/governance risk", "structure": "Priority A vs Priority B vs Priority C -> What We're Optimizing For -> What We're Sacrificing -> Why This Trade-Off", "confidence": 70, "description": "Show that you can only optimize for 2 of 3 competing priorities" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 43, "from": 22, "beatId": "019de8d1-186a-72b2-a6bb-b98e1b51f901", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "Tech, AI, culture, talent, SCO case studies, Compliance Pioneer maturity (p22-43)", "position": 4, "confidence": 88, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-6bb0b886ba16", "docSlug": "83f52fa88d2d9dd9", "documentTitle": "Moving faster: Reinventing compliance to speed up, not trip up", "authorId": "PwC", "authorName": "PwC", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 28, "slideType": "key_takeaways", "function": "summarize", "notes": null, "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Surface AI/data tradeoffs — efficiency vs privacy/governance risk", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-6bb0b886ba16/28", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-6bb0b886ba16", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-6bb0b886ba16#slide-28", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 32, "from": 27, "name": "Tradeoff Triangle", "slug": "38-tradeoff-triangle", "bestFor": "Resource allocation, strategic choices, expectation setting", "matchId": "019de8d1-1928-72b5-a1f1-927cb11e9fc3", "evidence": "Data complexity (p27-28), AI usage (p29-30), 89% concerned (p31), levels of concern + actions (p32)", "position": 5, "objective": "Surface AI/data tradeoffs — efficiency vs privacy/governance risk", "structure": "Priority A vs Priority B vs Priority C -> What We're Optimizing For -> What We're Sacrificing -> Why This Trade-Off", "confidence": 70, "description": "Show that you can only optimize for 2 of 3 competing priorities" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 43, "from": 22, "beatId": "019de8d1-186a-72b2-a6bb-b98e1b51f901", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "Tech, AI, culture, talent, SCO case studies, Compliance Pioneer maturity (p22-43)", "position": 4, "confidence": 88, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-6bb0b886ba16", "docSlug": "83f52fa88d2d9dd9", "documentTitle": "Moving faster: Reinventing compliance to speed up, not trip up", "authorId": "PwC", "authorName": "PwC", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 29, "slideType": "industry_trends", "function": "analyze_data", "notes": "The chart is a 100% stacked bar chart showing adoption levels across 15 different compliance areas.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Surface AI/data tradeoffs — efficiency vs privacy/governance risk", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-6bb0b886ba16/29", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-6bb0b886ba16", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-6bb0b886ba16#slide-29", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 32, "from": 27, "name": "Tradeoff Triangle", "slug": "38-tradeoff-triangle", "bestFor": "Resource allocation, strategic choices, expectation setting", "matchId": "019de8d1-1928-72b5-a1f1-927cb11e9fc3", "evidence": "Data complexity (p27-28), AI usage (p29-30), 89% concerned (p31), levels of concern + actions (p32)", "position": 5, "objective": "Surface AI/data tradeoffs — efficiency vs privacy/governance risk", "structure": "Priority A vs Priority B vs Priority C -> What We're Optimizing For -> What We're Sacrificing -> Why This Trade-Off", "confidence": 70, "description": "Show that you can only optimize for 2 of 3 competing priorities" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 43, "from": 22, "beatId": "019de8d1-186a-72b2-a6bb-b98e1b51f901", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "Tech, AI, culture, talent, SCO case studies, Compliance Pioneer maturity (p22-43)", "position": 4, "confidence": 88, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-6bb0b886ba16", "docSlug": "83f52fa88d2d9dd9", "documentTitle": "Moving faster: Reinventing compliance to speed up, not trip up", "authorId": "PwC", "authorName": "PwC", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 30, "slideType": "kpi_dashboard", "function": "analyze_data", "notes": "The slide uses a grid layout to compare AI adoption across 7 industry sectors.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Surface AI/data tradeoffs — efficiency vs privacy/governance risk", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-6bb0b886ba16/30", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-6bb0b886ba16", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-6bb0b886ba16#slide-30", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 32, "from": 27, "name": "Tradeoff Triangle", "slug": "38-tradeoff-triangle", "bestFor": "Resource allocation, strategic choices, expectation setting", "matchId": "019de8d1-1928-72b5-a1f1-927cb11e9fc3", "evidence": "Data complexity (p27-28), AI usage (p29-30), 89% concerned (p31), levels of concern + actions (p32)", "position": 5, "objective": "Surface AI/data tradeoffs — efficiency vs privacy/governance risk", "structure": "Priority A vs Priority B vs Priority C -> What We're Optimizing For -> What We're Sacrificing -> Why This Trade-Off", "confidence": 70, "description": "Show that you can only optimize for 2 of 3 competing priorities" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 43, "from": 22, "beatId": "019de8d1-186a-72b2-a6bb-b98e1b51f901", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "Tech, AI, culture, talent, SCO case studies, Compliance Pioneer maturity (p22-43)", "position": 4, "confidence": 88, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-6bb0b886ba16", "docSlug": "83f52fa88d2d9dd9", "documentTitle": "Moving faster: Reinventing compliance to speed up, not trip up", "authorId": "PwC", "authorName": "PwC", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 31, "slideType": "industry_trends", "function": "summarize", "notes": "The slide uses a central metric callout to anchor the discussion on AI risks in compliance.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Surface AI/data tradeoffs — efficiency vs privacy/governance risk", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-6bb0b886ba16/31", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-6bb0b886ba16", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-6bb0b886ba16#slide-31", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 32, "from": 27, "name": "Tradeoff Triangle", "slug": "38-tradeoff-triangle", "bestFor": "Resource allocation, strategic choices, expectation setting", "matchId": "019de8d1-1928-72b5-a1f1-927cb11e9fc3", "evidence": "Data complexity (p27-28), AI usage (p29-30), 89% concerned (p31), levels of concern + actions (p32)", "position": 5, "objective": "Surface AI/data tradeoffs — efficiency vs privacy/governance risk", "structure": "Priority A vs Priority B vs Priority C -> What We're Optimizing For -> What We're Sacrificing -> Why This Trade-Off", "confidence": 70, "description": "Show that you can only optimize for 2 of 3 competing priorities" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 43, "from": 22, "beatId": "019de8d1-186a-72b2-a6bb-b98e1b51f901", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "Tech, AI, culture, talent, SCO case studies, Compliance Pioneer maturity (p22-43)", "position": 4, "confidence": 88, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-6bb0b886ba16", "docSlug": "83f52fa88d2d9dd9", "documentTitle": "Moving faster: Reinventing compliance to speed up, not trip up", "authorId": "PwC", "authorName": "PwC", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 32, "slideType": "kpi_dashboard", "function": "diagnose", "notes": "Data source: PwC's Global Compliance Survey 2025. Base: 1,802 respondents.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Surface AI/data tradeoffs — efficiency vs privacy/governance risk", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-6bb0b886ba16/32", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-6bb0b886ba16", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-6bb0b886ba16#slide-32", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 32, "from": 27, "name": "Tradeoff Triangle", "slug": "38-tradeoff-triangle", "bestFor": "Resource allocation, strategic choices, expectation setting", "matchId": "019de8d1-1928-72b5-a1f1-927cb11e9fc3", "evidence": "Data complexity (p27-28), AI usage (p29-30), 89% concerned (p31), levels of concern + actions (p32)", "position": 5, "objective": "Surface AI/data tradeoffs — efficiency vs privacy/governance risk", "structure": "Priority A vs Priority B vs Priority C -> What We're Optimizing For -> What We're Sacrificing -> Why This Trade-Off", "confidence": 70, "description": "Show that you can only optimize for 2 of 3 competing priorities" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 43, "from": 22, "beatId": "019de8d1-186a-72b2-a6bb-b98e1b51f901", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "Tech, AI, culture, talent, SCO case studies, Compliance Pioneer maturity (p22-43)", "position": 4, "confidence": 88, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-96004b13b0f2", "docSlug": "9a95b8480d09e70a", "documentTitle": "Unlocking alpha in deals", "authorId": "Accenture", "authorName": "Accenture", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 23, "slideType": "section_divider", "function": "transition", "notes": null, "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Frame buy vs build vs partner trade-off for sourcing", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-96004b13b0f2/23", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-96004b13b0f2", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-96004b13b0f2#slide-23", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 26, "from": 23, "name": "Tradeoff Triangle", "slug": "38-tradeoff-triangle", "bestFor": "Resource allocation, strategic choices, expectation setting", "matchId": "019dd95a-07fe-70ce-8d3b-994b0801b6c2", "evidence": "p24 'structured buy/build/partner strategy'; p25 segments PE (92% buy) vs M&A (40% partner); p26 CTA reconciles three options.", "position": 7, "objective": "Frame buy vs build vs partner trade-off for sourcing", "structure": "Priority A vs Priority B vs Priority C -> What We're Optimizing For -> What We're Sacrificing -> Why This Trade-Off", "confidence": 80, "description": "Show that you can only optimize for 2 of 3 competing priorities" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 26, "from": 17, "beatId": "019dd95a-0682-776c-8e33-f2c5f2b74a1b", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof", "evidence": "Figures 3-5 with 1.3x, 3.2x, 5.7x benchmarks plus CTAs", "position": 4, "confidence": 92, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" }, { "to": 25, "from": 14, "beatId": "019dd95a-0682-776c-8e33-fd7b23707725", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Implications (So What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-implications-so-what", "evidence": "Three-step framework + benchmark proof of impact", "position": 2, "confidence": 60, "parentBeatName": "Reflection", "parentBeatSlug": "reflection" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-96004b13b0f2", "docSlug": "9a95b8480d09e70a", "documentTitle": "Unlocking alpha in deals", "authorId": "Accenture", "authorName": "Accenture", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 24, "slideType": "client_example", "function": "illustrate_case", "notes": "The slide uses a split layout with text on the left and a pull-quote on the right.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Frame buy vs build vs partner trade-off for sourcing", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-96004b13b0f2/24", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-96004b13b0f2", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-96004b13b0f2#slide-24", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 26, "from": 23, "name": "Tradeoff Triangle", "slug": "38-tradeoff-triangle", "bestFor": "Resource allocation, strategic choices, expectation setting", "matchId": "019dd95a-07fe-70ce-8d3b-994b0801b6c2", "evidence": "p24 'structured buy/build/partner strategy'; p25 segments PE (92% buy) vs M&A (40% partner); p26 CTA reconciles three options.", "position": 7, "objective": "Frame buy vs build vs partner trade-off for sourcing", "structure": "Priority A vs Priority B vs Priority C -> What We're Optimizing For -> What We're Sacrificing -> Why This Trade-Off", "confidence": 80, "description": "Show that you can only optimize for 2 of 3 competing priorities" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 26, "from": 17, "beatId": "019dd95a-0682-776c-8e33-f2c5f2b74a1b", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof", "evidence": "Figures 3-5 with 1.3x, 3.2x, 5.7x benchmarks plus CTAs", "position": 4, "confidence": 92, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" }, { "to": 25, "from": 14, "beatId": "019dd95a-0682-776c-8e33-fd7b23707725", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Implications (So What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-implications-so-what", "evidence": "Three-step framework + benchmark proof of impact", "position": 2, "confidence": 60, "parentBeatName": "Reflection", "parentBeatSlug": "reflection" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-96004b13b0f2", "docSlug": "9a95b8480d09e70a", "documentTitle": "Unlocking alpha in deals", "authorId": "Accenture", "authorName": "Accenture", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 25, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": "The chart highlights a stark contrast: PE firms heavily favor 'Buy as a service' (92%), while Corporate M&A teams show a more distributed preference, with 'Buy off the shelf' being the most common (40%).", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Frame buy vs build vs partner trade-off for sourcing", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-96004b13b0f2/25", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-96004b13b0f2", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-96004b13b0f2#slide-25", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 26, "from": 23, "name": "Tradeoff Triangle", "slug": "38-tradeoff-triangle", "bestFor": "Resource allocation, strategic choices, expectation setting", "matchId": "019dd95a-07fe-70ce-8d3b-994b0801b6c2", "evidence": "p24 'structured buy/build/partner strategy'; p25 segments PE (92% buy) vs M&A (40% partner); p26 CTA reconciles three options.", "position": 7, "objective": "Frame buy vs build vs partner trade-off for sourcing", "structure": "Priority A vs Priority B vs Priority C -> What We're Optimizing For -> What We're Sacrificing -> Why This Trade-Off", "confidence": 80, "description": "Show that you can only optimize for 2 of 3 competing priorities" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 26, "from": 17, "beatId": "019dd95a-0682-776c-8e33-f2c5f2b74a1b", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof", "evidence": "Figures 3-5 with 1.3x, 3.2x, 5.7x benchmarks plus CTAs", "position": 4, "confidence": 92, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" }, { "to": 25, "from": 14, "beatId": "019dd95a-0682-776c-8e33-fd7b23707725", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Implications (So What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-implications-so-what", "evidence": "Three-step framework + benchmark proof of impact", "position": 2, "confidence": 60, "parentBeatName": "Reflection", "parentBeatSlug": "reflection" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-96004b13b0f2", "docSlug": "9a95b8480d09e70a", "documentTitle": "Unlocking alpha in deals", "authorId": "Accenture", "authorName": "Accenture", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 26, "slideType": "closing_ask", "function": "state_next_steps", "notes": null, "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Frame buy vs build vs partner trade-off for sourcing", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-96004b13b0f2/26", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-96004b13b0f2", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a167-96004b13b0f2#slide-26", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 26, "from": 23, "name": "Tradeoff Triangle", "slug": "38-tradeoff-triangle", "bestFor": "Resource allocation, strategic choices, expectation setting", "matchId": "019dd95a-07fe-70ce-8d3b-994b0801b6c2", "evidence": "p24 'structured buy/build/partner strategy'; p25 segments PE (92% buy) vs M&A (40% partner); p26 CTA reconciles three options.", "position": 7, "objective": "Frame buy vs build vs partner trade-off for sourcing", "structure": "Priority A vs Priority B vs Priority C -> What We're Optimizing For -> What We're Sacrificing -> Why This Trade-Off", "confidence": 80, "description": "Show that you can only optimize for 2 of 3 competing priorities" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 26, "from": 17, "beatId": "019dd95a-0682-776c-8e33-f2c5f2b74a1b", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof", "evidence": "Figures 3-5 with 1.3x, 3.2x, 5.7x benchmarks plus CTAs", "position": 4, "confidence": 92, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" }, { "to": 28, "from": 26, "beatId": "019dd95a-0682-776c-8e34-017f482c02be", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Action (Now What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-action-now-what", "evidence": "Final CTA + 'engineer alpha' closing", "position": 3, "confidence": 60, "parentBeatName": "Resolution", "parentBeatSlug": "resolution" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true } ] }