Business Case Development

Business Case Development

Primary Category: Strategy, Investment & Portfolio Governance

Secondary Focus: Capital Allocation, Executive Approval, and Program Accountability

Artifact Profile

Business Case Development is a governance and decision-support artifact for turning ideas into decision-ready investment proposals. It helps organizations clarify why an initiative is needed, what value it is expected to create, what it will cost, and how it will be delivered.

Using your problem statement, proposed solution, alternatives, benefits, costs, risks, and constraints, the artifact produces a structured investment rationale. Rather than advocating in isolation, it enables leaders to compare initiatives consistently and allocate resources based on value, feasibility, and trade-offs.

This artifact is built for executives, finance leaders, strategy teams, and program owners who must justify spending, secure approval, and govern delivery. It supports disciplined capital allocation, transparency, and stronger accountability for investment decisions.

Three Key Questions This Artifact Helps You Answer

• Is this initiative worth pursuing compared to other uses of resources?

• What benefits, costs, and risks define the true investment case?

• How should we structure approval, conditions, and execution expectations?

What This Framework Supports

This artifact supports organizations seeking:

• Disciplined justification of initiatives based on value, cost, risk, and feasibility

• Consistent comparison of competing investments using common governance criteria

• Transparent articulation of benefits, trade-offs, and delivery conditions for executive review

• Stronger accountability for approved initiatives through explicit approval logic

How It Is Used

The artifact provides a structured business case governance framework that guides executives, finance leaders, strategy teams, and program owners through:

• Defining the problem, proposed solution, and viable alternatives

• Evaluating expected benefits, costs, risks, and constraints in a standardized format

• Comparing initiatives across value, feasibility, and strategic alignment

• Producing a decision-ready recommendation with conditions for approval and execution

This enables organizations to govern investment decisions with transparency and discipline, ensuring that resources are allocated based on evidence, trade-offs, and strategic intent rather than advocacy.

What This Produces

• Structured business case summarizing problem, solution, and alternatives

• Clear articulation of benefits, costs, and risks

• Comparison of value and trade-offs across options

• Approval recommendation with conditions and governance expectations

Common Use Cases

• Justifying new projects, programs, or capital investments

• Comparing multiple initiatives competing for limited resources

• Preparing executive or board approval packages

• Assessing financial, operational, and risk trade-offs

• Setting conditions for approval and delivery accountability

How This Artifact Is Different

Unlike informal proposals or advocacy-driven requests, this artifact treats investment decisions as a governance process. It explicitly links rationale, value, cost, risk, and execution logic so that initiatives are approved, prioritized, and managed with transparency and discipline.

Related Framework Areas

This artifact is commonly used alongside other SolveBoard frameworks focused on:

• Portfolio governance, capital allocation, and investment prioritization

• Risk analysis, scenario planning, and strategic forecasting

• Performance governance, KPI alignment, and executive review

• Decision communication, auditability, and accountability systems

Related Terms

Business case, investment justification, capital allocation, portfolio governance, financial analysis, cost-benefit analysis, strategic prioritization, executive approval.

Framework Classification

This artifact is part of the SolveBoard library of structured decision and governance frameworks. It is designed as a repeatable investment governance framework rather than an advocacy document, pitch deck, or informal financial justification.

Business Case Development: Justify and Plan Investments

Structuring the rationale, value, and execution logic behind initiatives

Definition

Business Case Development is a structured method for defining the rationale, benefits, costs, risks, and implementation plan for a proposed initiative. It translates ideas into decision-ready investment proposals by clarifying why action is needed, what value will be created, how it will be delivered, and what trade-offs are involved. Within SolveBoard, this artifact standardizes how initiatives are evaluated and justified.

When to Use

• When proposing new projects, programs, or investments

• When seeking executive approval or funding

• When comparing multiple investment options

• When governance requires documented justification

When Not to Use

• When decisions are mandated and not discretionary

• When scope is trivial and does not require approval

• When time constraints prevent structured analysis

Common Mistakes

• Focusing on benefits without addressing costs and risks

• Overly optimistic assumptions without evidence

• Failing to define success metrics or ownership

Purpose of Business Case Development

The purpose of Business Case Development is to enable informed, accountable investment decisions. By explicitly documenting the problem, proposed solution, expected value, required resources, and execution plan, organizations can compare initiatives consistently, allocate resources effectively, and manage delivery expectations.

How to Apply

• Define the problem or opportunity being addressed

• Describe the proposed solution and alternatives

• Estimate benefits, costs, and financial impact

• Identify risks, dependencies, and constraints

• Outline the implementation approach and governance

Example Scenario

A logistics organization considers automating a warehouse operation. A business case is developed outlining the current cost baseline, expected labor savings, capital investment, implementation timeline, and operational risks. Comparing automation with process optimization alternatives, the case demonstrates a two-year payback period and manageable change risk, supporting executive approval.

Boundaries

Business Case Development does not replace detailed project planning or benefits realization management. It provides the decision justification and high-level execution logic that must be followed by delivery discipline.

What This Artifact Does

Structures how initiatives are justified, compared, and approved based on value, cost, and risk.

You Provide

(You may provide some, all, or none of the items below. Partial inputs are valid.)

• Problem or opportunity statement

• Proposed solution and alternatives

• Benefit estimates and value drivers

• Cost estimates, funding needs, and resource requirements

• Risks, assumptions, and dependencies

• Written descriptions or pasted text

• Links to financial models, budgets, or supporting analysis

• Files, PDFs, spreadsheets, images, and other uploads (always acceptable)

• Optional context notes

Core Question

Is this initiative worth doing compared to other uses of resources?

Decision Logic

• If benefits materially exceed costs and risks → Recommend approval

• If assumptions are weak or risks dominate → Rework or defer

• If alternatives offer better value → Redirect resources

What the Output Means

• Structured business case summary

• Financial and value comparison

• Approval recommendation with conditions

Do Not Use When

• Decisions are mandatory regardless of cost or value

• There is no discretionary resource allocation

You do not need to complete every section below. Provide only the information you have available or wish to provide. The AI will generate output using only the inputs you supply and will not assume or infer missing information.

Section 1 — Problem or Opportunity Statement

What This Input Represents

The business problem or opportunity the initiative addresses.

If You Have Materials, You May Provide (List file names here in your input document):

• Problem statements

• Opportunity briefs

• Executive summaries

• Context narratives

Guiding Questions:

• What problem or opportunity is being addressed?

• Why does this require action now?

• What happens if no action is taken?

Section 2 — Proposed Solution and Alternatives

What This Input Represents

The recommended approach and other viable options considered.

If You Have Materials, You May Provide (List file names here in your input document):

• Solution descriptions

• Option analyses

• Concept papers

• Strategy decks

Guiding Questions:

• What solution is being proposed?

• What alternative options were considered?

• Why is the proposed option preferred?

Section 3 — Benefits, Value, and Financial Impact

What This Input Represents

The value the initiative is expected to deliver.

If You Have Materials, You May Provide (List file names here in your input document):

• Benefit estimates

• Financial models

• Cost–benefit analyses

• Value driver frameworks

Guiding Questions:

• What benefits will this initiative produce?

• How will value be measured (financial or non-financial)?

• What is the expected return, payback, or impact?

Section 4 — Costs, Funding, and Resource Requirements

What This Input Represents

What the initiative will require in terms of money, people, and time.

If You Have Materials, You May Provide (List file names here in your input document):

• Budget estimates

• Funding requests

• Resource plans

• Implementation schedules

Guiding Questions:

• What are the expected costs?

• What funding and resources are required?

• Over what timeframe will resources be consumed?

Section 5 — Risks, Assumptions, Dependencies, and Constraints

What This Input Represents

Factors that could affect feasibility or outcomes.

If You Have Materials, You May Provide (List file names here in your input document):

• Risk registers

• Assumption logs

• Dependency maps

• Constraint lists

Guiding Questions:

• What risks could undermine success?

• What assumptions must hold true?

• What dependencies or constraints affect execution?

Section 6 — Supporting Context, Files, and References

What This Input Represents

Any additional information that would help the AI interpret the investment and execution context accurately.

You May Include (List file names here in your input document):

• Budgets or funding proposals

• Supporting analyses or spreadsheets

• Executive or board materials

• Links to financial systems or planning tools

• Pasted text or excerpts

Additional Instructions (Optional)

You may add extra instructions to further shape the output, including:

Requesting PDF or other output formats
Limiting page length or response size
Layout preferences (section order, headings, structure, templates)
Specifying tone, style, or format (executive, concise, detailed, formal, etc.)
Output consistency preferences (fixed structure, standardized phrasing, strict formatting)
Prioritization or scoring preferences (how gaps, risks, or actions should be ranked)
Desired mode behavior as outlined in the section below
Any other constraints, rules, or priorities relevant to your use case

If included, the AI will follow these instructions when they do not conflict with the bridge’s execution rules. More specific instructions generally produce more consistent, repeatable, and targeted outputs.

Desired Mode Behavior

Strict Mode

• Maximize determinism and repeatability
• Minimize wording variation, structure changes, and interpretive flexibility
• Do not extend beyond explicit user inputs

Balanced Mode (Default)

• Maintain structure and discipline
• Allow limited analytical judgment where inputs are incomplete
• Do not introduce external assumptions

Exploratory Mode

• Expand hypothesis space and analytical angles
• Surface alternative interpretations and scenario paths
• Still grounded only in user-provided inputs

If no mode is specified, default to Balanced Mode.

What This Enables

Based on your prepared inputs, this artifact will produce a structured business case that compares value, cost, and risk, clarifies trade-offs, and provides a recommendation on whether to approve, defer, or redirect the proposed investment.

Canonical Input Rule (For All SolveBoard Artifacts)

Documents are optional. Sections may be partially completed or left blank. Structured answers to any subset of guiding questions constitute valid input. The AI will evaluate only provided information and will not infer missing content.

AI Execution Instructions

You are operating in Bridge Execution Mode. Follow these rules exactly. Do not reinterpret, summarize, optimize, or override them. Do not introduce external knowledge, assumptions, or inferred content. Evaluate only user-provided inputs. If required information is missing or ambiguous, flag it rather than guessing. Output must follow the defined Output section exactly.

Users may provide some, all, or none of the input sections. Process only what is explicitly provided. Treat empty sections as intentionally omitted.

Purpose

Generate a structured business case that justifies an initiative based on value, cost, risk, and execution feasibility.

What This Bridge Answers

Is this initiative worth doing compared to other uses of resources?

Inputs (All Optional)

• Problem or opportunity statement

• Proposed solution and alternatives

• Benefit and cost estimates

• Risks, assumptions, dependencies, and constraints

• Files, PDFs, spreadsheets, images, links, or other uploaded material

• Context notes

Note: Output Quality and specificity scale with input completeness. The user has been informed of this via the input sheet.

Processing Rules

A valid Business Case output must satisfy all of the following:

• Problem, solution, and alternatives are explicitly defined

• Benefits, costs, and risks are clearly articulated

• Assumptions and dependencies are stated

• A recommendation is justified against defined criteria

When inputs are sparse:

• Produce the most complete output possible with available data

• Explicitly flag what's missing and how additional inputs would enhance the analysis

• Do not infer or assume missing information

Execution Steps

• Review context and objectives

• Structure problem, solution, and alternatives

• Analyze value, cost, and risk

• Formulate recommendation and conditions

Output

• Business case summary

• Value and cost comparison

• Approval recommendation and conditions

Failure Conditions / Misuse

• Inflated benefits or understated costs

• Ignoring risks, dependencies, or execution realities

Mode Behavior (From Input Sheet)

Strict Mode

• Maximize determinism and repeatability
• Minimize wording variation, structure changes, and interpretive flexibility
• Do not extend beyond explicit user inputs

Balanced Mode (Default)

• Maintain structure and discipline
• Allow limited analytical judgment where inputs are incomplete
• Do not introduce external assumptions

Exploratory Mode

• Expand hypothesis space and analytical angles
• Surface alternative interpretations and scenario paths
• Still grounded only in user-provided inputs

If no mode is specified, default to Balanced Mode.

Additional Instruction Governance

User-provided additional instructions must be followed exactly unless they conflict with core Bridge Execution Rules. If a conflict exists, Bridge Execution Rules take priority.

Additional instructions may control format, tone, structure, length, or ordering, but must not introduce inferred content, external knowledge, or speculative assumptions.

If instructions are ambiguous, flag ambiguity rather than guessing.

Additional Instructions Execution Rule

If the user provides instructions in the Additional Instructions field, they are binding execution constraints.

Failure to follow them constitutes a Bridge Execution Failure.

Reminder to AI: If a format is requested (e.g., PDF, DOCX), the final output MUST be delivered in that format.

Artifact Instructions

These instructions explain what information the Business Case Development artifact requires and how to prepare your inputs.

How to Prepare Your Input Document (Required Format)

Create a new Word (or similar) document.
Copy all text from the Input Sheet tab into the document.
Save it — this is now your Input Document.
Answer the guiding questions directly in the Input Document and reference any supporting files there.
Save the completed Input Document (Word, PDF, etc.).
Copy all text from the Bridge AI Prompt tab and paste it into the prompt field.
Attach the completed Input Document and any referenced files when submitting the prompt.

No Supporting Files? No Problem.

You can proceed without uploading any supporting documents, spreadsheets, dashboards, reports, or other attachments.

The Input Document is still required, but it may contain only plain-text answers to the guiding questions.

Written responses alone are sufficient for the AI to generate output.

Supporting files, links, and pasted materials are always optional.

Missing Inputs Are OK

You do not need to complete every section.
You do not need supporting files.

The AI will still run. It will:

Use only the inputs you provide
Skip or flag missing sections
Never fail due to incomplete information

Output quality scales with input depth — but execution never breaks.

Submitting Files

If you upload files, list each file name under the relevant “If You Have Materials” section in your Input Document. This ensures each file is clearly tied to its intended use.

What to Expect From This AI Bridge

This bridge generates a structured, high-value starting point, not a guaranteed final deliverable. Output quality improves as inputs become clearer, deeper, and more complete.

This artifact supports iteration. Users are encouraged to refine inputs, test variations, and rerun the bridge to improve results.

The AI organizes complexity and accelerates insight — but final judgment and decisions remain with the user.

In Short

Stronger inputs → stronger outputs
Iteration improves results
Cross-artifact testing can reveal new perspectives
This artifact enables progress, not perfection