Can we call $57,600 of released capacity ROI?
Calculate the value bridge before using a savings claim.
“we just simply didn’t understand value the way the customer defines value.” (opens the source)
The question
Aster runs 3,000 eligible approvals each month. Sixty percent use LanternFlow. The manual task takes 12 minutes, the new task seven. Additional review and rework introduced by the new workflow use 30 hours each month outside that seven-minute task time. All amounts are U.S. dollars.
| Amount | |
|---|---|
| Monthly eligible approvals | 3000 |
| Workflow coverage | 60% |
| Capacity value per hour | $40 |
| Annual subscription | $60,000 |
| First-year implementation fee | $10,000 |
Assume 12 identical months. No evidence shows that payroll, overtime or an outside bill actually fell.
“Calculate the hours and value estimate. What can the CSM say, and what changes at renewal?”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: Count the covered work
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Apply five minutes to all 3,000 approvals.
Tempting, but it misses something. Forty percent still uses the manual route.
Apply the measured coverage first.
The strong move. Only the covered workflows get the time reduction.
See how a strong candidate says it
“3,000 × 60% = 1,800 covered approvals per month. At five minutes released each, that is 150 gross hours.”
Why it works: Only the covered workflows get the time reduction.
Step 2: Deduct added work
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Deduct review and rework.
The strong move. Review and rework consume part of the released time.
Report $72,000 of net value.
Tempting, but it misses something. That omits 30 hours of added work every month.
See how a strong candidate says it
“150 − 30 = 120 net hours per month. At $40 an hour for 12 months, the capacity-value proxy is $57,600.”
Why it works: Review and rework consume part of the released time.
Step 3: Use the relevant cost period
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Include implementation again at renewal.
Tempting, but it misses something. That counts the same one-time cost twice.
Separate first year from the renewal year.
The strong move. A forward renewal comparison excludes a cost already paid.
See how a strong candidate says it
“First-year fees are $70,000, so the proxy is $12,400 below fees. Renewal fees are $60,000; the paid implementation fee is sunk.”
Why it works: A forward renewal comparison excludes a cost already paid.
Step 4: Check what value means to this customer
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Describe capacity and verify the customer’s outcome.
The strong move. The evidence does not show a bill or payroll reduction.
Call the proxy realized cash ROI.
Tempting, but it misses something. The packet provides no cash-saving evidence.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Released capacity is not verified cash savings. Ask what the customer did with the time and what outcome they value.”
Why it works: The evidence does not show a bill or payroll reduction.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Present the capacity estimate with its assumptions; do not call it cash savings.
- Because
- The time calculation is supported, but the financial outcome still needs evidence.
- What would change it
- At 80% coverage, the proxy is $81,600. First-year proxy break-even is 70.3333%; renewal break-even is 62%.
Coverage reaches 80%. Does that make the result verified cash savings?
Common traps
- Equating released time with cash saved.
- Keeping a sunk fee in the renewal cost.
Check your answer
- I applied workflow coverage.
- I deducted added review time.
- I separated first-year and renewal fees.
- I kept capacity value distinct from cash savings.
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026