A worked case · fictional example
One benefit. Every assumption showing.
A legal-software team models the capacity released from invoice preparation. Change the inputs and examine what the argument depends on.
Try the assumptions
Change an input.
Follow the number.
Fictional invoice-preparation example. One benefit, one set of inputs.
Illustrative annual capacity value
$20,700460 hours valued at $45 per hour.
Capacity value, not a cash saving. A cash saving needs a named capture action and owner. This is not a customer result or benchmark.
Start with a hypothesis worth testing.
The initial account context suggests that the firm wants to collect fees sooner. The finance persona cares about cash flow and the time spent resolving billing issues. The vendor’s solution supports billing preparation and follow-up.
That is a reason to ask better questions. It does not establish where this firm loses time or what a change would be worth.
Buyer-side context
A possible priority: shorten the time between completed work and collection.
Seller-side context
A possible contribution: change how the billing team prepares and follows up on invoices.
Find the problem behind the priority.
The rep asks where the process slows down, who does the work and what the team has already tried. In this example, the buyer identifies repeated preparation work as the issue to investigate.
The case now needs evidence about that activity. A general collection-speed claim would miss the specific change under discussion.
Confirm the baseline
How many people do the work? How often does it happen?
Test the proposed change
Which steps would the solution change? What adoption would that require?
Check the constraint
If time is released, what useful work could the team do with it?
Separate potential capacity from cash savings.
For illustration, assume five billing staff could each recover two hours a week across 46 working weeks. At an assumed loaded cost of $45 an hour, the capacity is valued at $20,700 per year: 5 × 2 × 46 × $45.
These are invented inputs for explaining the method. They are not benchmarks, a customer result or cash savings. The buyer needs to establish whether the time is recoverable and how it would be used.
Let a changed assumption change the argument.
At one hour a week instead of two, the same calculation gives $10,350 in annual capacity value. That difference should matter to the conversation.
Software fees, setup, implementation and adoption costs still need to be established. Until then, this example does not support an ROI or payback claim.
Make the next decision clear.
The buyer can now examine a specific proposition: reduce repeated preparation work and put the released capacity to use. The next step is to validate the baseline and the proposed process change, then compare the benefit with the full cost.
Serre’s role is to help connect that context, logic and evidence into a case the buyer can review.