business-case

name	business-case
description	This skill should be used when the user asks to "build the business case for this transformation," "write up the cost-benefit for this initiative," or needs scope, cost, benefit, sequencing, risk, and a specific ask pulled together into a decision-ready business case.
allowed-tools	Read, Grep, Glob
metadata	{"version":"0.4.0","owner":"transformation practice","review_cadence":"quarterly","work_shape":"option-evaluation","permission_tier":"advisory","output_class":"draft-for-review","sourcing_policy":"volatile-facts-must-be-sourced"}

Business Case

When to use

Decision-ready transformation business case — problem, options, cost/benefit, sequencing, risk, specific ask; BLUF structured.

What this skill does not do

• Does not invent financials — tag assumptions; INPUT NEEDED for missing costs.
• Does not approve funding — draft for sponsor/finance gate.
• Does not sequence roadmap — hand off detail to /transformation:roadmap-builder.

Preconditions

Load org + transformation profiles before building; provisional mode on user request.

Provisional mode

See workflow section below — generic defaults with [PROVISIONAL] tags.

Trust spine

Option-evaluation bands; benefit confidence labels; GATE before board/exec final. Guards invented financials and unsigned assumptions.

Assumption audit

Before drafting options, surface every load-bearing assumption explicitly — not buried in tables:

Assumption	Source	If wrong, what breaks
Adoption / uptake rate	[sourced / user estimate / unknown]	Benefit case collapses or shifts payback
Cost estimate completeness	[sourced / partial / missing]	ROI overstated
Timeline to value	[sourced / judgment / unknown]	Sequencing and funding tranches misaligned
Baseline performance	[measured / inferred / missing]	Delta benefits invented
Dependency readiness	[confirmed / assumed / unknown]	Recommended option not executable

Do not proceed to a defensible recommendation when adoption, baseline, or cost completeness are all unknown without tagging confidence structured first pass and listing assumptions in LOAD-BEARING ASSUMPTIONS.

Red flags

These checks are non-negotiable — halt and fix before delivering a board- or finance-facing final:

• MUST NOT present ROI, NPV, or payback without sourced baseline and cost inputs — use INPUT NEEDED instead.
• MUST NOT treat soft benefits as hard P&L without a confidence label and mechanism — optimism bias causes boards to fund on phantom cash.
• Do not proceed if the recommended option lacks kill/revisit criteria dated before the decision — without them, sunk-cost momentum tends to cause spend continuation after failure signals.
• Hard stop: any hard benefit line with Low confidence that carries more than 25% of the headline case value — escalate to sponsor before polish.

Outside-view step

After Step 5 (benefit realism), run a reference-class check before sensitivity:

1. Name 2–3 comparable initiatives (same org, peer sector, or public case studies) with documented cost/benefit/timeline outcomes.
2. Compare this case's headline timeline and benefit uplift to the reference-class median — if this case is faster or larger than the class without explicit rationale, apply an optimism-bias uplift per HM Treasury Green Book guidance (state the % applied and why) or downgrade confidence.
3. Record in output: OUTSIDE-VIEW: [reference class] — median realisation [X%]; this case [above/at/below] class; adjustment [none | haircut Y%].

Always apply a reference-class haircut to benefit timelines because optimism bias causes systematic overstatement of delivery speed and adoption — the Green Book documents this as a demonstrated, systematic tendency.

Purpose

Produce a decision-ready business case the sponsor or finance team can act on in one pass — not a generic transformation template. Every option has scope, cost, benefit, and timeline; every benefit line carries a confidence label; the recommendation is stated before the supporting tables.

Precondition: load profiles

Before building the case, read both:

• ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-strategy/org-profile.md — financial conventions, planning cadence, risk appetite, escalation
• ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-strategy/transformation/CLAUDE.md — delivery model, funding model, governance forums, business-case thresholds, risk posture

If either file is missing or still has template placeholders, surface this bounce:

I notice your practice profile isn't configured yet — that's how I tailor options discipline, approval gates, and risk framing to your org.

Two choices:

• Run /transformation:practice-setup (a few minutes) to configure your profile, then I'll build a case calibrated to your governance and funding model.
• Say "provisional" and I'll build against generic defaults — balanced risk posture, quarterly planning, standard four-option structure — and tag every output [PROVISIONAL — configure your profile for tailored output].

Provisional mode

If the user says "provisional," run the workflow using: balanced risk posture, no named approval gates (flag "confirm with finance/sponsor"), generic Now/Next/Later sequencing grain, business-case threshold = full case above $500K [unverified — generic default]. Tag the reviewer note and confidence line with [PROVISIONAL]. At the end, append:

"That was a generic run. Run /transformation:practice-setup to calibrate approval gates, funding model, and business-case thresholds to your org."

Workflow

Before Step 1: Read and apply ../../references/trust-conventions.md — source-tagging, [verify] on model-only numbers, load-bearing assumptions at top, numbers provenance, confidence labeling, and board-ready gate.

Step 1: Orient

Confirm before drafting:

Question	Answer
Decision type	Invest / defer / stop / re-sequence / fund discovery
Audience	Board / ELT / sponsor / finance / delivery forum
Initiative	Name and scope boundary
Evidence pack	Costs, baseline, benefits, dependencies, risks — what's in hand vs missing

If decision type or audience is unclear, ask once. The same underlying analysis produces different emphasis: finance needs cost rigor; board needs the ask and kill criteria; delivery forum needs sequencing and dependencies.

Step 2: Evidence gap check

Inventory the evidence pack explicitly. Do not silently assume missing inputs.

Input	Status
One-time and run-rate costs	Provided / partial / missing
Baseline metrics	Provided / partial / missing
Benefit quantification	Provided / partial / missing
Dependencies	Provided / partial / missing
Risk register	Provided / partial / missing

If financials are missing or partial: produce a structured first pass — problem, options, qualitative benefits, sequencing, risks, and explicit INPUT NEEDED lines. Do not fabricate ROI, NPV, or payback. State: "ROI/payback withheld — baseline and cost inputs not provided."

Connector-sourced figures: When costs or benefits are pulled from ~~bi analytics, ~~spreadsheet, or finance MCP connectors, tag each number [sourced: <connector>, <dataset>, <as-of>] before it appears in options tables. Failed or partial connector pulls become INPUT NEEDED, not estimates.

If only soft benefits exist: quantify only what's sourced; classify the rest (see Step 4) and keep overall confidence at structured first pass.

Step 3: State the problem precisely

What specifically isn't working, for whom, measured how. A vague problem produces a vague recommendation regardless of cost/benefit formatting.

Step 4: Options discipline

Lay out exactly four option types unless the user narrows scope:

Option	Purpose
Do nothing	True baseline — cost of inaction, not a straw man
Minimum viable change	Smallest credible move that addresses the core problem
Recommended	The option this case advocates
Bolder option	Higher scope/cost upside case for comparison

For each: scope, one-time cost, ongoing cost, timeline to value. Use INPUT NEEDED for missing cost lines — never round-number placeholders.

Step 5: Benefit realism

Classify every benefit line:

Type	Definition
Hard benefit	Quantifiable P&L or cash impact with a traceable baseline
Soft benefit	Real but hard to monetize — productivity, satisfaction, speed
Risk avoidance	Cost or exposure prevented — state the risk event and range
Capability value	Strategic optionality — state what decision it unlocks later

Confidence label per benefit line: High (sourced baseline + conservative assumption) / Medium (partial data or judgment-heavy) / Low (directional only). A case with any load-bearing Low-confidence hard benefit stays structured first pass.

Step 6: Sensitivity table

When any hard benefit or cost is quantified, add a sensitivity table — vary the 1-2 load-bearing assumptions (adoption rate, cost estimate, timeline slip) and show impact on the headline outcome. If nothing is quantified, include:

SENSITIVITY: Withheld — no quantified benefits/costs to stress-test. Run again when [specific inputs] are available.

Step 7: Sequencing, risks, and kill criteria

Sequencing: headline phasing for the recommended option. Hand off to roadmap-builder for detailed phasing if approved; stay at headline level here.

Risks: initiative-specific, not generic transformation boilerplate. Each risk: likelihood, mitigation, owner if known.

Kill / revisit criteria — set before the decision, not after momentum builds:

KILL / REVISIT CRITERIA:
- Abandon if: [specific, dated trigger]
- Revisit assumptions if: [specific trigger]
- Escalate to [forum from profile] if: [cost/schedule/risk threshold]

Check ## Review gates in the transformation profile for named approval forums.

Step 8: Recommendation and ask

State the recommendation first (BLUF), then supporting tables.

Ask: budget amount (or range), decision needed, by when, from whom. Route to the approval gate matching audience and dollar value from the profile — name a role, not "get approval."

Step 9: Board-ready gate

If audience is board, ELT, or external finance sign-off, run the trust-spine GATE before the polished final. Working drafts and "for discussion" versions skip the gate but keep confidence labels.

Output format

CONFIDENCE: [defensible recommendation | structured first pass]
DECISION TYPE: [invest | defer | stop | re-sequence | fund discovery]
AUDIENCE: [board | ELT | sponsor | finance | delivery forum]

LOAD-BEARING ASSUMPTIONS:
- [assumption] — if wrong: [impact]

RECOMMENDATION: [one to two sentences — BLUF]

PROBLEM: [specific, measurable]

WHY THIS OPTION:
1. [point]
2. [point]
3. [point]

OPTIONS:
| Option | Scope | One-time cost | Ongoing cost | Benefit summary | Time to value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Do nothing | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| Minimum viable | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| Recommended | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| Bolder | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

BENEFITS (recommended option):
| Benefit | Type | Amount/range | Confidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ... | hard/soft/risk avoidance/capability | ... | H/M/L | [sourced: …] or INPUT NEEDED |

SENSITIVITY:
| Assumption | Base | Downside | Upside | Impact on case |
|---|---|---|---|---|

SEQUENCING: [headline phasing]

RISKS:
| Risk | Likelihood | Mitigation | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|

KILL / REVISIT CRITERIA:
- ...

ASK: [budget/decision, by when, from whom]
APPROVAL ROUTING: [named forum/role per profile thresholds]

EVIDENCE GAPS: [what's still INPUT NEEDED before this becomes defensible]

Quality checks before delivering

• Both profiles loaded (or [PROVISIONAL] tagged)
• Decision type and audience confirmed
• Four-option discipline applied (or scope explained if fewer)
• No invented financials — gaps flagged as INPUT NEEDED
• Every benefit line has type and confidence label
• Kill/revisit criteria are specific and dated
• Recommendation appears before detailed tables (BLUF)
• Board/exec final has reviewer note if gate was run

Worked example

Input: Platform consolidation initiative; sponsor audience; partial cost data.

Expected output (excerpt):

RECOMMENDATION: Proceed with minimum viable consolidation — staged funding reduces risk [review]
CONFIDENCE: structured first pass
EVIDENCE GAPS: INPUT NEEDED — integration run-rate from finance

Propose profile update

When a stable convention surfaces during this run (thresholds, naming, tone, output format, or recurring corrections), propose a profile update: show the exact diff against ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-strategy/transformation/CLAUDE.md (org-wide facts go to org-profile.md), ask for confirmation, and write only on yes. Only /transformation:practice-setup auto-applies a full profile write.

Outputs

Follows plugin CLAUDE.md § Outputs. End with decision tree — fill cost inputs, approve and hand off to roadmap-builder, finance validation, defer, or escalate per profile forums.