# Funding plan

Funding determines which obligations the enterprise recognises. If an engagement budget covers only implementation, then evaluation maintenance, operation, and support appear later as unplanned work. This plan separates three allocations even when the accounts sit in one budget, records the value test that business-unit funding creates, and defers the permanent chargeback rule until demand has been observed.

Source: article two, "Fund the business result, shared learning, and continuing service".

## Who fills this in, and what it decides

The practice lead writes it with the finance partner and the leader of the business unit whose process changes. Whoever funds an allocation approves that row. The plan feeds three decisions: which obligations the enterprise recognises for this engagement (section 1), how costs are allocated once demand is understood (section 4), and which proposals compete for the practice's capacity (section 5).

Roles named in this document:

- Practice lead: manages the FDE portfolio and capacity.
- Finance partner: agrees the measurement definitions and the allocation method.
- Business workflow owner: owns the process that changes, in the business unit that funds the engagement.
- Platform product owner: accepts, or declines, maintenance of a shared primitive.
- Service owner: operates the solution after the engagement, from the service allocation.

## 1. Three allocations

Evaluation maintenance means keeping the test cases, labels, policies, and comparison data current after the initial release. It sits in the service allocation, because it continues for as long as the workflow does. Write an amount in every row, not "included".

| Allocation | Covers | Who funds it | Ends when | Amount | Approved by |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Engagement | Discovery, business participation, integration, engineering, evaluation, initial release | The business unit whose process changes | The next commitment is refused, or the engagement's exit condition is met | | |
| Shared platform | Primitives and improvements that serve several solutions | The platform budget, only if the platform product owner accepts maintenance | Never. It is a recurring line | | |
| Service | Operation, model and data usage, support, incident response, source updates, continuing evaluation maintenance | The service owner's budget | The workflow is retired | | |

The business unit funds the engagement because that creates a direct test of value. A unit that funds a bounded process has a reason to define the result carefully, supply expert time, and decide whether the observed benefit justifies continued use. Central funding makes capability available; it does not prove that a particular workflow deserves to exist.

## 2. The value test

The question business-unit funding asks is whether the solution improves the complete workflow, including review, correction, coordination, and manual fallback. A faster extraction step alone is not the business result. The measurement plan in the running-it group defines the comparison; the business workflow owner and finance partner answer these questions at the operating review, using that plan's evidence. Record which question the funding decision turns on.

| Question | Measure | Comparison used | Answer | Decides the funding |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Does it reduce total effort in the workflow? | Effort per case across the complete workflow, including review and fallback | | | yes / no |
| Does it improve evidence quality? | Factual correction rate; missing-evidence rate | | | yes / no |
| Does it shorten a material delay? | Completion time from submission to the business decision | | | yes / no |
| Does it enable work the team could not otherwise complete? | Cases completed that would previously have been skipped | | | yes / no |

In the screening specimen, the first question is the one the funding decision turns on: effort per screen across preparation, analyst review, and senior review.

## 3. Observation before a chargeback rule

Charging a business unit for every platform request can discourage useful adoption. Funding everything centrally can attract requests whose sponsors have little reason to prioritise carefully. Observe demand and behaviour first. The practice lead records one row per business unit over the observation period; the allocation method in section 4 follows from this table.

- Observation period, from and to:
- Recorded by:

| Business unit | Requests made | Passed the intake gates | Engineering time | Expert time | Dependencies that blocked | Continuing support created | Value and learning produced |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |

## 4. The allocation method chosen afterwards

Choose each method from the observation table, and write the row of that table that justifies it. The finance partner and practice lead agree the method; the business unit leaders confirm.

| Cost | Method | Rationale from the observation table |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Discovery | central / business unit / common fund | |
| Delivery of one workflow | central / business unit / common fund | |
| Shared platform work | platform budget | |
| Service operation | operating team / business unit | |
| High-value control improvements | common fund / platform | |

- Method agreed by, and date:
- Reviewed again on:

## 5. The portfolio view

A portfolio decision is a decision about which of several possible engagements receives limited engineering, domain, platform, and operating capacity. Comparing proposals requires their different purposes to stay visible, so record them rather than scoring them. The practice lead keeps this table; the business workflow owner of each proposal confirms its row. It feeds the intake decision in the engagement brief and, later, the portfolio review in the running-it group.

| Proposal | Expected business result | Evidence already available | Unresolved dependencies | Continuing obligations | Credible alternative | What it competes with |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Transaction screening (specimen) | Fewer analyst hours per screen; evidence attached to each decision | Manual effort in one coverage group | Deal workspace access; valuation definition | Evaluation maintenance; source updates | Extend the banking reporting team | Supplier certification; a retrieval metadata primitive |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |

The specimen row is hypothetical.

- Proposal selected for the first engagement, and why it uses the practice's capacity well:
- Decided by, and date: