# Bmc Tech Level Repositioning > Tests whether a business model can win by deliberately moving up (automating what's manual) or down (stripping out over-engineered technology) the technology-sophistication axis of Key Resources, Key Activities, and the Value Proposition — the win comes from business-model fit, not the tech level itself. - Skill: `pilot2service/bmc-tech-level-repositioning` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add pilot2service/bmc-tech-level-repositioning` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/pilot2service/bmc-tech-level-repositioning/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: AI & ML - Author: Pilot2Service (https://skillmd.com/u/pilot2service) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/pilot2service/bmc-tech-level-repositioning --- # BMC Tech-Level Repositioning ## Purpose Teams tend to treat "more advanced technology" as automatically better, or conversely assume a category's current tech level is fixed and un-questionable. Neither is reliably true — some of the most durable repositioning moves come from deliberately moving the OPPOSITE direction from where the category currently sits: automating something competitors treat as differentiatingly manual, or stripping out technology customers don't actually value to win on price and a different differentiator instead. This skill runs that test explicitly. Use during business model ideation, alongside or after `bmc-innovation-pattern-matching`. ## Anchored in research Directly grounded in Alexander Osterwalder and Yves Pigneur's *The Invincible Company* (2020), which includes "From Low Tech to High Tech" as a named Value Proposition Shift pattern (and its reverse direction). Reinforced by two independently documented, verifiable real-world cases used as worked examples below: Nintendo's Wii, a textbook Blue Ocean Strategy case (Kim & Mauborgne) of deliberate under-specification winning on price and a different differentiator; and TRISA, a Swiss toothbrush manufacturer that moved the opposite direction, adopting robotics to defend a high-cost manufacturing location. ## Method 1. **Map where the model currently sits on the tech-sophistication axis for its category** — below-category (using older, simpler, or more manual methods than typical competitors), at-category (matching the norm), or above-category (using more advanced technology than typical competitors). 2. **Run the Low-Tech → High-Tech test.** Ask: is there a manual or artisanal step in this business that competitors treat as differentiating, but which could be automated or roboticized without customers perceiving a loss? The TRISA case is the reference example: a Swiss toothbrush manufacturer in a category where "handcrafted Swiss quality" sounds like it should mean manual labor, adopted robotics extensively in production — customers cared about the quality outcome and Swiss origin, not the literal presence of a human hand at every step, so automation defended cost and scale without damaging the value proposition. 3. **Run the High-Tech → Low-Tech test.** Ask: is the category over-engineering on a spec dimension that the target customer doesn't actually value, creating room to strip cost and win on price plus a different differentiator? The Nintendo Wii case is the reference example: rather than compete on graphics processing power and HD output against Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, Nintendo deliberately used older, cheaper components, cut the price 30-40% below competitors, and redirected the savings into a genuinely new differentiator (motion control) that opened an entirely new customer segment (casual, non-"gamer" players) the spec war had ignored. 4. **Apply the decision test to whatever spec is being added or stripped:** would the ACTUAL target customer segment for the primary Job to Be Done notice or care about this specific spec change? If the honest answer is no, the tech level itself isn't the value driver for that segment, and repositioning on this axis is safe to pursue further. If the answer is yes, this spec is not over-engineering — it's a real requirement, and this move should not be made. 5. **Run the hygiene-factor check before committing to a downward move.** Don't strip a spec just because it looks like over-engineering — verify it isn't actually a hygiene factor for the segment (a safety requirement, a compliance requirement, or a core functional need the segment has explicitly stated, not merely assumed). Confirm against the segment's actual stated priorities from `opportunity-intake-elicitation` or direct customer research, not internal assumption. 6. **Combine with the pattern library, don't stop at this test alone.** This specific tech-level direction is not currently in this pack's 159-pattern library (`../../references/bmc-innovation-pattern-library.md`) — it's a genuine gap this skill fills. Once a direction (up or down) is chosen, check `bmc-innovation-pattern-matching` for complementary patterns to combine with it (for example, a low-tech move pairs naturally with "no-frills" value-proposition patterns; a high-tech move pairs naturally with automation- or platform-oriented patterns). ## What this skill does NOT do - Doesn't say more or less technology is inherently better — it only tests whether the CURRENT tech level is actually load-bearing for the target segment's value proposition, in either direction. - Doesn't replace direct customer research for the hygiene-factor check in Step 5 — assuming a spec is over-engineering without verifying it against real segment priorities is exactly the mistake this step exists to prevent. - Doesn't design the actual technical implementation of the chosen direction (the automation itself, the simplified product) — it only tests whether the direction is strategically sound. ## Refinement notes - Which direction (low-tech → high-tech, or the reverse) have you actually recommended more often in practice, and in which industries? - What's a real case where the hygiene-factor check (Step 5) stopped a client from stripping something that actually mattered? - Are there other verified cases beyond TRISA and the Wii you use as reference examples with clients? ## Continue from here - Use alongside: `bmc-innovation-pattern-matching/SKILL.md` for complementary patterns once a direction is chosen. - Verify against: `../../../../opportunity-recognition/skills/opportunity-intake-elicitation/SKILL.md` for the segment's actual stated priorities (Step 5). - This pack's shared guardrails: `../../CLAUDE.md` ## References - `../../references/bmc-source-material-notes.md` — source material background - `../../references/bmc-resilience-heuristics-research.md` — selection and grounding notes for this skill and its siblings - `../../references/bmc-innovation-pattern-library.md` — pattern library this skill's direction is not currently part of - `../../CLAUDE.md` — this pack's shared guardrails