Business case

Purpose & When to Use

Single-number ROI cases lose credibility the moment finance sees them. A seller who shows one big, optimistic figure looks exactly like what they are — a seller. The buyer's internal reviewers discount it on sight, and the champion is stuck defending a number they didn't build and don't believe. Gal's fix is to model a range: worst, average, and best case. Showing the downside is what makes the upside believable. It signals you're impartial, it survives a skeptical finance review, and it pre-handles the "you're inflating this" objection before anyone raises it.

This skill builds that case. It takes the buyer's root-cause problem and baselines, models three scenarios with explicit assumptions, and produces a one-page business case the champion can carry into procurement and finance and actually defend.

Run this skill when any of these are true:

• The deal is heading into procurement, finance, or exec sign-off.
• The champion needs an internal justification for the spend.
• You've been showing (or are tempted to show) a single optimistic ROI number.
• Finance or a skeptic is likely to challenge your numbers.
• You want the AE to look like an honest advisor, not a pitch.

Do not build this on a problem whose impact you can't ground in the buyer's own baselines. A 3-scenario model built on invented inputs is just three fantasies instead of one. If you have no real baseline, the first task is getting it — see Step 1.

Procedure

Inputs you need

Collect these before modeling. Where a baseline or assumption is missing, do not fabricate it — mark it [CONFIRM WITH BUYER] and make confirming it part of building the case with the champion.

• Deal context: company, champion (name + role), deal stage, price/investment, contract term.
• The root-cause problem you're solving — the mechanism behind the pain, in the buyer's words, ideally validated in discovery.
• Baseline metrics tied to that problem — current volume, time, headcount, cycle length, conversion, churn, cost — whatever the ROI hinges on. Use the buyer's numbers, not industry averages.
• The mechanism of improvement — how your solution changes each baseline metric.
• The investment — total cost over the term, so ROI and payback are real, not gross "value created."
• Who will scrutinize the case — finance, procurement, exec — and what they care about.

If you're missing the core baselines, stop and treat "get the buyer's numbers" as the first task; a case with no real baseline can't be defended.

Step 1 — Anchor to the root-cause problem

State the problem the case solves, in the buyer's words, as a root cause — not a symptom and not your feature. Every dollar in the model must trace back to fixing this one thing. If the value you're about to model doesn't connect to the root-cause problem, cut it; unrelated "value" is what makes finance stop trusting the whole page.

Step 2 — Establish the baseline

Write down the current-state numbers the ROI depends on, using the buyer's own data. Show the baseline explicitly so the reviewer can check it. Anything you don't have goes in as [CONFIRM WITH BUYER] rather than a placeholder guess. The baseline is the foundation — if it's soft, say so.

Step 3 — Define the three scenarios

Model the outcome at three levels of improvement, each tied to the same root-cause problem and baseline:

• Worst case — a deliberately conservative improvement. Small, defensible, "even if this barely works" level. This is the number that buys your credibility.
• Average case — the realistic, most-likely improvement based on typical results and the buyer's context.
• Best case — the upside if things go well. Ambitious but still tied to a real mechanism, not a fantasy.

For each scenario, keep the assumptions explicit and visible: what improvement rate you assumed, over what timeframe, on which baseline. The reader should be able to disagree with an assumption and re-run the math — that transparency is the whole point.

Step 4 — Do the math for each scenario

For each scenario compute the value created (from the improved metric vs. baseline), subtract the investment, and show net ROI and payback period. Keep the arithmetic on the page and auditable. Round conservatively rather than generously. The worst case should still be defensible on its own — if the worst case doesn't justify the spend, the case isn't ready and you should say so honestly.

Step 5 — Pre-handle the objection with the range

Frame the range explicitly as impartiality: "Here's the conservative case, the likely case, and the upside — even the worst case pays back in X." Showing the downside is what disarms the "you're inflating this" objection. Note the key assumptions the buyer should pressure-test, and invite them to adjust the inputs — a case the buyer edits is a case the buyer owns.

Step 6 — Package as a one-pager for the champion

Produce it as a single-page business case the champion can forward internally without you in the room: problem, baseline, the three scenarios side by side with net ROI and payback, and the stated assumptions. Add a short co-review framing that invites the buyer to challenge the assumptions. It should read like an honest analysis a CFO would respect, not a sales slide.

What it produces

A one-page ROI business case containing:

• Root-cause problem — in the buyer's words, the thing every dollar traces back to.
• Baseline — the buyer's current-state numbers, shown explicitly.
• Three scenarios — worst / average / best, side by side, each with its net ROI and payback.
• Explicit assumptions — improvement rate, timeframe, and baseline behind each scenario, stated so they can be challenged.
• The math — auditable arithmetic for each scenario.
• Objection-handling frame — the range positioned as impartiality, with assumptions flagged for the buyer to pressure-test.
• [CONFIRM WITH BUYER] items — missing baselines and assumptions, as tasks rather than guesses.

What Good Looks Like

A great business case is one the champion forwards to their CFO without editing, and the CFO respects. The worst case alone justifies the spend. The assumptions are visible and conservative, so a skeptic can poke at them and still land on "yes, this pays back." The AE comes across as an impartial advisor who showed the downside first — which is exactly why the upside gets believed.

Signs it's working:

• The buyer edits an assumption and re-runs the math themselves — they own it now.
• Finance stops arguing about whether the numbers are inflated and starts discussing timing.
• The worst-case scenario, on its own, clears the bar.
• Every dollar in the model traces back to the one root-cause problem.

Signs it's off track:

• There's really only one scenario dressed up as three.
• Baselines are industry averages or round guesses instead of the buyer's own numbers.
• Assumptions are hidden inside the total, so the reader can't challenge them.
• The worst case quietly assumes a "good" outcome — there's no honest downside on the page.