Strategy Canvas

Defining canvas attributes¶

Not levers — they are comparison baselines.

ERRC defines what you change.
The strategy canvas must also reflect what buyers already care about — even if you didn’t innovate it.
Table-stakes buyer criteria - Things buyers expect to compare no matter what.
Context-setting anchors - Axes that help interpret your differentiation.
Economic reality checks - Axes that prevent mis-bucketing (“cheap job board” vs “expensive recruiter”).
Can a buyer meaningfully compare platforms on this dimension?

Axis	Ibby	Job Boards	Recruiters / Search Firms
Price	5.5	2	9
Operational Load	4.2	8.6	3.2
Volume Pressure	5.1	9	3
First-Come Timing Bias	1.3	9	4.5
Rework	1	8	3.5
Pre-call Signal	7.5	1	5
Claim-based Fit Modeling	9

🏭Price¶

(Baseline anchor — not ERRC) The total financial and operational cost required to identify, qualify, and engage a truly good-fit candidate.

What it actually measures¶

Direct spend required to access candidates (fees, subscriptions, success fees)
Hidden downstream labor cost (screening time, coordination, rework)
Cost of low-signal inflow (noise tax paid in reviewer hours)
Cost predictability vs surprise costs (e.g., “cheap applicants” but expensive triage)

Competitive variation¶

Job boards (Low) → cheap access, expensive downstream effort, high waste
Recruiters (Very high) → contingent or retained fees tied to salary
Ibby (Moderate) → higher than boards, lower than recruiters; pay for signal + process discipline, reduces downstream waste

🏭Operational Load¶

(Baseline anchor — not ERRC) The ongoing time and effort burden placed on the company to run hiring through the channel.

What it actually measures¶

Amount of human time spent triaging, coordinating, and shepherding candidates
Process overhead (status chasing, scheduling, stage management)
Cognitive load and decision fatigue created by the channel
Work shifted onto hiring managers vs absorbed by the intermediary/system

Competitive variation¶

Job boards (Very high) → employers do the screening and herding
Recruiters (Low) → recruiter absorbs sourcing + initial coordination
Ibby (Low–moderate) → constrained flow reduces triage, but includes a pre-ATS step by design

🏭Volume Pressure¶

(Baseline anchor — not ERRC) The degree to which the channel overwhelms participants with too many “possible” candidates, forcing shallow filtering.

What it actually measures¶

The size of the candidate inflow relative to review capacity
The extent to which evaluation becomes “fast elimination” instead of careful selection
How often good candidates are missed due to attention scarcity
Whether the system optimizes for throughput over fit

Competitive variation¶

Job boards (Very high) → volume is the product; overload is the norm
Recruiters (Low) → curated slates throttle volume
Ibby (Moderate) → intentionally bounded flow, still maintains optionality; adjustable goldilocks flow

🧩First-Come Timing Bias¶

(Reduce: Queue-Based Candidate Prioritization) How much being early in the queue determines whether someone is meaningfully considered, regardless of actual fit.

What it actually measures¶

Whether candidates must optimize for speed over fit to be seen
The extent to which submission order determines visibility and consideration
Whether hiring evaluation is constrained by queue exhaustion rather than merit
How sensitive outcomes are to timing rather than match quality

Competitive variation¶

Job boards (Very high) → apply early or be buried
Recruiters (Moderate) → human-managed, but still time-sensitive
Ibby (Low) → fit can be evaluated whenever matching occurs, not when the req opens

🧩Rework (Data Re-entry)¶

(Raise: Canonical Profile Construction) The amount of repeated rework required to apply across opportunities (and for employers, to create/maintain postings and intake).

What it actually measures¶

How often candidates must re-enter the same information across systems
How fragmented the hiring “profile” becomes across platforms and applications
How much employer effort is repeated across req creation and maintenance
The degree to which the system supports reusable, normalized representations of fit

Competitive variation¶

Job boards (High) → duplicative forms and fragmented application flows
Recruiters (Moderate) → reuse candidate packets, but repackage per client/role
Ibby (Low) → normalized dossier is reused; minimal re-entry by design

🧩Pre-Call Signal¶

(Create: Conversational Context Exploration) How much meaningful, interrogable context exists to evaluate fit before the first live conversation.

What it actually measures¶

Availability of structured, comparable information prior to the first call
Whether context is specific and testable vs generic narrative
How well a reviewer can form a confident “why/why not” without meeting
The degree to which pre-call review reduces wasted interviews

Competitive variation¶

Job boards (Very low) → resumes + sparse profiles; weak structure and comparability
Recruiters (Moderate) → recruiter narrative adds context, but quality varies and is not standardized
Ibby (High) → normalized, structured context designed for pre-call inspection

🌟Claim-based Fit Modeling**¶

(Create: Claim-Based Fit Modeling) An Ibby-exclusive capability that turns fit into structured claims tied to evidence, producing a defensible “why this match” dossier.

What it actually measures¶

Extraction of capability claims from available source material into a structured model
Mapping of claims to role requirements with explicit rationale
Evidence binding: each key claim is linked to its supporting source(s)
Interrogability: reviewers can inspect, challenge, and validate claims without a live call
Proof strength: distinguishing strong vs weak evidence and surfacing gaps

Competitive variation¶

Job boards (Absent / very low) → keyword matching + self-asserted profiles; little proofing or auditability
Recruiters (Secondary / moderate) → credibility comes from human vetting and summaries, not systematic claim/evidence binding at scale
Ibby (Very high) → fit is computed from structured claims and “proofed” through evidence-bound, interrogable dossiers