---
type: concept
title: The ROI Scenarios
aliases:
  - ROI calculator
  - 3-year ROI
  - pilot economics
modified: 2026-04-07
tags:
  - roi
  - economics
  - cfo
  - adoption-case
---

# 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 [[pages/role-briefs/cfo|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 [[sources/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 ([[pages/entities/jonyce-bullock|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 [[sources/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** | $29,940 ($2,495/month) |
| **Labor savings** | $95,400 |
| **Net annual benefit** | **$65,460** |

The $2,495/month price is the first formally-ingested **SaaS pricing** for SuiteCentral 2.0. Over three years, the cumulative net benefit in the base case is roughly $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 [[pages/entities/squire|Squire]] transformation case. The [[pages/entities/hintonburdick|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:

- [[sources/read-elevator-pitch]] Beat 1: "15 hours of labor per integration" (historical baseline, ~2023)
- [[sources/ai-governance-layer-video]] 01:32: "reduced manual field mapping from 15 hours to 30 seconds with 95% accuracy" (hero claim)
- **[[sources/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

- [[sources/04-roi-calculator]] — primary and only source for these scenarios