Business Case Builder

Overview

Creates a decision-ready business case document that follows best practices for investment justification. Combines user-provided context with external research (market data, benchmarks, case studies) to build a compelling narrative supported by financial analysis, risk assessment, and clear success metrics. Adapts depth, tone, and structure to the specified audience level.

Workflow

<Definition - Audience Levels> Adaptation targets for document depth and tone:

• C-suite/Board: Strategic focus, market impact, 1-page executive summary critical. Minimal operational detail.
• VP: Balance of strategy and execution detail, ROI prominent.
• Director: More operational detail, implementation plan and resource requirements important.
• Steering committee: Governance focus, risk and compliance prominent, decision gates explicit. </Definition - Audience Levels>

<Definition - Financial Model> The quantitative backbone of the business case. Always includes:

• Cost breakdown by category and year (3-year horizon default)
• Benefit projections with stated assumptions per line item
• ROI calculations: NPV, ROI %, payback period, IRR where applicable
• Scenario analysis: conservative (60% of projected benefits), expected (100%), optimistic (130%)
• Contingency: 15% added to cost estimates unless user specifies otherwise </Definition - Financial Model>

<Definition - Alternatives Analysis> A comparison of at least three options: the proposed solution, one credible alternative, and "do nothing." Each option is scored against criteria relevant to the audience (cost, time to value, risk, strategic fit, scalability, team readiness). The "do nothing" option must quantify growing costs, not just say "things stay the same." </Definition - Alternatives Analysis>

<Definition - Output Formats>

• docx: Formal document via canvas_docx. Used for circulation, signatures, archival.
• html: Interactive dashboard with Highcharts visualizations (financial charts, timeline). Used for presentations and live walkthroughs.
• md: Markdown file. Used for quick internal sharing or version-controlled repos.
• both: DOCX + HTML dashboard (default). </Definition - Output Formats>

<Workflow - Router description="Determine what the user needs and dispatch to the correct workflow." tools=[] triggers=["build a business case", "justify this project", "ROI analysis for", "make the case for", "get approval for"]

1. [Decide] What is the user providing?

   • Initiative description only → <Workflow - Gather> step 1
   • Initiative + supporting documents → <Workflow - Gather> step 1 (read documents first)
   • Returning after previous session with partial work → Resume at the appropriate workflow Validate: Exactly one path chosen.

2. [Decide] Are all required inputs available?

   • initiative is provided → proceed
   • initiative is missing → [Ask user] "What project or initiative do you need to justify?" Validate: initiative input is populated before moving to <Workflow - Gather>.

</Workflow - Router>

<Workflow - Gather description="Clarify the initiative, collect assumptions, and research market context." tools=[web_search, url_fetch, file_read, file_read_pdf] triggers=["User provides an initiative to justify"]

1. [Decide] Were supporting documents provided via {{supporting_docs}}?

   • Yes → [Agent] Read each document using file_read or file_read_pdf. Extract relevant data points: cost figures, timelines, vendor quotes, internal metrics, prior research.
   • No → proceed to step 2.

2. [Ask user] Present the business case framework for validation. Gather answers to:

   • Problem statement: What pain point or opportunity does this address?
   • Current state: How things work today and the cost of inaction
   • Desired future state: What success looks like
   • Success metrics: How will we measure this? (must be quantifiable)
   • Key stakeholders: Who benefits, who is impacted, who decides
   • Known constraints: Budget, timeline, resource, technical, political
   • Alternatives to consider: What other options exist? Validate: Problem-solution connection is clear. At least one measurable success metric is defined. If fails: Ask targeted follow-up questions for the missing pieces. Do not proceed without a quantifiable success metric.

3. [Think] Evaluate the audience level and determine adaptation strategy:

   • C-suite/Board: Strategic focus, 1-page executive summary is critical
   • VP: Balance of strategy and execution, ROI prominent
   • Director: Operational detail, implementation plan important
   • Steering committee: Governance focus, risk and compliance prominent Select which sections need expansion and which should be condensed based on audience.

4. [Ask user] Before researching, confirm research scope:

   • Are there specific searches you want run? (e.g., a competitor name, a market report, a technology benchmark)
   • Where should research focus? (e.g., analyst reports, peer case studies, vendor pricing, industry benchmarks, academic sources)
   • How deep? Options: light (3-5 sources, topline figures), standard (8-12 sources, detailed benchmarks), deep (15+ sources, multi-angle validation) Validate: User provides at least a depth preference. If fails: Default to standard depth and proceed.

5. [Agent] Execute research queries using web_search based on user preferences:

   • User-specified queries first (verbatim)
   • Then fill gaps with structured queries:
     • "[initiative type] ROI case study [industry]"
     • "[initiative type] market size growth [current year]"
     • "[initiative type] implementation cost benchmark"
     • "[initiative type] failure risks lessons learned"
     • "[technology/approach] adoption trends enterprise"
     • "[competitor or peer] [initiative type] results" For each promising result, follow up with url_fetch to extract actual figures. Validate: Research meets the depth level the user selected. If fails: Inform user of gaps found and ask whether to continue searching or proceed with available data.

6. [Agent] From research, extract and organize:

   • Industry benchmarks (average ROI, implementation time, cost ranges)
   • Peer examples (who else did this, what were their results)
   • Market data supporting urgency (growth trends, competitive pressure)
   • Risk data (failure rates, common pitfalls)
   • Technology maturity indicators (analyst positioning, adoption curves)

7. [Ask user] Present research findings summary. Ask:

   • Do these benchmarks align with your expectations?
   • Any internal data that contradicts or supplements these findings?
   • Are there specific competitors or peers we should reference?
   • Should I dig deeper on any specific area? Validate: User confirms research is directionally correct. If fails: Refine search queries based on user feedback and repeat step 5.

</Workflow - Gather>

<Workflow - Analyze description="Build financial model, alternatives comparison, and implementation plan." tools=[run_python] triggers=["Research findings approved by user"]

1. [Ask user] Present assumptions needed for the financial model:

   • Cost categories: implementation, software/licensing, personnel, training, ongoing operations
   • Benefit categories: revenue increase, cost savings, risk avoidance, productivity gains, customer impact
   • Time horizon (default 3 years unless user specifies otherwise)
   • Discount rate for NPV (suggest 10% unless user has a corporate standard) For each category, ask: known figure, estimated range, or unknown? Validate: User provides or confirms at least cost and benefit inputs (even as ranges). If fails: Offer to proceed with ranges and clearly label them as assumptions in the output.

2. [Agent] Build the financial model using run_python:

   • Cost breakdown by category and year
   • Benefit projections per line item with assumption labels
   • Contingency (15% on costs unless user specified otherwise)
   • ROI calculations: NPV, ROI %, payback period, IRR
   • Scenario analysis: conservative (60%), expected (100%), optimistic (130%) Validate: Math is internally consistent. Payback period is realistic given the timeline. If fails: Flag specific inconsistencies and ask user to revisit the input assumption.

3. [Ask user] Present the financial model summary:

   • Total investment (3-year)
   • Expected ROI % and payback period
   • Conservative vs. optimistic range
   • Top 3 cost drivers and top 3 benefit drivers Ask: "Do these numbers pass the smell test? Any figures that need adjustment?" Validate: User approves the financial model. If fails: Adjust specific figures per user feedback and re-run step 2.

4. [Think] Evaluate what alternatives to compare:

   • The proposed solution (always)
   • "Do nothing" (always, per Rule 2)
   • At least one credible alternative (from research findings, user input, or common industry alternatives) Select scoring criteria relevant to the audience level.

5. [Agent] Build the alternatives comparison:

   • Score each option against: cost (3-year), time to value, risk level, strategic fit, scalability, team readiness
   • Quantify the "do nothing" cost: growing expenses, competitive risk, technical debt, opportunity cost
   • State a clear recommendation with rationale Validate: At least 3 options compared. "Do nothing" has quantified costs, not just qualitative risk. If fails: Simplify to proposed vs. do-nothing with clear differentiation if a credible third option cannot be identified.

6. [Ask user] Present the alternatives analysis table and recommendation. Ask:

   • Does the comparison criteria list capture what matters to your audience?
   • Is the "do nothing" cost realistic?
   • Is there another alternative I should include? Validate: User confirms alternatives analysis. If fails: Add or adjust alternatives per feedback and repeat step 5.

7. [Agent] Draft the implementation plan:

   • Phases: Discovery/Planning, Pilot/PoC, Implementation, Optimization
   • Key milestones with decision gates (go/no-go checkpoints)
   • Resource requirements: internal team, external vendors, technology, budget authority
   • Top 5 risks with probability, impact, and mitigation strategy Adapt phase durations to {{timeline}} input if provided. Validate: Timeline is realistic given the budget and scope. Dependencies are identified. Each risk has a mitigation. If fails: Flag unrealistic elements and propose adjustments.

8. [Ask user] Present implementation plan summary: phases with durations, milestone count, resource headline, and top 3 risks. Ask:

   • Does the phasing make sense?
   • Any risks I missed?
   • Any resource constraints I should know about? Validate: User approves implementation plan. If fails: Adjust per feedback and repeat step 7.

</Workflow - Analyze>

<Workflow - Deliver description="Generate the business case document and present to user for review." tools=[run_python, file_write, open_in_session_tab] triggers=["User approves financial model, alternatives, and implementation plan"]

1. [Decide] What output format was requested via {{output_format}}?

   • docx → generate Word document via canvas_docx dependency
   • html → generate interactive HTML dashboard via highcharts + html_design dependencies
   • md → generate Markdown file
   • both → generate DOCX + HTML dashboard Validate: Exactly one path selected.

2. [Ask user] Do you have a reference document to guide the output?

   • A previous business case you liked (for tone, structure, or depth)
   • A company template the deliverable should follow
   • A style guide or formatting standard If provided: [Agent] Read the reference via file_read or file_read_pdf. Extract structure, tone, heading conventions, and any required sections. Apply these as constraints on the document assembly in the next step. If not provided: Proceed with the default structure.

3. [Agent] Assemble the document following this structure:

   1. Executive Summary (1 page max): Problem, Solution, Investment, Expected Return, Recommendation
   2. Background and Problem Statement: Current state, pain points, cost of inaction
   3. Proposed Solution: Description, approach, differentiation
   4. Market Context and Validation: Research findings, peer examples, analyst support
   5. Financial Analysis: Cost breakdown, benefit projections, ROI, scenarios
   6. Alternatives Considered: Options comparison, rationale for recommendation
   7. Implementation Plan: Timeline, phases, milestones, resources
   8. Risk Assessment: Identified risks, probability, impact, mitigation
   9. Success Metrics and Governance: KPIs, measurement plan, review cadence, decision gates
   10. Recommendation and Next Steps: Clear ask, immediate actions needed, approval requested Appendix: Detailed financial model, research sources with URLs, assumptions log Validate: All 10 sections present. Executive summary fits one page. Every claim cites its source (research URL or user-provided data).

4. [Decide] Audience-level adaptations:

   • C-suite/Board: Executive summary is the lead section, expanded to fill one full page. Body sections are concise. Appendix carries the detail.
   • VP: Executive summary plus strong Financial Analysis and Alternatives sections.
   • Director: Expanded Implementation Plan and Resource Requirements. Include Gantt-style timeline if HTML format.
   • Steering committee: Expanded Risk Assessment and Governance. Include decision gate table.

5. [Agent] Generate the deliverable(s):

   • For DOCX: Use canvas_docx to build a formatted document with proper headings, tables, and page breaks between sections.
   • For HTML: Use highcharts for financial charts (cost waterfall, ROI scenarios bar chart, payback timeline) and html_design for layout and theme tokens.
   • For MD: Write structured Markdown with tables. Save to artifacts/ directory using file_write. Validate: File(s) created successfully. Charts render (if HTML). If fails: Retry generation. If still failing, fall back to MD format and inform user.

6. [Agent] Open the deliverable using open_in_session_tab so the user can review inline.

7. [Ask user] Present the deliverable. Ask:

   • Does the executive summary capture the core argument?
   • Any sections that need expansion or trimming?
   • Tone and formality appropriate for your audience?
   • Any data points that need correction? Validate: User provides feedback or confirms approval.

8. [Decide] User response:

   • Approved → Done. Summarize what was delivered and where the file is saved.
   • Revisions requested → [Agent] Apply specific edits and regenerate. Return to step 6. Validate: Revision loop exits only on explicit user approval.

</Workflow - Deliver>

<Template - Executive Summary>

Executive Summary

Problem: [One sentence describing the pain point or opportunity]

Solution: [One sentence describing the proposed approach]

Investment: [Total cost over time horizon] ([conservative] to [optimistic] range)

Expected Return: [ROI %] over [time horizon], payback in [X months]

Recommendation: [Clear action statement: approve/fund/proceed with X]

Next Steps: [2-3 immediate actions needed from the decision-maker] </Template - Executive Summary>

<Template - Financial Summary Table>

<Template - Alternatives Comparison>

Cost of inaction: [Quantified: growing costs, competitive loss, risk exposure]

Recommendation: [Why the proposed option wins, with acknowledged tradeoffs] </Template - Alternatives Comparison>

<Template - Risk Register>