Foundry Academy · Founder Business Fundamentals · Lesson 2 of 6

Business-model architecture

Map how the venture creates, delivers, and captures value and identify the dependencies most likely to break the model.

Start the lesson

Your learning work, on this device

No signup, cloud storage, cross-device sync or verified completion. Saving is optional. This browser profile is shared with anyone who can use it; private mode, browser cleanup or storage limits may remove work. Use only fictional or non-sensitive material. Export a copy before relying on this device.

Not saved. Worksheets, answers and practice notes currently last only in this tab.

Practice markers are self-reported, never credentials.

01 · Explanation

Business-model architecture

Objective: Map how the venture creates, delivers, and captures value and identify the dependencies most likely to break the model.

A business model is a connected set of choices, not a poster filled with slogans. Describe the customer, problem, offer, channel, revenue mechanism, major activities, key resources, partners, and cost structure in operational language. Then trace one order from awareness through purchase, delivery, support, payment, and renewal or replacement. This reveals handoffs and costs that a high-level model can hide. For each element, identify the evidence already available and the person responsible for keeping the information current. Do not treat a partner, supplier, or channel as secured unless the relationship and terms have been confirmed.

Stress-test the connections. A model can have real demand and still fail because acquisition cost is too high, cash arrives after suppliers must be paid, delivery capacity is constrained, or a regulated activity requires qualified support. Build a dependency map showing what must happen before the next step can occur. Rank assumptions by business impact and evidence strength, then design the cheapest responsible test for the high-impact, low-evidence items. The purpose is not to predict every detail. It is to expose where one attractive assumption is carrying several downstream promises and to prevent a planning document from disguising that concentration of risk.

Before you begin

  • Confirm the provisional offer, supplier quote, bench-only prototype state, unknown requirements, and existing substitute are available.
  • Separate confirmed suppliers and evidence from assumed installers, partners, approvals, and future operating relationships.
  • Use the map as a proposed order flow; no real order, installation, payment, or data transfer is supplied.

Original overview module anchor →

02 · Compare the artifacts

Supported work. Visible uncertainty.

This is a fictional, sanitized training case. It contains no real personal, customer, supplier, financial, or confidential data and does not provide legal, accounting, engineering, investment, or regulatory advice.

MesaLift predictive-maintenance venture

MesaLift is a fictional Utah founder project exploring a retrofit sensor and monthly monitoring service for independent automotive repair shops. The founder believes unexpected lift downtime is costly, but the current evidence is mixed. Nine shop managers were interviewed using a common question guide. Six recalled at least one lift-related interruption during the prior year, three described downtime as routine maintenance rather than an urgent business problem, and only two shared redacted maintenance logs. One five-bay shop signed a nonbinding letter to consider a paid pilot after a qualified safety review; another wants a free trial but refuses to install unproven hardware. The founder estimates a $149 monthly subscription and a $420 installation charge. A preliminary supplier email quotes $118 per sensor at 100 units, excluding enclosure, calibration, freight, installation, returns, and warranty. A competing preventive-maintenance contract costs roughly $900 per lift each year but includes inspections the proposed service cannot replace. The prototype currently detects vibration patterns on a bench; it has not been validated on an operating lift and no safety, electrical, insurance, or certification determination has been made. The founder has $28,000 available, wants to order 250 sensors, and hopes to raise capital within eight weeks. A collaborator says the algorithm is proprietary, yet the code repository contains an unreviewed open-source component with license obligations. The founder also drafted a pitch stating that MesaLift prevents failures and saves shops thousands, although neither claim is supported. Learners must turn this incomplete record into a staged, evidence-led venture plan. The goal is not to approve the product or predict success. It is to show how disciplined customer discovery, model design, economics, gates, responsibility, and claim control change the next decision.

Supported example — reference only

Element
Prototype evidence boundary
From or trigger
Sensor is available for evaluation; operating order record not supplied.
To or outcome
Bench exercise only; field installation and operating-lift evidence remain pending.
Evidence and source ID
M02-I03 (F07, confirmed)
Owner
Founder and qualified technical reviewer
Open question
What evidence and approvals are required before an operating vehicle-lift test?
Status
Confirmed boundary — field gate blocked

A well-handled evidence gap

Element
Installation and compliance handoff
From or trigger
Proposed customer acceptance of an offer; acceptance record not supplied.
To or outcome
Qualified installation and approved field use; neither is supplied.
Evidence and source ID
M02-I04 (F08, unknown)
Owner
Qualified technical, safety, insurance, and certification reviewers
Open question
Applicable requirements, installer authority, evidence, and approval sequence: not supplied.
Status
Gap open — escalate before field use

Flawed approach — do not copy

Marking this order-flow diagram “approved and complete” without the required evidence or reviewer is a flawed submission. Stop before field installation, customer commitment, or partner representation when a critical handoff lacks evidence or an authorized owner.

Repair: Rework the order-flow diagram as an evidence-backed draft, not an approved result. Start with the customer trigger and map each proposed handoff through offer, payment, sensor supply, installation, monitoring, support, and renewal. Attach M02-Ixx source IDs only to elements supported by the packet and mark all other nodes learner proposals. Distinguish the confirmed supplier quotation and bench exercise from unconfirmed production, installation, certification, and data-handling relationships. Check the revision against this requirement: The proposed order flow covers customer trigger through service and renewal without treating assumptions as confirmed relationships. If the required evidence is still absent, keep the decision blocked and identify the missing input or authorized reviewer.

Full case record, ambiguities and all assignments →

03 · Bounded practice

Build the order-flow diagram.

Map one order from awareness through installation, monitoring, support, renewal, and end-of-service handling.

Deliverable: An order-flow diagram and ranked dependency register with accountable owners.

Complete a bounded starter and gap analysis using only CB01, F04, F05, F07, F08, F09, and the assignment-scope record below. Populate supported fields, label every unavailable field “not supplied,” and cite the input ID for each material statement. You may design a proposed template, control, question, or decision rule, but must label it as a learner proposal rather than observed case evidence. Do not contact people, access live systems, run tests, sign records, claim approval, or invent names, dates, quotations, transactions, results, or source documents.

Exact supplied inputs for this assignment
  • M02-I01 · F04 — The working offer is a $149 monthly subscription plus a $420 installation charge.
  • M02-I02 · F05 — A supplier quoted $118 per sensor at 100 units, excluding several material cost categories.
  • M02-I03 · F07 — The prototype has only been exercised on a bench, not on an operating vehicle lift.
  • M02-I04 · F08 — Applicable safety, electrical, insurance, installation, and certification requirements are undetermined.
  • M02-I05 · F09 — A preventive-maintenance substitute costs about $900 per lift annually and includes physical inspections.
  • M02-B01 · CB01 — Use CB01, the full versioned case brief printed once at the start of this packet, as a citable narrative source for details not normalized into F01–F12. Preserve its uncertainty language and do not treat narrative detail as approval, complete operational records, or professional judgment.
  • M02-S01 · F04, F05, F07, F08, F09 — Build a starter version of “An order-flow diagram and ranked dependency register with accountable owners.” from the listed case facts. Treat requested structures, controls, questions, calculations, and templates as learner-designed proposals. Where an operational record or result is absent, add a gap entry naming the missing evidence and authorized owner instead of fabricating it.

Operating procedure

  1. Start with the customer trigger and map each proposed handoff through offer, payment, sensor supply, installation, monitoring, support, and renewal.
  2. Attach M02-Ixx source IDs only to elements supported by the packet and mark all other nodes learner proposals.
  3. Distinguish the confirmed supplier quotation and bench exercise from unconfirmed production, installation, certification, and data-handling relationships.
  4. At every handoff, name the information, payment, product, or decision that must move and identify the missing accountable owner.
  5. Rank dependencies in the companion register by impact and evidence strength without converting unknown safety requirements into estimated facts.
  6. Route technical, safety, insurance, installation, and certification questions to qualified reviewers before any field-use gate.
  7. Quality-check the map for a complete end-to-end loop, source citations, visible gaps, and no implied live transaction or partner commitment.
Field-by-field guidance
Element
Name one operating node, such as sensor supply, bench evaluation, installation, or subscription billing.
From or trigger
State the preceding event or decision; mark it proposed when the packet does not supply an operating record.
To or outcome
Describe the intended next state without claiming it occurred.
Evidence and source ID
Cite M02-I02 or M02-I03 for confirmed supply or bench facts; label other support not supplied.
Owner
Name a role only, such as Founder or qualified technical reviewer, when no person is supplied.
Open question
Record the exact unresolved dependency, approval, payment timing, data, or installation question.
Status
Use Confirmed input, Proposed flow, Gap open, or Specialist review required.
Order-flow diagram · learning draft
ElementFrom or triggerTo or outcomeEvidence and source IDOwnerOpen questionStatus

Start with 2 rows; the complete workbook specifies 2 stable rows for this artifact. Add rows here or use the full download. No action is saved until you explicitly choose saving above.

Download complete six-module workbook (.md) · Structured case packet (.json)

Keep private client data, unpublished inventions, personal identifiers and credentials out of these public learning tools.

Module 2 · 2-item formative check

Business-model architecture

Choose an answer and request feedback. Read why each option does or does not fit the evidence. Answers stay in this tab unless you choose device-only saving; they are never submitted.

Question 1 of 2 · MODULE 2 · knowledgeWhich test best reveals whether a business model depends too heavily on one unverified assumption?
Question 2 of 2 · MODULE 2 · scenarioWhich sequence should MesaLift follow before an owner decides whether its business model is ready for another test?

Answer either question to review its reasoning.

Inspect the artifact, not just your quiz answers

  • The proposed order flow covers customer trigger through service and renewal without treating assumptions as confirmed relationships.
  • Every supported element cites a module input and every missing owner or operational record is explicit.
  • At least five material dependencies are ranked in the companion register with an evidence-strength basis.

Stop: Stop before field installation, customer commitment, or partner representation when a critical handoff lacks evidence or an authorized owner.

Go: Go to a reversible operating-model test when the tested dependency, owner, evidence target, and rollback condition are documented.

Escalate: Escalate safety, installation, insurance, certification, data, and contractual dependencies to their qualified owners.

04 · Evidence to keep

Leave with usable work.

A dated business-model map, order-flow diagram, dependency register, and ranked assumption backlog with owners.

Download your artifact CSV and, if wanted, export the learning-work JSON above. Neither export is a reviewed submission or certificate. Device-only saving is optional; you must press Save my work now after edits.

When all six artifacts are ready, compare the full packet against the track rubric. Qualified human review is still required before real-world decisions.

Founders mapping a business plan together around a conference table.
Learn the standard. Practice the work.
Business team testing a venture plan during a modern office presentation.
Leave with evidence you can inspect.

Sources, scope and review boundaries

Curriculum 2026.10.08-learning-paths-1. External source dates below are record checks, not continuing guarantees. Verify current requirements before consequential use.

sba-plan-your-business · Official guidance

Plan your business

Current SBA consolidated guidance containing the market-research, business-plan, and startup-cost sections used in Modules 1–3.

Open reviewed external source ↗

irs-starting-a-business · Official guidance

Starting a business

Official IRS starting-business overview used to identify federal tax, entity, EIN, and recordkeeping dependencies; it is a planning boundary and not individualized tax or legal advice.

Open reviewed external source ↗

ws-founder-operating-standard · Academy internal operating standard

Wealth Synergy founder evidence and decision-gate internal operating standard

Academy-selected milestone, responsibility, scorecard, evidence-room, and review controls. This is an internal operating standard selected by Foundry Academy; it is not law, accreditation, licensure, or an external-standard requirement.

Version 1.0 · reviewed 2026-09-01 · owner: Foundry Academy curriculum owner

A future Wealth Synergy private professional-development certificate would be issued only after its assessment, capstone, identity, reviewer, retention, access, deletion, appeal, and issuance controls pass quality review. No credential is currently issued. Any future certificate would not be an accredited academic qualification, professional license, or government certification.