Word template · Decide
AI Use Case Business Case
A nine-part case for one AI use case: problem, baseline, value by layer, full cost, attribution plan, risk, exit criteria and the decision asked for.
Word (.docx) · version 0.1 (2026-10-27) · a proposal from this site, not a standard · CC BY 4.0
- What it is
- A short business case for a single AI use case, written so the spend can be counted in attribution coverage from the first month.
- Who it is for
- The business owner of a workflow, writing with a finance partner and the engineer who will build or buy it.
- When to use it
- Before a pilot is funded, or when an unowned experiment needs an owner and a case to continue. For a material, recoverable or larger commitment, move to the Investment Decision Memorandum.
- Not for
- A vendor selection paper, a technical design or a material funding request.
AI Use Case Business Case
Word (.docx) · version 0.1 · CC BY 4.0
The full structure
Every section in the file, in order. The download adds space to write, answer prompts and blank tables.
1. Use case summary
One table a reader can take in at a glance. Name a person, not a team, as owner.
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Use case | [ ] |
| Workflow it changes | [ ] |
| Business owner (named person accountable for the outcome) | [ ] |
| Finance partner | [ ] |
| Stage | Explore / Pilot / Scale |
| Users and volume | [ ] |
| Decision requested | [ ] |
| Date and next review date | [ ] |
2. Problem and intended outcome
What is being solved, for whom, and what should change in the workflow if it works.
- What problem does the workflow have today, and who has it?
- What operational change should result: fewer hours, shorter cycle time, fewer errors, more volume handled?
- What is the primary outcome measure, and what quality floor must the output meet to count?
3. Baseline
The workflow as it runs now, and how each figure was measured. If there is no baseline, say how one will be built before money is committed.
| Measure | Current value | How measured | Period |
|---|---|---|---|
| Volume (items a month) | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Effort (hours a month) | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Cycle time | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Quality or error rate | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Current cost of the workflow | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
4. Value hypothesis by layer
What this use case will be able to show at each of the five layers of AI value management. The layers are cumulative: a claim at layer 3 needs evidence at layers 1 and 2 first.
| Layer | The layer's question | What this use case will show | Measure and source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Usage Transparency | What are we spending, where is demand appearing, and who is consuming AI capability? | [ ] | [ ] |
| 2. Output Quality | Is the AI producing work that can be trusted, used, and improved? | [ ] | [ ] |
| 3. Productivity Value | Is AI improving the workflow, or creating new work around the workflow? | [ ] | [ ] |
| 4. Delivery Alignment | Is AI effort aligned to funded initiatives, product outcomes, and strategic portfolio commitments? | [ ] | [ ] |
| 5. Portfolio Strategy | Does the total AI portfolio justify its cost, risk, dependency, and opportunity cost? | [ ] | [ ] |
5. Full cost
Every cost line, in the seven layers of the AI TCO Framework, not only the model invoice. Include verification and review time under people.
| AI TCO layer | Year 1 | Year 2 | Basis of estimate |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Infrastructure | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| 2. Data and context | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| 3. Models | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| 4. Integration and workflow redesign | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| 5. People and capability | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| 6. Governance, safety and compliance | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| 7. Operations and portfolio oversight | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Total | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
6. Attribution plan
How this spend will be counted as outcome-linked in attribution coverage, and what evidence will stand behind the value claim.
- Which spend lines carry this use case's tag or cost centre, so the spend can be found again?
- Which attribution test applies: a baseline and an outcome measure, or decision-grade evidence?
- Evidence level today and the level targeted, on the E0 to E4 scale. No monetised claim below E2.
- Benefit type: realised cost reduction, revenue or margin, absorbed capacity, released capacity, avoided cost, or risk loss avoided.
- Where the benefit will be booked (a budget line or an operational record), and who in finance accepts it.
7. Risk and controls
How much human attention the output needs, and how hard a mistake would be to undo.
| Item | Entry |
|---|---|
| Risk tier | Glance / Check / Scrutinise |
| Autonomy level | Assist / Recommend / Act with approval / Act within policy / Self-optimise |
| Reversibility | [ ] |
| Data used and where it is processed | [ ] |
| Controls required before go-live | [ ] |
8. Exit criteria and review
Written before the money is spent: the conditions under which the use case stops or is redesigned, who can invoke them and when the first check is.
- Stop if: ...
- Redesign if: ...
- Who can invoke the exit criteria, and the date of the first check.
9. Decision requested
What you are asking for, the alternative considered, and what must be true at the next gate.
- Request: fund the pilot / fund with conditions / do not fund.
- Alternative considered, including doing nothing or a non-AI change to the workflow.
- What must be true to pass the next gate, and the date.
Illustrative
Illustrative extract
Hypothetical. Every figure is invented and describes no real organisation.
| Part | Illustrative entry |
|---|---|
| Use case | Supplier invoice exception triage in accounts payable |
| Baseline | 1,200 exceptions a month at about 18 minutes each, measured from the workflow tool over three months |
| Primary outcome | Handling time per exception, with the error rate held at or below the baseline (the quality floor) |
| Year 1 cost | £96k across the seven layers, of which £22k is model and consumption and £31k is people, including review time |
| Attribution | Tagged to the AP cost centre. E1 today; a matched comparison against a second AP team targets E2 by the end of the pilot |
| Exit criteria | Stop if handling time falls by less than a fifth after three months, or if the error rate rises above the baseline |
| Decision requested | Fund a three-month pilot with conditions; first check at week six |
Terms used in this template
Read alongside
AI Investment Decision Memorandum
The fuller memorandum for a material commitment.
What CFOs should ask of AI ROI claims
The questions a case should withstand.
The five layers of AI value management
The layers part 4 asks you to evidence.
AI TCO worksheet
Builds the cost lines in part 5.
All templates
Every downloadable template on the site, by phase.