A board in KAFD asking why this investment and why now needs numbers built from the business's actual data, not savings estimates copied from a vendor brochure.

This document sits between the readiness assessment and the decision to proceed. It quantifies what the current state actually costs the business, what the target state is expected to deliver, and what the investment and risk look like over a five-year horizon. Done honestly, it sometimes concludes that the project should wait, which is a legitimate and valuable outcome.

Costing the status quo properly

Most businesses underestimate what their current systems cost because the costs are diffuse: a finance team spending four days each month on manual consolidation, sales staff re-keying orders into two systems, inventory write-offs from stock the system said existed, audit fees inflated by poor documentation, and Zakat computed by hand from spreadsheets every year. We put a defensible number on each of these so the baseline is real rather than assumed.

Building benefits that survive scrutiny

Benefits are split into hard savings, cost avoidance and strategic value, and each is tied to a specific mechanism and owner. A claim that the new system will reduce month-end close from twelve days to five is only credible if the case explains which manual steps disappear and who is accountable for the new timeline. Benefits nobody owns rarely materialize.

The full investment picture

Licensing is typically the smallest part. The case includes implementation fees, internal staff time diverted from normal duties, data migration and cleansing, integration with banking, payroll and ZATCA, training, contingency and support for years two to five. Presenting the honest total, rather than the license quote, is what makes the case trustworthy when costs later arrive as expected instead of as surprises.

A common Saudi scenario

A Riyadh distribution group's finance director is asked to justify a new ERP to a board that remembers the last system going over budget. The business case quantifies the current cost of running three unconnected entities, models a phased implementation that limits risk in year one, and shows a payback period the board can test. The proposal is approved because the numbers are auditable, not because the pitch was compelling.

What you receive

A board-ready document with executive summary, current-state cost baseline, target-state benefits by category and owner, five-year investment schedule, cash flow and payback analysis, risk register with mitigations, and recommended decision with alternatives considered. It also becomes the yardstick for the PMO to track realized value after go-live.

Presenting risk honestly

A business case that shows only upside invites skepticism from any experienced board member. Ours includes a risk register with the realistic failure modes of ERP projects in Riyadh, data migration overruns, key staff departures mid-project, ZATCA integration delays, each with a likelihood, an impact and a named mitigation. Leadership approves projects more readily when they can see the risks have been thought through rather than hidden.

Local context

Family-owned groups in Riyadh often need the business case framed for a board that includes non-executive family members, which means clearer plain-language explanation of risk and payback than a purely technical audience would require.