Illustrative example using synthetic data

Sample Technology Decision Brief

Technology Decision Brief: Q1 Portfolio Review

The following Decision Cards illustrate the structure of a TekLedger Technology Decision Brief. All company names, figures, dates, and findings are synthetic and do not represent any actual organization or situation.

A real brief covers one or more decision areas based on the customer's data and priorities. Each finding is linked to the source data provided by the customer and reviewed before use.

Organization

Acme Technology Group (Synthetic)

Prepared for

Chief Information Officer

Decision period

Q1 2025 (Synthetic)

Brief status

Illustrative — not reviewed or approved

TDB-001Vendors & Renewals
Verified
Illustrative example using synthetic data

Executive question

Which software renewals in the next 90 days create the most financial exposure, and are there viable alternatives?

Finding

Three software contracts totaling $1.24M (synthetic) renew within 90 days. One contract for $640K has a 60-day notice period that expires in 18 days. No renewal evaluation has been initiated.

Supporting evidence

Contract register export dated March 2025 (synthetic). Renewal dates confirmed against vendor notification schedule. No evaluation record found in the contract management system.

Financial or operational implication

$640K contract at risk of auto-renewing at current rate. Estimated $1.24M committed if all three renew without renegotiation. Two of the three vendors have competing alternatives at lower current market rates.

Recommended action

Initiate renewal review for the $640K contract within 5 business days. Issue notice of evaluation intent to preserve negotiating options. Assign procurement owner for the remaining two renewals by end of week.

Owner

Head of Procurement (lead), CIO (approval)

Timing

Notice required within 18 days. Full renewal decision within 45 days.

Assumptions and limitations

Renewal dates taken from contract register. Actual notice periods should be confirmed against original contract language.

TDB-002Technology Spend
Estimated
Illustrative example using synthetic data

Executive question

Where is actual spend diverging from the approved budget, and which variances require a decision?

Finding

IT spend for Q1 (synthetic) is 14% above the approved quarterly budget. The variance is concentrated in two categories: cloud infrastructure (+$280K vs. plan) and professional services (+$190K vs. plan). All other categories are within 3% of budget.

Supporting evidence

Finance GL export for Q1 (synthetic). Budget baseline from approved FY plan. Cloud spend broken down from provider billing export. Professional services mapped to active SOW register.

Financial or operational implication

If the Q1 run rate continues, full-year spend will exceed budget by approximately $1.9M (synthetic) before year-end actions. The cloud infrastructure variance is partially explained by a new initiative approved in February that was not reflected in the original budget.

Recommended action

Request a budget amendment to reflect the February initiative. Review the professional services variance with the relevant business owner to determine whether the spend is authorized. Reforecast Q2–Q4 with updated assumptions.

Owner

IT Finance lead (analysis), CIO (budget amendment request), CFO (approval)

Timing

Budget amendment to be submitted before Q2 close. Reforecast to be reviewed at the next monthly operating review.

Assumptions and limitations

Professional services mapped to business owner based on GL cost center. Some transactions may span multiple owners. Mapping should be confirmed with the IT Finance team.

TDB-003Application Portfolio
Estimated
Illustrative example using synthetic data

Executive question

Which applications are approaching end-of-support with no documented disposition decision?

Finding

Seven applications (synthetic) in the portfolio reach vendor end-of-support within 18 months. Three of these are classified as business-critical with no current modernization plan or funding allocation. Four have active alternatives already deployed elsewhere in the portfolio.

Supporting evidence

Application inventory export (synthetic). Vendor support lifecycle data from published vendor roadmaps. Business criticality rating from the application survey completed in Q4 2024. Budget plan reviewed for modernization line items.

Financial or operational implication

Operating business-critical applications on unsupported software creates compliance risk and increases the likelihood of unplanned remediation spend. Two of the three have active regulatory data-handling requirements.

Recommended action

For each of the three business-critical applications, assign an architecture owner and document a disposition recommendation (maintain on extended support, modernize, or replace with existing alternative) within 60 days. Initiate funding conversation for any option that requires capital.

Owner

Enterprise Architect (assessment), CIO (disposition approval), IT Finance (funding analysis)

Timing

Disposition decisions required within 60 days. Funding requests for any required modernization to be included in the mid-year review.

Assumptions and limitations

End-of-support dates sourced from publicly available vendor roadmaps as of March 2025. Dates are subject to change. Current deployment and usage data not validated against CMDB — inventory may not reflect decommissioned instances.

TDB-004Budget & Forecast
Estimated
Illustrative example using synthetic data

Executive question

What is the current full-year forecast, and which assumptions carry the most risk?

Finding

Based on Q1 actuals and known commitments, the current full-year forecast is $18.4M (synthetic) against a budget of $17.2M. The gap is primarily driven by the unplanned cloud spend and a professional services engagement that was approved outside the budget cycle. Three additional initiatives in the pipeline have not yet been funded.

Supporting evidence

Q1 actuals from Finance GL (synthetic). Approved budget from planning system. Known commitments from contract register. Pipeline initiatives from IT project register.

Financial or operational implication

If the three pipeline initiatives are approved, full-year spend could reach $20.1M (synthetic) — approximately 17% above budget. Two of the three have business cases submitted but no funding decision.

Recommended action

Present the updated full-year forecast to the CFO with a clear view of base case, funded initiatives, and pipeline scenarios. Request a funding decision on the two submitted business cases before the end of Q2.

Owner

IT Finance lead (forecast), CIO (presentation), CFO (decision)

Timing

Forecast to be reviewed with CFO before end of Q2. Pipeline funding decisions requested by June 15.

Assumptions and limitations

Pipeline initiative costs are estimates based on submitted business cases and have not been validated against vendor quotes. Forecast assumes no material unplanned spend in Q2–Q4 beyond identified items.

Illustrative example — synthetic data only

All figures, dates, organization names, and findings in this sample are synthetic and provided solely to illustrate the structure of a TekLedger Technology Decision Brief. They do not represent any actual organization, financial situation, or product outcome. A real brief requires customer-supplied data and a review and approval process before use.

Get started

See what a brief built from your data would cover.

A private briefing identifies one decision problem, reviews what data you have, and confirms whether a Technology Decision Brief is the right starting point.

Request a Private BriefingLearn more about the brief