Network Automation Business Case Template
Network Automation Business Case Template
Section titled “Network Automation Business Case Template”Organisation: Prepared by: Date: Version: Sponsor:
Executive Summary
Section titled “Executive Summary”[2–4 sentences. State what is being requested, what it will deliver, and the investment required. Write for a reader who will go no further than this paragraph.]
Example: “This business case requests investment of [£X] over 18 months to transform ACME Investments’ network operations from a largely manual function to an automated, platform-based model. The programme will reduce change-related outages by an estimated 75%, cut connectivity lead times from 15 days to same-day, and eliminate the manual audit preparation effort currently consuming 3 weeks of senior engineering time per regulatory review. The investment returns within 14 months.”
1. Current-State Cost
Section titled “1. Current-State Cost”Quantify what the current state costs. Use real data from your organisation wherever possible.
Change Operations
Section titled “Change Operations”| Metric | Current Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Network changes processed per month | Change management system | |
| Average elapsed lead time per change (days) | Change management system | |
| Percentage of engineer time on routine execution | Estimate / time study | |
| Senior engineer fully-loaded cost (annual) | HR / Finance | |
| Estimated annual cost of routine execution | Calculated |
Incident Cost
Section titled “Incident Cost”| Metric | Current Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Change-related incidents per quarter | Incident management system | |
| Average business impact per P1 incident (£) | Business / Finance estimate | |
| Average MTTR for change-related incidents (hours) | Incident records | |
| Estimated annual incident cost attributable to manual change | Calculated |
Compliance Cost
Section titled “Compliance Cost”| Metric | Current Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Regulatory reviews per year | Compliance calendar | |
| Engineering days consumed per review (evidence preparation) | Engineering estimate | |
| Fully-loaded daily cost of engineering resource | HR / Finance | |
| Estimated annual compliance preparation cost | Calculated |
Total Estimated Current-State Cost
Section titled “Total Estimated Current-State Cost”| Category | Annual Cost |
|---|---|
| Routine execution (recoverable capacity) | |
| Change-related incidents | |
| Compliance preparation | |
| Total addressable cost |
2. Target-State Value
Section titled “2. Target-State Value”Project the value delivered at each transformation phase. Use conservative estimates.
Value by Pillar
Section titled “Value by Pillar”| Value Pillar | Initiative | Metric | Conservative Target | Financial Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cost Reduction | Routine execution automation | Engineering hours recovered | 40% reduction by Phase 2 | |
| Risk Reduction | Pre-deployment validation + rollback | Change-related incidents | 75% reduction by Phase 2 | |
| Risk Reduction | Automated audit evidence | Compliance preparation time | Eliminated by Phase 2 | |
| Agility | One-touch deployment | Lead time: standard changes | 10 days → same day (Phase 3) | |
| Agility | Self-service portal | % requests without manual intervention | 60% by Phase 3 | |
| Service Quality | Automated detection + faster triage | MTTR for P1 incidents | 50% reduction by Phase 2 |
Cumulative Value Projection
Section titled “Cumulative Value Projection”| Phase | Cumulative Investment | Cumulative Value Delivered | Net Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| End of Phase 1 (Month 3) | |||
| End of Phase 2 (Month 6) | |||
| End of Phase 3 (Month 12) | |||
| Month 18 | |||
| Month 24 |
Estimated payback period: _____ months
3. Investment Required
Section titled “3. Investment Required”Be specific. Vague investment requests lose in budget reviews.
People Investment
Section titled “People Investment”| Role | Effort | Duration | Cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Automation architect | |||
| Automation engineer(s) | |||
| Product / programme management | |||
| Training and upskilling | |||
| People subtotal |
Tooling Investment
Section titled “Tooling Investment”| Category | Tool/Platform | Licensing Model | Annual Cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source of truth | |||
| Version control / CI platform | |||
| Workflow orchestration | |||
| Observability | |||
| Tooling subtotal |
Total Investment by Phase
Section titled “Total Investment by Phase”| Phase | People | Tooling | Programme Mgmt | Phase Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phase 1 — Foundation | ||||
| Phase 2 — Scale | ||||
| Phase 3 — Platform | ||||
| Total |
4. The Cost of Inaction
Section titled “4. The Cost of Inaction”The most important section for leadership. Quantify the ongoing cost of not transforming.
Monthly Cost of Continued Manual Operations
Section titled “Monthly Cost of Continued Manual Operations”| Category | Monthly Cost | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering capacity consumed by routine execution | ||
| Expected monthly cost of change-related incidents | Historical average | |
| Compliance preparation (amortised monthly) | Annual cost ÷ 12 | |
| Total monthly cost of inaction |
At current trajectory, over 18 months of delay, the cost of inaction is approximately: [£X]
This is the financial case for beginning Phase 1 immediately rather than deferring.
Risk Trajectory
Section titled “Risk Trajectory”[Describe how the risk profile changes over time if no action is taken. Examples: growing team dependency on a small number of individuals, increasing regulatory scrutiny, business agility constrained as competitors invest in automation, technical debt accumulation.]
5. Risks and Mitigations
Section titled “5. Risks and Mitigations”| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phase 1 scope creep extends foundation phase | Medium | Medium | Hard scope boundary; dedicated phase owner |
| Skills gap limits delivery pace | Medium | High | Skills assessment in month 1; upskilling plan before Phase 2 |
| Change management process blocks automated deployment | Medium | High | Engage change management stakeholder before Phase 1 begins |
| Leadership commitment wavers during Phase 2 | Low | High | Monthly stakeholder updates with business metrics; Phase 1 win demonstrated early |
| Automation adoption lower than expected | Medium | Medium | Automation ambassador programme; feedback mechanism from Phase 1 |
6. Governance and Accountability
Section titled “6. Governance and Accountability”| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Programme sponsor | |
| Programme lead | |
| Investment approval body | |
| Progress review cadence | Monthly (stakeholder update) + quarterly (roadmap review) |
| Success criteria for Phase 1 | See Phase Milestone Checklist |
| Decision to proceed to Phase 2 | Phase 1 exit criteria met + sponsor sign-off |
7. Recommendation
Section titled “7. Recommendation”[One paragraph. State clearly what you are recommending and why. Avoid hedging.]
Example: “We recommend approval of Phase 1 investment of [£X] to begin immediately, with a Phase 2 decision gate at Month 3 subject to Phase 1 exit criteria being met. The cost of delay — [£Y] per month — exceeds the cost of programme initiation. The programme has a conservative payback period of [Z] months and delivers material risk reduction, compliance simplification, and business agility improvements that are not achievable through any other initiative currently under consideration.”
Appendix: Supporting Data
Section titled “Appendix: Supporting Data”Attach or reference: incident logs, change management reports, time study results, regulatory review evidence, engineering team capacity analysis.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license.
You are free to use and adapt this material within your organisation for internal purposes. Republishing, selling, or distributing this content (in whole or in part) as a book, course, or other commercial product is not permitted without explicit permission.