Does this value case still pay back?
Separate an avoidable customer cost from a convenient worksheet assumption.
The question
Northline is evaluating a production-monitoring offer. Its illustrative model assumes 50,000 units per month and a reject-rate change from 2.0% to 1.2%. The worksheet initially treats £8 per rejected unit as avoidable cost. The offer costs £1,800 per month plus £12,000 setup. These assumptions do not prove the product causes the change.
| Value | |
|---|---|
| Units per month | 50000 |
| Initial reject rate (%) | 2 |
| Modelled reject rate (%) | 1.2 |
| Assumed avoidable cost per rejected unit (£) | 8 |
| Recurring offer cost per month (£) | 1800 |
| One-off setup cost (£) | 12000 |
Assume immediate full-volume operation without a ramp for this simplified model. The trial still needs to test the improvement and costs.
“Does this value case still pay back?”
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: What must the buyer validate?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Only whether the slide looks credible.
Tempting, but it misses something. The buyer needs evidence for the improvement and its economics.
The reject reduction and the avoidable unit cost.
The strong move. Both determine the financial result.
Treat every allocated cost as money that disappears.
Tempting, but it misses something. Some accounting costs may remain even when rejects fall.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Check both the product’s effect on rejects and the cost Northline can actually avoid.”
Why it works: A change in a worksheet is not an observed product effect or a confirmed cash saving.
Step 2: What does the initial model show?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
£3,200 net each month, with no setup cost.
Tempting, but it misses something. That omits the recurring offer cost and the initial setup.
£1,400 net monthly and about 8.57 months to recover setup.
The strong move. This includes the stated recurring and setup costs.
£400 net monthly because 400 units are avoided.
Tempting, but it misses something. A unit count is not a cash amount.
See how a strong candidate says it
“400 fewer rejects per month × £8 = £3,200 gross. Less £1,800 recurring cost gives £1,400 net per month. Setup payback is about 8.57 months; first-year net is £4,800.”
Why it works: This is simple payback under the stated assumptions, not a discounted return or a guarantee.
Step 3: How should you present the result?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Promise £4,800 of first-year cash savings.
Tempting, but it misses something. The result depends on unverified improvement and cost assumptions.
Present the model conditionally and agree what the trial must verify.
The strong move. This gives the buyer a clear, testable value hypothesis.
Avoid all economics until after the contract is signed.
Tempting, but it misses something. The buyer needs to understand the proposed value before committing.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Show the assumptions and agree a trial that tests reject reduction and avoidable cost before claiming a cash result.”
Why it works: The illustrative model can frame a decision without being described as booked savings.
Step 4: How does finance change the result?
Finance now confirms that £5 of the original £8 is already recovered through rework. Only the remaining £3 per avoided rejected unit can reduce cash costs. Volumes, rates and offer costs are unchanged.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Keep the old payback because the reject reduction is unchanged.
Tempting, but it misses something. The avoidable unit cost has changed, which changes the cash benefit.
Report the negative result and revisit the value hypothesis with the buyer.
The strong move. This applies finance’s cost evidence rather than preserving the sales claim.
Count the recovered £5 as an additional benefit of the offer.
Tempting, but it misses something. The customer already recovers it; doing so would count that amount twice.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Only £3 per unit is avoidable. Gross benefit is £1,200 per month, below the £1,800 recurring cost: net −£600 monthly and −£19,200 in year one. There is no positive payback in this model.”
Why it works: The £5 recovery cannot be counted as a saving again. Revise the recommendation and test whether another measured benefit justifies proceeding.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Withdraw the positive payback claim and revisit the value hypothesis.
- Because
- With finance’s avoidable cost, the recurring cost exceeds the modelled benefit.
- What would change it
- A verified additional benefit, different terms or stronger observed improvement could change the result.
Common traps
- Calling allocated cost an avoidable cash saving.
- Keeping the sales headline after finance corrects an input.
Check your answer
- Which improvement has been observed?
- Which cost disappears?
- Did I include recurring and setup costs?
- What changed in finance’s evidence?
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026