Component: Strategy Manager (SM)

Description

Strategy Manager (SM) is Experian’s strategic decisioning engine intended to own segmentation, eligibility, prioritisation, and policy-driven decision logic within PCC 2.4.

PCC 2.4 is architected with the assumption that SM is the primary decision engine. The IDE configuration screens, tooling, and support model are designed to work with SM, not legacy TM decision logic.

This creates a sequencing decision:

• whether SM is implemented as part of the PCC 2.4 upgrade, or

• deferred, or

• attempted tactically in the legacy 1.1.1 environment.

Option 1: Defer SM

Upgrade to PCC 2.4 using TM logic, implement SM later

Action

• Upgrade PCC to 2.4 using lifted TM decision logic.

• Retain TM-style configuration and decision ownership.

• Defer SM implementation to a later phase.

• Accept a non-standard PCC 2.4 build.

Target State Score

2 / 5

Change Impact

3 / 5

• Minimal immediate change to decision outcomes.

• Lower short-term disruption.

• Significant deferred change when SM is eventually introduced.

Business Benefit

1 / 5

• No immediate uplift in decision quality or governance.

• Benefits are delayed and uncertain.

What this option gets

• Faster initial PCC 2.4 upgrade path.

• Reduced upfront business engagement.

• Preservation of current decision outcomes.

• Defers SM complexity to a later phase.

What this option does not get

• PCC 2.4 IDE configuration screens are not designed to expose TM decision logic.

• Build diverges from standard PCC implementation patterns.

• New delivery teams, who are stronger in SM, must learn legacy TM logic.

• Decisioning remains embedded and opaque.

• A second major change program is guaranteed.

Key Risks and Considerations

Business Risk

• Deferred SM becomes “next year’s problem” and may never be prioritised.

• Continued reliance on legacy decision constructs undermines PCC 2.4 benefits.

• Loss of momentum once the EOL pressure is removed.

Delivery Risk

• Non-standard PCC build increases long-term support risk.

• Knowledge gap as new team members are less familiar with TM logic.

• Higher overall cost due to duplicated effort across phases.

Accelerator

• Cursor can support documentation and mapping of TM logic.

• Limited acceleration because logic is preserved, not improved.

Option 2: Pivot to Target State

Implement SM as part of the PCC 2.4 upgrade

Action

• Implement SM as a core component of the PCC 2.4 upgrade.

• Translate TM decision logic into SM strategies during the upgrade.

• Use SM as the primary decision engine from day one.

• Align build to standard PCC 2.4 architecture.

Target State Score

5 / 5

Change Impact

4 / 5

• Material change to decision ownership and tooling.

• Requires engagement from business, risk, and analytics.

• Change is deliberate and consolidated into a single transformation.

Business Benefit

5 / 5

• Clean, explainable, and governed decision logic.

• Full alignment to PCC 2.4 IDE and configuration tooling.

• Avoids future rework and duplicated change.

• Enables challengers and controlled optimisation.

What this option gets

• Standard PCC 2.4 implementation aligned to vendor design.

• Leverages new SM-experienced staff, reducing ramp-up risk.

• Cursor has already mapped TM logic and can translate it into SM patterns.

• Less “blank page” SM design; focus is on translation and simplification rather than invention.

• Strong foundation for future optimisation without rebuild.

What this option does not get

• Immediate one-for-one behavioural equivalence.

• Requires upfront validation and testing effort.

• Requires CDL readiness and data alignment.

Key Risks and Considerations

Business Risk

• Requires clarity on policy intent to avoid scope creep.

• Risk if decision ownership is not clearly assigned.

Delivery Risk

• SM sequencing must be tightly managed.

• Requires disciplined testing to manage outcome shifts.

Accelerator

• Cursor can:

  • translate mapped TM logic directly into SM strategies

  • reduce SM design effort by reusing proven logic patterns

  • support validation and challenger setup

• New SM-skilled team materially reduces delivery risk.

Option 3: Tactical SM in PCC 1.1.1

Implement SM changes in the legacy environment

Action

• Build SM-based decision logic within PCC 1.1.1.

• Retain existing PCC version and architecture.

• Treat SM as a tactical uplift.

Target State Score

1 / 5

Change Impact

3 / 5

• Material decisioning change without platform upgrade.

• Partial retraining required.

• No UX or structural uplift.

Business Benefit

1 / 5

• Limited short-term benefit.

• No long-term payoff.

What this option gets

• Tactical exposure to SM.

• Some early uplift in selected decision areas.

What this option does not get

• SM logic will not migrate via lift and shift into PCC 2.4.

• Requires significant rekeying and rework later.

• Duplicates effort and cost.

• Locks in short-term gains at the expense of long-term efficiency.

Key Risks and Considerations

Business Risk

• Strong likelihood SM work is thrown away during upgrade.

• Confusion over decision ownership across versions.

• Low return on investment.

Delivery Risk

• Double handling of decision logic.

• Increased defect risk during future migration.

• Difficult to justify ongoing investment.

Accelerator

• None material.

• Any acceleration achieved is temporary and offset by future rework.

Overall Assessment

• Option 1 defers the hard work and creates a non-standard PCC build.

• Option 3 creates rework and waste.

• Option 2 consolidates change, aligns to vendor architecture, leverages existing SM capability, and avoids duplicated effort.