Low valueThis is defined by combined company and user value · Low effortThis is defined by combined engineering and other overhead effort
High valueThis is defined by combined company and user value · Low effortThis is defined by combined engineering and other overhead effort
Low valueThis is defined by combined company and user value · High effortThis is defined by combined engineering and other overhead effort
High valueThis is defined by combined company and user value · High effortThis is defined by combined engineering and other overhead effort
Eligibility Screening Copilot
Testing: Can using the platform reduce screening times?
Illustrative Company Value: 8/10 · User Value: 9/10 · Effort: 4/10
Pros: Directly addresses validated screening pain; clear prototype loop.
Cons: Requires reliable evidence presentation.
Dependencies: Patient data access, criteria parsing.
Risks: False positives and automation bias.
Point of Care Trial Matching
Testing: Can the platform identify patients who wouldn't normally be in the funnel?
Illustrative Company Value: 9/10 · User Value: 8/10 · Effort: 7/10
Pros: Expands discovery and recruitment reach.
Cons: Broader workflow and clinical context required.
Dependencies: Point-of-care integrations, trial data freshness.
Risks: Alert fatigue and poor match precision.
Batch Patient Finder
Testing: If the platform shows a list of eligible patients at time of trial creation would it lead to an increase in productivity?
Illustrative Company Value: 8/10 · User Value: 8/10 · Effort: 6/10
Pros: Efficient trial-to-patient workflow; scalable review.
Cons: Could produce large weak-match lists.
Dependencies: Search/indexing, patient eligibility signals.
Risks: Workflow overload if ranking is poor.
Trial Screening Workplace
Testing: Would showing Trials dashboard as a central location reduce administrative burden with minimal screening time?
Illustrative Company Value: 7/10 · User Value: 8/10 · Effort: 5/10
Pros: Consolidates workflow and status visibility.
Cons: Value may depend on surrounding integrations.
Dependencies: Trial objects, permissions, workflow state.
Risks: Becomes another dashboard if not embedded in work.
Recruitment Performance Dashboard
Testing: Would showing a dashboard for the increased recruitment performance demonstrate ROI to customers and improve product purchase?
Illustrative Company Value: 8/10 · User Value: 5/10 · Effort: 7/10
Pros: Makes commercial ROI visible.
Cons: Less direct impact on the screening task.
Dependencies: Outcome tracking, analytics baselines.
Risks: Attribution may be difficult early.
Prioritisation Limitations: These placements and scores are illustrative due to the two-day timeframe.
They are included to show the prioritisation thought process I would use with engineering and stakeholders; in practice I would refine value, effort, dependencies and risks collaboratively before committing to scope.
