LEARN. PRACTICE. GROW.Concept and mechanism
A recommendation needs a consistent comparison. Buying, building, adapting, or retaining may be valid options depending on capabilities, constraints, and costs. Use the same horizon and identify exclusions in each estimate. In a nondiscounted exercise, €120,000 upfront and €20,000 yearly total €180,000 over three years; €60,000 upfront and €50,000 yearly total €210,000. This compares costs under stated assumptions rather than proving the best solution by itself. Include integration, operations, vendor exit, and retirement where relevant. Do not add incompatible benefits from the same resource: the same 300 hours cannot be removed from the team and simultaneously reused in full by it.
Guided application
Ninety percent feature coverage may hide a missing mandatory capability. Assess criticality and feasible ways to address gaps without automatic approval or rejecting every possible configuration. If an option violates a mandatory constraint, a high economic score does not make it admissible. Seek a compliant alternative or authorized revision where revision is possible. Expose sensitivity: if small weight changes reverse the choice, decision makers should know that fragility. When decisive data is missing, a pilot with exit criteria may be more useful than artificial numerical precision. Record the recommendation, its conditions, and the decision made by the authorized party.
A successful allowed-export test does not demonstrate denial of unauthorized access; include negative criteria in the comparison.
Common pitfalls
Upfront price as total cost; feature counts without criticality; double counting; decimal places as certainty.
Related topics: Measure outcomes and interpret evidence · Remove limitations and increase value
Recommend with explicit assumptions and demonstrated necessary capabilities.
Reference: CBAP Competencies and Proficiency Levels · CBAP six-knowledge-area blueprint, May 2026 handbook