From Idea to Approved Business Case: Building Proposals That Pass the Gate
Summary
- Write a business case before funding a project because it documents the reasoning for why a project should be initiated (Kerzner, 2023, p. 197).
- Keep the executive document to a few pages and pair it with an FAQ that anticipates stakeholder objections, since this shows reviewers that you did your homework (Cagan & Jones, 2021, p. 91; Cagan & Jones, 2021, p. 92).
- Standardize one proposal template covering the business need, strategic link, benefits, assumptions, risks, resources, timing, metrics and exit criteria (Kerzner, 2023, p. 198).
- Include a build, buy, or partner comparison among the alternatives, because the best acquisition strategy depends on the maturity of the technology, the firm’s position relative to competitors and the technology’s strategic significance (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 632).
- Ask executives to revisit the strategy when a compelling idea does not fit it, because a firm should not assume it is on the right path simply because it met its current goal (White & Bruton, 2011, p. 157).
- Write cancellation criteria into every proposal, because projects that should be canceled otherwise linger and consume resources that better opportunities could use (Kerzner, 2023, p. 373).
- Pair financial measures with qualitative criteria and state assumptions openly, because no evaluation method can guarantee success and the main benefit of a structured evaluation is better communication (Bessant & Tidd, 2015, p. 251).
- Frame the decision requested as a go or no-go on the next stage rather than a commitment to everything up front, because it makes sense to make a series of stepwise decisions that commit more resources only when the risk and reward assessment justifies it (Tidd & Bessant, 2014, p. 170).
- Involve the person who will deliver the project while the proposal is being written, because a business case prepared by someone separated from execution is unlikely to capture every assumption, alternative and constraint (Kerzner, 2023, p. 200).
Most organizations have watched a polished demo generate applause and then go nowhere. The gap between an exciting prototype and an approved investment is a document: the business case. This post walks through what that document should contain, how short it can be, and how it should be tested before anyone is asked to say yes.
Why a proposal is not a proof of concept
A business case is a document that provides the reasoning for why a project should be initiated (Kerzner, 2023, p. 197). Today’s business cases are well-structured written documents, and they should describe the project’s boundaries in enough detail for decision makers to judge whether the expected value and benefits exceed the cost (Kerzner, 2023, p. 197). A demo alone cannot do that job, however clever it is.
A proof-of-concept can look impressive, but scaling it across an organization can expose integration challenges, ethical dilemmas and hidden costs (Runtasewee & González Sánchez, 2026, p. 86). Common pitfalls in selecting use cases include choosing them based on hype rather than need, lacking clarity on expected value, and failing to align them with business objectives (Urbach & Feulner, 2026, p. 137). A use case is better framed as a scoped, business-aligned effort with measurable KPIs, and part of the job is filtering hype from viable opportunities (Runtasewee & González Sánchez, 2026, p. 89).
The distinction matters because a proof-of-concept answers a different question. Validation work exists mainly to find out whether the assumptions made about the customer, product, market, timing and competition are correct (Benraouane & Harrington, 2021, p. 201). A proposal is where those assumptions are written down before money is spent testing them. A product team should also avoid committing until discovery work has considered the risks of value, usability, feasibility and viability (Cagan & Jones, 2021, p. 127).
What a proposal contains
Short on the page, deep behind it
Business planning does more than secure funding: it can make risks and opportunities explicit and expose unfounded optimism and self-delusion (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 502). A typical formal business plan should be relatively concise, with no more than 10-20 pages, and should begin with an executive summary (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 502). That range is a ceiling, and an executive-facing proposal can be shorter still: two to four pages is usually enough when it carries only the most decision-relevant findings.
There is a practical precedent for brevity. One practitioner advocates a roughly six-page narrative that describes the problem, why solving it is valuable to customers and the business, and the strategy for solving it (Cagan & Jones, 2021, p. 90). The same practitioner structures the narrative as a few pages followed by an FAQ that anticipates the concerns and objections of key executives and stakeholders, with clear written answers (Cagan & Jones, 2021, p. 91). Reviewing those answers with the people who raised the concerns shows the executive that the issues were anticipated and that the homework was done (Cagan & Jones, 2021, p. 92).
Brevity does not mean thin thinking. Risks in a business case should be listed briefly so decision makers can evaluate the project (Kerzner, 2023, p. 198). Face-to-face communication with senior leaders matters because not everything is expected to appear in the written business case (Kerzner, 2023, p. 346).
The solution is to treat every section of the short proposal as a distillation of a deeper research file. When a reviewer questions a claim, the team can then produce the market analysis, competitor review, financial model or customer evidence behind it. The research file can follow the longer business plan outline: product details, market opportunity, target customers, competitor analysis, management team experience, pricing and sales strategy, risks, cash-flow calculations and resource needs (Tidd & Bessant, 2014, p. 165). The sections below describe what earns a place on the page.
Problem statement and value proposition
Start with the gap. The business need identifies the gap that currently exists and the need for the investment (Kerzner, 2023, p. 198). A short pitch template can force clarity:
For a target customer who has a problem, our solution gives a key function, unlike the competition, with a stated competitive advantage (Kerzner, 2023, p. 436).
If the idea cannot be explained simply in that form, the team may not understand it well enough (Kerzner, 2023, p. 436).
Evidence of demand matters as much as the idea. Technically strong plans often fail to demonstrate that anyone wants the product (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 503). Early customer involvement can help construct clear project objectives, reduce uncertainty and facilitate evaluation of a concept (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 506). A sentence or two of customer evidence on the page, with the interviews behind it in the research file, does more work than a page of technical description.
Alternatives and the cost of doing nothing
Reviewers want to know what else was considered. A value proposition document can describe the as-is state and the other solutions that were considered and why they were not chosen (Benraouane & Harrington, 2021, p. 199). It can also include a three-year projection of the situation if the proposed change is not approved (Benraouane & Harrington, 2021, p. 200). The do-nothing baseline is the benchmark every other option is measured against.
One alternative deserves explicit treatment: build, buy, or partner. Planning the introduction of an AI use case includes a make-or-buy decision: whether to develop the application in-house, outsource it, or purchase an existing solution from an external provider (Urbach & Feulner, 2026, p. 142). Two factors need to be considered when deciding whether to make or buy a technology: the transaction costs and the strategic implications (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 631). The best acquisition strategy in a given case depends on the maturity of the technology, the firm’s technological position relative to competitors and the strategic significance of the technology (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 632).
Those contingencies translate into rules of thumb. Some form of collaboration is normally necessary where the technology is novel, complex or scarce, whereas market transactions such as subcontracting or licensing are more appropriate where it is mature, simple or widely available (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 632). A similar split appears in practice: common horizontal processes such as sales, marketing, customer service and HR are good candidates for packaged solutions, while vertical processes specific to the industry and company, which usually differentiate the firm, are candidates for in-house development or a close partnership with a vendor (Carmona, 2020, p. 106).
Buying is not free of trade-offs.
A study of make-or-buy decisions in almost 200 firms found that external technology often provides immediate advantages such as lower cost or shorter time to market, but can make differentiation harder in the longer term (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 634). In highly dynamic environments characterized by market uncertainty and technological change, however, sourcing technology externally is a superior strategy to relying entirely on internal capabilities (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 634).
Building has its own hidden costs. In machine learning infrastructure, buying can help a company get started quickly, but as use cases grow vendor costs can become exorbitant and building may become cheaper (Huyen, 2022, p. 328). Building is not necessarily cheaper than buying, because it requires more engineers to build and maintain the infrastructure and custom in-house infrastructure can make it hard to adopt new technologies (Huyen, 2022, p. 329). Partnering carries its own risks: the risks associated with collaboration include leakage of information, loss of control or ownership, and divergent aims and objectives that result in conflict (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 633).
On the page, the proposal should compare the build, buy and partner options side by side on total cost, time to value, differentiation, dependence on a vendor and exit options, alongside the do-nothing baseline. The detailed vendor and cost analysis belongs in the research file.
Solution definition and scope
A well-defined product definition goes beyond the concept to cover target markets, customer needs, competitors, technology and resources, and it eases the work that follows (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 507). A preliminary technology assessment asks early whether the product can be developed, what technical solutions are required and at what cost (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 507). The business case should describe the project’s boundaries in enough detail for decision makers to compare expected benefits with cost (Kerzner, 2023, p. 197). In a two-to-four page document, scope is best expressed as what the next stage will deliver and what it explicitly will not. End the presentation with a visually appealing demo of the proof-of-concept to further communicate the innovation.
Strategic alignment
The opportunity options in a business case identify how the project is linked to strategic business objectives (Kerzner, 2023, p. 198). Research on the early front end of product development finds that new concepts should capitalize on the core competence of the firm (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 507). Innovation suitability criteria can include similar technology, similar marketing and distribution channels, sale by the current sales force, purchase by the existing customer base, and fit with company philosophy, profit goals and strategic plans (Kerzner, 2023, p. 10).
Yet alignment is a default test rather than an absolute one, because a firm should periodically ask where it is likely to end up if it continues on its current path and whether that is where it intended to go (White & Bruton, 2011, p. 157).
A firm should not assume it is on the right path simply because it met its current goal (White & Bruton, 2011, p. 157).
Such periodic introspection most often confirms the firm’s goals and plans, but it can open new horizons that had not been considered before (White & Bruton, 2011, p. 157).
History offers examples. 3M’s managers across generations adjusted the plan and shifted the company’s direction each time they determined that other opportunities had greater potential (White & Bruton, 2011, p. 157). The idea of the minivan was originally developed and rejected by Ford, and Lee Iacocca took it to Chrysler (White & Bruton, 2011, p. 157). At Chrysler the minivan became one of the firm’s most profitable automobiles and significantly helped rescue it from bankruptcy (White & Bruton, 2011, p. 158).
The capability of managers to see opportunities and shift the organization through emergent strategies often determines success (White & Bruton, 2011, p. 159).
Proposal reviewers also have reasons to resist. Rejections of radical ideas often rest on arguments such as “it’s not our business,” which reflects recognition of an interesting idea that lies far from the firm’s core competence (Tidd & Bessant, 2014, p. 174). Such arguments may be correct by the criteria of the dominant framework, but they can also be defensive and cloaked in rationality, for example by using market-size numbers to reject exploration of a new area (Tidd & Bessant, 2014, p. 174).
If the idea challenges the strategy, the plan should look different.
Strategies and plans for confronting disruptive change should be plans for learning and discovery rather than plans for execution (Christensen, 2000, p. 227). Project plans can be structured so that key information is created and important uncertainties are resolved before expensive commitments of capital, time and money are required (Christensen, 2000, p. 245). Where the rules of the game are unclear, reviewing business cases is inappropriate for judging the bets (Tidd & Bessant, 2014, p. 176). In that case, where leaders may simply not know where they are going, probe-and-learn experimentation offers a way of feeling through the fog, using small, relevant pilots designed to learn what to do and what not to do (Bessant & Venables, 2008, p. 216).
“Go do” versus “go learn”.
A proposal that challenges the current strategy should therefore say so explicitly: name the part of the strategy the idea puts in question, present the evidence, and ask executives for a strategy decision alongside the funding decision. It should also request a bounded, learning-oriented first commitment rather than a wholesale change of direction.
Benefits and financial case
The business case must contain both quantifiable and unquantifiable information that justifies the investment (Kerzner, 2023, p. 198). A benefit realization plan identifies the value or benefits that can be obtained, such as cost savings, additional profits or opportunities, rather than products or deliverables (Kerzner, 2023, p. 198). A benefit realization template can identify each benefit as tangible or intangible, who receives it, how it will be realized and measured, and when it will be realized (Kerzner, 2023, p. 198).
On the numbers, financial methods are still the most common way to assess innovative projects, usually combined with more qualitative approaches (Bessant & Tidd, 2015, p. 251). Those methods range from payback period and return on investment to net present value through discounted cash flow (Bessant & Tidd, 2015, p. 252). Simple financial measures do not account for other benefits an innovation may bring, such as learning about new technologies and markets (Tidd & Bessant, 2014, p. 163). A business plan should also include cash-flow calculations with break-even points and sensitivity (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 503). That is a point many proposers skip: in a review of business plans submitted to venture capitalists, just 10% conducted any sensitivity analysis on their forecasts (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 503).
The honest message is that the numbers are an aid to judgment, not a substitute for it. A review of more than 100 evaluation methods concluded that no method can guarantee success and that the most important outcome of a properly structured evaluation is improved communication (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 537). Many variables in an innovation evaluation cannot be reduced to reliable figures and depend on expert judgment (Bessant & Tidd, 2015, p. 251).
A simple best-case, expected, and worst-case range, with its assumptions shown, will survive scrutiny better than a precise number the team cannot defend.
Assumptions and risks
Spelling out assumptions for each scenario helps stakeholders understand the rationale behind a choice (Benraouane & Harrington, 2021, p. 199). The Business Model Canvas is a tool for describing an organization’s business model on a single page, using nine building blocks: the value proposition at the center, customer segments, channels and customer relationships on the market side, key activities, key resources and key partnerships on the supply side, and cost structure and revenue streams for the financial model (van den Ende, 2021, p. 10). The business model canvas can structure experimentation by describing the idea and then the assumptions made in each box of the canvas (van den Ende, 2021, p. 61). The assumptions list is also the natural starting point for the validation plan described below.
For risks, the four standard product risks are value, usability, feasibility and business viability (Cagan & Jones, 2021, p. 139). A fifth, ethical risk can be added by asking whether the product should be built (Cagan & Jones, 2021, p. 139). A business case should note business, legal, technical and other risks, as well as any legal requirements that must be followed (Kerzner, 2023, p. 198). Problems with complexity matter too, such as whether the organization can manage the complexity and whether the project can be done with existing technology (Kerzner, 2023, p. 198).
Resources, team, timing and communication plan
A business case identifies the human and nonhuman resources needed and the major milestones for the project (Kerzner, 2023, p. 198). Evaluators of business plans assess the management team on commitment, experience and expertise, normally in that order (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 503). Naming the people and their availability is part of the evidence that the project can be delivered.
Communication belongs in the same section. Project managers must know who the key stakeholders are and whether they are supporters, fence-sitters or challengers (Kerzner, 2023, p. 125). A stakeholder management or political plan can be developed as part of the project’s communications plan (Kerzner, 2023, p. 125). A communication plan can specify the targets, key messages, channels and timetable for dissemination (Sauzet, 2026, p. 59). Leaders need to understand the communication needs of their stakeholders and have a plan, including a consistent cadence of information (Kerzner, 2023, p. 151).
A proposal needs only a brief version of this plan: who must be informed or consulted, how often, through which channel, and who owns each line of communication.
Metrics, validation plan and exit criteria
A business case identifies the financial and nonfinancial metrics that will be used to track project performance (Kerzner, 2023, p. 198). Validation planning should define what needs to be validated, map out the assumptions to be tested and decide on the method, such as experiments, user interviews, lab testing or research questions (Benraouane & Harrington, 2021, p. 201).
Exit criteria deserve equal attention. A business case can include exit strategies that identify the cancellation criteria to be used to cancel the project if necessary (Kerzner, 2023, p. 198). Identifying cancellation criteria is important because projects that should be canceled often linger and waste resources that could go to more valuable opportunities (Kerzner, 2023, p. 373). Agreeing on the tripwires before the work starts makes a later stop decision a matter of evidence rather than politics.
The decision requested
Every proposal should end with a decision, and the decision is a go or no-go on the next stage. Increasing commitment of resources during a project makes it increasingly difficult to change direction (Tidd & Bessant, 2014, p. 169).
It therefore makes sense not to make one big decision to commit everything at the outset when uncertainty is very high, but to make a series of stepwise decisions (Tidd & Bessant, 2014, p. 170).
Each stepwise decision commits more resources, but only if the risk and reward assessment justifies it (Tidd & Bessant, 2014, p. 170).
At any given gate, the project is reviewed against clearly defined and accepted criteria, and only if it passes does the gate open; otherwise the project should be killed or at least returned for further development (Tidd & Bessant, 2014, p. 170). A “go” decision is made when the gatekeepers decide that a project is likely, technically and economically, to meet customer needs and the company’s standards for return on investment, quality, and environmental impact (Tidd & Bessant, 2014, p. 172). A management review of the value proposition evaluates whether the projected value justifies the resources, and as a result qualified project managers may be assigned to the project (Benraouane & Harrington, 2021, p. 200). The same information that supports approval is used to prioritize the project against the other projects in the queue (Kerzner, 2023, p. 198).
A sponsor at senior levels of management can help secure additional funding and keep a project from being canceled when it may be on the verge of a breakthrough (Kerzner, 2023, p. 350). The proposal should therefore end with an explicit go or no-go request for the next stage: a go releases a stated amount of funding and named people, and a no-go (or a return for further work with stated conditions) releases nothing. The ask should name the decision maker, the decision date, the resources released by a go, and the evidence that will be brought to the next gate.
Refinement as a formal gate
A formal process should separate stages with decision points, or gates, that have clear criteria such as product fit and product advantages (Tidd & Bessant, 2014, p. 199). The criteria need an owner before proposals arrive. In one case, core decision makers were brought together to clarify the criteria and key influencers were consulted so the list was complete (Isaksen & Tidd, 2006, p. 230). A cross-functional executive review committee brings the competence needed to evaluate product definitions from several functional perspectives (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 507).
Refinement iterations before the formal gate make the decision better. Scored checklists can guarantee a useful discussion, clarify areas of disagreement and build stronger commitment from everyone involved (Bessant & Tidd, 2015, p. 252). Reviewers should challenge their own biases and encourage others to debate and critique the data, methods and decisions (Bessant & Tidd, 2015, p. 250).
Two cautions apply. Screening has to balance two risks: getting rid of bad ideas quickly, and harsh screening that kills good ideas too early (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 508). And appraisal can become a routine that proposers merely suffer, leading people to try to cheat the system, so the reasons behind the criteria should be communicated (Bessant & Tidd, 2015, p. 253).
Why proposals fail the gate
The foundations for failure in product development are often established at the very beginning of the process (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 506). Several patterns recur.
Optimism. Overconfidence results in unrealistic assumptions and uncritical assessment (Bessant & Tidd, 2015, p. 250). Business requirements can reflect a highly optimistic approach with little regard for schedule or budget (Kerzner, 2023, p. 200). The fix is a range-based financial case and an explicit assumptions list.
Vague goals and thin expertise. Poor definition of goals, poor alignment to goals and inadequate know-how are among the common causes of innovation failure (Kerzner, 2023, p. 383). The fix is the pitch template, the strategic link, and a named team.
Weak criteria. Weak or ambiguous selection criteria let projects into the mix because of politics or emotion (Tidd & Bessant, 2014, p. 167). The fix is to publish the gate criteria before proposals arrive.
A technology-first, market-light plan. Business plans submitted to venture capitalists often emphasize technology too heavily relative to other issues (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 503). In a review of such plans, three-quarters failed to identify or analyze any potential competitors (Tidd & Bessant, 2018, p. 503). The fix is customer evidence and a competitor comparison.
Distance from execution. A business case prepared by someone separated from execution is unlikely to capture all necessary assumptions, alternatives, and constraints, so the project manager should join early (Kerzner, 2023, p. 200). The fix is to involve the delivery lead while the proposal is being written.
Stale assumptions. Assumptions change over a project’s life, so metrics should track whether they still align with expected benefits (Kerzner, 2023, p. 199). The fix is to tie metrics to the assumptions list.
Unaddressed legal exposure. Legal, liability and regulatory uncertainties are among the common causes of innovation failure (Kerzner, 2023, p. 383). The fix is to name them in the risk section before a reviewer does.
A proposal that avoids these failure patterns is not guaranteed approval, but it gives gatekeepers what they need to make a confident go or no-go decision. Short on the page, deep behind it, and explicit about the ask: that is the standard worth holding every idea to.
Bibliography
Benraouane, S. A., & Harrington, H. J. (2021). Using the ISO 56002 innovation management system: A practical guide for implementation and building a culture of innovation. Routledge.
Bessant, J., & Tidd, J. (2015). Innovation and entrepreneurship (3rd ed.). Wiley.
Bessant, J., & Venables, T. (Eds.). (2008). Creating wealth from knowledge: Meeting the innovation challenge. Edward Elgar.
Cagan, M., & Jones, C. (2021). Empowered: Ordinary people, extraordinary products. Wiley. (Page numbers refer to PDF pages.)
Carmona, D. (2020). The AI organization: Learn from real companies and Microsoft’s journey how to redefine your organization with AI. O’Reilly Media.
Christensen, C. M. (2000). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business Review Press. (Page numbers refer to PDF pages.)
Huyen, C. (2022). Designing machine learning systems: An iterative process for production-ready applications. O’Reilly Media.
Isaksen, S., & Tidd, J. (2006). Meeting the innovation challenge: Leadership for transformation and growth. Wiley.
Kerzner, H. (2023). Innovation project management: Methods, case studies, and tools for managing innovation projects (2nd ed.). Wiley.
Runtasewee, M. J., & González Sánchez, A. (2026). Managing AI projects: Drive innovation and successfully navigate the full AI project lifecycle. O’Reilly Media.
Sauzet, F. (2026). Innovation management in practice: Understanding and acting with ISO 56001. Routledge.
Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2014). Strategic innovation management. Wiley.
Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2018). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change (6th ed.). Wiley.
Urbach, N., & Feulner, D. (Eds.). (2026). Managing artificial intelligence: How organizations succeed with AI. Springer.
van den Ende, J. (2021). Innovation management. Red Globe Press.
White, M. A., & Bruton, G. D. (2011). The management of technology and innovation: A strategic approach (2nd ed.). South-Western Cengage Learning.