{
  "docId": "019dd923-5eff-723e-9be4-63a1c140317c",
  "docSlug": "74bb8f9dd864e4b4",
  "documentTitle": "2022 MongoDB World Final",
  "authorId": "MongoDB",
  "authorName": "MongoDB",
  "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck",
  "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck",
  "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting",
  "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting",
  "presentationDate": null,
  "orientation": "landscape",
  "aspectRatio": 1.777,
  "pageNumber": 17,
  "pageCount": 67,
  "prevPage": 16,
  "nextPage": 18,
  "slideType": "problem_statement",
  "function": "frame_problem",
  "density": "sparse",
  "nDataPoints": 0,
  "notes": null,
  "elementsJson": [
    "bullet_list",
    "paragraph"
  ],
  "metadataConfidence": 1,
  "imagePath": null,
  "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5eff-723e-9be4-63a1c140317c/17",
  "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5eff-723e-9be4-63a1c140317c",
  "deckJsonHref": "/decks/019dd923-5eff-723e-9be4-63a1c140317c.json",
  "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5eff-723e-9be4-63a1c140317c#slide-17",
  "components": [
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.7,
        "w": 0.4,
        "x": 0.5,
        "y": 0.15
      },
      "kind": "list",
      "text": "Rigid to change + imposes unnecessary constraints for developers\nDoesn't cope well with unstructured data\nVery difficult to scale + poor at handling distributed data\nNot appropriate for Internet scale workload scaling of 10x or 100x when needed\nExpensive hardware, punitive licensing, cloud lock-in, intrusive audits",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "bullet",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "fdce77c6-96f8-422d-af4f-35f5b52914e2",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.5,
        "w": 0.35,
        "x": 0.08,
        "y": 0.25
      },
      "kind": "title",
      "text": "Relational technology, invented in the 1970s, is no longer capable of meeting the needs of today's modern applications",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "action-title",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "9b01ac6c-4f70-4a24-989e-b86dbbe0ba61",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    }
  ],
  "metrics": [],
  "tools": [
    {
      "name": "Problem Statement Canvas",
      "slug": "problem-statement-canvas",
      "agent": "Architect",
      "layer": "slide",
      "matchId": "03a5e2ea-6aae-4f11-a17e-e4390d7eb2ae",
      "evidence": "Rigid to change + imposes unnecessary constraints for developers Doesn't cope well with unstructured data Very difficult to scale + poor at handling distributed data Not appropriate for Internet scale worklo",
      "confidence": 0.7
    }
  ],
  "frameworks": [],
  "arcBeats": [
    {
      "to": 19,
      "from": 16,
      "beatId": "88aade09-c557-4c81-8bab-ad1b11c0fab5",
      "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit",
      "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit",
      "beatName": "Problem & Complication",
      "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-problem-complication",
      "evidence": "Limitations of relational technology and pain points",
      "position": 1,
      "confidence": 0.8,
      "parentBeatName": "Complication",
      "parentBeatSlug": "complication"
    }
  ],
  "loops": [
    {
      "to": 20,
      "from": 16,
      "name": "Tale Two Worlds",
      "slug": "04-tale-two-worlds",
      "bestFor": "Competitive analysis, benchmarking, case for change",
      "matchId": "bcabd11a-9f7b-434d-bcf8-46084754db91",
      "evidence": "Comparison of relational technology with MongoDB capabilities",
      "position": 0,
      "objective": "The limitations of relational technology vs. the benefits of MongoDB",
      "structure": "Current State -> Desired State / Benchmark -> The Gap & Implication",
      "confidence": 0.6,
      "description": "Show the gap between two states to drive urgency or highlight opportunity"
    },
    {
      "to": 22,
      "from": 16,
      "name": "Cost Of Inaction",
      "slug": "27-cost-of-inaction",
      "bestFor": "Urgent budget requests, compliance, risk mitigation",
      "matchId": "429ad4b1-b160-4e1f-b1eb-259f755818ab",
      "evidence": "Pain points and complications of relational technology",
      "position": 1,
      "objective": "The cost of staying with relational technology",
      "structure": "The Status Quo -> The Hidden Costs Accumulating -> The Future State of Inaction -> The Tipping Point",
      "confidence": 0.6,
      "description": "Quantify what happens if the audience does nothing"
    }
  ],
  "imagePathAlt": null,
  "thumbSrc": null,
  "thumbSrcAlt": null,
  "locked": true
}