Phase 2 Step 4

Figure 5 : Business Case Model - Step 4

Figure 5 - Business Case Model - Step 4 Text Version

4 Justification and Recommendation

Nothing in the business case will be questioned or scrutinized more than the justification supporting the recommendation to adopt the preferred option. With the detailed analysis of each viable option (including the status quo option) now complete, the goal of Step 4 is to identify a preferred option and demonstrate why the option is deemed preferable over all others.

This section leverages the Preliminary Options Analysis approach where the options are subjected to a comparative analysis. The evaluation criteria and the degree to which the key requirements of the business need are addressed will be measured alongside the findings of the viable options analysis conducted in Step 3.

The evaluation criteria used in the preliminary analysis should be reused; new information discovered during the detailed analysis of the viable options may determine an option’s ability to meet particular evaluation criteria. This could prove to be a deciding factor should the choice between options be too close to call.

4.1 Comparison Summary

To ensure that decisions made about a business case are fair and transparent, it is crucial that all of the identified viable options undergo the exact same analysis. The selection criteria and comparative values should be relevant to the type of investment and support an informed investment decision.

The viable options should be presented in a table format where each viable option is compared against a standardized set of criteria. It is important that the non-financial benefits and the financial benefits be weighed equally.

While there is no limit to the amount of criteria that can be used when comparing options, it is important that they be kept to a reasonable number and strictly relevant to the business need and objectives. Proper criteria will help differentiate the options and reveal which option will provide the most value at the most reasonable cost to the organization.

When comparing between options, represent each category of the viable options analysis as follows:

Alignment—Organization

Is it clear how the option contributes to the strategic vision and direction of the organization?

Alignment—Opportunities

If the core investment objectives are satisfied and there are opportunities for the option's reuse or it has strong potential to support other business areas, this should be clearly noted.

Alignment—Business Outcomes

To what degree does the option address the desired business outcomes?  

Benchmark

Is there evidence that this option has been successfully implemented elsewhere to address a similar need or opportunity? If so, describe the advantage.

Policy and Standard Considerations

Will the option have an impact on the existing policies or standards? Will the option be limited by the existing policies or standards? Are the impact and limitations acceptable?

Implementation and Capacity

Does the organization have the capacity to implement and manage the option?

Risk Assessment

Is the option's risk profile acceptable? When comparing the risks of each option, detail only the significant risks threatening the investment that were previously identified in the viable options analysis. While the types of risks vary from one project to another, only those risks that would concern a senior-level audience or that may impede success should be included. It is important to note that the objective is not to understate the risks; focus on the key risks that need to be brought to light to ensure an informed investment decision.

Requirements

To what degree does the option address the key requirements?

Note: The indicators below can and should be combined based on the assessment results.

Screening Criteria

How well does the option meet the screening criteria? Be sure to provide any new information discovered in the detailed analysis of the viable options that pertains to the option's ability to meet particular evaluation criteria. Depending on the investment, a criterion could be relevant in both financial and non-financial subcategories.

Desirable Evaluation Criteria

Additional evaluation criteria added by the organization as required and reflective of the type of investment.

Costs*—Implementation

What is the total cost to address the capacity gap in implementing and managing the option?

Cost*—Total

What is the total cost of the option (over the course of its life cycle)?

Cost*—Benefits

What are the cost benefits? Express the cost-benefit analysis in terms of revenue, income, or some other financial measurement (IRR, NPV, ROI).

*Each cost-benefit criteria (ROI, NPV, IRR) should be isolated (one row each) in the comparison.

Limit the amount of comparison criteria in each of the core categories to only cursory, need-to-know information.

It is important to note that what was previously seen as a disadvantage in the analysis of the viable options may change when measured against the other viable options and the status quo option. What was initially perceived as a rather unfavourable disadvantage may—and often is—viewed as being less of a disadvantage when compared against the other options.

The final comparison of the options should be clear in terms of what is being compared, such as the indicators and criteria for each option. This ensures the comparison is conducted in a fair, open, and transparent manner.

An example of the Comparative Summary is shown below. For the non-financial criteria, the comparison should focus as much as possible on the quantitative data. Qualitative and narrative information can also be used.

Example: Comparative Summary

*A comparison of the accrual accounting-based indicative costs can also be provided. This additional information would allow decision makers to evaluate the cost to the government on the same fiscal basis that all budget decisions are taken (accrual basis). Accrual information would become particularly important to the final investment decision if other criteria do not reveal a clearly superior option among the choices; decision makers could select the option that, while meeting all substantive business objectives and outcomes, has a lower accrual-based cost. The cash-based analyses discussed elsewhere in the business case would not need to change.

Note: If the comparison of options is too close to call, consider weighting each of the criteria or a cost-per-point approach.

Because the objectives of a project and those of an organization can vary widely, there is no strict set of values used to compare each option’s ability to meet and address the dual objectives. When determining the comparative values (the indicators) in a business case, ensure that they are clear and to the point and leave little room for interpretation.

There is also no set limit to the amount of criteria to be compared. Each project and investment type is unique and comes with its own set of needs and requirements. The comparative criteria presented in this guide should allow for a fair and effective comparison for most projects; however, there will be some situations where specific and unique values require comparison and can be added to the analysis.

Best Practices:
When adding criteria, the user should provide just the right amount of information to avoid confusion and unnecessary complication.

4.2 The Preferred Option

The preferred option is used to support the executive summary of the business case. The preferred option, which is measurable and backed by strong analysis, should be expressed clearly and concisely.

Strategy:
Take the time needed and the care required to craft an executive summary that supports the business case.

The goal of this Preferred Option section is to put forth the option for ultimate approval and defend that decision with sufficient supporting evidence. Supporting evidence could include the deciding factor, strategy and approach, or risks and costs that led to the preferred option decision. Because each business case is unique, the supporting evidence will vary depending on the project, issue, initiative, or investment under consideration.

Additional details on what led to the preferred option decision, such considerations as benefits, interdependencies with other projects, and change management requirements, can be included.

4.2.1 Recommendation

The recommendation should be straightforward and presented plainly, clearly stating why the organization will benefit by focussing its investment on one particular option. The rationale for the recommendation is based on the detailed analysis conducted earlier in the business case. Further analysis is not required here, only the reason why an option is preferable over all others. It is very important to be as descriptive as possible so that an informed decision can be made by the investment board.

4.2.2 Deciding Factors

The deciding factors are what led to the identification of the preferred option and were instrumental in its selection. The information presented here should soundly answer the following question: What are the benefits, risks, and costs of the preferred option?

The following list, which is by no means exhaustive, presents some common and possible deciding factors, starting with those that are clearly financial and progressing to those that are more strategic:

• Cost-effectiveness—Demonstrates, in financial terms, improvements in performance or in service delivery; shows whether the benefits from the investment outweigh its costs.
• Displaced or avoided costs—Compares the proposed system’s costs to those of the system it would displace or avoid; may justify the proposal on a least-cost basis if it can be assumed that the new system will have as many benefits as the current system.
• Work value / earned value—Predicts the cost savings as workers perform work of higher value; requires analysis of work patterns throughout the organization and of the ways the project would readjust the number and types of skills required. Assumes that additional work needs to be performed, that management allocates resources efficiently, and that workers allocate time efficiently.
• Benchmarks and similar initiatives—Industry-standard benchmarks or successfully implemented similar initiatives that support the recommendation.
• Other benefits—When adding additional detail to the benefits and outcomes that were previously described at a high level—either in the outcomes register or for an evaluation criterion—it is important to be as specific as possible. Quantify where possible whether it is a financial or non-financial benefit and integrate the benefits with the outcomes map (if applicable).

Hint:
If a number of criteria are found to be ineffective as major or influential comparison criteria, then strong consideration should be given to re-evaluating them and, if necessary, reassessing the analysis from the point where the long list of options was screened to where the appraisal of each viable option was performed.

Auditors can review any quantitative measure that is used, so verify its rigour and check the validity of the assumptions and the integrity of the conclusions.

4.2.3 Costs

Provide a brief summary of the preferred option’s costing estimates and link them to the components of the work streams. It is important to limit detail to a high-level, summary view. No additional cost or cost-benefit analysis is required. Simply summarize the key elements the investment board will be focussing on.

Hint:
Consider including a brief narrative to outline or contextualize a particular cost item.

Recommendations that seek funding approval from the Treasury Board should present both the cash and accrual costs associated with the investment. The need to present detailed accrual information should be anticipated at the business case stage because preparation of an accrual profile within a time-sensitive decision process can lead to significant delays. Guidance on how to present accrual accounting-based costs is presented in the Treasury Board Financial Information Strategy Accounting Manual and the Guide to Preparing Treasury Board Submissions.

4.2.4 Risks

The risk information provided should illustrate why the identified risks are acceptable. Narrative may be included to provide additional context for the key factors supporting the overall risk assessment and description, such as impact, probability, outcomes, and so forth.

The investment’s ability to deliver the desired business outcomes is directly related to how the risks to those desired outcomes are assessed, monitored, and managed throughout the investment’s life cycle. Include the outcome risk assessment results and evidence of a strong mitigation plan for each controllable risk.

Assign ownership and accountability for each risk.

A useful aid for assessing the risk and complexity of a project is the Treasury Board’s Project Complexity and Risk Assessment Tool.

4.2.5 Implementation Plan

Once the analysis has been completed and the recommended option has been identified, the next step in the business case involves outlining how the project will be implemented. When formulating an implementation plan, consider the following questions:

• What are the key elements needed for delivery of the project, such as phases, major works streams, risks, milestones, resource requirements, and review gates?
• Are there any interdependencies with other projects, initiatives, investments, or events?
• What actions will be taken if the project complexity and risk assessment rating of the preferred option exceeds existing organizational project management capacity?
• Has the contracting and procurement vehicle been identified and is ownership of the asset clearly defined?

At the time of business case submission, a detailed project work plan is not required. What is required is an implementation plan (strategic work plan) that outlines:

• The major streams of work to be completed, including phases (where applicable);
• The timing of the work streams and major milestones, including gates (where applicable);
• The level of effort required for each work stream;
• The requisite resource skills to successfully complete the work streams and any possible constraints related to availability;
• The dependencies and constraints of the proposed initiative; and
• The contracting and procurement vehicle to be used and ownership of the asset.

The implementation plan should provide enough detail to instill confidence in the decision makers that the proposed investment has been appropriately considered and that the presented estimates are within an acceptable degree of accuracy. The implementation plan does not replace the more detailed Project Charter or the Project Management Plan; however, it should align with them.

Phase 3: Management and Capacity

This strategic-level phase should demonstrate to the business case’s reviewers that the investment will be managed effectively. The reviewers—and all the stakeholders—need assurance that all the appropriate project and outcome management strategies are in place and that they will be used to guide the project through a controlled and well-managed environment to achieve the desired business outcomes.

Phase 3 will produce the evidence required to strategically address the following key management issues:

Phase 3 Step 5

Figure 6 : Business Case Model - Step 5

Figure 6 - Text Version

5 Managing the Investment

The objective of Step 5, the important final step in the business case development process, is to describe—at a strategic level—how the investment, project, initiative, or event will be managed, while also demonstrating an acceptable level of due diligence. A secondary goal of Step 5 is to further reinforce the key messages of the business case, ensuring its soundness and conformity to commonly acknowledged best practices for business.

Once approved, the business case will be supported by a Project Charter and a Project Management Plan that will address the organizational, tactical, and operational elements related to the management of the project, including project governance.

The following subsections provide guidance on how investment management should be described in terms of strategies and how to illustrate that critical project management fundamentals and methodologies have been well thought out and are in place before the launch of the project:

• Governance and Oversight
• Project Management Strategy
• Outcome Management Strategy
• Risk Management Strategy
• Change Management Strategy
• Performance Measurement Strategy

The rationale for certain of the above strategies’ methods and procedures will require supporting evidence, which could include results of the project complexity and risk assessment or the Treasury Board-approved Organizational Project Management Capacity class. These assessments will be mandatory under the Standard for Organizational Management Capacity and the Standard for Project Complexity and Risk, which are related to the Policy on the Management of Projects that will be fully in effect across the GC in 2011.

5.1 Governance and Oversight

In accordance with the Policy on the Management of Projects, each department is required to have a department-wide governance and oversight mechanism in place. This mechanism is used to manage the initiation, planning, execution, control, and closing of projects. In addition, the mechanism ensures that opportunities are considered for integrating projects across the department and across the GC.

At the business case stage, a detailed governance structure for the specific investment proposal is not required; however, the business case should demonstrate where and how the proposed investment would fit within the organization’s broader governance and oversight structure.

Once the business case has received internal approval, a project-specific governance and oversight structure would be developed as part of the Project Charter and further solidified in the Project Management Plan. Both the Charter and the Plan are required as part of good project management.

5.2 Project Management Strategy

When developing a project management strategy for the successful delivery of projects, most organizations embrace sound project management principles and adopt a project management methodology that conforms to widely accepted best-practice standards. Evidence that the organization possesses and will apply a sound methodology for managing the project during its life cycle and through post-implementation will only add to the overall strength of the business case.

5.2.1 Project Review Strategy

Project reviews and reports on its status should be appropriate to the project’s level of complexity and risk. These activities should be planned up front in accordance with the oversight and governance structures.

The business case should provide an overview of the methods and processes that will be implemented to gauge the project’s progress and of how that progress will be communicated to the project team, project sponsor, and other stakeholders.

For example, reporting on the project’s status could include regular status reports to the oversight and governance structures and updates to an executive dashboard.

The decision process for continuing or cancelling a project, commonly referred to as gating, should be described in the business case. Gate reviews are generally conducted following execution of a major deliverable or conclusion of a project phase. Gates should be in place to review the work accomplished and the deliverables, which will determine whether performance is satisfactory, whether extra work is still required, or whether the phase should be closed.

Information on project management, program/portfolio management, governance structures, and project management offices can be found on the Project Management page of the Secretariat's website.

5.3 Outcome Management Strategy

A key factor for judging the success of the project is whether or not the desired business outcomes have been achieved. The project should therefore be managed in a manner that maximizes the probability of achieving outcomes. This will require an approach that goes beyond the scope of traditional project management principles (i.e. on time, on budget, and within scope). One such approach is outcome management.

The outcome management strategy involves activities that are focussed on the realization of intended benefits. The strategy should take into consideration how changes to the project’s budget, schedule, issues, risks, and scope will affect whether the desired outcomes are achieved. Outcome management will help to ensure that the project delivers its anticipated benefits through the following:

• Outcome realization plans that have been defined and are ready for implementation;
• Approved investments are tracked and managed to ensure that business outcomes are achieved and those achievements are reported to the investment sponsors;
• Senior management is advised of issues and of their implications across projects to support their decision making; and
• Progress is reported to various stakeholders.

For the purposes of the business case, the outcome management strategy should address how the following components of the project will be managed:

• Which outcomes to track and how they will be tracked (e.g. project management plan, executive dashboard) over the course of the project’s life cycle;
• Outcome owners engagement;
• Outcome target metrics and time frames; and
• Outcome reporting process.

For more detailed information on outcome management, please refer to the Outcome Management Guide and Tools.

5.4 Risk Management Strategy

With the business case nearing completion, discussion of risk management or a risk management strategy at this stage should demonstrate that the organization has a function in place to manage the risks of the project. From this point forward, assuming the project is approved and funding provided, the list of identified risks will be constantly changing. New risks will be discovered, others will be successfully mitigated, and some may need only to be monitored.

The risk management strategy will inform the risk management plan, which describes how risks will be proactively managed throughout the project’s life cycle. The plan should include the method for identifying risks, for determining how each risk will be described and managed, and for integrating risks within the project governance structure. Typically, the risk management plan and successful management of risks are the responsibility of the project manager and his or her team, whose roles and responsibilities should be fully described in the project management plan.

Additional information on risk management is available on the Secretariat’s website.

5.5 Change Management Strategy

Most investments involve some degree of change. This can range from simple service improvement with a narrow scope to major multi-stakeholder transformational changes. The pace of change and the experience of change may also vary—from incremental to “big bang” in impact. In any case, a strategy is typically required to help transition the organization from the current state to the desired future state.

The primary aim of the change management strategy is to show how a proposed change’s potential impact on organizational culture, systems, and processes and the people working within and with the investing organizations will be managed in later stages of the project management process. This strategy will guide the development of the change management plan.

5.6 Performance Measurement Strategy

For the purposes of this guide, performance measurement is defined as follows:

“The process and systems of selection, development and on-going use of performance measures to guide decision-making.” See footnote ^[3]

While keeping this definition in mind, the business case should indicate that performance measurement will occur at two levels:

1) Project implementation

2) Benefits realization

Project implementation should be monitored and reported on in terms of whether the project is on time, on budget, within scope, and delivering the expected product or capability, which should be illustrated in both the business case’s implementation plan (see section 4.2.5) and the subsequent project management plan developed once the business case is approved.

Performance in terms of benefits realization will be addressed in the outcome management strategy (see section 5.3).

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

This section provides the acronyms in full and defines some of the terms used in the Business Case Guide.

Bibliography

Boardman, Greenberg, Vining, et al. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice. 3rd ed. 2006.

Canada. Government of Canada, Regulatory Affairs Sector. Canadian Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide: Regulatory Proposals. Ottawa, 2007.

———. Treasury Board.Management, Resources, and Results Structure Policy (MRRS).Ottawa, April 2005.

———. Treasury Board. Policy on Investment Planning—Assets and Acquired Services. Ottawa, June 2007.

———. Treasury Board. Policy on the Management of Projects. Ottawa, June 2007.

———. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Business Case Template. Ottawa, 2008.

———. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.Creating and Using a Business Case for Information Technology Projects. Ottawa, March 1998.

———. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. An Enhanced Framework for the Management of Information Technology Projects. Ottawa, May 1996.

———. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Financial Information Strategy Accounting Manual. Ottawa, July 2001.

———. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Guide to Costing. Ottawa, March 2008.

———. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. A Guide to Preparing Treasury Board Submissions. Ottawa, 2007.

———. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Integrated Risk Management Framework. Ottawa, 2001.

———. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Outcome Management Guide and Tools v1.0. Ottawa, January 2006.

———. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Preparing and Using Results-based Management and Accountability Frameworks. Ottawa, January 2005.

———. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Stretching the Tax Dollar: Make or Buy. Ottawa, January 1995.

Cyr, Kahl, Rentz, et al. Contemporary Financial Management. 1st Canadian ed. 2004.

IT Governance Institute. Enterprise Value: Governance of IT Investments, The Val IT Framework 2.0. Rolling Meadows, IL: ITGI, 2008.

New Zealand. Ministry of Health. Business Case Guidelines for Investment in Information Technology. Wellington, 2005.

Project Management Institute. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK^®). 3rd ed. Newtown Square, PA: PMI, 2004.

Savitz, Andrew W., with Karl Weber. The Triple Bottom Line. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2006.

SustainAbility Ltd. and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Buried Treasure: Uncovering the Business Case for Corporate Sustainability. January 2005.

SustainAbility Ltd., International Finance Corporation (IFC), and the ETHOS Institute. Developing Value: The Business Case for Sustainability in Emerging Markets. July 2002.

United Kingdom. Office of Government Commerce. Best Practice OGC Gateway™ Process Review 1: Business justification, OGC Best Practice – Gateway to success. May 2007.

Return to footnote reference [1] At the time of publication, the Canadian Cost Benefit Analysis Guide: Regulatory Proposals is being repositioned as a more general-purpose guide; therefore, guidance presented in this section of the Business Case Guide is subject to change.

Return to footnote reference [2] Source: Standard For Organizational Project Management Capacity

Return to footnote reference [3] Source: Results-Based Management Lexicon