Building Better Business Cases for Reliability

A business case gets an organization what it needs.

A refresh built from "Five Ways to More Effectively Facilitate Business Cases" (2022), "Observed in Practice: 5 Reasons for Not Doing Written Business Cases" (2022), and the Accendo Reliability piece "How Building Better Business Cases Improves Reliability" (2024).

Most reliability problems stall at the funding decision, not on the engineering. Organizations usually default to the status quo (or to whichever manager promises the most cost-effective solutions. A written business case changes that dynamic.

A Business Case Evaluation (BCE) is a decision-making tool for value-based funding decisions. It is performed early in the capital and operating budget cycles as a systematic way to compare the benefits and costs of options for solving an identified problem or pursuing a cost-saving or revenue-generating idea. When well- structured and done well, it improves reliability by formally separating what the organization needs from what individuals want.

From the Real World: Actuators Gone Bad

A company with hundreds of actuated valves standardized on one brand, "Brand X." Within two years of the warranty period ending, it began seeing sudden critical failures on valves from 8 to 24 inches, most of them during normal operations. The cause appeared to be the actuator’s primary circuit board. Maintenance staff were already behind and could not absorb the unplanned failures.

The situation was identified for a formal business case with four options:

1. Status quo. Maintain existing practices and address failures when they occur.

2. Contract out. Contract with the manufacturer or an associated vendor to address failures as they occur.

3. Add internal resources. Increase staffing to address failures proactively.

4. Replace. Eliminate Brand X actuators and replace them with another brand.

Without the business case, the status quo was popular because it produced fewer questions up the line. Replacing every Brand X actuator was also popular, especially with staff who were not there when the standardization decision was made.

The structured format, the documented financials, and the team collaboration led to Option 2. More importantly, the process removed the stigma of a bad decision. With that weight gone, the company pressed the manufacturer to replace the circuit boards at no cost. The manufacturer agreed, and the system has performed well for several years since.

Value-Focused, Not Alternatives-Focused

A business case is not the same as an alternatives study such as a Preliminary Engineering Report (PER). A business case is value-based. It is performed when an idea first surfaces and considers the full range of the organization’s values to set a direction. A PER is alternatives-based. It is performed after the direction is already set.

“With alternatives-focused thinking, you first figure out what alternatives are available and then choose the best of the lot. With value-focused thinking, you end up getting much closer to getting all of what you want.” — Ralph Keeney.

Think of traveling between two cities. The business case decides the mode: car, bus, plane, or train. The alternatives study comes later and decides the route or the airline.

Non-monetized values are central to a business case. The Triple Bottom Line is a common framework that weighs financial considerations alongside social impacts and environmental benefits. In my experience, non-monetized factors matter most on larger, more strategic projects. Smaller decisions usually turn on the financials.

Relative Costs Are Sufficient

One of the most useful features of a value-based business case is that relative costs are good enough. In the travel example, you do not need the exact price of a plane ticket versus a bus ticket versus mileage. You need to know which is roughly more or less. Exact costs matter later, when choosing between airlines. Working with order-of-magnitude numbers saves time and avoids the analysis paralysis that sets in when there are too many variations to price.

From the Real World: The Unexpected Takeover

A public water and sewer system had provided wholesale wastewater treatment to a small special-purpose district for nearly a decade. The district had decided not to expand its own treatment plant. Then, unexpectedly, it asked the larger system to take over its operations and infrastructure.

A formal business case framed four options:

1. Status quo. Decline, recognizing that an aging neighboring system could still affect reliability and service levels.

2. Operate only. Agree to operate the system but not own it.

3. Operate and own. Take over the existing system as-is.

4. Acquire and convert. Acquire the system and convert the small plant into a pumping station.

Each option was broken into 10 to 12 cost and revenue line items using order-of-magnitude unit costs such as cost per gallon and cost per foot. The initial estimates made it clear that if the utility was politically directed to participate, Option 4 was the best path.

Scale the Effort to the Decision

Most organizations want a tiered approach. Smaller decisions, such as replacing a piece of laboratory equipment or deciding whether to in-source or out-source routine maintenance, may need only a simple financial comparison and a brief non-monetized evaluation. A lower-tier business case can fit in a standard format email.

Larger investments need a more detailed financial evaluation: capital costs, operating costs, salvage value, and the time value of money. They also need a more structured non-monetized assessment, such as multi-criteria analysis with a group. The format stays the same, but a higher-tier business case runs two to four pages plus attachments.

A Standard Process

1. Define the problem or opportunity.

2. The executive sponsor assigns a business case lead and support team.

3. Hold a kick-off meeting.

4. Develop a problem statement.

5. Formalize the description of the options.

6. Confirm the problem statement and options with the executive sponsor.

7. Complete the analysis and documentation.

8. Present to the executive sponsor.

Two details make the process work. First, use a cross-functional team of five to eight people: finance, engineering, operations, maintenance, safety, and someone who can crank the data. A real business case cannot be done by one person. Second, the executive sponsor must be someone who can direct resources, because decision making is, by definition, the allocation of resources.

Why Organizations Skip Business Cases

Over three decades, I have heard the same five reasons for not doing written business cases. They are not good reasons, but they are the real ones:

• I get what I want because I am better at advocating than my peers.

• We don’t have a standard format.

• We do them, just not in writing.

• There is not enough time.

• The boss doesn’t seem to care.

Standard formats are available and can be adapted to any organization. All it takes is a willingness to move away from the frustration of informal capital and O&M decisions.

How Business Cases Improve Reliability

• They separate needs from wants. Documented needs survive leadership changes and budget cycles. Wants do not.

• They look at the system over the long term. Monetary and non-monetary impacts are weighed across the life of the asset, not just the next budget year.

• They remove stigma. As the actuator example shows, a structured process can turn a bad decision into a solvable problem.

• They build alignment for implementation. The people who will carry out the decision help create, understand, and accept it.

Building Better Business Cases

A business case gets the organization what it needs. That may differ from what any one person wanted at the start, but it is the best use of limited resources. The greatest reliability benefit is not the spreadsheet. It is the alignment the process builds before the first dollar is spent.

---

Related Reading

·     Five Ways to More Effectively Facilitate Business Cases

·     How to Effectively Communicate Business Cases

·     Ask the Experts Replay: Building Better Business Cases

·     Observed in Practice: 5 Reasons for Not Doing Written Business Cases

·     Facilitating with FINESSE: A Guide to Successful Business Solutions

---

JD Solomon is the founder of JD Solomon, Inc., the creator of the FINESSE Fishbone Diagram^®, and the co-creator of the SOAP criticality method^©. He is the author of Communicating Reliability, Risk & Resiliency to Decision Makers: How to Get Your Boss’s Boss to Understand and Facilitating with FINESSE: A Guide to Successful Business Solutions.

Does El Niño Make a Major Hurricane a Rare Event?

With the final stretch of the 2026 hurricane season still ahead, it is a good time to ask which hurricanes are truly rare events and which are not.

Not every hurricane is a rare event. Most people use “rare event” to describe anything unusual or surprising. However, the term has a more specific meaning: an event with low probability and high consequence. The difference matters because it shapes how we plan and how we communicate risk to decision makers. Probability alone does not tell the whole story, so engineering judgment and historical context have to fill in the rest.

The question is timely. NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center reports that a strong El Niño is in place and still strengthening, with a strong-to-very-strong event likely through the winter. With the final stretch of the 2026 hurricane season still ahead, it is a good time to ask which hurricanes are truly rare events and which are not.

The Base Rate and Hurricane Categories

In hurricane climatology, the Saffir–Simpson scale provides a natural break point for understanding rarity. Category 1 and 2 hurricanes form the base rate for the Carolinas. They occur frequently enough, including during El Niño years, that emergency managers, utilities, and coastal communities have well‑established procedures for dealing with them.

Category 3, 4, and 5 hurricanes are classified as major hurricanes. Their wind speeds and destructive potential differ fundamentally from base‑rate storms. For the Carolinas, major hurricanes are infrequent. The highest categories (4 and 5) are extremely rare.

El Niño conditions typically suppress Atlantic major hurricanes through increased vertical wind shear. In those years, the probability of a Category 3, 4, or 5 landfall on the Carolinas drops even further.

What a Rare Event Is (and Isn’t)

A rare event is a low‑probability, high‑consequence event. Rare events are statistical outliers that stress our systems, organizations, and communities. They are usually driven by external forces rather than the internal factors we manage every day, and they tend to hit harder and reach farther than expected.

In most cases, a rare event is not a single event but rather a series of events. A major hurricane is a good example. Wind and storm surge cause structural damage, which cascades into safety, environmental, and public health risks that persist until systems are restored.

Frequency is the main thing that separates a rare event from a normal risk, but consequences and context blur the line. As I noted in a 2020 post on overcoming crisis caused by rare events, Category 1 hurricanes are almost annual events along the U.S. Gulf Coast; there, a Category 3 and its impacts are the tipping point. Duration matters, too. For a five‑ to seven‑year capital project in Mobile or New Orleans, minor hurricanes are a normal project risk while a major hurricane is a rare event.

Major Hurricanes in El Niño Years

The historical record is clear. Since 1900, no Category 4 or 5 hurricane has made landfall on the Carolina coast during an El Niño year. Even Hurricane Fran in 1996, a Category 3 storm that remains a benchmark for many North Carolinians, struck during an ENSO-neutral period following the La Niña conditions of 1995.

Fran is now thirty years in the rearview mirror. It was destructive, memorable, and for many North Carolinians, a defining storm. That vividness is part of the challenge. People tend to overestimate the likelihood of rare events they can vividly recall, while the long gaps between them invite complacency. As I wrote earlier this year, what constitutes a rare event is often in the eyes of the beholder. A major hurricane landfall on the Carolinas during El Niño is uncommon. A Category 4 or 5 would be even more so.

Should we still consider a Category 4 or 5 Carolina landfall during El Niño a rare event? Yes. The climatological record supports it. The ENSO science supports it. And the absence of such storms over more than a century reinforces it.

Category 1 and 2 Hurricanes in El Niño Years

While major hurricanes are muted during El Niño, Category 1 and 2 storms still strike the Carolinas regularly and form the base rate. They cause damage, but they do not meet the rarity threshold. That is why in the US Southeast  even minor hurricanes belong in normal project risk planning rather than on the rare‑event list.

The same logic applies along the Gulf Coast, just with a different base rate. Minor hurricanes strike there more often. Major hurricanes, while still rare events, are less rare than they are in the Carolinas.

The Planning Horizon Matters Too

The differences underscore why decision makers must distinguish between routine risk and rare-event risk.

A 100‑year flood has a 1 percent chance of occurring in any given year, but roughly a 26 percent chance over a 30‑year period. The longer the horizon, the less “rare” a rare event becomes.

Why Rare Events Matter

The fact that the Carolinas have not seen a Category 4 or 5 hurricane during an El Niño year does not eliminate the possibility. It simply means the probability is low, and the consequences would be high if it happened. Rare events expose weaknesses in critical infrastructure and emergency management. They deserve disciplined attention and systems thinking.

---

Other 2026 Hurricane Season Articles

What the Hurricane Cone Actually Tells You... and what it doesn't

Is 2026 the Year for AI in Hurricane Forecasting?

The Top 6 Hurricane Tracking Websites of 2026

---

JD Solomon is the founder of JD Solomon, Inc., the creator of the FINESSE fishbone diagram®, and the co-creator of the SOAP criticality method^©. He is the author of Communicating Reliability, Risk & Resiliency to Decision Makers: How to Get Your Boss’s Boss to Understand and Facilitating with FINESSE: A Guide to Successful Business Solutions.

Why Technical Professionals Need a Systems View of Communication

The FINESSE Fishbone Diagram treats communication as a system, where seven causes work together to help technical professionals reach decision makers.

Complex, high-stakes technical decisions do not get resolved in one meeting. They move through gatekeepers over months or years. Big decisions pass through staff teams, multiple committees, stakeholders, and finally a decision board. Technical professionals tell the story at every stop, and the same story has to hold. The FINESSE Fishbone Diagram provides a proven, formal communication approach.

The Trap

Being consistent is the trap most technical communication falls into. We’re taught by marketing and sales professionals to evaluate the audience, tailor the message, and persuade, meeting each audience where they are.

That works for a single sale to a single buyer. It does not work when the same person hears three different versions of the same request eighteen months apart. Decision makers remember, especially when the decisions are big and uncertainty keeps the information shifting. The moment the numbers shift to fit the audience in the room, credibility is gone. It does not come back.

Technical professionals must be true to the data and information first, and the audience second, when uncertainty and complexity are elevated.

Control the Inputs, Get the Output

The cause-and-effect FINESSE Fishbone Diagram® treats communication as a system. Systems thinking, in part, tells us to identify and control the causal inputs, and the process will produce the right output: in this case, effective communication.

The inputs are the seven “bones” (causal factors) of FINESSE: Frame, Illustrate, Noise Reduction, Empathy, Structure, Synergy, and Ethics.

The workshop version of the FINESSE Fishbone Diagram. FINESSE is a formal communication approach for big decisions with high levels of uncertainty and complexity.

A powerful advantage of FINESSE is that the technical professional does not have to be a naturally gifted communicator. We have to manage the inputs correctly and trust the system to produce the result. It’s the same discipline used on any system process with too many variables to manage one at a time.

Systems thinking and the FINESSE Fishbone Diagram® only work if the context is right first. A cause-and-effect model built around the wrong problem runs cleanly and still solves nothing useful. FINESSE is a formal communication approach for big decisions with high levels of uncertainty and complexity; it is not intended for day-to-day operational decisions or emergency communication.

Why the Fishbone Splits the Work

FINESSE also draws a hard line between what has to stay fixed and what is allowed to flex. Frame, Illustrate, and Noise Reduction sit on the top fin of the diagram. They are about the data and the problem itself, and they do not change no matter who is in the room. The same numbers, the same information, and the same frame. Presentation after presentation.

The three fins of FINESSE emphasize the roles of data & information, the audience, and professional ethics.

Empathy, Structure, and Synergy sit on the bottom fin. They are about the audience, and they are where the adjustment happens. How you open, what you emphasize first, and who you bring into the meeting with you. None of that changes what is true. It changes how clearly the truth resonates with the person in front of you.

Ethics is the tail fin of the fish, providing the power. It is the way we make decisions, and it is the discipline that keeps flexibility on the audience side from creeping into the information side.

Being a Trusted Advisor Requires Something Different

A technical professional who is true to the data and adaptive with the audience can walk into the fourth gatekeeper meeting having said something consistent each time. A car salesman does not need that discipline. He only has to close the person in front of him once, and he never has to answer to that person again next quarter.

A Systems View of Communication

None of this works because the FINESSE Fishbone Diagram® is clever. It works because of systems thinking. It works because it is formal enough to survive months or years of gatekeepers and specific enough to run the same way every time.

As a formal communication approach, FINESSE earns trust across the whole life of a complex decision, not the sales pitch in any single meeting. Executive leadership calls back the person who executes with FINESSE for the next hard call, and that is what a trusted advisor actually is.

A FINESSE Workshop Follow-up

Six months after one of our “Communicating to Decision Makers” workshops, I received an email from a mid-level process engineer at a major food processing company.

“JD, I just wanted to follow-up form the workshop. I put the approach to work on one of my projects. My manager had some hesitation at first, especially related to things like sharing the information in advance and getting to the conclusions in the beginning. But the management team loved it. My manager has now put me leading a team to improve all of our communication to executives. I just wanted to say thanks. Andy.”

Andy followed a formal communication approach. He didn’t say he was a perfect presenter. He trusted a system and an approach.

Are You Communicating with FINESSE?

The specific communications approach matters less than having one. Tips without an approach are a list, not a system. Tips tell you what to try, not when to use it. FINESSE is one formal communications approach for problems with real complexity and uncertainty. If it does not fit, find another and use it. What does not survive a multi-year decision is good intentions and a series of tips strung together.

Are you Communicating with FINESSE?

---

JD Solomon is the founder of JD Solomon, Inc., the creator of the FINESSE Fishbone Diagram^®, and the co-creator of the SOAP criticality method^©. He is the author of Communicating Reliability, Risk & Resiliency to Decision Makers: How to Get Your Boss’s Boss to Understand and Facilitating with FINESSE: A Guide to Successful Business Solutions.