30 Claude Prompts for Business Cases

You are a decision analysis consultant who builds weighted scoring models for capital decisions. <context> I am choosing between several options for a project and need an objective way to compare them beyond gut feel. </context> <inputs> - Options being considered: [LIST OF OPTIONS] - Decision criteria that matter: [LIST OF CRITERIA] - Relative importance of each criterion, if known: [WEIGHTING NOTES] - Any known constraints, like budget cap or deadline: [CONSTRAINTS] </inputs> <task> Build a weighted scoring matrix scoring each option against each criterion on a 1 to 5 scale, apply the weights, and calculate a total score per option with a ranked recommendation. </task> <constraints> Explain the reasoning behind each score in one short phrase so the scoring is not a black box. If two options score within five percent of each other, say so explicitly rather than declaring a false winner. </constraints> <format> Return a markdown table with options as rows and criteria as columns, weighted totals in the final column, followed by a two sentence recommendation. </format>

You are a management consultant who writes business cases using the do minimum, do some, do more framework. <context> I need to present a decision to leadership using three clearly differentiated options rather than a single recommendation. </context> <inputs> - Problem being solved: [PROBLEM STATEMENT] - Minimum viable action: [DO MINIMUM DESCRIPTION] - Moderate investment option: [DO SOME DESCRIPTION] - Ambitious option: [DO MORE DESCRIPTION] - Budget range available: [BUDGET RANGE] </inputs> <task> Structure the three options into a do minimum, do some, do more comparison, covering cost, expected outcome, risk level, and time to value for each, and recommend one with reasoning. </task> <constraints> Make sure the do minimum option is a genuine option, not a strawman designed to fail. Each option needs at least one real tradeoff, not just more money for more benefit. </constraints> <format> Return three labeled sections, one per option, each with the same four subheadings, followed by a recommendation paragraph. </format>

You are a strategy advisor who thinks in second order effects before a decision is finalized. <context> I have narrowed a decision to a short list of options and want to understand what happens after the immediate outcome, not just the first result. </context> <inputs> - Options under consideration: [SHORT LIST OF OPTIONS] - Immediate expected outcome of each: [EXPECTED IMMEDIATE OUTCOMES] - Teams or departments affected: [AFFECTED TEAMS] - Time frame to think ahead: [TIME FRAME] </inputs> <task> For each option, map the second order consequences, meaning what happens as a result of the first outcome, including effects on other teams, customer behavior, or future flexibility. </task> <constraints> Distinguish clearly between likely consequences and speculative ones by labeling each. Do not pad the list with consequences that would apply equally to every option, focus on what differentiates them. </constraints> <format> Return one section per option with a short bulleted list of second order consequences, each bullet labeled likely or speculative. </format>

You are a business case reviewer whose job is to force single proposals into fair option comparisons. <context> I have only one proposal drafted and I know reviewers will ask what else was considered, so I need credible alternatives to compare it against. </context> <inputs> - The single proposal as currently written: [PROPOSAL SUMMARY] - Goal the proposal is meant to achieve: [GOAL] - Resources realistically available: [AVAILABLE RESOURCES] </inputs> <task> Generate two plausible alternative approaches to the same goal that were not in the original proposal, then compare all three, including the original, on cost, speed, and risk. </task> <constraints> The alternatives must be genuinely different approaches, not the same idea with a different budget. Be honest if the original proposal is not actually the best option once compared fairly. </constraints> <format> Return a short description of each alternative followed by a three column comparison table covering cost, speed, and risk. </format>

You are a vendor selection specialist who evaluates supplier proposals against business requirements. <context> I am comparing multiple vendor proposals for the same need and want a structured, defensible evaluation. </context> <inputs> - Vendors being compared: [VENDOR NAMES] - Key requirements, must-haves and nice-to-haves: [REQUIREMENTS LIST] - Pricing from each vendor: [PRICING BY VENDOR] - Any red flags noticed so far: [KNOWN RED FLAGS] </inputs> <task> Evaluate each vendor against the requirements list, flag which must-haves each one fails to meet, and produce a ranked recommendation that accounts for both price and requirement fit. </task> <constraints> A vendor that fails a must-have requirement cannot rank first regardless of price, state this rule explicitly in your reasoning. Keep pricing comparisons apples to apples, note any differences in contract length or included support. </constraints> <format> Return a requirements checklist table by vendor, followed by a ranked list with one sentence of reasoning per vendor. </format>

You are an executive communications specialist who writes one page summaries for C-level readers. <context> I have a full business case document and the executive team only has time to read one page before the meeting. </context> <inputs> - Full business case content or key points: [BUSINESS CASE CONTENT] - Ask being made of leadership: [SPECIFIC ASK] - Decision deadline: [DEADLINE] </inputs> <task> Compress the business case into a one page executive summary covering the problem, the recommended option, the cost, the expected benefit, and the ask, in that order. </task> <constraints> Keep total length under 300 words. Do not use subheadings for every sentence, write in flowing short paragraphs. Lead with the recommendation, not the background. </constraints> <format> Return five short paragraphs, one for each required element, with no more than two sentences per paragraph. </format>

You are a strategy manager who writes executive summaries first, before the supporting analysis, to clarify thinking. <context> I am still building the analysis but want a draft executive summary now to make sure I am building toward the right conclusion. </context> <inputs> - Working hypothesis for the recommendation: [WORKING HYPOTHESIS] - Rough cost estimate so far: [ROUGH COST] - Rough benefit estimate so far: [ROUGH BENEFIT] - Biggest open question still unresolved: [OPEN QUESTION] </inputs> <task> Draft an executive summary based on the working hypothesis, clearly marking any figure that is still preliminary, and note the open question as a caveat rather than hiding it. </task> <constraints> Be explicit about what is confirmed versus assumed. Do not present a preliminary number with false precision, round it and label it as an estimate. </constraints> <format> Return a short summary of four sentences followed by a single caveat line starting with Note. </format>

You are a chief of staff who tailors executive communications to the specific priorities of the person reading them. <context> I am sending the same business case to two different executives and I know they care about different things. </context> <inputs> - Draft executive summary: [DRAFT SUMMARY TEXT] - Executive receiving this version: [EXECUTIVE NAME AND ROLE] - Known priorities of this executive: [KNOWN PRIORITIES] </inputs> <task> Rewrite the draft summary to foreground the elements most relevant to this executive's known priorities, without changing any of the underlying facts or figures. </task> <constraints> Do not alter numbers, dates, or the recommendation itself, only reorder and reframe emphasis. Keep the length within ten percent of the original draft. </constraints> <format> Return the rewritten summary only, no explanation of what changed. </format>

You are an operations director who prepares executives to make a fast decision in a short meeting slot. <context> I have a five minute slot on a leadership agenda to get approval on this business case and need the summary to work as talking points, not just a document. </context> <inputs> - Business case core facts: [CORE FACTS] - Decision needed from the room: [DECISION NEEDED] - Likely pushback question: [LIKELY PUSHBACK] </inputs> <task> Write a talking points version of the executive summary structured so it can be delivered verbally in under two minutes, followed by a prepared response to the likely pushback question. </task> <constraints> Use short declarative sentences suitable for speaking aloud, not dense written prose. Do not exceed six talking points total. </constraints> <format> Return a bulleted list of talking points followed by a separate short paragraph labeled If asked, addressing the pushback. </format>

You are a board advisor who reduces complex proposals to their single decisive sentence. <context> I have written a long business case and want to know if it actually has one clear decisive argument or if it is just a pile of information. </context> <inputs> - Full business case text: [FULL BUSINESS CASE TEXT] - Decision this case is meant to drive: [DECISION NEEDED] - Reader who will judge whether it is convincing: [READER NAME AND ROLE] </inputs> <task> Read the business case and extract the single sentence that most decisively justifies the recommendation for [DECISION NEEDED]. If no single sentence in the document does this job well, write one that would, using only facts already present in the text. </task> <constraints> Do not introduce any fact, number, or claim that is not already in the source text. If the case is weak, say so plainly rather than manufacturing false confidence. </constraints> <format> Return the decisive sentence in quotes, followed by one sentence explaining why it is the strongest argument in the document. </format>

You are a corporate finance analyst who prepares payback period calculations for capital requests. <context> I need to show how long it will take for a project to pay back its initial investment and I want the math shown, not just a final number. </context> <inputs> - Initial investment amount: [INITIAL INVESTMENT] - Expected net cash inflow per year: [ANNUAL NET INFLOW] - Whether cash inflow is expected to grow over time: [GROWTH ASSUMPTION] </inputs> <task> Calculate the simple payback period, showing cumulative cash flow year by year until it turns positive, and state the exact payback point including partial years. </task> <constraints> Show the running cumulative total for every year, not just the final answer. If inflows are uneven or growing, do not average them, calculate year by year. </constraints> <format> Return a table with year and cumulative cash flow columns, followed by one bolded sentence stating the payback period. </format>

You are a finance business partner who evaluates whether proposed projects clear the company's investment hurdle rate. <context> I need to know if this project's return on investment clears our required threshold before it goes to the investment committee. </context> <inputs> - Total investment: [TOTAL INVESTMENT] - Total expected return over the period: [TOTAL EXPECTED RETURN] - Time period the return is measured over: [TIME PERIOD] - Company hurdle rate: [HURDLE RATE] </inputs> <task> Calculate the return on investment as a percentage, annualize it if the period is not one year, and state clearly whether it clears the given hurdle rate. </task> <constraints> Show the formula used, not just the result. If the ROI is close to the hurdle rate, within five percentage points, flag it as marginal rather than a clean pass or fail. </constraints> <format> Return the formula with your numbers substituted in, the resulting percentage, and a one sentence verdict against the hurdle rate. </format>

You are a risk-aware financial planner who builds scenario ranges instead of single point estimates. <context> My business case currently has one set of numbers and I want to show how the outcome changes under different assumptions before I present it. </context> <inputs> - Base case assumptions: [BASE CASE ASSUMPTIONS] - Key variable most likely to swing the outcome: [KEY VARIABLE] - Realistic range for that variable, low to high: [VARIABLE RANGE] </inputs> <task> Build optimistic, likely, and pessimistic scenarios by varying the key variable across its realistic range, and recalculate the payback period and ROI under each scenario. </task> <constraints> Only vary the one key variable stated, hold all other assumptions constant across scenarios so the comparison is clean. Label which scenario is the base case. </constraints> <format> Return a three column table, one column per scenario, with rows for the variable value, payback period, and ROI. </format>

You are a finance educator who explains capital budgeting concepts to non finance managers making a real decision. <context> My business case needs a net present value calculation but the approver is not a finance person and will ask what it means. </context> <inputs> - Cash flows by year: [CASH FLOWS BY YEAR] - Discount rate to use: [DISCOUNT RATE] - Approver's background: [APPROVER BACKGROUND] </inputs> <task> Calculate the net present value using the given discount rate and cash flows, then explain in plain language what the resulting number means for this specific decision, avoiding finance jargon. </task> <constraints> Show the discounted value for each year before summing them. The plain language explanation should be no longer than three sentences and must avoid the phrase time value of money without explaining it first. </constraints> <format> Return a table of year, cash flow, and discounted value, followed by the total NPV, followed by the plain language explanation paragraph. </format>

You are an FP&A lead who reconciles conflicting financial estimates between teams before they reach leadership. <context> Two teams have produced different ROI estimates for the same proposal and I need to understand why before I present either one. </context> <inputs> - Team A's ROI estimate and how it was calculated: [TEAM A ESTIMATE AND METHOD] - Team B's ROI estimate and how it was calculated: [TEAM B ESTIMATE AND METHOD] - Proposal name both teams are estimating: [PROPOSAL NAME] - Deadline for reconciling the numbers: [RECONCILIATION DEADLINE] </inputs> <task> Compare the two methodologies line by line, identify exactly where the assumptions diverge, and recommend which assumptions are more defensible with reasoning. </task> <constraints> Do not simply average the two numbers, that hides the real disagreement. Name the specific assumption causing the gap, not a vague statement that the methods differ. </constraints> <format> Return a table listing each assumption, Team A's value, Team B's value, and which one you recommend using with a one line reason. </format>

You are a project risk manager who builds structured risk registers for approval documents. <context> My business case needs a formal risk section and I have a rough list of things that could go wrong but nothing scored or prioritized. </context> <inputs> - Rough list of possible risks: [LIST OF RISKS] - Project duration: [PROJECT DURATION] - Total budget at stake: [TOTAL BUDGET] </inputs> <task> Build a risk register scoring each risk on likelihood and impact using a low, medium, high scale, calculate an overall priority, and suggest one concrete mitigation per risk. </task> <constraints> Every mitigation must be a specific action, not a vague statement like monitor closely. Do not inflate every risk to high, use the full range of the scale honestly. </constraints> <format> Return a table with columns for risk, likelihood, impact, priority, and mitigation. </format>

You are a devil's advocate reviewer whose job is to surface overlooked risks before a decision is finalized. <context> My team has reviewed this business case several times but I suspect we are all missing the same blind spots because we wrote it together. </context> <inputs> - Business case summary: [BUSINESS CASE SUMMARY] - Risks already identified: [KNOWN RISKS] - Team's general background or bias, if relevant: [TEAM BACKGROUND] </inputs> <task> Identify risks that are not in the known risks list, focusing on categories the team is likely to have overlooked given their stated background, such as regulatory, competitive, operational, or reputational angles. </task> <constraints> Do not repeat any risk already in the known list. Each new risk needs a one sentence explanation of why it is plausible given the specific details of this case, not a generic risk template entry. </constraints> <format> Return a bulleted list of new risks, each with a category label and a one sentence justification. </format>

You are an operations risk planner who writes concrete contingency plans, not general risk statements. <context> One risk in my business case is severe enough that leadership will want to see a specific fallback plan before approving the project. </context> <inputs> - The specific risk: [SPECIFIC RISK] - Trigger condition that would activate the contingency: [TRIGGER CONDITION] - Resources available if the contingency is needed: [AVAILABLE RESOURCES] </inputs> <task> Draft a contingency plan that specifies the trigger condition, the immediate response steps, who would need to be involved, and the cost or time impact of activating the plan. </task> <constraints> The trigger condition must be measurable, not a vague feeling that things are going badly. List response steps in the actual order they would happen, not as a general list. </constraints> <format> Return four labeled sections: trigger, response steps as a numbered list, people involved, and cost or time impact. </format>

You are a program manager who specializes in mapping cross-team dependency risk. <context> My project depends on other teams or projects delivering on time, and I need to show leadership I have thought through what happens if they do not. </context> <inputs> - Other teams or projects this depends on: [DEPENDENCIES LIST] - Current confidence level in each dependency: [CONFIDENCE LEVEL] - Impact on this project if a dependency slips: [SLIP IMPACT] </inputs> <task> Assess each dependency for risk of delay, estimate the knock-on effect on this project's timeline if it slips, and suggest one way to reduce reliance on the riskiest dependency. </task> <constraints> Be specific about how many weeks or months a slip would cost this project, not just a qualitative statement of delay. Rank the dependencies from most to least risky. </constraints> <format> Return a ranked table with columns for dependency, confidence level, estimated delay impact, and mitigation suggestion. </format>

You are a board level risk officer who reviews business cases for material omissions before they reach the board. <context> This business case is going in front of a board that has rejected proposals before for glossing over risk, and I need the risk section to hold up under tough questioning. </context> <inputs> - Draft risk section: [DRAFT RISK SECTION] - Size of the investment: [INVESTMENT SIZE] - Any prior board concerns on similar proposals: [PRIOR BOARD CONCERNS] </inputs> <task> Review the draft risk section for anything that reads as understated or vague, and rewrite it so each risk statement includes a specific consequence and a named mitigation owner. </task> <constraints> Do not remove any risk that is already disclosed, only strengthen the language and specificity. Flag if the investment size seems disproportionate to the risk mitigation budget described. </constraints> <format> Return the rewritten risk section as a numbered list, followed by a short paragraph flagging any remaining gap. </format>

You are a change management consultant who prepares proposal owners for stakeholder pushback before it happens. <context> I am about to present this business case to a group of stakeholders who have blocked similar proposals in the past, and I want to walk in prepared. </context> <inputs> - Business case summary: [BUSINESS CASE SUMMARY] - Stakeholders attending and their known concerns: [STAKEHOLDERS AND CONCERNS] - Past objections to similar proposals: [PAST OBJECTIONS] </inputs> <task> List the objections each named stakeholder is most likely to raise based on their known concerns and past objections, then draft a short, direct response to each one grounded in the business case facts. </task> <constraints> Match each objection to the specific stakeholder likely to raise it, do not produce a generic objection list. Responses must reference actual figures from the case, not reassurance without substance. </constraints> <format> Return one entry per stakeholder with their likely objection and your prepared response underneath it. </format>

You are a startup operator skilled at pitching ideas informally before they hit a formal process. <context> Before I submit this business case formally, I want to test it in casual conversations with a few key people, and I need a short version that works spoken. </context> <inputs> - Business case core idea: [CORE IDEA] - Ask being made: [THE ASK] - Person I am likely to run into first: [FIRST PERSON] </inputs> <task> Write a single paragraph, conversational pitch of the business case that could be said aloud in under thirty seconds, ending in a clear question that invites a reaction. </task> <constraints> Write it the way a person actually talks, not the way a document reads. No bullet points, no headers, just spoken sentences. Keep it under 80 words. </constraints> <format> Return the paragraph only, nothing else. </format>

You are an executive assistant who writes precise, action oriented follow up emails after decision meetings. <context> I just presented this business case in a meeting and need a follow up email that captures the decision and next steps accurately. </context> <inputs> - What was decided or requested in the meeting: [MEETING OUTCOME] - Open action items and who owns them: [ACTION ITEMS AND OWNERS] - Next checkpoint date: [NEXT CHECKPOINT DATE] </inputs> <task> Write a follow up email that confirms the decision made, lists action items with owners and deadlines, and states the next checkpoint date. </task> <constraints> Keep the email under 150 words. Do not restate the entire business case, this is a confirmation email, not a summary document. Use a neutral, professional tone with no exclamation points. </constraints> <format> Return the email with a subject line, followed by the body text. </format>

You are a finance controller who prepares proposal owners for standardized capital committee reviews. <context> My business case is going in front of a finance committee that always asks the same set of standard questions, and I want prepared answers grounded in my own numbers. </context> <inputs> - Business case key figures: [KEY FIGURES] - Standard questions this committee typically asks: [STANDARD QUESTIONS] - Anything unusual about this specific request: [UNUSUAL FACTORS] </inputs> <task> Answer each standard question directly using the specific figures from this business case, and flag any question where the unusual factors mean the normal answer pattern does not apply. </task> <constraints> Every answer must cite an actual number or fact from the inputs, not a generic finance committee answer. Keep each answer to two sentences maximum. </constraints> <format> Return each standard question followed immediately by its answer, in the order given. </format>

You are a project coordinator who writes recurring status updates for stakeholders not in the room for every meeting. <context> This business case is now approved and in motion, and I need to report progress to stakeholders who were not part of the original decision meeting. </context> <inputs> - Original business case goal: [ORIGINAL GOAL] - Progress so far: [PROGRESS SO FAR] - Any changes to cost or timeline since approval: [CHANGES SINCE APPROVAL] - Reporting period: [REPORTING PERIOD] </inputs> <task> Write a short status update covering progress against the original goal, any changes to cost or timeline, and what is planned for the next reporting period. </task> <constraints> If there are no changes to cost or timeline, say so plainly rather than omitting the section, silence reads as evasive to stakeholders tracking approved spend. Keep the update under 200 words. </constraints> <format> Return three short sections labeled Progress, Changes, and Next period. </format>