You know what your team should be working on. But something is always blocking progress.

Is this you?

Most of the time this shows up in one of five ways. You will probably recognize one of them before you finish reading it.

What you get

A single written business case, built around your situation and aimed squarely at the person who signs it off. It is one argument made well, instead of a strategy deck, an audit or a list of everything that could be improved.

It covers:

• The argument itself, in a fixed order that has worked before, so it reads like a decision rather than a wish list
• Evidence drawn from your own situation and from comparable organizations, with every figure sourced so it survives a skeptical read
• The politics, done properly. Who signs it, what has been tried, and what killed the last attempt, because that is usually the reason good ideas do not get funded
• Whatever it takes to land it. Either a walkthrough for the person presenting it, or me presenting it alongside you

Almost every case argues for spending existing effort differently rather than asking for more. That is deliberate. In a climate where every request for more people is being turned down, the argument that gets funded is the one that does not need new money. Where a change genuinely needs a top-up, the case says so plainly and keeps the ask as small as it honestly can be.

How it works

About four weeks from start to finish. Most of that is waiting on diaries rather than working hours.

1. 1

   I start with the people. A kickoff with you, then short conversations with the handful of stakeholders who matter. What change you want, who signs it off, what has been tried, and what stopped it last time.

2. 2

   I build the evidence. A scan of what comparable organizations do, plus the relevant numbers from your own situation. Each one sourced, so it holds up in the room rather than falling over under the first hard question.

3. 3

   I write the case. Your situation fitted to an argument I know works, in the language your decision-makers already use.

4. 4

   We land it. A walkthrough and one round of revisions. Then either I present it to the group that decides, or I rehearse you to present it yourself.

What is not included?

Keeping the scope tight is what keeps the price fixed and the timeline honest. It does not include:

• Primary user research
• A finance-grade cost model. The case uses indicative figures, sourced
• More than one round of revisions
• Building or implementing whatever the case recommends
• Tender paperwork, or committee attendance beyond the one session

Presenting to a board, or a second round with a committee, is easy to add. It is kept off the standard scope on purpose, so the price stays fixed and there is no menu to choose from.

What it costs

What you're actually paying for

AI can draft a business case in minutes, so it is fair to ask why you would pay for one. I use AI myself. But the writing was never the hard part.

The hard part is judgment. Which argument your organization will actually fund. Which evidence survives a skeptical board, and which confident-sounding statistic gets the case torn apart in the room. Who really decides, and what sank the last attempt. An AI has none of that context, and it will hand you a plausible number that is quietly wrong.

Then there is standing. Thirty years in UX and conversion optimization, six books, and regular work with universities, government, charities and large organizations. A case lands harder coming from someone the room already trusts and who does not report to anyone in it. That is the one thing neither an AI nor you can supply.

A few cases I have built

• National Trust, on why its fundraising growth was being bought with advertising spend rather than earned, and how to redirect the budget it already had toward what actually converts.
• Henry Ford College, on breaking a stalled redesign by proving the future with a working prototype, so the case argued itself rather than fighting the current site.

And two clients on the result: