Make It Board-Ready
Time to read: 6 minutes
Time to apply: 15 minutes
You've done the work. You know which priority to pursue. But your board keeps asking for "more analysis" or "better justification."
The problem isn't your decision. It's how you're presenting it. Boards want to see evidence, trade-offs, and risk management. If you don't structure your recommendation correctly, they'll say no by default.
What You'll Learn
- The 4 sections every board wants to see
- How to use your own data as evidence
- How to present trade-offs clearly
- Template you can copy
Why Boards Say No
We've reviewed hundreds of board presentations. Most fail for the same four reasons:
1. Not Enough Evidence
"We should invest in AI" isn't enough. Boards want data. How much will it cost? What's the expected return? What evidence supports this?
2. Unclear Trade-offs
Every decision has trade-offs. If you only show the upside, the board will assume you haven't thought it through. Show what you're NOT doing and why.
3. Missing Risk Analysis
"What could go wrong?" is the first question boards ask. If you don't answer it proactively, they'll spend the whole meeting on it.
4. No "Why Now"
Timing matters. Why is this decision urgent? What happens if we wait 6 months? If you can't answer this, the board will defer.
The 4-Section Format
This is the format we use for all our client recommendations. It answers every question boards ask:
Section 1: WHY (Context)
What problem are we solving? Start with the business context. What's changed? What's at risk? Why does this matter?
Example: "Our platform can't scale to 10M users. Current architecture supports 2M. We're at 1.8M. We'll hit the limit in 6 months."
Section 2: WHAT (Recommendation)
What are we proposing? State your recommendation clearly. What are the options? Which one do you recommend?
Example: "We evaluated 3 options: (1) Rebuild, (2) Incremental refactor, (3) Buy a platform. We recommend option 2: Incremental refactor over 18 months."
Section 3: HOW (Approach)
How did we evaluate this? Show your framework. How did you score options? What data did you use? What trade-offs did you consider?
Example: "We scored each option on Outcome (scale to 10M), Risk (delivery probability), Speed (time to value), and Cost (total investment). Incremental refactor scored 4, 4, 3, 5. Rebuild scored 5, 2, 1, 2."
Section 4: NOW (Next Steps)
What happens next? Give the board a clear path forward. What are the milestones? What do you need from them?
Example: "Phase 1 (Q1): Database migration. Phase 2 (Q2-Q3): API refactor. Phase 3 (Q4): Frontend modernization. We need approval for £500k budget and 6-month roadmap freeze."
Using Your Own Data
The best evidence is your own data. Here's how to gather it:
1. Performance Metrics
Show current performance and future projections. "Our API response time increased 40% in the last 6 months. At this rate, we'll breach SLAs in Q3."
2. Team Velocity
Quantify the impact on delivery. "Tech debt slows us by 30%. We delivered 12 features this year vs 18 last year with the same team size."
3. Customer Impact
Tie decisions to customer outcomes. "60% of enterprise prospects cite our lack of SSO as a deal-blocker. We lost £800k in deals last quarter."
4. Competitive Position
Show market trends. "3 of our top competitors launched AI features in Q4. We're now missing from 40% of RFPs that require AI capabilities."
Presenting Trade-offs
The most credible recommendations acknowledge what you're NOT doing. Here's how:
Trade-off Framework
What we're doing: Incremental refactor over 18 months
What we're NOT doing: Complete platform rebuild
Why: Rebuild would deliver better long-term architecture but carries 60% risk of missing deadlines and costs 2× more. Incremental refactor delivers 80% of the value at 40% of the cost and 30% of the risk.
What we're sacrificing: Perfect architecture. We'll have some technical compromises in legacy modules.
This shows you've thought through alternatives and made an informed choice, not just picked the easiest option.
Real Example: Rebuild vs Refactor
Context: A SaaS CTO presenting to the board on a platform scaling decision.
WHY (Context)
Our platform can't scale beyond 2M users. We're at 1.8M and growing 15%/quarter. We'll hit capacity limits in 6 months. This blocks our enterprise sales motion and puts £5M ARR at risk.
WHAT (Recommendation)
We recommend an 18-month incremental refactor costing £450k. This will scale us to 10M users while maintaining current feature velocity. Alternative options (rebuild, buy platform) scored lower on risk and speed.
HOW (Approach)
We scored 3 options using Outcome, Risk, Speed, Cost:
• Incremental refactor: 4, 4, 3, 5 = 16
• Platform rebuild: 5, 2, 1, 2 = 10
• Buy platform: 3, 3, 4, 3 = 13
Evidence: Engineering team velocity data, customer churn analysis, competitor benchmarking.
NOW (Next Steps)
Phase 1 (Q1): Database sharding - £150k
Phase 2 (Q2-Q3): API layer refactor - £200k
Phase 3 (Q4): Caching and optimization - £100k
We need: £450k budget approval and commitment to 18-month roadmap priorities.
The Outcome: Board approved in one meeting instead of the usual three. Clear structure + evidence + trade-offs = confidence.
Template You Can Copy
BOARD RECOMMENDATION TEMPLATE
WHY (Context)
• What problem are we solving?
• What's the business impact?
• What's the timeline/urgency?
WHAT (Recommendation)
• What options did we evaluate?
• Which option do we recommend?
• What's the expected outcome?
HOW (Approach)
• How did we evaluate options?
• What data/evidence supports this?
• What are the trade-offs?
NOW (Next Steps)
• What are the phases/milestones?
• What resources do we need?
• What decision do we need from the board?
Summary
Boards say no when recommendations lack evidence, trade-offs, risk analysis, or urgency.
Use the 4-section format:
- WHY: Context and business impact
- WHAT: Clear recommendation
- HOW: Framework and evidence
- NOW: Next steps and ask
Present trade-offs explicitly. Show what you're NOT doing and why. This builds credibility and demonstrates thorough thinking.
Ready to Apply This?
Take your current recommendation and restructure it using the WHY-WHAT-HOW-NOW format. You'll see immediately where the gaps are.
Need Help Applying This to Your Situation?
We use these frameworks with our clients every month to make priority decisions in 30 days (or less).