---
title: "Almost nobody compares cost against value: the quarterly review"
slug: revision-costo-vs-valor
lang: en
situation: medir
format: plantilla
minutes: 15
video: 15
updated: 2026-10-19
sources:
  - label: "KPMG, Global AI Pulse Q3 2026"
    url: "https://kpmg.com/xx/en/media/press-releases/2026/09/new-kpmg-ai-pulse-survey-as-ai-maturity-converges-leading-organizations-show-what-ai-at-scale-requires.html"
    date: "2026-09-24"
---

# Almost nobody compares cost against value: the quarterly review

> For finance, operations or IT teams with more than three live AI tools, where nobody has reviewed, case by case, what each one delivered.

## When to use it

- A licence renewal arrives and nobody remembers which number it was supposed to improve.
- AI spend grows every quarter and the committee only sees the total.
- You are asked for "more AI budget" and do not know which of the current uses works.

## The sheet

One row per use case, not per tool: the same licence can hold three use cases with three verdicts.

| Use case | Owner | Monthly cost (licence + usage + review hours) | Metric it was meant to move | Evidence (data point, date, source) | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [What it does and for whom] | [From the business area, not IT] | [Three items; the third, estimated] | [A business number, not "productivity"] | [Before and after, with a date] | Keep / Adjust / Stop |
| Illustrative: support ticket summaries | Head of support | Licence + usage + 6 h/month of review | First-response time | From 4 h to 2.5 h over six weeks, per the ticketing system | Keep |
| | | | | | |

Verdict rule. Keep: there is dated evidence that the metric moved. Adjust: the metric exists but was never measured, or review hours eat the benefit. Stop: after a full quarter it moves no number at all.

Date of this review: ____________ · Next review: ____________ · Convened by: ____________

## How to fill it in 15 minutes

1. List use cases, not invoices: one row for each thing an area does with the tool.
2. Fill the cost with three items: licence, usage and the hours of whoever reviews what comes out. The third is almost never in the budget; estimate it and label it.
3. Write the metric it was meant to move. If the answer is "productivity" or "efficiency", it is not a metric yet.
4. Look for the evidence: one dated data point is worth more than ten opinions. If there is none, leave the cell blank; the blank is information.
5. The most common mistake: giving "keep" to everything that is used a lot. Usage is not value. A popular use case that moves no number is a popular expense.
6. Set the date of the next review before you close; the sheet only works if it is repeated.

## The line that is almost always missing

The evidence column. Companies know what each tool costs and even have a metric in mind; what is missing is the dated data point showing it moved because of the tool. Without that column, the verdict is an opinion formatted as a table.

## What the study says

Fact: KPMG published its Global AI Pulse survey for the third quarter on 24 September 2026, covering 2,131 senior leaders in 20 countries. 61% review AI costs when approving a project and 59% monitor them in operation. Only 12% consistently assess AI value against cost. The sample is large enterprises; its investment figures do not apply to a small or mid-sized company.

My reading: reviewing cost at approval is easy. Comparing cost against value every quarter is uncomfortable, because it forces you to switch things off. It is like approving a team's budget and never checking what it delivered.

## If this becomes a big decision

If a verdict means stopping a contract that is hard to reverse and it carries your name, the free tools at vicsol.org/decision-clarity/ help you structure it. They do not replace a formal review.

---

Vic Sol · Decision Desk · vicsol.org/resources/ · Free to use with attribution.
This sheet structures a conversation; it is not legal, financial or audit advice.