See your AI spend, then the savings
Every AI number you have been shown was somebody's estimate
Spend comes first, attributed rather than totalled. Then value in tiers, with what somebody confirmed kept apart from what was estimated.
Powered By
The Challenge
- Every AI figure you have been handed was an estimate wearing a confident face
- The saving is always presented before the cost, which tells you what the number was built for
- An hourly job gets credited with hourly savings, and nobody mentions it replaced a weekly chore
- Hours saved get converted into money as though somebody had checked those hours were redeployed
- You are asked to approve a renewal on a number nobody can reproduce
The Runwork Solution
- Spend comes first and attributed, because a value figure presented before an unexplained cost is not a figure
- Value is split by how hard it is: what somebody confirmed sits apart from what was estimated, and the two are never added together
- Each rate records who set it and when, so an assumption has a name against it rather than being anonymous
- A run is credited with the manual work it replaced, so an hourly job that replaced a weekly chore credits weekly rather than 168 times
- Every report carries a section on failed runs, unprofiled resources and how much of the total is estimated only
What your team gets
Spend first, and attributed
What AI cost, broken down rather than totalled, before any value figure appears. A saving presented ahead of its cost is a number built to persuade rather than to be checked.
The cap that lowers the number
A job running hourly that replaced a weekly chore is credited weekly. Crediting it 168 times would produce a much better figure and a much shorter meeting.
An assumption with a name on it
Each rate carries who set it and when. That turns "we assumed two hours" into a question you can ask a specific person, which is the difference between an assumption and a guess.
Cost per run
Spend against execution counts, so the question stops being whether AI is expensive and becomes what a given piece of automated work costs to run.
What we refuse to turn into money
Hours spent rebuilding something are never dollarized, and work that never existed before is shown as capacity created rather than as cost saved. Both would be easy and neither would be true.
The difference from a value assessment
The assessments consultancies sell are projections, modelled before anything has run and sold on potential. This is the other way round: the work runs first and the report says what it did.
A Day in the Life
The renewal lands on your desk. Somebody wants to keep spending on AI and the case is a number you cannot reproduce. You have seen four of these and every one led with the saving.
You open the spend first. The report does too, which is the first sign it was not built to sell you something: cost broken down before any value figure appears.
You look for the soft part, and it is labelled. Confirmed sits apart from estimated and the two are never added. You take the confirmed figure, which is smaller than the one in the email you were sent.
You ask where a rate came from. The assumption carries who set it and when, so the question goes to a person rather than into the air. That is the moment this stops being a marketing artefact.
You look for what is missing. Failed runs, resources with no profile, and how much of the total is estimated only. It is a required section, so its absence is not an option and its presence is not a favour.
And the number is smaller than the one you were promised. That is the point. A figure that still holds after your second question is worth more than a bigger one that does not.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why does spend come before value?
How do I know the saving is not inflated?
Who set the rates behind these numbers?
How is this different from a value assessment?
What is the weakest number in the report?
Related Use Cases
Start keeping what your team figures out.
Start a 14-day free trial. No credit card required.