{
  "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-b17598fef593",
  "docSlug": "ba6f5e1f7c24f1ae",
  "documentTitle": "Port of LA Clean Truck Program",
  "authorId": "BCG",
  "authorName": "BCG",
  "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck",
  "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck",
  "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting",
  "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting",
  "presentationDate": null,
  "orientation": "landscape",
  "aspectRatio": 1.294,
  "pageNumber": 11,
  "pageCount": 21,
  "prevPage": 10,
  "nextPage": 12,
  "slideType": "comparison_table",
  "function": "compare_options",
  "density": "sparse",
  "nDataPoints": 0,
  "notes": null,
  "elementsJson": [
    "action_title",
    "comparison_table",
    "bullet_list",
    "footnote"
  ],
  "metadataConfidence": 1,
  "imagePath": null,
  "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-b17598fef593/11",
  "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-b17598fef593",
  "deckJsonHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-b17598fef593.json",
  "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-b17598fef593#slide-11",
  "components": [
    {
      "bbox": null,
      "kind": "callout",
      "text": "LMC must internalize costs: total costs integrated into decision making",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": null,
      "toolName": "Visual emphasis",
      "toolSlug": "visual-emphasis",
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "019dd951-9f62-7003-b12a-32ecc6a2f90a",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.03,
        "w": 0.5,
        "x": 0.06,
        "y": 0.89
      },
      "kind": "source-note",
      "text": "Source: BCG analysis; Haveman and Thornberg (Beacon Economics), Clean Trucks Program, February 2008",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": null,
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "f58e108a-cfba-4bc9-a0ac-120977e18be1",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.6,
        "w": 0.88,
        "x": 0.06,
        "y": 0.25
      },
      "kind": "table",
      "text": "Comparison matrix of LMC asset based vs IOO ownership across four dimensions.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "data",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "86f064b7-05ca-401d-8519-f9a3784ec134",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.1,
        "w": 0.8,
        "x": 0.06,
        "y": 0.08
      },
      "kind": "title",
      "text": "Our rationale in Option II is to encourage long term development of an asset based drayage model ...",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "action-title",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "ac3fa437-5d43-4a60-9414-688aa3bfb0b9",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    }
  ],
  "metrics": [],
  "tools": [
    {
      "name": "Action Titles",
      "slug": "action-titles",
      "agent": "Architect",
      "layer": "slide",
      "matchId": "019dd95a-1474-7621-ae49-718bb5a14497",
      "evidence": "Headline argues Option II rationale: 'encourage long term development of an asset based drayage model'.",
      "confidence": 78
    },
    {
      "name": "Comparison frame",
      "slug": "comparison-frame",
      "agent": null,
      "layer": "slide",
      "matchId": "5e20ca1c-630b-48c4-82f2-11c8408a4330",
      "evidence": "table/data: Comparison matrix of LMC asset based vs IOO ownership across four dimensions.",
      "confidence": 0.7
    }
  ],
  "frameworks": [
    {
      "name": "comparison_frame",
      "slug": null,
      "matchId": "59ecee4a-c2dc-4472-a3e8-e2f7bc9d4aad",
      "evidence": "The slide uses a side-by-side comparison table to evaluate two strategic options.",
      "confidence": 0.9
    }
  ],
  "arcBeats": [
    {
      "to": 12,
      "from": 7,
      "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87df-a07bf07db208",
      "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit",
      "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit",
      "beatName": "Solution & Approach",
      "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-solution-approach",
      "evidence": "Five CTP elements, interactions, labor market, three options defined.",
      "position": 3,
      "confidence": 88,
      "parentBeatName": "Turn",
      "parentBeatSlug": "turn"
    },
    {
      "to": 14,
      "from": 6,
      "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87df-b19420ca245c",
      "arcName": "The Triple Take",
      "arcSlug": "triple-take",
      "beatName": "The Implications (So What)",
      "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-implications-so-what",
      "evidence": "Objectives, framework, options compared on benefits/risks.",
      "position": 2,
      "confidence": 55,
      "parentBeatName": "Reflection",
      "parentBeatSlug": "reflection"
    }
  ],
  "loops": [
    {
      "to": 12,
      "from": 10,
      "name": "Scenario Fork",
      "slug": "35-scenario-fork",
      "bestFor": "Strategic planning, risk analysis, board presentations",
      "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e6-adba23b8c08f",
      "evidence": "Side-by-side option matrix then narrative slides on Option II rationale and Option III stretch.",
      "position": 4,
      "objective": "Define and contrast Options I/II/III as a decision fork",
      "structure": "The Decision Point -> Scenario A (If X) -> Scenario B (If Y) -> Scenario C (If Z) -> Recommendation",
      "confidence": 86,
      "description": "Present multiple futures based on different assumptions or decisions"
    }
  ],
  "imagePathAlt": null,
  "thumbSrc": null,
  "thumbSrcAlt": null,
  "locked": true
}