AI supports a reduction, but only 18 FTE now
Management proposes removing 30 FTE after a substantial AI productivity gain. The evidence supports a structural reduction of 18 FTE now, not 30.
View worked exampleAI Restructuring Business Case Stress Test
Worked examples
See how the same Stress Test reaches different structural decisions when the evidence changes.
Each fictional case starts with a plausible AI-driven restructuring proposal and follows the same path from productivity evidence to a structural decision.
Browse the examples
Different evidence can lead to different structural decisions.
Choose the situation closest to the decision you are dealing with.
AI reduces supplier work, but 50% is not yet supported
Management proposes cutting supplier capacity by 50%. Normal-period work is lower, but full workload, peak demand and restoration risk are not yet established. Use a bounded three-month evidence bridge before structural approval.
View worked exampleAI releases enough capacity to support the 32-position reduction
Management proposes removing 32 customer-service positions. The evidence shows approximately 33 to 35 FTE available for choice, and the credible alternatives do not overturn the case.
View worked exampleTwenty FTE are available, but only eight are clear to remove
Eight FTE can be removed now. The remaining 12 have credible competing uses that remain economically competitive, so leadership must decide which enterprise objective to protect.
View worked exampleAI cuts effort per transaction, but releases no net capacity
Human effort per transaction falls by 35%, but demand rises by 45% and new AI-related work absorbs the gain. The proposed 36-position reduction is therefore not supported.
View worked exampleAI Restructuring Business Case Stress Test
Test your own restructuring case.
Use the parent resource to test the bridge from AI productivity to a proposed permanent capacity decision.