Business Case Analysis

Proposed Design Software Acquisition

Contents
Page

Executive summary ..............................................................................................................................3

A. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................4
A.1. Background .......................................................................................................................4
A.2. Subject of the case .........................................................................................................5
A.3. Purpose of the case ........................................................................................................5
B. Methods and assumptions............................................................................................................5
B.1. Scenarios and data .........................................................................................................5
B.2. Scope of the case ...........................................................................................................5
B.3. Financial metrics ..............................................................................................................5
B.4. Benefits ..............................................................................................................................6
B.5. Costs ..................................................................................................................................7
B.6. Major assumptions ..........................................................................................................9
C. Business Impacts ...........................................................................................................................9
C.1. Overall results ..................................................................................................................9
C.2. Benefits..............................................................................................................................9
Cash flow summary table .......................................................................................... 10
Annual cash flow graphs ........................................................................................... 11
Cumulative cash flow graphs ................................................................................... 12
C.3. Costs ............................................................................................................................... 13
D. Sensitivities, risks and contingencies ..................................................................................... 14
E. Recommendations and conclusions ........................................................................................ 15

About this Case

This case is meant only to illustrate the structure and content of a complete business case
analysis, appropriate for supporting a decision to acquire a complex hardware and software
solution.

This example case is based on a real system acquisition decision undertaken by an

aerospace company in 2003. However, names of people, products, and companies used
in this case are fictional. Prices, resource requirements, assumptions, and business case
results are adjusted so as to preserve anonymity, and are not meant to represent the actual
situation for any real company or organization. The business results for any company or
organization will vary and must be developed on an individual basis, using information
current and applicable to the specific situation.

Cotents copyright © 2003 Solution Matrix Ltd. For permission to copy and distribute this
document, see page 16.

1
2
 Business Case Analysis: Proposed Design Software Acquisition

To: Kurt Andersen, Chairman, Aerofirma Capital Review Committee

From: Robert Arndt, Aerofirma Business Case Analysis Team
Robert Ritter, Avanti Corporation
Date: 24 July 2003

Executive Summary
This business case estimates expected benefits and costs to Aerofirma that would result from a
decision to equip members of the design engineering staff (40 engineers) with DesignMax, as
proposed by Avanti Corporation on 15 June 2003. Aerofirma is considering the move to DesignMax
as a step towards reducing costs significantly in several areas, improving responsiveness to customers
and to changing design requirements, and to shortening product development times.

Based on the known costs in Design Engineering under the current design systems, and based on the
experience of other Aerospace companies in moving to DesignMax, we project a net gain of $3.87
million over three years (after covering total costs of $0.98 million). This represents an expected
three-year roi (return on investment) of more than 395%, and a payback period of about 0.5 years.
The figure below summarizes the annual cumulative cash flow result.

These expected results depend on several assumptions, including the need to train engineers, and
necessary changes to workflow and process be executed smoothly, without disruption to current
customer projects, and that the benefits to our customers are communicated effectively by Sales,
Marketing, and Services personnel. Based on the very favorable financial projections outlined in this
case, we recommend that the Aerofirma Capital Review Committee accept the Avanti DesignMax
proposal, and take steps to begin implementation immediately.
Aerofirma Aircraft Assemblies, Inc.
Proposed DesignMax Implementation for Design Engineering
Currency: $

Cumulative Cash Flow

4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
(500,000)
(1,000,000)
2003 2004 2005 2006

3
A. Introduction
A.1. Background
Aerofirma Aircraft Assemblies, Inc, is a leading supplier of aircraft sub assemblies to major aircraft
manufacturers in six North America and Europe. Last year the company earned $15.5 million, after
taxes, on sales revenues of $148.0 million.
Increasing competition and rising costs have resulted in “flat” earnings over the last three years, even
though sales revenues grew at an average of 3% per year over that period. Market growth averaged
7% per year during that time. Cash flow is still adequate to allow for modest investments in new
resources, but management has given high priority to several planned actions designed to improve
the company’s financial performance, improve competitiveness and market share, and ensure long
term viability and growth of the company.
Aerofirma’s strategy for improving earnings, winning new business, and regaining market share,
addresses three kinds of business objectives:
• Reducing costs in several targeted areas within product design and manufacturing
• Meeting the more complex needs of aerospace industry customers (more customized designs,
faster response to change requests, etc.)
• Reducing product development lead time (time to market)
Engineering management believes that all of these objectives can be addressed by enhancing
the productivity and capabilities of the Product Design Engineering Department. Key to this
enhancement, we believe, is a move to 3d design capabilities, the use of virtual prototype building
and testing, significant improvements to the product data management system, and better
communication and collaboration between engineering, manufacturing, and sub-contractors.
For this reason, on 15 June 2003, Design Engineering invited the Avanti Corporation to submit a
proposal for equipping Aerofirma with the DesignMax system.
During the first two weeks of July, Avanti met for discussions with members of the Aerofirma
Business Case Analysis team, Design Engineering Staff, and key individuals in Manufacturing
Engineering, Quality Management, Marketing, and Customer relations, in order to better
understand Aerofirma needs and objectives. On 15 July, Avanti delivered a proposal for a 40-seat
implementation of DesignMax. The proposal assumed a start date for implementation within two
months of proposal acceptance, and realization of full capabilities no more than six months later.
A.2. Subject of the Case
This business case examines the likely benefits and costs to Aerofirma Aircraft Assemblies, resulting
from a decision to implement the Avanti DesignMax proposal of 15 June 2003. The main elements of
the proposal call for 40 single-user licenses of the DesignMax module, database licenses, training for
the Design engineers involved, and installation and integration services. Additionally, implementing
the proposal will call for additional hardware resources purchased during the second and third years
of implementation.
The benefits and costs that follow from a decision to implement the DesignMax proposal will very
likely continue at least five years into the future. In view of the company’s very pressing financial
situation, however, this case limits the period of analysis to three years, beginning with an assumed
implementation start in mid-September 2003.

4
The value of DesignMax benefits derives directly from expected contributions to the business
objectives identified above, namely, reducing costs in several specific areas, better meeting the
complex needs of our customers, and reducing product lead times. Expected increases in design
engineer productivity will also contribute to the overall benefits projections.
A.3. Purpose of the Case
This case is designed to provide members of the Capital Review Committee with the necessary
financial projections, financial metrics, and assessment of contingencies and risks, to support a
decision either to accept or not accept the Avanti DesignMax proposal. This decision will be made at
the Capital Review Committee meeting to be held 7 August 2003.

B. Methods and Assumptions

B.1. Scenarios and Data
The value of expected DesignMax benefits and costs was developed from a comparison of two
scenarios: A “DesignMax implementation” scenario, and a “business as usual scenario.” The
DesignMax implementation scenario estimates operational performance and other factors, assuming
that Design Engineering implements DesignMax as proposed, while the business as usual scenario
estimates the same factors over the analysis period assuming the proposal is not implemented, and
that current systems and practices remain in place.

Benefit and cost values for the cash flow summary represent the incremental impact of the DesignMax
proposal, that is, the differences between results in the two scenarios.
B.2. Scope of the Case
Time
The business case analysis covers a three-year period, beginning with 15 September 2003, and
extending through 14 September 2006. It is assumed that Aerofirma will begin DesignMax
implementation in mid-September 2003, that the firm will begin to incur costs at that time, and that
the “ramp up” to full utilization of the new software would also begin at that time.
Organizations
The case includes expected improvements in business performance for Aerofirma AG, including
increased profits and increased market share. Cost impacts (Cost increases and cost savings) for this
analysis cover the following organizations: Design Engineering, Manufacturing, it, and Human
Resources (primarily training expenses).
Technologies
Benefit and cost estimates are restricted to impacts resulting from or directly supporting the
DesignMax system, the design engineering data base system, and electronic communications in
support of those systems. Other computing costs and benefits within the company are assumed to
be equal under either scenario, and therefore not relevant to this case.
B.3. Financial Metrics
Cash flow estimates in euro ($) for individual benefit items are developed for each of the three years
in the analysis period (Years 1 to 3). A “Year-0” is also included at the start of the analysis period
to capture the initial expenditures for software and a few other items that will occur immediately,
5
in September 2003. Expected cash flow results are summarized on a standard format cash flow
statement. Cash flow estimates form the basis, moreover, for several financial metrics:
Net cash flow
The combined result of all estimated inflows and outflows. Net cash flow is presented in $ for the
three year period. Cumulative net cash flow for each year of the analysis period is also presented in
the cash flow summary.
Net Present Value (npv)
The value of cash flows discounted at a rate of 8.0 % p.a., and a second npv reflecting discounting at
a rate of 15.0% p.a. npv is presented in $ for the three year period.
Simple roi
The “Return on Investment,” taken as projected incremental gains from this investment (net of
investment costs), divided by investment costs. roi is presented as a percentage, in which all values
over 0% represent a net gain from the investment.
Payback Period
The number of years required for the initial investment costs to be recovered from the gains.
Internal Rate of Return (irr)
The interest rate that yields an npv of 0 for this investment. irr is given as a percentage.

B.4. Benefits
Important benefits under DesignMax identified and analyzed for this case included the following
items.
Decreased lead time
This means that the company can design new products and bring them to market in less time than is
currently required. The impact is measured as a reduction in time (average time required under the
current system, less the expected time required under DesignMax).
A more fluid design environment
This means that designers respond more quickly and more easily to changing needs. Changes are
thus made at an earlier stage of the design process (e.g., in concept design instead of the detailed
design phase), lower change costs.
Improved change propagation
This impact is a benefit when design dependencies are understood and managed more efficiently.
Automated “Publish and Subscribe” under DesignMax ensures that change effects propagate
correctly. Also, mml (Multi-Model Links) ensure that models, meshes, and drawings are consistent.
Better clash management
Improvements in clash management mean that design clashes are understood, managed, captured,
and communicated more effectively. The prototype works on the first build.
Ability to design in context

6
This means that designers always work with the correct configuration (using the right data at the
right time). Under DesignMax, the design can be viewed in the context of functional zone. Maturity
management will also improve under DesignMax.
Improved collaborative design
Easier (faster, more accurate, more efficient) collaboration between designers and groups within the
company should result when DesignMax is fully operational.
Increased Productivity
In addition to the above benefits, the case estimates increases in overall designer productivity
(measured in time to complete design assignments, number of designers required to complete design
assignments of a given complexity, and scope of work undertaken by individual designers). The value
of this impact derives either from reduced need to hire new design staff, or from increased output per
designer, or both.

B.5. Costs
Cost impacts for this business case included asset and expense items in the areas summarized by the
business case cost model:

Cost impacts DesignMax Life-Cycle Phase

under both
scenarios DesignMax Acquisition DesignMax
and Start Up Operational Phase
Year 0 and Year 1 Year 2 and Year 3

� One-time license - Design SW � SW Maintenance costs

� One-time license - Database SW
Software � One-time license – Admin SW
� SW Maintenance costs
Resources

� Server system upgrades � Server system upgrades

Hardware � Client system (desktop) purchase � Client system (desktop) purchase

� Initial training � Continuing training

Personnel � Designer productivity � Designer productivity

� SW installation and integration � SW integration services

Services services

7
 B.6. Major Assumptions
The DesignMax scenario underlying this case analysis assumes that:
DesignMax implementation will begin in mid-September 2003.
• All 40 members of the Design Engineering Department will receive DesignMax licenses and
training during the period September – December 2003.
• Design engineers will reach their maximum proficiency with DesignMax no later than
September 2004, a 12-month “ramp up,” and that realization of most benefits to their
maximum level will follow the same ramp up profile.
• Any turnover (departure and replacement) of design engineering staff during the analysis
period would be equal under both the DesignMax scenario and the Business as Usual
scenario.
• No additional hiring or expansion of the engineering staff is anticipated during the analysis
period.
• Design engineer salaries and overhead costs average $54 per hour now, and will increase at a
rate of 4% over the next 3 years.
• There are 212 work days per year.

C. Business Impacts

C. 1. Overall Results
The expected cash flow results from the DesignMax implementation (compared to business as usual)
are summarized in Table 1 and Figures 1 and 2.
In brief, the analysis predicts a positive net cash flow of more than $3.87 million over the three year
analysis period. This return is projected based on a total expected cost of $ 0.98 million over the
same period, making a simple roi (return on investment) of 395.2% (see the summary box at the top
of Table 1).
Other financial metrics are also very positive: Payback period for the DesignMax investment is
projected as 0.5 years, and internal rate of return (irr) at 211.7%. Following is a brief discussion on
the major benefit and cost items contributing to these results.

C. 2. Benefits
The largest projected benefit from the DesignMax implementation comes from gains in improved
collaborative design. The total benefit of $2,125,000 is based on the assumption that the costs of
achieving collaborative design (now totaling $6.8 million per year, in aggregate) can be reduced
by 25% under the DesignMax implementation, and that DesignMax itself should receive 50% of
the benefit value for this reduction (the other 50% “credit” appropriately goes to changes in design
process, workflow patterns, and management). This results in an annual DesignMax benefit of
$850,000 once the full benefit impact level is achieved (year 2 in the present case).

8
The second largest benefit in table 1 appears under “Personnel staffing cost productivity gains” (in
Costs and Cost Savings). The projected cost savings of $1,146,252 is based on the assumption that
40 designers will become at least 10% more productive under DesignMax (this assumption is a very
conservative estimate, based on experience in similar design organizations at other companies during
the last year). The productivity gain is expected through more efficient variation management,
more efficient building and testing of prototypes (virtual prototypes instead of physical prototypes
in many cases), and more effective task management throughout all phases of design. The benefit
value represents 10% of 40 designer salaries across the next 3 years (assuming 4.0% per annum pay
increases).

Improved ability to design in context leads to a projected three-year benefit of $793,728. This is
based on evidence that shows that DesignMax can change the creation of an analysis environment for
digital mock up units (dmus) from a 45-minute task to a 10-minute task. This is a 78% improvement
in a task that now consumes $47,040 worth of engineering labor per year. We assume that these
savings will be translated directly into increased productivity and reduced need for additional hiring.
The nearly continuous need to implement design changes is a costly process for Aerofirma, targeted
for cost reductions under DesignMax. The goal is to identify necessary changes as early as possible,
in the concept design phase, where the average cost per change is $ 200, rather than the detailed
design phase ($ 1,200 per change), the testing-prototype phase ($9,600 per change), or, in the worst
case, after start of production (where change costs average $24,000 per change at Aerofirma). Based
on an estimated 500 design changes per year, the more fluid design environment under DesignMax is
expected to produce a redistribution of change events, as summarized in Table 2 below (page a-15):

9
 Design Max Business Case CASH FLOW SUMMARY

Aerofirma Aircraft Assemblies, Inc

Proposed DesignMax Implementation for Design Engineering

Summary of Financial Results and Assumptions

Incremental cash inflows (outlflows) with DesignMax

The estimated net benefit (cost) over the evaluation period is as follows:

Net Cash Flow........................................................ $ 3,872,473

8.0% discounting, Net Present Value…………… $ 3,206,316
15.0% discounting, Net Present Value…………… $ 2,747,076
Simple ROI*...........................................................................
$ 395.2%
Payback Period ............................................................................0.5 Years
Internal Rate of Return................................................. 211.7%
Total Benefits / Gains…………..……………………….. $ 4,852,466
Total DesignMax Costs…………………………………………. $ 979,992
Analysis Period.......................................................................
14 Sep 003..…….to……….
14 Sep 06
Analsis Period Length.................................................. 3 Years

* Simple ROI = (Net Cash flow - DesignMax costs)/ DesignMax costs

CASH FLOW STATEMENT

Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Sep Sep Sep Sep
2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL
BENEFITS / GAINS
Cash inflows (outflows)

Decreased lead time N/A 7,000 14,000 14,000 35,000

More fluid design enviornment N/A 82,000 164,000 164,000 410,000
Change propagation N/A 53,233 106,466 106,466 266,166
Clash management N/A 15,264 30,528 30,528 76,320
Design in context N/A 158,746 317,491 317,491 793,728
Collaborative design / Concurrent Engr. N/A 425,000 850,000 850,000 2,125,000
Total Benefits/Gains $ N/A 741,243 1,482,486 1,482,486 3,706,214

COSTS AND COST SAVINGS

Cash inflows (outflows)

Software
Software One-time Charges (450,092) 0 0 0 (450,092)
Software Maintenance and Operations N/A (52,367) (52,367) (52,367) (157,100)
Total Software $ (450,092) (52,367) (52,367) (52,367) (607,192)

Hardware
Server and server-related costs 0 (25,000) (71,400) (92,000) (188,400)
Client and client-related costs (15,400) (8,300) (22,000) (12,000) (57,700)
Hardware Maintenance 0 (1,800) (1,800) (1,800) (5,400)
Total Hardware $ (15,400) (35,100) (95,200) (105,800) (251,500)

Personnel and Services

Personnel staffing cost productivity gains N/A 367,200 381,888 397,164 1,146,252
Training costs (34,000) (15,000) (8,000) (9,000) (66,000)
Services costs 0 (42,000) (10,300) (3,000) (55,300)
Total Personnel and Services $ (34,000) 310,200 363,588 385,164 1,024,952

Total Costs and Cost Savings $ (499,492) 222,733 216,021 226,997 166,259

CASH FLOW SUMMARY

Cash inflows (outflows)

Benefits N/A 741,243 1,482,486 1,482,486 3,706,214

Costs and Cost Savings (499,492) 222,733 216,021 226,997 166,259
NET CASH FLOW $ (499,492) 963,976 1,698,507 1,709,482 3,872,473
Cumulative Net Cash Flow $ (499,492) 464,484 2,162,991 3,872,473

DiscountedCash
Discounted CashFlow
Flow
8.0% Discounted cash flow €
$ (499,492) 892,570 1,456,196 1,357,043 3,206,317
15.0% Discounted cash flow €
$ (499,492) 838,240 1,284,315 1,124,013 2,747,076

Table 1. Projected cash flow results expected under DesignMax scenario compared to business as usual.

10
Aerofirma Aircraft Assemblies, Inc.
Proposed DesignMax Implementation for Design Engineering
Currency $
:

Annual Cash Flow

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

(500,000)

(1,000,000)
2003 2004 2005 2006

Aerofirma Aircraft Assemblies, Inc.

Proposed DesignMax Implementation for Design Engineering
Currency $
:

Annual Net and Discounted Cash Flow

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000
Net cash flow
500,000 8.0% DCF
15.0% DCF

(500,000)

(1,000,000)
2003 2004 2005 2006

Figure 1. Annual cash flow projections shown as simple net cash flow (top) and as discounted cash flow
(bottom). The year-0 net (2003) immediate impacts at the start of year 1 is negative, but net cash flow
becomes positive for each subsequent year as the benefits “ramp up.”

11
 Aerofirma Aircraft Assemblies Inc.
Prroposed DesignMax Implementation for Design Engineering
Currency $
:

Cumulative Cash Flow

4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
(500,000)
(1,000,000)
2003 2004 2005 2006

Aerofirma Aircraft Assemblies Inc.

Proposed DesignMax Implementation for Design Engineering
Currency $
:

Cumulative Net and Discounted Cash Flow

4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
Cumulative CF
2,000,000 8.0% DCF
1,500,000 15.0% DCF
1,000,000
500,000
0
(500,000)
(1,000,000)
2003 2004 2005 2006

Figure 2. Cash flow projections on a cumulative basis. The net positive cash flow at the end of year one
(2004) indicates that payback occurs during that year.

12
 %Total Average Net
% of Total
Changes
Changes $ $
with Cost per Difference
Now Design Max Change
Concept design phase........................................ 41.0% 51.0% 200 (10,000)
Detailed design phase..................................... 30.0% 21.0% 1,200 54,000
Testing - Prototype phase ..................................... 19.0% 19.0% 9,600 0
After start of production...........................................10.0% 9.0% 24,000 120,000

Table 2. Expected re-distribution of change events under DesignMax.

Moving 10% of the total design changes into the concept design phase increases change costs during
that phase by $10,000, but that increase is more than offset by reducing the number of more costly
changes occurring in later phases. Therefore, we estimate the total benefit from a more fluid design
environment to be worth $410,000 over the 3 years.
A related but different benefit arises from improvements in change propagation under DesignMax
is valued at a total of $266,166 over the three year analysis period. We know from experience that
change events occur about once every two days for the typical engineering project, and we estimate
that the time requirements for these can be reduced from 30 minutes to 2 minutes, on average,
under DesignMax. This is a 93% improvement in change activity time requirements, that now cost
Aerofirma $114,480 each year in labor costs. The net annual savings (when the benefit reaches full
impact level in year 2) is therefore valued at 93% of the current cost, or $106,466 per year. The total
3-year impact of this benefit is $266,166, assuming a 12-month ramp up to full benefits.

Other benefits included in this case include an estimated savings of $76,320 in improved clash
management over three years, and an estimated increase of $35,000 in profits due directly to
reduced lead times under DesignMax. We expect that product lead times will drop from the current
average 18 months to an average of 12 months, once Design Engineering gains full proficiency with
DesignMax. The very modest benefit credited here (less than 3% of profits last year) recognizes that
reduced lead time also calls for significant changes in manufacturing and other functional areas, in
addition to shorter design times under DesignMax.

C. 3. Costs
Table 1 also summarizes the expected cost consequences of implementing the DesignMax proposal.
The major cost impacts include software acquisition ($450,092 in one-time purchase costs), software
maintenance ($157,100 over three years), as well as hardware costs totaling $251,500 (for server
and client upgrades and acquisitions, and hardware maintenance for the incremental hardware
purchases). Additional training costs ($66,000) and services costs ($55,300, primarily for additional
integration consulting) complete the cost picture.

Total incremental costs for the DesignMax implementation are estimated at $979,992, which are
expected to bring in total benefits and gains of $4,852,466.

13
D. Sensitivities, Risks and Contingencies
Engineering management can play a very critical role in maximizing returns from this investment in
a new design environment. This is shown in a sensitivity analysis of financial model underlying the
projected results. For instance, the projected three-year net gain of $3.87 million is based on many
assumptions, including these:
• Collaborative engineering costs will be reduced 12.5%
• Overall designer productivity (for 40 design engineers) will improve by 10%
Improvements or decrements from these values have a strong influence on projected results. For
instance:
• If Collaborative engineering cost reductions are only half the expected amount (6.25%
instead of 12.5%), estimated cash flow for the entire investment drops from of $3.87 million
of $2.81, an overall reduction of 27%.
• If, on the other hand, collaborative engineering cost reductions are even larger, say 25%
below the current levels, the overall expected returns rise by 54% to of $6.00 million.
• If individual designer productivity improves only 5% (instead of the assumed 10%),
projected results fall 15% to $3.30 million.
• An average increase in designer productivity of 20% (instead of 10%) increases expected
investment results by 54% to of $6.00 million
Improvements in collaborative engineering individual productivity, we believe, especially require
effective management in Design Engineering.
The projected results are also sensitive to other benefits assumptions, but to a lesser degree. For
instance, these results assume that the time required to create a design context will drop from 45
minutes to 10 minutes (based on DesignMax experience at other companies). If this design time can
be reduced even further to 5 minutes, the resulting productivity gains bring projected results of $3.98
million, a 3% increase over the total presented here.
Overall, most assumptions that account for the very favorable expected results of this investment rest
on four more basic assumptions:
(1) Aerofirma design engineers will be trained and become proficient DesignMax users during
the first year of implementation.
(2) The transition from the current design environment to the DesignMax environment will be
effected smoothly, that is, with no disruptions in work flow or project scheduling
(3) Aerofirma’s customers are appraised as soon as possible of the specific improvements in design
capability, responsiveness, and customer service expected under DesignMax. These changes
represent substantial benefits to our customers which should lead to improved business
volume, cost of sales, and quality of communication with our entire customer base.
(4) Aerofirma’s cost structure and business model will adhere to current plans and predictions.
This means, essentially, that there are no significant, unplanned cost increases or
extraordinary financial events that interfere with the full realization of expected benefits.

14
Basic assumptions (1) and (2) put a special responsibility on Aerofirma it management and
engineering management, to ensure that training is scheduled and utilized quickly and effectively,
and that the transition between design environments runs smoothly.
Assumption (3) requires that sales, marketing, and services management take an active role during
the transition to the DesignMax design environment, to ensure that our sales people, consultants,
and marketers begin setting customer expectations appropriately.
If the decision is taken to implement the DesignMax proposal, the Aerofirma Engineering Steering
Committee will produce a transition plan during the month of August, outlining the tasks and
responsibilities necessary to ensure that assumptions 1 – 3 are met.
Assumption (4) refers to events largely beyond the control of Aerofirma management, but which
must be monitored closely. Regardless of external events in the market or the economy in general, it
is especially important that the DesignMax program receive all expected resources and management
support during the first year of implementation, to ensure that benefit “ramp up” occurs on schedule.

E. Recommendations and Conclusions

Based on the analysis presented above, the DesignMax Business Case Analysis Team recommends
that Aerofirma Capital Review Committee accept the Avanti DesignMax proposal of
15 July 2003.
We further recommend that the Autofirma Executive Steering Committee take several steps to ensure
successful implementation and realization of the business objectives that provide the motivation for
this action:
• Begin working with the Avanti Services consultant immediately to outline the main features
of the implementation and integration project, and to ensure that proposed hardware and
software delivery schedules are in place.
• Ensure that it staff and resources are available and dedicated to the DesignMax installation
and integration requirements during the remainder of year 2003.
• Review the design project transition plan to be presented by the Director of Design
Engineering, to ensure that existing customer projects are completed on time, without
disruption during the transition.
• Request and review quarterly reports on the financial measures outlined in this business case
and progress toward the important business objectives outlined in the introduction of this
report:
(1) Cost reductions (identified under “Benefits” above)
(2) Improved responsiveness to customers and to change requirements
(3) Reduced product lead time.

15
 Further Information
Solution Matrix White Papers
The following Solution Matrix White papers are available at no charge.
• Case What’s a Business Case? and Other Frequently Asked Questions
• The IT Business Case: Keys to Accuracy and Credibility
• Business Essentials: A Guide to Structure and Content

For More Information

The structure and contents of this document are covered in detail in theThe Business Case Guide
(isbn 1-929500-01-7). For more information on the Guide visit the Solution Matrix Ltd. web site
at www.solutionmatrix.com.
Copyright and Permission to Reproduce
The contents of this document are the copyrighted property of Solution Matrix Ltd. Permission is
hereby granted to reproduce and distribute this document under the following conditions only: The
cover page and this page (page 16) , each with the Solution Matrix Ltd. name must be included; the
Solution Matrix Ltd. copyright notice must also appear at the bottom of each page. Except for brief
quotes, any other reproduction, transmission, or use of this material is a violation of United States and
international copyright laws.
About the Author
Marty J. Schmidt, M.B.A. Ph.D., is founder and President of Solution Matrix Ltd. Dr Schmidt has twenty years
business experience, managing software development, international marketing and sales support, and, (since 1987)
management consulting on business issues. He is a recognized authority on the application of cost/benefit analysis
and business case development.
Dr. Schmidt also taught graduate and undergraduate statistics at the University of New Hampshire, is the author of
a college textbook on statistics, and publishes often on professional management and business issues. He holds the
Ph.D. degree from Purdue University and the M.B.A. from Babson College.

About Solution Matrix Limited

Solution Matrix Ltd. is a management consulting firm dedicated to helping executives, managers, consultants, and
other professionals understand the impact of management actions on business performance. Our clients include
individuals and organizations on five continents, in business, government, education, the military, and non-profit
organizations.
Solution Matrix Ltd. was incorporated in the United States in Delaware (1994),certificate of incorporation
944200647-2389562 and Foreign Corporation Certificate 467876 from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1994).
The company’s Dun & Bradstreet Number is 964931414. Solution Matrix Ltd. is a registered US Government
contractor in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database
(http://www.ccr.gov), CAGE code IQXP6.

Visit our web site at http://www.solutionmatrix.com.

16