B

Public Cloud SLA Comparison Engine

3.70

Derivation Chain

Step 1 Government data migration to private cloud policy
→
Step 2 Intensified competition among private cloud providers
→
Step 3 Cloud SLA & cost auto-comparison SaaS

Problem

As the government migrates 50 public systems to private cloud providers, comparing SLAs and pricing across AWS, NHN, KT, NCP, and others has become mandatory. Government procurement officers (Grade 5–7 civil servants) must manually compare each provider's SLA documents (50–100 pages each), spending an average of 3–5 days on per-service cost estimation. Inconsistent comparison criteria can lead to selecting the wrong provider, resulting in tens of millions of KRW in additional annual costs.

Solution

Enter the specifications of systems to be migrated (CPU, memory, storage, traffic) and the platform automatically compares SLAs, costs, and security ratings across major cloud providers. Core features: (1) System spec input → automatic per-provider quotes, (2) SLA item cross-comparison table (availability, response time, compensation terms), (3) Auto-filter for eligible providers by CSAP security certification level. The differentiator is comparison specialized for public procurement contexts.

Target: Government agency IT procurement officers (Grade 5–7), cloud MSP sales and pre-sales teams
Revenue Model: Per comparison Report at 190,000 KRW (~$142), annual agency Subscription at 290,000 KRW/month (~$217, unlimited comparisons + real-time price updates)
Ecosystem Role: Supplier
MVP Estimate: 2_weeks

NUMR-V Scores

N Novelty
2.0/5
U Urgency
4.0/5
M Market
4.0/5
R Realizability
4.0/5
V Validation
4.0/5
NUMR-V Scoring System
N Novelty1-5How uncommon the service is in market context.
U Urgency1-5How urgently users need this problem solved now.
M Market1-5Market size and growth potential from proxy indicators.
R Realizability1-5Buildability for a small team with realistic constraints.
V Validation1-5Validation signal quality from competition and demand data.
Each dimension is scored 1-5 and weighted into grade S/A/B/C/D.
SaaS N=.15 U=.20 M=.15 R=.30 V=.20 Senior N=.25 U=.25 M=.05 R=.30 V=.15

Feasibility (73%)

Tech Complexity
34.7/40
Data Availability
18.8/25
MVP Timeline
20.0/20
API Bonus
0.0/15
Feasibility Breakdown
Tech Complexity/ 40Difficulty of core implementation stack.
Data Availability/ 25Practical availability and cost of required data.
MVP Timeline/ 20Expected time to ship a usable MVP.
API Bonus/ 15Bonus for viable public API leverage.
Total 100 points; below 50% is filtered out.

Market Validation (64/100)

Competition
8.0/20
Market Demand
9.4/20
Timing
18.0/20
Revenue Signals
10.5/15
Pick-Axe Fit
12.0/15
Solo Buildability
6.0/10
Validation Breakdown
Competition/ 20Signal quality from competitor landscape.
Market Demand/ 20Demand proxies from search and mention patterns.
Timing/ 20Fit with current shifts in tech, behavior, and regulation.
Revenue Signals/ 15Reference evidence for monetization viability.
Pick-Axe Fit/ 15How well the concept serves participants in a trend.
Solo Buildability/ 10Practicality for lean-team implementation.
Total 100 points; below 50 is filtered out.

Technical Requirements

Data Pipeline [medium] Backend [low] Frontend [low]
Dashboard