This cost benefit analysis template compares incremental costs and counted benefits against the current process over one shared period. The filled example shows both assumptions, the counting basis for every row, and effects that have not been assigned a dollar value.
Define the comparison before listing amounts
The original fictional example is a tool-library labeling pilot. It compares the proposed labels with continuing the existing labeling process over 12 weeks. All amounts are illustrative US dollars. No actual waste, staff performance, supplier price, or pilot result has been measured.
The baseline is the existing process. It is not a claim that operating without the pilot is free. The table includes only the supplied changes relative to that baseline; existing costs that would remain the same are outside this comparison.
Asana's cost-benefit template compares expected costs and benefits and considers monetary and nonmonetary items. Use clear categories and a common comparison period. A template cannot establish the missing quantities for your actual project.
Read the complete cost model
| Incremental cost | Supplied counting basis | Modeled amount |
|---|---|---|
| Labels | One-time proposed label materials. | $240 |
| Setup effort | 6 additional setup hours valued at an assumed $25 per hour. | $150 |
| Additional supplies | $10 per week for 12 weeks. | $120 |
| Total supplied modeled costs | $240 + $150 + $120. | $510 |
The setup row values staff time used by the pilot. It does not establish an additional payroll payment. Keep that resource cost distinct from cash spending when the budget owner reviews the proposal.
Taxes and any other costs are not supplied. Do not turn them into confirmed zeros or describe $510 as an exhaustive real-world cost. For an actual analysis, check what additional setup, operating, maintenance, and other costs belong in the chosen scope and period.
Compare the benefit assumptions on the same basis
The counted monetary benefit is avoided consumable waste relative to the current process. Neither rate below is measured. Select $50 per week or $30 per week in the example to compare the supplied assumptions.
| Scenario | Counted benefit over 12 weeks | Benefit minus supplied modeled costs |
|---|---|---|
| $50 of avoided waste per week | $50 × 12 = $600 | $600 − $510 = +$90 |
| $30 of avoided waste per week | $30 × 12 = $360 | $360 − $510 = −$150 |
The first case is positive within this supplied model; the second is negative. Neither is an achieved saving or an approval to run the pilot. The change shows why the benefit-rate assumption needs evidence before a recommendation.
Under the fixed $510 supplied-cost model, the monetary benefit would equal those costs at $510 ÷ 12 = $42.50 per week. Additional costs or a different period would change that threshold. It is a question to investigate, not a target the pilot is known to reach.
The example also allows a custom nonnegative weekly benefit assumption. A blank field remains missing; zero means an explicit assumption of no counted monetary benefit. Editing the rate clears the old result until you choose Calculate scenario again.
Keep unpriced effects and staff time visible
The fictional proposal also suggests that staff might redirect 2 hours per week from searching to other work. That is 24 hours over the comparison period, if the assumption holds. No wage reduction or cash saving is supplied, so the model leaves that time outside the monetary-benefit total.
Do not add a wage-saving figure and a second dollar valuation of the same recovered hours as though they were independent benefits. Likewise, the six setup hours are a one-time resource cost; the proposed two hours per week concern a different recurring activity. Keep the activities and counting bases distinct.
A clearer label layout may be useful even when its effect has not been priced. Describe what would need to be observed rather than assigning a convenient dollar amount to clarity or satisfaction. The decision-maker can consider those effects alongside the monetary model without disguising assumptions as revenue.
Collect evidence that could change the comparison
Start with records of the current consumable waste and the part the pilot could plausibly avoid. Define the items, period, and counting method so a later pilot comparison uses the same basis. Check whether any apparent reduction merely moves costs elsewhere.
Confirm label and supply estimates, the setup work, and how the organization wants staff time represented. Then review the two scenarios with the budget owner. The useful question is whether a supported benefit estimate remains favorable after the relevant costs and limits are included.
Keep the underlying workbook and evidence records. This short, undiscounted 12-week exercise does not answer a multi-year investment question or supply the treatment of future costs and benefits for a different decision.
Copy a prompt for the comparison and review page
Create one complete HTML cost-benefit comparison review page.
Proposed change and current-process baseline: [PASTE]
Common comparison period and currency: [PASTE]
Incremental cost rows with counting basis and evidence: [PASTE]
Monetary benefit rows with assumptions and evidence: [PASTE]
Unpriced effects, staff-time treatment and missing costs: [PASTE]
Alternative assumptions and actual decision process: [PASTE]
Use only supplied amounts. Compare changes relative to the same
baseline/horizon. Separate resource valuation, cash spending and
cash savings. Do not invent prices, demand, measured savings, approval,
or dollar values for nonmonetary effects. Missing costs are not zero.
Include this original fictional tool-library labeling pilot:
Baseline: continue existing labeling process for 12 weeks.
Illustrative USD costs: labels $240 one-time; 6 additional setup hours
valued at $25/hour = $150 resource cost, not proof of extra payroll;
additional supplies $10/week * 12 = $120. Total supplied modeled $510.
Taxes/other costs unsupplied; no exhaustive actual-cost claim.
Assumed avoided waste $50/week * 12 = $600; net $600 - $510 = +$90.
Alternative $30/week * 12 = $360; net $360 - $510 = -$150.
Fixed supplied-cost equality $510 / 12 = $42.50/week; other costs change it.
All rates invented teaching assumptions, not measured pilot outcomes.
Potential staff-time redeployment 2 hours/week = 24 hours over 12 weeks
is unpriced and outside monetary benefits. No wage reduction supplied.
Do not double-count the same hours as wage saving and time valuation.
Keep one-time setup hours distinct from recurring search-time effect.
Provide $50/week and $30/week scenarios with complete counted rows and
the unchanged 12-week horizon. Add weekly-benefit assumption input and
Calculate scenario: require finite nonnegative number; empty is missing,
not zero; reject negative/nonfinite/invalid values with named feedback.
Calculate benefit = rate * 12 and net = benefit - 510. Zero gives
benefit $0/net -$510. Clear old result after edits. Label calculated
values modeled assumptions, not achieved savings or full actual costs.
Show unpriced effects and evidence questions beside the totals.
Include a blank comparison scaffold and temporary review-notes area;
preserve typing across scenario changes and confirm reset. No approval,
payment, investment recommendation, forecast guarantee or fake export.
At least 16px text, native labeled controls, visible focus, stacked records
at 360px without overflow. Inline CSS/JavaScript, no external assets,
network or storage. Return full HTML and the unresolved evidence needs.
Check one scenario by hand and inspect the unpriced rows before using the generated page. The $50 case should give $600 and +$90; the $30 case should give $360 and −$150. A result with more decimal places does not make either benefit assumption more reliable.
Review the counting rules with the budget owner
Put the HTML comparison in your NOS workspace when the budget owner needs to read the included costs, benefit assumptions, and unpriced time effect together. Ask which counting assumption would change the decision.
If “Staff savings” suggests a payroll reduction, clarify the static explanation to “Potential time redirected to other work; not counted as cash savings” in visual editing mode. Save it so colleagues can reopen the existing link and read the distinction. Update the maintained workbook and evidence records too; changing explanatory text does not change a calculation's underlying inputs.
Use the review to decide which estimate to verify next. Bring the confirmed evidence back to the comparison before requesting an actual project decision.