# Benefit-realization record Use one record for a bounded workflow, eligible segment, measurement period, and independently accepted result. Track where released time went before claiming financial benefit. This completed example is hypothetical: its records, time study, payroll comparison, decisions, and arithmetic are invented teaching material. It establishes no customer savings, finance approval, revenue uplift, or annual realized return. ## Completed hypothetical onboarding exercise | Field | Hypothetical entry | | --------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Period | One 28-day reporting period and an owner-agreed comparable baseline period | | Workflow | Preparing and supporting first valid use for the declared onboarding segment | | Accepted activation | The receiving user completes the first valid task under current access, configuration, and support ownership; an independent verifier confirms it | | Prior path | 80 hours on the declared original tasks | | Changed path | 30 task hours, plus six new review hours and four new support hours | | Capacity result | 80 − 30 − 6 − 4 = 40 net hours released | | Source status | All time, payroll, demand, and acceptance records are invented within-scenario evidence | | Owner | Hypothetical onboarding workflow manager | | Independent verifiers | Within-scenario operations reviewer checks task/activation records; finance reviewer reconciles expense and cost treatment | | Limits | No live sampling, user trial, demand measurement, payroll audit, or causal experiment occurred | Do not treat a login, invitation, or checklist completion as accepted activation. Preserve source case identities, eligibility, period, exceptions, and the independent acceptance evidence in a real record. ## Exclusive allocation of net released capacity | Benefit row | Hypothetical allocation and evidence | Financial treatment | | ------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Available unused capacity | 10 hours have no evidenced use at cutoff | Report hours; assign no monetary benefit | | Additional accepted work | 20 hours support 10 qualified backlog requests at two hours each, accepted at first valid use | Report the 10 accepted activations; monetary contribution/value remains unknown | | Reduced paid overtime | 10 hours replace work that would otherwise require paid overtime; attributed payroll comparison below | Report the separately supported $450 expense reduction within the exercise | | Hiring avoidance | Manager hopes a future hire will no longer be needed | Forecast only; exclude from current-period financial total and current 40-hour allocation | Allocation check: 10 unused + 20 extra work + 10 overtime replacement = 40 hours. An hour cannot receive more than one benefit treatment. The additional backlog cases remain separate from the cases used in the original time study. In a real comparison, verify demand and whether the extra cases would have completed without the released capacity. No revenue or contribution value is invented here. ## Invented expense evidence ```text Prior paid overtime: 14 hours × $45/hour = $630 Current paid overtime: 4 hours × $45/hour = $180 Difference: 10 hours; $630 − $180 = $450 expense reduction ``` The within-scenario owner attributes the reduction to the ten hours allocated to replacing overtime. Regular salary payments are unchanged. For a real claim, compare work mix, demand, staffing, policy, holidays, and other process changes. A lighter month cannot all be credited to automation. Do not add salary-valued savings for those same ten hours. Do not count the 20 hours of extra output as payroll savings. If additional-work value is established later, use an owner-approved contribution or other appropriate unit value with its own costs and overlap exclusions; gross revenue is not automatically that value. ## Allocated cost of the added service All amounts are illustrative USD for the same 28-day period. The question here is whether the supported overtime reduction covers the resources used by the added service. This is not a bill for the whole onboarding process. Of the original 80 task hours, 30 remain in the changed process and stay in its work record. The 20 released hours used for extra output belong with that output; include their additional costs if its monetary value is established later. The six review and four support hours are assumed to cover the added operating effort. The $50 operation and recovery row is non-labor cost and adds no person-hours. Include further incident, maintenance, or recovery effort once in a real net-time comparison and reconcile its cost allocation separately. | Mutually exclusive cost row | Hypothetical period allocation | | --------------------------------- | ------------------------------ | | Six review and four support hours | $400 | | Tools | $100 | | Delivery allocation | $150 | | Non-labor operation and recovery | $50 | | Total | $700 | ```text Covered expense effect less added-service allocation = $450 − $700 = −$250 Additional-work monetary value = unknown Residual harm/loss = unknown Hiring avoidance = forecast, excluded Complete net value = not established ``` The ten new-work hours reduced released capacity from 50 hours to 40. Their $400 cost records staff resources used by the service; it does not imply another payroll payment. There is no second monetary subtraction here because the 40 released hours have not been priced as financial benefit. If another comparison prices net hours, reconcile that labor treatment so it is counted once. Keep the cost assigned to a period separate from payment timing and preserve one-time delivery costs across periods. The −$250 result says the overtime reduction alone does not cover the added-service resources. It is not the complete value of the change: the monetary value of extra onboarding and possible harm or loss remain unknown, not zero. ## Blank working record Begin with the time reconciliation and where each released hour went. Only then attach financial amounts supported by expense or output evidence. Keep forecasts and unknowns outside the actual-benefit total. ### Start with these questions 1. How much task time fell, after including new review, correction, and support work? 2. Where did each released hour go: unused capacity, extra accepted work, or reduced paid work? 3. Which expense or output records support a monetary benefit? 4. What service costs and remaining harm still need to be deducted or left unknown? ### Reconcile time, benefit, and cost - Which workflow, version, eligible population, exclusions, and period does this record cover? - What result was accepted, which authoritative record confirms it, and who checked it independently? - What was the prior process, which records describe it, and what would likely have happened without the change? How will you compare the two? - What is the gross task-time reduction, and how was it measured? - How much new review, correction, exception, support, and recovery work was required? - How much net capacity remains, with what uncertainty? - Where did those hours go? Assign each hour once, with a source record and an owner for every row. - How much capacity remains unused, with no value assigned? - What extra work was independently accepted? What shows demand, what links it to released capacity, and is its unit value established or unknown? - Which expenditure fell, which expense record confirms it, and what supports attributing that reduction to the change? - Which future cost or hire might be avoided? What approved spending plan supports that forecast, and when will it be reviewed? - Which benefits are excluded to prevent overlap? - Currency, cost boundary, fixed, variable, allocated delivery, review, support, and recovery costs: - If review or support hours already reduce the time benefit, how are their costs handled without deducting the same labor twice? - Cash timing and one-time cost view, separate from allocation: - Residual harm or loss and whether already netted elsewhere: - Pending outcomes, missing observations, and late-result correction rule: - Customer-facing outcome distinct from internal financial claim: - What else changed—such as workload, staffing, or policy—and how does that limit what you can credit to the service? ## Sponsor readout and next decision Report the problem, previous path, changed path, and what stayed unchanged. Then separate the following rows. | Readout | Evidence-backed result or explicit unknown | | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------ | | Net capacity | | | How capacity was used | | | Independently accepted output | | | Customer/business effect | | | Supported expense reduction | | | Forecasts excluded from actual results | | | Full cost, benefit unknowns, and loss | | | Exceptions, disagreement, and pending results | | | Next decision, owner, due date, and stop/constraint condition | | For this exercise, the next work is to verify extra demand and its benefit, test persistence of the overtime effect, and assign or reconsider unused capacity. Preserve the prior as-of report when later evidence arrives. Continue proving, constrain, pause, or retire when the supported benefit cannot justify operating with required controls; the 40-hour headline alone does not authorize expansion.