Why do deals stall? Low return, bad numbers, or the wrong scope? When a deal stalls, people usually blame the price. But there are three different problems, and they need three different fixes. Maybe the return really is too low. Maybe the number nobody trusts it. Or maybe the number was worked out at the wrong level - for the whole company, when it should have been for one line. Mixing these up wastes a lot of meetings. Advanced Processes ran a small test to see which one shows up first, using real public information instead of a sales demo. Starting with what's public. Cutsforth's InsightCM recently published a Reliability ROI Calculator. You enter eleven numbers about your plant; it gives back five results, compared to what the best plants in the world achieve, in terms a finance team understands - money, not just "fewer breakdowns." Advanced Processes tried it on a large, listed cement company using only what they publish: four production lines, about 13.5 million tonnes of yearly capacity in one site, and a rule the company states itself - any project must pay for itself in 3 to 5 years. Seven of the eleven numbers came straight from what the company publishes. Four numbers - maintenance cost, spare parts value, unplanned downtime, and idle time - are not public anywhere. Advanced Processes filled these in using typical industry numbers, just to see what would happen. Something broke right away: the maintenance cost came out about five times higher than what good plants spend. Why? Because Advanced Processes divided one segment's revenue by the whole company's asset value. Different levels don't mix. That's an important lesson. It looked like "the project is a bad idea." It was really "the calculation used the wrong scope." Worth checking before deciding the return is too low. Doing it again, for just one line. Advanced Processes tried again, this time for a single production line - about a quarter of the segment's revenue - using simple, independent industry averages instead of the broken number. Closing half the gap in maintenance cost, and half the gap in uptime, gives a benefit of around 68 million baht a year. A pilot for one line - sensors, software, and setup - might cost around 25 million baht. That means the money comes back in about 4 to 5 months. Well inside the company's own 3-to-5-year rule. To be clear: these are illustration numbers, not real numbers for any named company. They don't replace the four numbers that only the plant itself has. But they show what happens when you fix the scope instead of giving up. And when the number still isn't good enough. Sometimes a project won't clear the hurdle, even with the right scope. Maybe the plant already runs close to the best in the world. That's not a failed sales call - it's useful information. The same exercise that gives a payback number also shows where the maintenance money goes: is it a few big, unplanned breakdowns, or too many small, scheduled check-ups on equipment that's actually fine? Maybe one type of machine can go longer between check-ups without more risk, freeing up budget for something else. Even if this specific project doesn't win this year's budget, the maintenance manager now knows exactly why his number looks the way it does - and that's useful the next time budgets are decided. Keeping score after the decision. Even a project that gets approved is still based on just one estimate. Nothing updates it unless someone runs the whole exercise again by hand. Connecting the monitoring system's alerts and work orders to the plant's existing ERP or maintenance software fixes this - the same numbers the business case was built on get recalculated automatically, inside the software finance already trusts, every few months instead of once. What this means. Before saying a project has a weak return, check whether the number was actually wrong, or just measured at the wrong level - the fix is completely different in each case. When the numbers are done properly and it still doesn't clear the bar, that's not wasted work - it tells the maintenance manager exactly what drives his costs, useful for the next budget round either way. And whatever does get approved needs a way to keep proving itself after the decision is made, or the business case stops being true the day it's signed. Where to start. Most transformation programs fail in the gap between strategy and execution. The lower-risk way in is a structured assessment before any major commitment: understand the current state, map the gaps, build the business case - then decide. The Transformation Readiness Review is a fixed-scope, four-week assessment for mid-sized companies in ASEAN and Europe - two two-week sprints with a mid-point review. You get an as-is picture of your processes, people, and systems, a prioritized gap analysis, a business case quantifying gains against investment, and a transformation roadmap you can take to your board, your bank, or a government funding program. Advanced-Processes works alongside your team rather than above it, and builds the capability your organization keeps after Advanced Processes step back.