Tailoring the Business Case for a Two-Quarter Agile Delivery
Northgate Council is running a PRINCE2 Agile project to digitise blue-badge parking permits. The original business case was written as a single five-year benefits case with a break-even in year three. The project has been re-planned into six two-week sprints over one quarter, with a second quarter held as a contingency release. The senior responsible owner, Margaret, chairs the board and has asked whether the business case 'still works' now that delivery is incremental. The finance officer wants the same five-year NPV table retained unchanged. A benefits review is not scheduled until project closure. The project is at the 'starting up a project' to 'initiating a project' boundary.
1. How should the business case be tailored for this agile delivery, and what is wrong with retaining the five-year NPV table unchanged?
Read the worked answer
PRINCE2 Agile tailors the business case to be reviewed at each management stage/sprint boundary and updated as evidence arrives, not frozen at initiation. Retaining a single five-year NPV table unchanged is wrong because:
- It assumes benefits are delivered at the end, whereas incremental delivery means some benefits (e.g. reduced manual permit processing) can be realised after the first release.
- It gives the board no decision point to stop or pivot if early sprints show the benefits case weakening.
- It conflates forecast with commitment.
The tailored business case should:
- Keep the five-year view as the outer frame (the finance officer's need is valid) but add incremental benefit realisation points aligned to releases.
- Include early-warning indicators-what evidence at sprint 3 or release 1 would tell the board the case is failing.
- Tie tolerances to the business case (e.g. if forecast benefit drops below X, escalate).
- Schedule benefits reviews at release boundaries, not only at closure.
2. Margaret asks whether the contingency release in quarter two should be reflected in the business case. Advise her.
Read the worked answer
Yes-and this is a tailoring judgement, not a bookkeeping one. The contingency release represents optional scope within fixed time/cost, so the business case should distinguish:
- Core benefits expected from the first quarter's releases (the committed case).
- Incremental benefits contingent on the contingency release (the stretch case).
Presenting them together as one number overstates the committed case and undermines the board's ability to make a stop/go decision at the end of quarter one. Presenting only the core case understates the value and may cause the board to under-fund.
The board should therefore see two columns or two scenarios, with the decision point at the end of quarter one explicit: 'if evidence supports it, release the contingency; if not, stop and bank the core benefits.' This is the PRINCE2 Agile 'manage by exception' and 'continued business justification' principles working together.