A worksheet for costing a reporting problem before you ask for budget: reconciliation effort, decision risk, and what changes once definitions are settled.
A current state cost, an exposure beyond labour, a named measurement with a baseline, and the cost of the work set against the cost of doing nothing. Most cases fail at the baseline, because without one there is no way to prove later that anything improved, and a sponsor who has been burned once will ask for it.
Ask three people what they spend per cycle and take the median rather than the average, since the optimistic answer skews it. Count the time spent working out why two numbers differ, not the time spent building the report. Include the senior people who get pulled into the argument, because that is where the real cost sits.
Yes, and it is usually the line that makes the case land. One correction to a board, a lender, or an auditor costs more than the programme. Keep it factual rather than dramatic: state what external figures depend on the metric and what a restatement would involve.
Directionally right and clearly labelled beats precise and unsourced. State your assumptions next to each figure. A sponsor can argue with an assumption, which is a productive conversation. They cannot argue with a number that arrived without one.
Then you have saved the budget and you have the evidence to say so. That is a legitimate outcome. It is also why the diagnostic is priced separately from the build, so that conclusion can be reached cheaply rather than halfway through a project.
Finance will not approve a fix for a problem nobody has costed. This is the worksheet for costing it: what reconciliation actually consumes, what a wrong number costs when a decision rides on it, and what changes if the definitions get settled. Fill it in with your own figures. If the total does not justify the work, that is a useful answer too.
A worksheet for costing a reporting problem before you ask for budget: reconciliation effort, decision risk, and what changes once metric definitions are settled.
A reporting improvement business case puts a number on what conflicting metrics cost before anyone asks for budget. It counts reconciliation hours, decisions delayed or made twice, and the exposure when an external figure turns out wrong, then compares that against the cost of settling the definitions once.
This is the number most teams have never worked out, and it is usually the largest line. Count people, not systems.
Across finance, analytics, and the business units. Count the time spent working out why two numbers differ, not the time spent building the report. Ask three people and take the median rather than the optimistic answer.
Use fully loaded cost rather than salary. If senior people are pulled into the argument, count them separately, because that is the expensive part.
Monthly close, quarterly board pack, and the ad hoc requests that arrive when someone disputes a figure. The ad hoc ones are usually undercounted.
Hours times loaded cost times cycles. Write it down. This is the figure the rest of the case is measured against.
Labour is the easy half. The expensive half is what happens when a decision waits, or goes the wrong way.
How many times in the last year did a decision wait for a reconciliation? What was waiting? A hiring plan, a pricing change, a renewal. Put a cost on the delay, not on the meeting.
Work that was done, then redone when the underlying figure changed. This is usually visible in rework rather than in a budget line.
Figures that go to a board, a lender, an auditor, or an investor. One correction after the fact costs more than the whole programme, and it is the line that makes this case land.
If forecasting or AI work is waiting on trustworthy inputs, that programme's cost of delay belongs here, not in its own business case.
A business case that promises improvement without a measurement is a request for trust. Name the measurement now, before anyone has an incentive to pick a flattering one.
Today's reconciliation hours and today's cycle time, recorded before any work starts. Without this, no later claim of improvement can be checked.
Name them. Revenue, margin, active customer, pipeline. A case that says 'our metrics' will be approved for less than one that names six and says who owns each.
An unowned definition drifts back within two quarters. Naming the owner is what makes the fix durable, and sponsors recognise that.
Pick it now. Ninety days after delivery is usual. Put it in the case so the result gets checked rather than assumed.
Be specific about what is being bought, and about what is not yet known.
The first stage finds what is actually wrong and scopes the build. Pricing it separately is what lets finance approve a small amount now and the rest later, which is far easier to get through.
Any firm quoting a build before the diagnostic is guessing. Say so in the case. It protects you when the number moves.
Your people will be needed for definitions and sign off. Underestimating this is the most common reason these projects slip, and finance notices when it is missing.
The reconciliation cost from section 1, every year, plus the exposure from section 2. This is the comparison, not zero.
A growth stage SaaS platform had five different ARR calculations in use and a figure going to its board that nobody could reconcile. The case was built on the reconciliation effort and the external exposure rather than on a technology argument.
One certified source, used as the data room foundation for the Series C
These separate a firm that will find the answer from one that will build what you asked for.
Will you establish a baseline before you start, so the improvement can be checked rather than asserted?
What happens if the diagnostic finds the work is not worth doing? Can we stop there, and what does that cost?
Who writes the metric definitions, and who owns them after you leave?
What reconciliation checks will prove the new number matches the source system?
How much time do you need from our people, by role, by week?
A current state cost, an exposure beyond labour, a named measurement with a baseline, and the cost of the work set against the cost of doing nothing. Most cases fail at the baseline, because without one there is no way to prove later that anything improved, and a sponsor who has been burned once will ask for it.
Ask three people what they spend per cycle and take the median rather than the average, since the optimistic answer skews it. Count the time spent working out why two numbers differ, not the time spent building the report. Include the senior people who get pulled into the argument, because that is where the real cost sits.
Yes, and it is usually the line that makes the case land. One correction to a board, a lender, or an auditor costs more than the programme. Keep it factual rather than dramatic: state what external figures depend on the metric and what a restatement would involve.
Directionally right and clearly labelled beats precise and unsourced. State your assumptions next to each figure. A sponsor can argue with an assumption, which is a productive conversation. They cannot argue with a number that arrived without one.
Then you have saved the budget and you have the evidence to say so. That is a legitimate outcome. It is also why the diagnostic is priced separately from the build, so that conclusion can be reached cheaply rather than halfway through a project.