One Frame, Three Options: Model Do Nothing, DIY, and Vendor Fairly

If your business case doesn't compare Do Nothing, DIY, and Find a Vendor on a single, steady frame, it will feel tuned to the answer instead of tuned to the truth. RevOps and CROs win approvals by making trade-offs explicit on one horizon, with the same adoption assumptions, the same risk definitions, and the same cost categories—then letting a simple, buyer-owned model decide. The goal is integrity. When Finance can reproduce the math without you and operators can see the work, the path of least resistance becomes a small, safe "yes."

Start with the three real choices

Every urgent and important problem has exactly three choices: Do Nothing, DIY, or Find a Vendor. Your case should treat all three as legitimate paths to the same fix you've already defined in operator language. That means you describe the fix once (the workflow, artifact, governance, and Canary) and evaluate how each path gets to that fix with different time and risk. You're not arguing "buy our features"; you're comparing ways to reach the same outcome.

Lock the frame before touching the knobs

Math gets slippery when frames move. Lock the comparison first, then populate it:

• Horizon: choose 6, 9, or 12 months (whatever matches how the company decides) and hold it across all options.
• Adoption assumptions: who changes behavior by when—spelled out the same way for each option.
• Risk definitions: what could delay or reduce value and how you'll detect it (the same risk categories across options).
• Cost categories: people time, enablement, governance, tooling, and cash—mapped the same way.

Only after the frame is fixed do you vary inputs. If a parameter legitimately differs by option (e.g., calendar time or specialist effort), say why in plain operator language. Integrity beats theatrics; the buyer can smell tuning.

Price the baseline: Do Nothing

"Do Nothing" is always the easiest path; price it so ignoring the problem is a conscious choice. The cleanest baseline is the cost of the urgent/important problem over time. Keep the math simple and visible:

• What's happening now? Show the Canary trend and the current symptoms in the buyer's system of record.
• What does it cost per month/quarter? Tie symptoms to conversion and cycle in the operational model, then summarize in dollars.
• Does it compound? If the Canary trend is worsening, show the compounding effect inside the fixed horizon.

There's no scare-tactic here. You're just making the cost of inertia explicit so the rest of the model feels honest.

Treat DIY respectfully (it's your price ceiling)

DIY is not a straw-man; it's the path many competent teams will try. Write the DIY plan as if you were the buyer's Ops lead:

• Mechanics: steps to implement the fix (the artifact, checklist, governance, instrumentation).
• People: roles and skills (who writes templates, who owns fields, who runs the weekly cadence).
• Calendar time: realistic learning curves, dependencies, and cross-functional friction.
• Risk controls: what could slip and how the team would contain it.
• Costs: people time and any tools needed to run the plan.

DIY sets your practical price ceiling. The job of your business case is to prove your path is less risky and faster to the same fix—on the buyer's timeline—so that total cost and uncertainty are lower than DIY.

Describe the vendor path in the same operator language

Now explain your approach to the same fix using the exact language you used for DIY:

• What changes, in what order. Show the phase gates a buyer will actually pass through.
• Who does the work. Which parts your team does, which parts the buyer does, and the weekly decision cadence.
• Time-to-first-proof. The smallest, fastest test that moves the Canary with their data and team.
• Risk controls. Scope limits, instrumentation, validation, and escalation—tied to the Canary.

You are not promising magic. You're claiming time compression and risk containment to reach the same fix.

Keep the math simple and buyer-owned

A case that travels is one Finance can verify without you. Build the model as operational math first—counts, rates, and intervals—then summarize in finance terms:

• Inputs: opportunities entering a stage; percent meeting the Canary; conversion X→Close; average cycle time; average selling price.
• Link: how moving the Canary changes conversion and/or cycle inside the fixed horizon.
• Time & risk: when benefits show up and why you present a range (conservative / expected / best).
• Costs: people time, enablement, governance, and cash on the same horizon.

Share the model as a simple spreadsheet the buyer owns. No hidden cells. No "proprietary multipliers." Put assumptions next to numbers so scrutiny is fast.

Make risk and time explicit (that's what executives buy)

Executives don't just buy outcomes; they buy time compression and risk containment. Show both inside the frame:

• Time to first proof and time to rollout by option—dates, not vibes.
• Risk controls mapped to the buyer's risk list.
• What could reduce value (e.g., adoption drift, data gaps) and how you'll know early (the Canary).

When risk and time are visible, "Vendor" has to earn the advantage on the facts. That's exactly what builds trust.

Use one Canary and keep it causal

Don't let the model drift into vanity. Pick a single Canary that is causal, early, and practical to observe in the buyer's system of record. That keeps the math tight. If your approach is real, the Canary should move first, then conversion and cycle follow. If the Canary doesn't move, you either didn't apply the fix or the fix doesn't work. That clarity is how you avoid endless "but maybe if we…" conversations.

Present ranges with reasons

Ranges are honest—if they come with reasons. Label the drivers of variance (data quality, adoption ramp, scope) and map each to the range. Keep the same drivers across options so the comparison holds. Ranges without reasons look like hope; ranges with reasons look like risk management.

Show the comparison, then shut up and let it work

On a single page, present the three options side-by-side:

• Do Nothing: the cost of the problem across the horizon (with compounding if relevant).
• DIY: calendar time, people time, expected value range, risk profile.
• Vendor: calendar time, people time, expected value range, risk profile.

Use the same labels, same units, same horizon. Put the spreadsheet behind the slide. If you've done the work, your comparison will feel fair. That feeling—"this is a straight deal"—is what gets forwarded and approved.

Close with a small, safe decision

You're not asking for a commitment to full rollout. You're asking to approve the first proof that should move the Canary for one team or segment, inside a short timebox, with named owners and a written exit: continue, change scope, or stop. Attach the artifacts the buyer keeps regardless of outcome (model, workflow, template/report). When the decision is this small and the model is this steady, "yes" is easy.

Common pitfalls (and how to avoid them)

• Shifting frames. Don't change horizons or adoption assumptions mid-comparison. Lock them.
• DIY straw-man. Write DIY like a respectful Ops plan. If you wouldn't sign your name to it, rewrite it.
• Hidden assumptions. Put assumptions next to the numbers; make them buyer-owned where possible.
• Outcome vanity. Don't use lagging summaries as Canaries. Keep one causal signal up front.
• Model in your tool. If the math only runs in your platform, it won't travel. Use a simple spreadsheet the buyer owns.

What "good" looks like (RevOps checklist)

• One steady frame: same horizon, adoption, risk, and cost categories across options.
• Do Nothing priced as the cost of the problem over time, with compounding where relevant.
• DIY written credibly with real calendar time and cross-functional work—your practical price ceiling.
• Vendor described identically to DIY in operator language, with time and risk advantages explicit.
• Buyer-owned model with simple, auditable math (operational first, finance second).
• Single, causal Canary observable in the system of record.
• Ranges with reasons, not wishful bounds.
• Ask = first proof, small, safe, time-boxed, with named owners and keeper artifacts.

Close: Integrity is the strategy

Proving value isn't about out-spinning an alternative; it's about comparing three real paths to the same fix on a frame everyone can trust. When you model Do Nothing, DIY, and Vendor fairly—on one horizon, with buyer-owned math—you turn negotiation into decision. That's how RevOps and CROs make approvals fast and rollouts stick.