Board-Ready Slide Deck Template
Seven slides. Editable in your own tool of choice. Tip: press Print to PDF above to export a clean copy, then drop the screenshots into PowerPoint or Keynote. Each slide carries a one-line speaker note in the footer.
The structure mirrors the playbook at rfp-automation-procurement-board-defending-investment. Use the playbook's pre-flight tool to generate your customised inputs before filling these slides in.
00 / 07
PROCUREMENT BOARD · INVESTMENT CASE
RFP Automation:
The case for [your company]
Prepared by [your name, role] · [date] · Distribution: Procurement Board
01 / 07
SLIDE 1 · THE PROBLEM, IN NUMBERS
Where the current sourcing process is leaking
Error count (5-cycle sample)
[ __ ]
Benchmark context: hotel RFP response rates documented in the 25–40% range for unstructured email sourcing (Cvent Planner Sourcing series; MPI Meetings Outlook). Numbers above are our own measured baseline.
02 / 07
SLIDE 2 · THE SHORTLIST
Two vendors evaluated against six criteria
| Criterion | Vendor A (recommended) | Vendor B |
|---|
| Data residency (EU) | __ | __ |
| Pricing transparency | __ | __ |
| Contract terms (export, escalator) | __ | __ |
| Industry references | __ | __ |
| Implementation timeline | __ | __ |
| Product fit (workflow match) | __ | __ |
Note: a one-vendor pitch fails board review almost reflexively. Show the work.
03 / 07
SLIDE 3 · ROI METHODOLOGY
Four categories, our own numbers
- Time saved. (Current hours − post-tool estimate) × cycles/year × loaded FTE rate. Estimate hedged 50%.
- Error reduction. Documented mistakes per cycle × cost of one downstream rework × cycles/year.
- Vendor competition. Only if baseline data exists. If not, omit. Boards trust presenters who decline to invent.
- Compliance & audit-trail value. Cost of one audit gap, monetised.
Source for the methodology: Forrester Total-Economic-Impact framework as applied to adjacent procurement SaaS. ROI worksheet attached as appendix.
04 / 07
SLIDE 4 · PAYBACK PERIOD
Months-to-payback, with two sensitivities
Annual subscription
€ [ __ ]
Annual lift (central case)
€ [ __ ]
Payback (central)
[ __ ] mo
Payback (half-lift)
[ __ ] mo
Sensitivity: at half the time-saved estimate, payback is [ __ ] months. At double the RFP volume, payback is [ __ ] months. Both scenarios remain inside the 18-month finance threshold.
05 / 07
SLIDE 5 · RISK REGISTER
Four risks, four mitigations
| Risk | Mitigation | Owner |
|---|
| Data residency / GDPR | EU hosting region disclosed · DPA attached | [ __ ] |
| Vendor financial viability | ARR & runway disclosed · contract escrow clause | [ __ ] |
| Switching cost / lock-in | 30-day data-export clause in contract | [ __ ] |
| Adoption risk | 30/60/90 plan · success gates · rollback path | [ __ ] |
06 / 07
SLIDE 6 · IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
30 / 60 / 90 — gates, owners, rollback
| Day | Milestone | Gate (pass = proceed) |
|---|
| 30 | Brief template migrated · first cycle live | One cycle completed end-to-end |
| 60 | Full team trained · workflow standardised | Response rate measured vs baseline |
| 90 | BAFO & contracting flow live | One cycle with measured commercial improvement |
Rollback path: if any gate fails, the team exports data within 30 days and reverts to the prior process. The decision is reversible.
07 / 07
SLIDE 7 · SUCCESS METRICS & GOVERNANCE
Three KPIs, quarterly review, annual renewal gate
KPI 1 — Response rate
Target [ __ %]
KPI 2 — Hours per cycle
Target [ __ h]
KPI 3 — Error count
Target [ __ ]
Outcome — BAFO savings
€ [ __ ] / cycle
Cadence: quarterly dashboard to the board · annual renewal review with revised ROI worksheet · ad-hoc exception report if any KPI moves >15% from baseline.