A side-by-side investment model. Path A is hiring. Path B is governed decision ownership. We build both with your numbers and we promise to say it in writing if hiring is the better answer. Seven business days. Sixty minutes of your team's time.
SKU counts are rising. Channels are multiplying. Acquisitions are absorbing planning teams that were already running hot. The standard response is to add headcount. Every CFO has modeled what that costs.
No CFO has been offered a real alternative to model against it. Governed decision ownership has different unit economics, different ramp curves, and different capacity scaling. The Capacity Investment Model puts both paths on one page so the headcount approval is not a single-option decision.
You can size this problem before you talk to us. Drop your fully-loaded cost per planner and your projected SKU growth into the same shape we use, and you get a rough comparison in a sitting. The diagnostic engagement builds the rigorous version, sensitivity-tested, board-ready.
Illustrative ranges drawn from the model template. Your Capacity Investment Model uses your fully-loaded planner cost, your coverage ratios, your SKU growth assumptions, and Daybreak deployment benchmarks from actual production accounts. Path A figures assume mid-market mfg salary bands and standard recruiter fees. Path B figures assume scoped deployment for baseline demand planning across a comparable SKU set. Sensitivity analysis included.
Path A (hire) and Path B (own) on one page, modeled over 36 months. Fully-loaded planner cost, ramp curve, attrition risk, productivity coverage on one side. Subscription, implementation, marginal cost per decision, capacity at steady state on the other. NPV and payback for each.
Format: editable spreadsheet plus 1-page executive summary.
Where the comparison breaks. Move attrition up. Move ramp time down. Stress the subscription cost. Change the SKU growth projection. The output shows which inputs flip the conclusion and which do not. Designed for the question every board member asks: what if you are wrong about X?
Format: 1-page sensitivity report with annotated scenarios.
One page. A recommended path with the financial rationale, the operating assumptions, the risks, and the next step. Written to attach directly to the headcount approval package you are already assembling. If Path A wins, we say so in writing. The memo stands either way.
Format: one-page memo plus supporting appendix.
A validated financial model template, populated with your inputs, stress-tested against Daybreak deployment benchmarks from actual production accounts. Your team provides the inputs. We do the modeling.
A 60-minute working session. Fully-loaded planner cost, current coverage ratios, SKU growth projection, headcount request specifics. No system access required. The inputs you already have from your FP&A and HR teams are enough.
Your inputs populate the template. Path A is calibrated to your salary bands and your hiring market. Path B is calibrated to Daybreak deployment benchmarks for comparable SKU complexity. NPV, payback, and capacity coverage for each path.
Every input that moves the answer gets stress-tested. Attrition assumptions, ramp time, SKU growth, subscription cost, implementation timeline. The output identifies which inputs flip the conclusion so the recommendation is robust under scrutiny.
A 30-minute CFO-level conversation. The model, the sensitivity, the recommendation memo. Q&A in real time. If Path A is the right answer for your specific situation, you hear that, in writing, in the memo. The work stands regardless.
The easiest yes in the portfolio. Below the CFO discretionary threshold. Profitable for Daybreak standalone, which means we do not need you to convert for the work to be worth doing. The credit removes the "I paid twice" objection if the model points to a Proof of Value as the next step.
If the Capacity Investment Model shows that hiring is the economically superior path for your specific situation, Daybreak says so in writing in the board memo. The fee stands. The analysis is valuable regardless of direction. This is a credibility commitment, not a refund clause. We are confident enough in the economics of decision ownership to let the math speak.
Anonymized illustration drawn from a scoped engagement template. Not the deliverable for any specific prospect. Your Capacity Investment Model is built using your fully-loaded planner cost, your SKU growth projection, and Daybreak deployment benchmarks from actual production accounts. Actual numbers depend entirely on your inputs.
The Capacity Investment Model produces a board-ready recommendation for the headcount decision currently on your desk. Two further steps follow if the model points toward decision ownership. The first runs without us.
Seven business days. Sixty minutes of your team's time. Two paths to the same capacity, with your numbers, and a board-ready memo. If hiring wins, we say so in writing.