The ROI deck ignores review time. Is the deal still sound?
An AI-written Quayline proposal claims $8,000 of monthly savings. It ignores human review and the subscription.
The question
Use the supplied steady-state month. There is no headcount reduction or overtime avoided. These are fictional estimates to test.
| Value | |
|---|---|
| Requests | 1000 |
| Current minutes per request | 8 |
| Draft minutes per request | 2 |
| Review minutes per request | 3 |
| Loaded hourly rate ($) | 60 |
| Subscription per month ($) | 2000 |
Authored estimates. No implementation cost is supplied. Capacity value is not automatically cash saved.
“Recalculate the net capacity value and explain what finance can honestly claim.”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: Count the complete new workflow
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Use the two-minute draft as the new workflow
Tempting, but it misses something. Two draft minutes alone would overstate released capacity.
Include drafting and review
The strong move. Review is part of the work required to obtain the result.
See how a strong candidate says it
“The new workflow takes 2 plus 3 minutes, or 5 minutes per request. Against 8 minutes today, it releases 3,000 minutes: 50 hours per month.”
Why it works: Review is part of the work required to obtain the result.
Step 2: Rebuild the business case
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Use net capacity value
The strong move. The comparison includes the recurring price.
Value the entire current workflow as savings
Tempting, but it misses something. The old-work cost is $8,000, not the savings.
See how a strong candidate says it
“At $60 an hour, 50 hours has a modeled capacity value of $3,000. After the $2,000 subscription, the net monthly capacity value is $1,000 before implementation and other omitted costs.”
Why it works: The comparison includes the recurring price.
Step 3: Name the financial limit
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Use the wage value as a payroll reduction
Tempting, but it misses something. A wage-based value model is not evidence of a smaller payroll.
Separate capacity from cash
The strong move. The cost base does not fall merely because a task gets faster.
See how a strong candidate says it
“No headcount or overtime cost is avoided in this packet. I would describe released time and test how the buyer can use it. I would not promise a $1,000 cash reduction.”
Why it works: The cost base does not fall merely because a task gets faster.
Step 4: Find the break-even condition
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Test the review-time threshold
The strong move. The threshold shows what evidence can reverse the decision.
Approve on the average draft time alone
Tempting, but it misses something. Longer review can consume the whole modeled benefit.
See how a strong candidate says it
“With drafting fixed at 2 minutes, review must be below 4 minutes for positive net monthly capacity value. At 4 minutes the released 33⅓ hours equals the $2,000 subscription. I would validate review time and implementation effort before approval.”
Why it works: The threshold shows what evidence can reverse the decision.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Present $1,000 net monthly capacity value, not $8,000 cash savings.
- Because
- The full workflow releases 50 hours worth $3,000 before the subscription.
- What would change it
- Review averaging 4 minutes eliminates the modeled net benefit before implementation cost.
Common traps
- Confusing the $8,000 baseline with savings.
- Selling released employee time as an automatic cash reduction.
Check your answer
- Did you include the 3 review minutes?
- Did you calculate 50 released hours and $3,000 gross value?
- Did you subtract $2,000 and distinguish capacity from cash?
- Did you test the 4-minute review break-even?
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026