codexkit-business-case-writer

# Business Case Writer ## When to Use - When proposing a new project or initiative that needs funding - When leadership requires financial justification for an investment - When comparing build vs buy vs partner options - When preparing for a governance or investment board review ## Procedure ### Step 1 — Executive Summary Write a 1-paragraph summary that covers: - The problem / opportunity (1 sentence) - The recommended solution (1 sentence) - The expected value (1 sentence with key numbers) - The ask (1 sentence — what you need approval for) ### Step 2 — Problem Statement Frame the problem with data: - What is happening today? (current state with metrics) - What is the impact? (revenue, cost, risk, customer satisfaction) - Why now? (trigger event, competitive pressure, window of opportunity) - What happens if we do nothing? (cost of inaction) ### Step 3 — Options Analysis | Criterion | Option A: Build | Option B: Buy | Option C: Do Nothing | |-----------|----------------|---------------|---------------------| | Time to value | 6 months | 2 months | — | | Upfront cost | $200K | $80K | $0 | | Annual cost | $50K | $120K/yr | $300K (cost of problem) | | Control | Full | Limited | — | | Risk | Medium (execution) | Low (vendor) | High (growing problem) | | Strategic fit | High | Medium | Low | ### Step 4 — Financial Analysis | Metric | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total | |--------|--------|--------|--------|-------| | Revenue impact | $100K | $250K | $400K | $750K | | Cost savings | $50K | $80K | $80K | $210K | | **Total benefit** | **$150K** | **$330K** | **$480K** | **$960K** | | Investment | ($200K) | ($50K) | ($50K) | ($300K) | | **Net value** | **($50K)** | **$280K** | **$430K** | **$660K** | Summary metrics: - **ROI:** 220% over 3 years - **Payback period:** 14 months - **NPV (8% discount):** $540K ### Step 5 — Risk Assessment | Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation | |------|-----------|--------|------------| | Execution delay | Medium | Medium | Phased rollout, dedicated team | | Adoption failure | Low | High | Change management plan | | Technology risk | Low | Medium | POC before full commit | ### Step 6 — Implementation Roadmap | Phase | Duration | Deliverables | Investment | |-------|----------|-------------|------------| | Phase 1: Discovery | 4 weeks | Requirements, vendor shortlist | $20K | | Phase 2: Build/Buy | 12 weeks | Working solution | $150K | | Phase 3: Rollout | 4 weeks | Training, go-live | $30K | ### Step 7 — The Ask Clearly state: - What approval is needed (budget, headcount, executive sponsor) - What the decision deadline is - What happens if delayed ## Inputs | Input | Required | Format | |-------|----------|--------| | Problem description | Yes | Current situation and impact | | Proposed solution | Yes | What you want to do | | Financial data | Yes | Costs, expected benefits | | Alternatives | Recommended | Other options considered | | Timeline | Recommended | When you need a decision | ## Output ```markdown ## Business Case — [Initiative Name] ### Executive Summary Our customer support team handles 5,000 tickets/month manually, costing $400K/year in labor. Implementing an AI-powered triage system will reduce manual handling by 40%, saving $160K/year with a 10-month payback. We request $120K in funding for Q2 implementation. ### Problem Statement [Data-driven problem framing] ### Options [Comparison matrix] ### Financial Analysis [3-year projection with ROI, payback, NPV] ### Risk Assessment [Risk table with mitigations] ### Implementation Roadmap [Phased plan with milestones] ### Decision Requested Approve $120K Q2 budget + 2 FTE allocation by March 30. ``` ## Definition of Done - [ ] Executive summary fits in one paragraph - [ ] Problem quantified with cost of inaction - [ ] At least 3 options compared (including do nothing) - [ ] Financial analysis includes ROI, payback, NPV - [ ] Risks identified with mitigations - [ ] Clear ask with decision deadline ## Quality Criteria - [ ] All claims reference specific frameworks, standards, or quantifiable data - [ ] Content matches the stated audience's expertise level - [ ] Recommendations are actionable — each includes a concrete next step - [ ] No unsupported assertions or generic filler language ## Verification (4C) | Check | Question | |-------|----------| | **Correctness** | Do referenced frameworks and standards match their official definitions? | | **Completeness** | Are all key concepts covered without significant gaps for the stated audience? | | **Context-fit** | Would this be useful for someone new to this domain, or is it too advanced/too basic? | | **Consequence** | If a stakeholder acted on this immediately, what could they misinterpret? | ## Edge Cases - **Conflicting frameworks** — State which framework takes precedence and why. Document the trade-off explicitly. - **Rapidly changing domain** — Note information currency date. Flag sections likely to need updates. - **Audience has mixed expertise levels** — Provide a glossary and mark advanced sections as optional. ## Changelog - v1.0.0 — Initial release