Fictional worked example

AI works, capacity is available, but the answer depends on broader priorities

A 120-FTE commercial-operations function has released a clearly identifiable block of capacity after eight months of AI-enabled work. Management proposes removing 20 FTE next quarter. The Stress Test supports removal of 8 FTE now, while the remaining 12 FTE require a broader enterprise allocation choice.

The capacity question is resolved. The remaining allocation choice is not.

Decision at a glance

Twenty FTE are available for choice, but not all twenty have the same decision state.

Proposal Remove 20 FTE next quarter

Reduce the commercial-operations function from 120 to 100 FTE.

Capacity available for choice Approximately 20 FTE

The operating model supports 20 FTE as genuinely available after peak, specialist and resilience requirements are protected.

Supported structural outcome Remove 8 FTE now; decide the use of 12 FTE

The remaining 12 FTE have credible competing uses that stay competitive after comparable economic analysis.

Decision status 8 FTE: Status 01
12 FTE: Status 04

The same capacity block contains two tranche outcomes.

Employee capacity Commercial operations 120 FTE starting team AI operating at scale for 8 months

Evidence behind the case

The operating case is strong. The unresolved issue is how to use part of the released capacity.

Observed evidence

  • Net human workload is 18% lower after exceptions, review, controls and new AI-governance work are included.
  • Workload and role redesign identify an addressable block equivalent to approximately 22 FTE.
  • Peak quarter-end and major-bid support requirements are already reflected in the retained model.
  • Service levels, proposal turnaround and data quality have remained within target for eight months.
  • The retained team preserves the specialist pricing, bid and account support skills required for non-standard work.
  • Approximately 20 FTE are available for choice, with a further 2 FTE retained as operating headroom.
  • Equivalent commercial-operations capacity could be rebuilt in approximately three months.

Comparable economics for the live choice

8-FTE resolved tranche annual saving ≈ £0.76m
Remove remaining 12: 24-month net benefit ≈ £2.04m
Redeploy 12: 24-month incremental net value ≈ £1.7m to £2.9m
6/6 package: 24-month net value ≈ £1.9m to £2.4m

What keeps the 12-FTE choice open

  • Commercial conversion varies across a tested range.
  • The board has a binding enterprise cost-reduction objective.
  • Equivalent savings can be found elsewhere, but only by displacing or deferring other commitments.
  • The current customer-expansion window has timing value.
  • Leadership's tolerance for downside risk affects which package is preferred.

The capacity bridge

The capacity case is resolved before the allocation choice begins.

Questions 1 to 3 establish a real 20-FTE block available for choice. Q4 then separates the resolved 8-FTE tranche from the contested 12 FTE.

01

AI productivity

AI has materially reduced recurring commercial-operations work.

02

Net human work change

Net human workload is approximately 18% lower.

03

Released capacity

The changed workflow releases approximately 22 FTE-equivalent.

04

Structurally addressable capacity

Role redesign maps the released work to an identifiable block of approximately 22 FTE.

05

Capacity that must remain

Peak, specialist and resilience requirements retain approximately 2 FTE of additional headroom.

06

Capacity available for choice

Approximately 20 FTE are genuinely available for choice.

20 FTE available for choice 8 FTE resolved; 12 FTE contested

The four questions

The first three questions resolve capacity. Q4 splits the outcome by tranche.

How much human work is actually no longer required?

Supported

After exceptions, controls, human review and new AI-governance work are included, net human workload is approximately 18% lower. The reduction has persisted for eight months.

The case establishes a real decline in required human work.

Is released capacity structurally addressable?

Supported

Released time is concentrated in recurring reporting, CRM administration and standard proposal-preparation work. Role redesign converts those gains into an identifiable block of approximately 22 FTE-equivalent.

Approximately 22 FTE-equivalent is structurally addressable.

What capacity must remain to protect performance, coverage, skills and resilience?

20 FTE available

The retained model protects quarter-end peaks, major-bid support, specialist pricing, non-standard proposal work, account escalation and operating resilience. Approximately 2 FTE of additional headroom is retained within the 22-FTE block.

20 FTE are genuinely available for choice. The capacity question is resolved.

Is the proposed reduction, at this amount and timing, economically better than the credible alternatives?

Mixed tranche outcome

Eight FTE have no credible permanent competing use and can be removed. For the remaining 12 FTE, Finance compares the live packages over the same 24-month horizon using incremental economics and explicit uncertainty.

Resolved tranche

Remove 8 FTE now

≈ £0.76m annual recurring saving · ≈ £0.16m exit cost

No approved permanent use of comparable value has been identified. Temporary assignments may improve implementation, but do not create an ongoing requirement for these positions.

Status 01: support removal now.
12-FTE package A

Remove all 12

≈ £2.04m 24-month net benefit

This option produces relatively certain savings beginning next quarter and adds approximately £1.14m of annualised run-rate saving toward the board cost-reduction target.

Stronger when near-term savings and the cost target dominate.
12-FTE package B

Redeploy all 12 to customer expansion

≈ £1.7m to £2.9m 24-month incremental net value

The central case is economically stronger than removal, while the downside case is weaker. The growth option has credible upside without being treated as a guaranteed return.

Stronger when growth value and the current opportunity window dominate.
12-FTE package C

Redeploy 6 and remove 6

≈ £1.9m to £2.4m 24-month net value

This package reduces growth exposure while preserving part of the cost reduction. It is credible, but does not dominate the other two decision-ready packages.

Lower-risk mixed package, not a mechanically correct compromise.
12-FTE package D

Remove 12 now and rebuild later if needed

Immediate cost protection · ≈ 3-month rebuild time

This protects the cost target but adds rebuild cost, onboarding friction and the risk of missing the current customer-expansion window.

Feasible, but timing and reversibility reduce its appeal.
12-FTE package E

Retain 12 without committing them to a defined use

Maximum optionality · full continuing employment cost

This captures neither the cost saving nor the growth programme value. On the current evidence it is the weakest package.

Weakest current option.
Remove the resolved 8-FTE tranche now. For the remaining 12 FTE, removal, redeployment and a 6/6 package remain competitive after comparable analysis. The preferred package depends on broader enterprise priorities, timing and risk.

Stress Test conclusion

Approve removal of 8 FTE now. Move the remaining 12 FTE to a broader resource-allocation decision.

The Stress Test has resolved the capacity question and part of the structural decision. It does not manufacture a winner where several adequately evidenced packages remain competitive.

Report the outcome by tranche. The 8-FTE tranche has Status 01. The remaining 12 FTE have Status 04.

What leadership needs next

The remaining 12 FTE are an allocation choice, not an evidence gap.

What could shift the ranking

  • Growth performance moving toward the downside or upside end of the tested range.
  • Higher or lower retraining and programme-support cost.
  • The current customer-expansion window becoming more or less valuable.
  • Changes in the cost or speed of rebuilding commercial capability later.
  • The first 6 redeployed FTE proving or weakening the commercial thesis.

Enterprise questions leadership must answer

  • Is the current cost target the binding constraint?
  • If growth capacity is protected here, what gives way elsewhere?
  • How much downside risk is acceptable for the growth opportunity?
  • Can the remaining cost target be met elsewhere at lower opportunity cost?
  • Is the 6/6 package a useful risk trade-off or a weak compromise?

What this example shows

Capacity can be available and the alternatives can be comparable without producing one mechanically correct answer.

AI productivity is real net human work falls released capacity is structurally addressable operating requirements are protected 20 FTE become available for choice 8 FTE have no credible permanent competing use 12 FTE have several comparable uses the decision crosses into resource allocation

The Stress Test has narrowed the decision enough for leadership to choose which enterprise objective to protect and what gives way elsewhere.

AI Restructuring Business Case Stress Test

Apply the same test to your own case.

Use the parent resource to test the bridge from AI productivity to a proposed permanent capacity decision.

Open the Stress Test

More worked examples

Browse all worked examples