Should the board fund this AI rollout?
Show cash, capacity and the uncertainty behind the recommendation. Name who will report back to the board.
The question
You are Meridian’s CEO. A workflow pilot meets the existing quality threshold. Its sponsor calls gross time saved €900,000 of annual cash savings. The board must decide whether to fund a wider rollout.
| Base case | |
|---|---|
| Current work hours | 60000 |
| Gross time saved (%) | 25 |
| Extra review and rework hours | 5000 |
| Removable contractor hours | 4000 |
| Contractor cost per hour (€) | 60 |
| Annual platform cost (€) | 180000 |
| One-time rollout cost (€) | 120000 |
All other saved hours remain employee capacity. They are not cash removed.
“Correct the board pack, choose the next stage and state who will report the result.”
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: Separate cash from capacity
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Separate the 4,000 removable hours from retained capacity.
The strong move. Saved employee time needs a use before it becomes value, and does not automatically leave the cash budget.
Call all 15,000 hours cash savings.
Tempting, but it misses something. This move misses the evidence or constraint in this step.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Gross savings are 15,000 hours. After 5,000 review hours, net capacity is 10,000 hours. Only 4,000 contractor hours can leave the cash budget: €240,000. The remaining 6,000 hours are retained capacity.”
Why it works: Saved employee time needs a use before it becomes value, and does not automatically leave the cash budget.
Step 2: Make the funding decision explicit
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Show year-one cash and name the capacity commitment.
The strong move. A board can choose to buy capacity, but it should see the cost and the intended use.
Approve on the €900,000 headline alone.
Tempting, but it misses something. This move misses the evidence or constraint in this step.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Recurring net cash is €240,000 − €180,000 = €60,000. Year one is −€60,000 after rollout. I would fund a limited next stage only with an agreed use for capacity, a cash owner and a quality gate; full rollout needs a stronger case.”
Why it works: A board can choose to buy capacity, but it should see the cost and the intended use.
Step 3: Revisit removable cash
Only 2,000 contractor hours can be removed. Platform and rollout costs stay unchanged.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Recalculate cash and reopen the funding gate.
The strong move. The changed contract reduces cash savings even though the workflow still saves time.
Keep the approval because gross time saved is unchanged.
Tempting, but it misses something. This move misses the evidence or constraint in this step.
See how a strong candidate says it
“With 2,000 removable hours, cash saved is €120,000. Recurring net cash is −€60,000; year one is −€180,000. Retained capacity rises to 8,000 hours. I would reopen the funding decision.”
Why it works: The changed contract reduces cash savings even though the workflow still saves time.
Step 4: Give the board a reviewable commitment
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Name the decision, owners and next review.
The strong move. The executive owns the recommendation and the evidence the board will receive.
Ask the AI sponsor to decide without another review.
Tempting, but it misses something. This move misses the evidence or constraint in this step.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Correct the €900,000 cash claim. Assign the CFO to verify cash and the operating leader to verify quality and capacity use. Return after the next measured cycle with the same boundaries and a stop-or-scale recommendation.”
Why it works: The executive owns the recommendation and the evidence the board will receive.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Fund a bounded next stage only if its capacity use and cost are explicit.
- Because
- The headline confuses gross time with cash removed.
- What would change it
- More removable cost, demonstrated capacity value or worse quality could change the decision.
Only 2,000 contractor hours can leave. What should the board pack show now?
Common traps
- Counting capacity as cash.
- Excluding review work.
Check your answer
- I separated gross and net hours.
- I showed year-one cash.
- I revised for removable hours.
- I named owners and a review gate.
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026