TTFVS tracks how long it takes—from the moment you kick off a search—to reach the first solution that clearly meets your viability bar. It’s a practical, leading indicator for how smoothly your partnering motion is running. It’s not the only thing to measure, and it won’t always be the most important thing, but when your priority is cycle time to a credible starting point, TTFVS helps you see what’s working (or not) across any discovery channel.
What TTFVS is (and isn’t)
- Start: when you open a new problem and begin external discovery (first outreach, posting, conversations with experts, scanning startups, tapping partner networks—whatever your channel).
- Stop: when you identify the first solution that meets your pre-declared viability bar (see “Define ‘viable’ before you search”).
- Scope: channel-agnostic. Works whether your first contact is an expert call, a startup intro, or a supplier conversation.
- Not a silver bullet: TTFVS doesn’t judge long-term value, commercial terms, or integration complexity. It complements other metrics (below).
When TTFVS is especially useful
- You need momentum. Early proof points matter (e.g., lining up a pilot this quarter or unblocking seasonal trials.
- You’re exploring adjacent spaces. Fast “first fits” tell you if you’re fishing in the right ponds before you over-invest.
- You’re tuning your channels. Compare TTFVS across routes (events vs. expert calls vs. startup scouting) to see where first fits tend to emerge fastest.
When other metrics may matter more
- High-stakes integration or safety. Lead time to qualified due diligence (e.g., safety, regulatory, security) may trump speed to first fit.
- Strategic differentiation. Quality-of-fit, uniqueness, or IP position may carry more weight than cycle time.
- Complex procurement or scaling. Time to contracted pilot or time to scaled deployment might be the north star.
Related metrics to pair with TTFVS
- First-pass viability rate: % of initial responses that meet the bar.
- Time to short-list / down-select: from kickoff to a comparables set you’d seriously consider.
- Time to first pilot and pilot success rate.
- Sourcing channel yield: first-fits per channel per quarter.
- Decision turnaround reliability: did reviewers meet the stated SLA?
Define “viable” before you search
Getting to a fast first fit depends on being explicit about what success looks like. Keep it problem/solution-centric and method-agnostic.
Set a simple viability bar that includes:
- Outcome & tests: What result must a solution achieve, and how will you test it? (e.g., “Reduce pallet-level temperature spikes by ≥6 °C for 24–72 h at 30–38 °C / 70–90% RH; validate via hot-box + humidity cycling.”)
- Maturity window: What readiness level will you consider? (e.g., pilot-ready within ~6–9 months.)
- Constraints: Target ranges for cost, scale, compatibility, safety, or sustainability.
- How you’ll decide: The factors you’ll weigh (e.g., outcome fit, scale-up feasibility, evidence quality, projected unit economics) and their relative importance.
- What’s needed now vs. later: Ask for non-confidential evidence or signals first; deeper technical or commercial details only after mutual interest is established.
Note: This is not a “brief.” It’s a concise problem statement + viability bar that invites multiple solution paths (startups, experts, suppliers, labs) without prescribing methods.
Example: Same problem, faster first fit
Problem: Reduce food-grade film waste in high-humidity packaging lines without compromising seal integrity or throughput.
Common slow pattern
- Opening conversations with method instructions (“use resin X at Y parameters”).
- Asking for detailed formulations, drawings, or confidential data up front.
- Review criteria are implicit, so responses vary wildly and comparison takes weeks.
Faster pattern
- Publish a crisp problem statement + viability bar (outcome tests, maturity window, constraints, decision factors).
- Invite non-confidential evidence first (case data, test results, references, exemplar runs).
- Time-box the first review cycle and state the decision SLA (e.g., “We’ll provide a go/no-go or next-step within 10 business days”).
- Keep solution methods open—encourage different approaches (material science, process tweaks, equipment retrofits, sensors + feedback control).
Result: more targeted first responses, less rework, and typically a faster march to the first viable option—even when the eventual winner is not the first.
How to instrument TTFVS without adding overhead
- Capture the start date when a new problem is opened and discovery begins.
- Log the stop date the moment you identify the first solution that meets your viability bar.
- Segment by channel and category. Track medians and 90th percentiles—outliers reveal where framing or channel strategy needs work.
- Review monthly. Compare TTFVS alongside first-pass viability rate and decision turnaround reliability. If TTFVS is fast but first-pass rate is low, tighten the viability bar. If TTFVS is slow but first-pass rate is high, your initial ask might be too heavy or your channels too narrow.
- Create a lightweight “first-fit log.” One line per problem: start date, first-fit date, channel, solution type (expert advice, startup tech, supplier variant, lab method), and the deciding factor.
Common traps (and the fix)
- Prescribing methods.
Fix: Describe the problem and acceptance tests. Let partners propose the path. - Vague bar.
Fix: Make the viability bar explicit so partners self-screen and self-target. - Asking for sensitive details too early.
Fix: Stage information. Start with public evidence or summaries; go deeper only after you see directional fit. - Single-channel bias.
Fix: Run parallel tracks (experts, startups, suppliers, labs) and compare TTFVS across them. - Slow internal decisions.
Fix: Publish an internal decision SLA and assign a clear owner for each problem.
What “good” looks like (qualitatively)
- Teams that state the viability bar upfront, invite non-confidential signals first, and hold themselves to a decision SLA tend to see a shorter TTFVS without sacrificing quality.
- Diversity of channels helps: an expert diagnostic can shortcut weeks of trial-and-error; a startup may leapfrog method constraints; a supplier variant can de-risk scale-up. TTFVS treats each as a valid path to the first credible option.
How TTFVS serves different stakeholders
- Scouts: Quick read on which channels surface credible options fastest for each problem type.
- Evaluators: Clear acceptance tests reduce rework and back-and-forth.
- Portfolio leaders: More predictable cadence—easier to plan pilots and allocate review bandwidth.
Putting it together
Use TTFVS to understand your time-to-momentum. Pair it with quality and readiness metrics to avoid optimizing for speed alone. Keep the problem statement crisp, the viability bar explicit, and the methods open so you can benefit from the full range of external partners—experts, startups, suppliers, labs, and everything in between.
Simple template you can reuse (replace bracketed text)
Problem statement
- We’re solving: [concise problem]
- Success looks like: [outcome + acceptance tests]
- Constraints to respect: [cost/scale/safety/etc.]
- Maturity window we’ll consider: [e.g., pilot-ready ≤ 9 months]
- Decision factors (and rough weight): [fit, feasibility, evidence, economics, sustainability]
- What we need first: [non-confidential signals/evidence; example results, references, public data]
- Decision turnaround target: [e.g., ≤ 10 business days]
Track start date at first outreach; stop at first viable solution. Review TTFVS monthly alongside first-pass viability rate and decision reliability.
