When the larger
commitment wins.

01 / The recommendation

Approve the larger direction, in stages.

The basic implementation costs $18,000. Its appeal is immediate: a $44,000 smaller starting commitment. But the decision is also about the weekly work left with a manager who has two hours available for this process. Under the supplied assumptions, the basic route needs five hours and the more complete route needs one.

The larger route remains $6,800 more expensive over three years after valuing staff time. It earns the preference because it can meet the operating constraint, subject to proof. Calling it a saving would be wrong.

02 / What the decision must protect

Capacity is part of the specification.

The fictional organisation needs to reconcile member bookings, eligibility changes and exceptions without adding an unowned weekly job. The manager can allocate two hours a week. No additional administrator has been authorised. Existing staff already carry other responsibilities.

• The basic route leaves manual reconciliation and exception records with staff: estimated five hours each week.
• The larger route includes that workflow and an exception queue: estimated one hour each week.
• Keeping the present process needs an estimated twelve hours each week.
• The comparison uses 48 operating weeks a year, a three-year horizon and staff time valued at $75 an hour.
• Both new routes need 80 internal transition hours. The larger route must still demonstrate that it can handle the actual exception scenarios.

The workload estimates are assumptions to test, not measured results. Staff time is an opportunity-cost estimate, not an automatically avoidable payroll expense. A private budget, employment decision or supplier contract still needs its appropriate review.

03 / Put the same costs beside each route

The smaller quote is still cheaper.

The larger route requires $50,000 more in implementation and recurring cash expenditure over the period, before tax. The model offsets $43,200 of that difference with lower valued staff time. Do not confuse the $6,800 economic difference with the cash needed to fund the project.

Continuing the present process avoids a new supplier commitment but consumes 1,728 staff hours over three years, valued here at $129,600. Existing system charges are not supplied and are excluded. This route also exceeds the two-hour capacity allowance.

04 / Challenge the preferred direction

One untested estimate can undo the case.

If the larger route takes three hours each week rather than one, its ongoing staff cost rises to $32,400 and its three-year total becomes $124,400 before the review fee. It also fails the capacity condition. A polished demonstration of normal bookings would not resolve that uncertainty.

At two hours a week, the larger route meets the capacity boundary but costs $113,600. The committee must be willing and able to fund that scenario. The recommendation is therefore conditional on both the operating result and an accepted budget.

The strongest alternative is to change the operating model: authorise staff for the basic route, simplify the requirement or use an existing system that demonstrably meets it. If one of those becomes feasible, compare it again. The larger build is not entitled to win because work has already started.

05 / What to authorise now

Buy the decisive evidence first.

1. Write the awkward scenarios. Include a membership change after booking, a cancelled transaction and an exception requiring a manager’s override. Use synthetic records.
2. Cap the first commitment. Obtain a written scope for up to $3,000 of validation, credited within the proposed implementation allowance if it proceeds. No credit or delivery term is assumed until agreed.
3. Measure the whole workflow. Include exception handling, reconciliation and correction. Document task volumes, timing and who must intervene. A short demonstration alone cannot establish annual operating performance.
4. Approve only against the conditions. The manager accepts the operating responsibility; the committee accepts the cash requirement and sensitivity case. Relevant specialists review the agreement, security and migration before production.

Stop if the supplier cannot demonstrate the essential workflow, if the weekly burden exceeds two hours or if the funding requirement is unacceptable. Return to a changed operating model rather than increasing the budget by default.