The ROI Scenarios
SuiteCentral 2.0’s financial model has three scenarios — Conservative (25% 3-year ROI), Base Case (75%), and Optimistic (157%). All three run off the same $2,495/month SaaS pricing and an adjustable baseline. The 25–157% range most sources quote is the span between Conservative and Optimistic; the expected value is 75%.
What this page is
The definitive breakdown of SuiteCentral 2.0’s 3-year ROI projection. Earlier sources (01-executive-summary, CFO role brief, ai-governance-layer hook video) quoted a 25–157% range without saying what the base case was. This page closes that gap.
Why it matters (to the adoption case)
The CFO brief says the CFO should stress-test the ROI model — that’s the single most important validation ask in the brief. This page is what the CFO stress-tests against. The 04-roi-calculator source names adjustable inputs (hourly cost, integration volume, error rate) and three scenario outputs — so the CFO can pick the scenario that matches their risk appetite and see whether the numbers still work when the inputs change.
For the CEO (Jonyce Bullock) reconciling all three role views, the base case of 75% 3-year ROI is the number to carry into the decision. Not 25% (too pessimistic to justify the effort), not 157% (too optimistic to defend), but 75% (realistic and defensible).
The three scenarios (per 04-roi-calculator)
| Scenario | Field Mapping Time Reduction | Error Rate Reduction | Support Scalability | 3-Year ROI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative | 70% | 90% | 4× | 25% |
| Base Case | 75% | 95% | 5× | 75% |
| Optimistic | 85% | 98% | 6× | 157% |
The 25% and 157% numbers that appear throughout the corpus are the endpoints of this range. The middle value (75%) is the Base Case — the number the financial model expects.
The baseline assumptions (adjustable inputs)
The model is parameterized on four inputs that the CFO can adjust during stress-testing:
- Hourly cost: $150/hr (average consultant rate). Adjust if Squire’s blended rate differs.
- Integration volume: 5 integrations/month (variable). Adjust based on actual pipeline.
- Current error rate: 15% re-work. Adjust if Squire’s measured error rate is different.
- Current process: Manual field mapping & integration. The “before” state the improvements are measured against.
Changing any of these inputs shifts the output numbers for all three scenarios. The scenarios themselves are qualitative buckets (70/75/85% time reduction); the absolute dollars scale with the inputs.
Base-case annual economics
| Line | Annual Amount |
|---|---|
| Platform cost | 2,495/month) |
| Labor savings | $95,400 |
| Net annual benefit | $65,460 |
The 196K against ~$90K in platform cost — which is consistent with a ~75% 3-year ROI after accounting for discounting and ramp-up.
Base-case operational impact
- ~30 hours/month per consultant saved on field-mapping work
- Mapping time: 15 hours → <1 hour
- Support capacity: 1 engineer manages 50 clients (up from 10 today, the 5× “support scalability” multiplier)
The “1 engineer manages 50 clients vs 10” number is especially load-bearing for the Squire transformation case. The HintonBurdick acquisition doubled Squire’s client base; the existing 1:10 engineer-to-client ratio can’t scale the new volume without linear headcount growth; the SuiteCentral 2.0 base case takes that ratio to 1:50, which absorbs the doubled client base and leaves room for further growth.
Mapping-time reconciliation
Three sources describe the field-mapping time improvement with slightly different numbers:
- read-elevator-pitch Beat 1: “15 hours of labor per integration” (historical baseline, ~2023)
- ai-governance-layer-video 01:32: “reduced manual field mapping from 15 hours to 30 seconds with 95% accuracy” (hero claim)
- 04-roi-calculator (this source): “Mapping Time: 15 hours → <1 hour” (base-case financial model)
All three agree on the 15-hour baseline. The hero claim in the video (30 seconds) is ~120× more aggressive than the ROI model’s conservative “<1 hour” assumption. This is deliberate honesty: the pitch leads with the best achievable case, the financial model assumes the floor. The CFO math still works even if the achieved improvement is 120× worse than the hero claim.
Sources
- 04-roi-calculator — primary and only source for these scenarios