Boards often receive a detailed cost for a proposed digital investment and a vague description of the alternative. The proposal is scrutinised; “continue as we are” appears to cost nothing.
A one-page comparison can correct that asymmetry. Its value comes from disciplined selection, not from compressing a weak model into smaller type. The page should show the decision, the credible options, material evidence, uncertainty and the next commitment. Supporting analysis can sit behind it.
“ROI of doing nothing” is a provocative label. The status quo does not usually produce a return in the same way as an investment. It has cost, benefit, risk and preserved options. The board’s job is to compare those with the proposed change.
Our companion article on the cost of doing nothing explains how to build the underlying estimates. This article focuses on the board page.
The heading: state the decision
Open with one sentence the board can resolve.
Decide whether to fund a bounded first phase, continue the current platform with specified controls, or commission further evidence before the contract review in November.
This is stronger than “discuss digital modernisation”. It identifies the options and timing. Include the recommendation and the person accountable for it.
Name the decision horizon. A one-year extension and a five-year platform commitment require different evidence.
Section 1: current-state position
Summarise the material cost and constraint of the current service. Keep different economic quantities separate.
| Category | What to show |
|---|---|
| Cash cost | Licences, hosting, support, suppliers and other expenditure already in the accounts |
| Absorbed capacity | Internal time spent on maintenance, workarounds, correction or manual service |
| Service and commercial effect | Supported evidence of delay, client friction, missed or constrained opportunity |
| Risk | Scenarios, controls, exposure and specialist assessment rather than an arbitrary annual charge |
| Strategic constraint | Specific capability or decision prevented by the current state |
Use ranges where evidence justifies them. State confidence and source beside each material figure. If a cost cannot be quantified credibly, describe it and identify what evidence is missing.
Avoid combining capacity, risk and projected revenue into one apparently certain “annual cost of doing nothing”. A board needs to see which amounts are cash, which are management allocations and which are uncertain scenarios.
Also show what the status quo preserves: continuity, known processes, deferred disruption and the ability to wait for a contract or market event. A fair comparison includes its advantages.
Section 2: trajectory and decision triggers
Show what is expected to change over the horizon and why.
Do not automatically multiply the annual estimate or apply a compounding rate. Some costs remain stable, some end, and some rise only after a support, volume or contract threshold. Build the trajectory from identifiable events:
- supplier renewal or end-of-support dates;
- committed security or compliance work;
- expected transaction or content volume;
- expiring specialist support;
- planned organisational change;
- known regulatory dates; and
- the point at which a current control becomes insufficient.
List the triggers that would force a new decision. This turns deferral into an actively governed option.
If scenarios are useful, use conservative, central and severe cases whose assumptions are visible. Do not label the case that favours the proposal “central” merely because it helps the recommendation.
Section 3: investment and alternatives
Present the proposed first commitment as specifically as procurement and discovery allow. Include:
- external fees and contracts;
- internal people and opportunity cost;
- content, data and migration work;
- integrations and assurance;
- training and change management;
- dual running and decommissioning;
- contingency and principal dependencies;
- target-state operating cost; and
- the date and evidence for the next funding decision.
If later phases remain uncertain, show ranges and explain what the first phase will establish. Do not present indicative future costs as approved certainty.
Include at least one credible alternative. Examples are targeted remediation, a managed extension, reduced scope, a proof of concept or retirement of a low-value service. A page that compares the sponsor’s preferred programme only with an exaggerated failure scenario will be read as advocacy.
Show transition risk. The current estate may be fragile; migration can still create service interruption, data loss, control failure, accessibility regression or adoption problems. State the mitigations and owner.
Section 4: value and net position
Connect each expected benefit to a mechanism and an owner.
A redesigned enquiry route is expected to reduce avoidable form abandonment. Marketing owns the baseline and post-release measure; sales operations will assess whether resulting enquiries are qualified.
This is more credible than assigning a broad revenue uplift to “brand perception”.
Benefits may include cash saving, released capacity, service improvement, risk reduction or option value. Keep them distinct. Released employee time creates financial value only if the organisation can redeploy or remove the capacity. Risk reduction is a change in exposure, not guaranteed cash income.
Time benefits realistically. Discovery and implementation consume part of the horizon. Adoption may be gradual. Contracts may prevent savings until a break date. The one-page model should show when each material change begins.
A net financial figure can help where inputs are comparable. It is not always the verdict. The board may choose a higher-cost option to meet an obligation, protect clients or preserve a strategic capability. Add a short decision rationale that covers non-financial outcomes and risk.
Put assumptions where the board can see them
Every important number should be traceable to a source and method. Use short references on the page and a numbered supporting schedule behind it.
A simple assumption entry contains:
- the claim;
- source and period;
- calculation;
- confidence;
- sensitivity; and
- owner who validated it.
For example:
Maintenance capacity: 0.8 to 1.1 full-time equivalent, based on a four-week activity sample and service tickets; medium confidence; finance and technology reviewed.
Do not use a sector conversion benchmark unless audience, channel and measure are genuinely comparable. Do not select a breach probability because a spreadsheet requires one. Where risk evidence cannot support quantification, show a scenario and specialist judgement.
The board should be able to alter a contested assumption and see whether the recommendation changes. Sensitivity is more valuable than false precision.
Make the page readable
Use hierarchy rather than dense text:
- decision and recommendation at the top;
- current position and options side by side;
- value, cost and risk over the agreed horizon;
- top assumptions and confidence;
- immediate decision, owner and next gate at the bottom.
One page is a useful constraint when it protects the decision from detail. It is harmful when legal duties, material risks or dissent are hidden to make the page fit. Attach the necessary evidence and make it easy to navigate.
Avoid dramatic design that implies certainty. Use consistent units, label ranges clearly and distinguish actuals, estimates and scenarios.
Stress-test it before the meeting
Ask the CFO or finance lead to challenge the model before circulation. Include risk, technology, operations and other specialists whose evidence is material. Invite them to identify double counting, missing transition cost and assumptions that lack a defensible source.
Pre-review is not a tactic for recruiting allies. It improves the paper and prevents the meeting from becoming the first serious test.
Ask five challenge questions:
- Could this page support a decision to defer?
- Which assumption most changes the answer?
- Have we counted the same benefit twice?
- What cost or harm appears after implementation?
- What evidence will return before the next irreversible commitment?
Preserve material disagreement. The board should know whether finance, security or the service owner assesses an input differently.
Record the decision after the page has done its job
The briefing anchors a conversation; it does not replace governance. Record the option chosen, rationale, funding, tolerances, owner, review date and conditions for reopening the decision.
If the board defers, record the interim controls and trigger. If it funds a phase, state the learning and outcome evidence required before the next one. If it rejects the proposal, preserve the reasons so the same paper does not return unchanged next quarter.
The downloadable one-page board briefing template contains the four sections, scenario space and population guidance. Use it with the supporting cost method in the companion article. Its test is simple: does the board see a fair choice between real financial and operational positions, or a polished request to approve the sponsor’s preferred answer?
