The language you use and the way you articulate the investment generated a direct reaction from those evaluating it. Not all investment decisions are about increasing revenue or improving cost performance in a way that directly drives free cash flows and NPV. Some might be about reducing risk, others are about modernizing end-of-life systems without unduly overpaying, other could be about protecting the existing revenue and maintaining status quo.

Storytime…

A Hong Kong-based financial services company sought to consolidate its claims processing and policy administration systems, reducing from 13 systems across six countries to a single regional platform. The project involved a comprehensive analysis of each system’s current and projected costs, along with their supporting business processes. This evaluation included both technical and financial assessments.

Initially, my role was to facilitate the business case for this consolidation. However, as the focus shifted toward value, I took on the role of project lead. The business case we built highlighted direct cost savings, indirect cost reductions from streamlined processes, and the future operating costs of the consolidated system. We also considered the added value of a unified system in improving customer experience, simplifying management, and enhancing the company’s ability to attract talent.

Everything seemed straightforward until it came time to present to the Southeast Asian board. As I sat in on prior agenda items, I listened carefully to the questions and concerns raised, recognizing an opportunity to adjust my approach. Without a chance to pre-present to the board or distribute materials in advance, I knew the language and framing would be crucial.

When it was my turn, I emphasized the strategic sense of consolidation—not just for cost recovery, but for long-term value creation. However, I also framed the decision as a matter of due diligence, assuring the board that it was a sound, defensible choice with clear ROI. This framing made the decision easier, despite the multimillion-dollar investment involved.

The key lesson I learned was the importance of listening to the room and adapting on the spot. By understanding how decisions were made and adjusting the language, I was able to guide the board through a complex decision more effectively. This experience has since influenced how I present decisions, both professionally and personally. I now regularly review past decisions with my team, analyzing where language and framing succeeded or faltered, to refine our approach moving forward.