Business Case Example:
New Company Website
A fully worked example of a foundational project business case, demonstrating alignment and financial justification.
In this resource
§1 Worked Example: Mary’s Consulting Website
The following is a synthesised example of a completed business case, justifying capital expenditure for a corporate website overhaul. It demonstrates how to concisely map business friction to measurable strategic objectives.
Project Identification
Project Title: Mary’s Consulting – New Company Website
Date Prepared: 20 April 2026
Business Need / Problem Statement
Mary’s Consulting currently operates on an outdated digital architecture that fails to represent its global footprint of over 500 consultants. It inadequately positions the brand for enterprise-level (Fortune 500) procurement. Marketing teams are blocked from making content updates without direct engineering intervention, lead capture remains entirely manual, and the platform lacks modern mobile responsiveness and accessibility compliance. Consequently, the firm is experiencing a measurable decline in inbound opportunities and suffering brand degradation against direct competitors.
Strategic Alignment
This initiative underpins the FY2026 corporate strategy to expand the Fortune 500 client base by 15% while comprehensively modernising the firm’s digital presence. It is directly aligned with the current brand-refresh programme spearheaded by the Chief Executive Officer.
Situational Assessment
- The existing platform was deployed approximately seven years ago on a Content Management System (CMS) that is no longer supported.
- Performance metrics indicate an average page load time exceeding 6 seconds, resulting in a bounce rate of roughly 62%.
- While mobile visitors now account for 48% of total traffic, the user experience remains strictly desktop-oriented.
- Key market competitors have successfully launched modernised digital platforms within the preceding 18 months.
- The Marketing department currently carries a backlog of over 30 critical content updates, all blocked pending IT resource availability.
Alternatives Considered
| Option | Description | Cost | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Do nothing | Keep current site as-is. | $0 | Rejected: continued brand degradation and inbound lead loss. |
| 2. Patch existing site | Visual refresh deployed on the current platform. | ~$40,000 | Rejected: underlying CMS remains unsupported; yields limited operational gains. |
| 3. Build new site | New responsive, accessible, CMS-driven platform featuring integrated CRM routing. | $150,000 | Selected (Recommended) |
| 4. Outsource fully | Migration to a third-party hosted, managed marketing ecosystem. | ~$220,000+ recurring fees |
Rejected: higher Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) and less granular control. |
Recommended Solution
Proceed with Option 3: Build a new company website featuring a modern responsive design framework, an editor-friendly CMS, full accessibility compliance, and CRM integration for automated lead routing. Total requested budget is $150,000 USD, targeting a launch within six months of formal charter approval.
Financial Summary (3-Year Horizon)
| Item | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| One-time build cost | $150,000 | — | — | $150,000 |
| Hosting and maintenance | $8,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 | $28,000 |
| Total Cost | $158,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 | $178,000 |
| Estimated incremental revenue (new leads) | $120,000 | $240,000 | $300,000 | $660,000 |
| Net Benefit | ($38,000) | $230,000 | $290,000 | $482,000 |
Key Risks
- Approval bottlenecks: The Chief Executive Officer operates as the sole approver for brand direction, creating a potential single point of failure in the design phase.
- Content readiness: Potential delays in sourcing and approving copy from globally distributed consulting staff.
- Integration complexity: Unforeseen technical friction connecting the new CMS to the existing Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system.
- Schedule compression: Tight delivery timelines driven by predefined FY2026 marketing campaign launches.
Recommendation
Authorise the project initiation, allocate $150,000 USD from the FY2026 marketing and operations capital budget, and empower the project sponsor to formally charter the initiative with Andrew designated as the Project Manager.
Contents§2 Blank Template Structure
When drafting a new business case within the KEVOS framework, ensure the following core components are comprehensively addressed to expedite executive review.
- Project Identification: State the proposed title and the preparation date clearly at the head of the document.
- Business Need / Problem Statement: Clearly articulate the current friction, market deficiency, or operational limitation. Define the cost of inaction.
- Strategic Alignment: Demonstrate specifically how this initiative supports broader corporate objectives and specific leadership mandates.
- Situational Assessment: Provide empirical, verifiable data illustrating the current state (e.g., performance metrics, backlog figures, competitive analysis).
- Alternatives Considered: Present at least three viable options (mandating one as 'Do Nothing'). Compare costs, benefits, and justify the rejection or selection of each.
- Recommended Solution: Detail the selected approach, the total required budget, and the target delivery timeframe based on the preferred alternative.
- Financial Summary (3-Year View): Quantify one-time build costs, recurring maintenance, projected revenue or savings, and calculate the net benefit across a standard 36-month horizon.
- Key Risks: Identify dependencies, bottlenecks, and technical complexities that threaten the schedule, budget, or proposed scope.
- Recommendation: Close with a definitive request for approval, funding authorisation, and formal project chartering.
Handbook application: from concept to controlled practice
Purpose. This expanded section turns the original page into a practical handbook. It preserves the supplied material and adds a repeatable way to apply, check and review Business Case Example: New Company Website. It does not replace a contract, legislation, a controlled standard, competent engineering judgement or specialist advice.
The operating aim is to make the blank artefact usable by explaining what belongs in each field, who supplies it and how it is reviewed. Read the original explanation first, then use the workflow and checks below to convert knowledge into evidence.
Use Business Case Example: New Company Website as a decision instrument rather than an administrative form. The subject terms—example, case, website, worked, problem—need an explicit connection to the project objective, business value and stakeholder commitments. Before completing the artefact, write one sentence stating who will use it, what decision it supports and when that decision is required.
Apply a disciplined information model. Separate facts supported by evidence, forecasts derived from a method, assumptions awaiting validation, constraints that limit choice, risks that may occur, issues that already exist and actions assigned to people. Each material entry should have an owner, date, status and next review point. Where probability or impact scores are used, define the scale so different reviewers interpret it consistently.
A baseline is useful only when changes are visible. Give the artefact an identifier, version, approval state and effective date. Define which changes require reapproval, how superseded versions are retained and where supporting evidence is stored. During reviews, focus on exceptions, decisions and trends rather than reading every field aloud. Record the decision and rationale, not merely that a meeting occurred.
Close the loop beyond delivery. Confirm acceptance criteria, unresolved items, transferred responsibilities and operational ownership. Where benefits are expected, identify the outcome measure, baseline, target, observation period and owner who remains accountable after the project team disbands. Lessons should describe the condition, consequence and reusable action; a generic statement such as “communicate better” cannot improve the next project.
Step-by-step operating method
- Name the decision. Write the decision, approval, handover or control activity the completed template must support.
- Assign ownership. Nominate one accountable owner and identify contributors, reviewers and approvers.
- Gather evidence. Use records, estimates, stakeholder input and source references rather than unsupported opinion.
- Complete with discipline. Use consistent dates, units, identifiers, status values and version controls.
- Review and maintain. Check completeness and logic, approve the baseline, then update it when trigger conditions occur.
Completion and governance protocol
Start with a short drafting workshop involving the accountable owner and the people who hold the evidence. Complete high-consequence fields first: objective, scope, owner, baseline, acceptance, dependencies and escalation. Mark unknowns as assumptions or actions rather than hiding them behind vague prose. Circulate a review draft, resolve conflicting interpretations, baseline the approved version and place the next review date in an owned schedule.
| Information type | Minimum useful content | Review test |
|---|---|---|
| Outcome | Observable change and intended recipient | Not merely a deliverable or activity |
| Measure | Definition, baseline, target, frequency and source | Two reviewers would calculate it the same way |
| Ownership | One accountable role plus contributors and approver | Authority matches responsibility |
| Uncertainty | Assumption, risk or issue with response and trigger | Status reflects current reality |
| Control | Version, approval, review date and change rule | Current baseline is identifiable |
Common failure modes and recovery actions
1. Watch for
Filling every box even when a field is not applicable instead of recording why.
Recovery: Return to the governing definition or requirement and restate the decision in one sentence.
2. Watch for
Writing vague statements without an owner, measure, date or evidence source.
Recovery: Separate evidence from assumption, assign an owner and set a date for validation.
3. Watch for
Copying a previous project without revalidating assumptions and stakeholders.
Recovery: Run a small counterexample, boundary test, pilot or independent check before proceeding.
4. Watch for
Using the document as a private worksheet when it is meant to support a shared decision.
Recovery: Record the consequence, decision and rationale, then update the controlled baseline.
5. Watch for
Creating an approved baseline but failing to define who maintains it and when.
Recovery: Escalate when the issue affects safety, compliance, acceptance, material value or an agreed tolerance.
Review checklist
- Is the purpose and intended decision clear to a reader outside the team?
- Are owners, dates, measures and sources complete and internally consistent?
- Which fields are assumptions and how will they be validated?
- What event, threshold or review date causes this document to change?
- Are mandatory requirements distinguished from recommendations and illustrative values?
- Are sources, assumptions, units, dates and versions recorded closely enough to reproduce the decision?
- Have safety, legal, ethical, stakeholder and operational consequences been considered at the appropriate level?
- Is there a named owner and a trigger for review, escalation, change or retirement?
Questions for deeper application
What is the most important distinction a practitioner must preserve when applying Business Case Example: New Company Website?
Answer with a fact or cited source where available. Where evidence is incomplete, record the assumption, consequence, responsible owner and next validation action.
Which assumption about example would change the result most if it proved false?
Answer with a fact or cited source where available. Where evidence is incomplete, record the assumption, consequence, responsible owner and next validation action.
What evidence would allow an independent reviewer to reproduce or challenge the conclusion?
Answer with a fact or cited source where available. Where evidence is incomplete, record the assumption, consequence, responsible owner and next validation action.
Which boundary, exception or failure case has not yet been tested?
Answer with a fact or cited source where available. Where evidence is incomplete, record the assumption, consequence, responsible owner and next validation action.
What must be handed over, monitored or reviewed after the immediate work is complete?
Answer with a fact or cited source where available. Where evidence is incomplete, record the assumption, consequence, responsible owner and next validation action.
Authoritative references and use notes
The sources below were selected as institutional or primary guidance for the broader practice. They support the handbook method; they do not imply that every statement or clause in a source applies to every project. Confirm the current edition, jurisdiction, contract and application before treating any requirement as mandatory.
- PMI Standards and Publications — Project Management Institute. Used for project, program, portfolio and organisational project management. Accessed 2026-08-13.
- ISO 31000 family — Risk management — International Organization for Standardization. Used for principles and guidance for enterprise risk management. Accessed 2026-08-13.