Ola Sobo
Senior product leader
Search portfolioSearch

Search my portfolio

Search cases, decisions, results and experience.

Browse all casesAsk the Evidence Guide
Production assignment case/Decision study

From UAT finding to production

Every slot filled.
The wrong case waiting.

The UAT review exposed how valid assignments could miss the business priority. Follow the decision behind the correction now running in production.

Same decision. Choose your view.

Follow the case in 2D or 3D, or read the annotated comparison.

Working in production

The priority correction is live. These fictional cases, people, scores and allocations explain the decision and its tradeoffs. Read the production outcome ↗

Failure pattern

The cheaper batch

Fill the available slots, then minimize a blended score.

Slots filled
3/3
Due today assigned
1/2
Exact division matches
3/3
R1TodayLicense + pediatrics
WaitingUnassigned

R1 waits. Only Mara has both qualifications, but the cheaper complete batch uses her slot on R2. Filling capacity does not protect the due-today priority.

R2TodayGeneral qualification
Mara1 slot used

Mara takes R2 in her own division. It is a cheap, valid match that uses the only slot capable of handling R1.

R3TomorrowLicense required
Theo1 slot used

Theo takes R3. He meets the license requirement and matches its division. Under priority-first assignment, this restricted future case comes before the unrestricted future case.

R4TomorrowGeneral qualification
Jules1 slot used

Jules takes R4 in her own division. It lowers the total matching score, but R4 is due tomorrow while R1 is due today.

Corrected priority

The priority-first batch

Protect due-today work, then restrictions, then fit.

Slots filled
3/3
Due today assigned
2/2
Exact division matches
1/3
R1TodayLicense + pediatrics
Mara1 slot used

Mara takes R1. She is the only reviewer with both qualifications. Today’s work is protected before geographic fit, so a cross-group match is accepted.

R2TodayGeneral qualification
Jules1 slot used

Jules takes R2 across divisions. R2 needs neither special qualification, so this valid match keeps today’s case moving while Mara takes R1.

R3TomorrowLicense required
Theo1 slot used

Theo takes R3. He meets the license requirement and matches its division. Under priority-first assignment, this restricted future case comes before the unrestricted future case.

R4TomorrowGeneral qualification
WaitingUnassigned

R4 waits until capacity becomes available. Its due date is tomorrow and it has no special qualification requirement. The case stays visible for follow-up.

What changes

Both policies fill three slots. Priority-first assignment covers both cases due today, accepts two less-local matches and leaves R4 waiting. The tradeoff is visible instead of disappearing inside a score.

Behind the picture

The product decision is the hierarchy.

01

Remove invalid matches

Required qualifications, availability and capacity determine which assignments are possible. A better score cannot make an invalid match acceptable.

02

Protect the intended outcome

The corrected hierarchy protects priority outcomes before optimizing fit. This example puts work due today first, then restriction priority, then geographic fit.

03

Explain what still waits

Capacity limits still shape the result. In this fictional batch, R4 needs an owner and follow-up because four cases share three slots.

Inspect the fictional inputs and scoring

All three reviewers are available with one remaining slot. Every case requires general qualification; R1 also needs a license and pediatric qualification, and R3 needs the license. Due dates, names, divisions, groups and scoring values are fictional.

The same batch in all three presentations
CaseDueRequirementsDivision / group
R1Today · 2:00 PMLicense + pediatricsHarbor / Coast
R2Today · 4:00 PMGeneral qualificationCedar / Inland
R3Tomorrow · 10:00 AMLicense requiredCedar / Inland
R4Tomorrow · 3:00 PMGeneral qualificationWillow / Inland
Reviewers and remaining capacity
ReviewerQualificationsDivision / groupAvailable slots
MaraGeneral, license, pediatricsCedar / Inland1
TheoGeneral, licenseCedar / Inland1
JulesGeneralWillow / Inland1

How these two solutions are selected

The model checks every valid allocation. Blended score first fills the most slots, then minimizes geographic-fit points plus four points per future-due assignment. Exact division costs 0, another division in the same group costs 8, and another group costs 18. The urgency preference is intentionally too weak to protect the required outcome.

Priority first compares due-today coverage, restriction tiers, future restricted work and total assignments in that order. Only then does it compare geographic fit and unused qualifications. License-only and pediatric-only have equal rank in this example. Stable record IDs resolve any remaining tie.

The blended-score solution totals 8 points. The priority-first solution would total 30 under that old scoring rule. These are invented preference points, with no financial meaning. Neither solution permits an invalid assignment.

Evidence & contribution

The failure was found.
The correction is live.

Documented

The original assignment brief and 2026 UAT review describe eligibility, scarce qualifications, capacity and the priority-inversion finding.

My contribution

I led product discovery, business-rule definition and UAT, including matching variables, hard and soft constraints, override behavior and audit needs.

Working in production

The corrected workflow is live, with assignments working accurately and optimally within the defined operating constraints. Priority outcomes come before fit, with qualification, availability and capacity preserved.

Production update · 8 October 2026.

This reconstruction

The cases, people, scores and allocations are fictional. They make the production decision and its tradeoffs visible.

Read the production case Explore individual eligibility and override
Use these versions for an independent comparison

Give each reviewer one version first. Ask them to explain the failure, my contribution, the implemented correction and the capacity constraint. Ask which outcomes belong to the fictional example. Capture their first answer before showing the other presentation.

Open version AOpen version BOpen version C

All three views share the same inputs, policies, explanations and evidence labels. Use independent reviews to check understanding, then judge memorability and appeal. Responses stay with the reviewer; the experiment records no interaction analytics.

Continue the story

The reconstruction points back to the delivered decision.

I use this fictional batch to make the priority conflict visible. My production case records the correction and how assignment now works within its qualification, capacity and availability constraints.

Read the assignment production outcome Discuss a role