[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":72},["ShallowReactive",2],{"legacy:insights\u002Fdigital-roi-measurement:en":3},{"id":4,"title":5,"description":6,"keywords":7,"author":8,"robots":9,"bodyClass":10,"image":11,"jsonld":12,"html":71},"insights\u002Fdigital-roi-measurement","Digital ROI: replace gut feel with four measurable benefit types - JEDP Digital Platform","ROI debates often get stuck, mostly because the metrics aren't aligned. Starting from the project kickoff meeting, it involves providing four types of verifiable benefits—manpower, scrap rework, compliance audits, and cash delivery—seven potential cost omissions, the cost structure differences between base and custom, and how to honestly list items separately when they cannot be quantified.","Digital investment ROI, digital foundation versus traditional development, manufacturing digital investment output","Shenzhen Langbowan Information Technology Co., Ltd.","index, follow","page-insights","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Fres\u002Fimages\u002Fproduct\u002Fplatform-overview.webp",[13,31,45],{"@context":14,"@type":15,"@id":16,"headline":17,"description":6,"inLanguage":18,"datePublished":19,"dateModified":20,"articleSection":21,"keywords":22,"image":11,"author":23,"publisher":25,"isPartOf":26,"mainEntityOfPage":28},"https:\u002F\u002Fschema.org","Article","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Finsights\u002Fdigital-roi-measurement#article","Digital ROI: replace gut feel with four measurable benefit types","zh-CN","2026-09-24","2026-10-17","Digital · Implementation","digitalization ROI, digital platform versus traditional development, manufacturing digitalization return on investment",{"@id":24},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002F#organization",{"@id":24},{"@id":27},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Finsights#collection",{"@type":29,"@id":30},"WebPage","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Finsights\u002Fdigital-roi-measurement",{"@context":14,"@type":32,"itemListElement":33},"BreadcrumbList",[34,39,43],{"@type":35,"position":36,"name":37,"item":38},"ListItem",1,"Home","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002F",{"@type":35,"position":40,"name":41,"item":42},2,"Insights","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Finsights",{"@type":35,"position":44,"name":17,"item":30},3,{"@context":14,"@type":46,"@id":47,"mainEntity":48},"FAQPage","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.jedp.cn\u002Finsights\u002Fdigital-roi-measurement#faq",[49,55,59,63,67],{"@type":50,"name":51,"acceptedAnswer":52},"Question","Does improving efficiency count as a benefit?",{"@type":53,"text":54},"Answer","Conversion is required. A 30% increase in efficiency is not a benefit in itself unless it translates into measurable results - reduced headcount, increased output, shorter cycles, avoided overtime. The part that cannot be converted can only be classified as qualitative income.",{"@type":50,"name":56,"acceptedAnswer":57},"How can labor savings be calculated without exaggeration?",{"@type":53,"text":58},"It is recommended to calculate only the actual reductions that have occurred, such as job consolidation, reduced overtime hours, and reductions in outsourced temporary workers. If a person does not decrease but just feels relaxed, it should be classified as a qualitative gain and not included in the calculation.",{"@type":50,"name":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"Should internal manpower investment be included in costs?",{"@type":53,"text":62},"Yes. The business unit's sorting time, testing time, and training time are all real costs, but they are not reflected as cash expenses. Ignoring it can lead to inflated ROI and distorted project schedules.",{"@type":50,"name":64,"acceptedAnswer":65},"When will the returns start to show?",{"@type":53,"text":66},"Usually after the core scenario is online and running steadily. It is recommended to separate the pre-launch, stable period, and maturity period according to the staging calculation, rather than counting all the benefits in the first year.",{"@type":50,"name":68,"acceptedAnswer":69},"If the ROI calculation comes out low, should we still do it?",{"@type":53,"text":70},"Look at the type of decision. ROI is not the only basis for mandatory compliance, customer entry thresholds, and major security risks; operational improvement projects should clearly explain the return to the current cycle and revenue concentration.","\u003Carticle class=\"insight-article\">\n    \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-container\">\n      \u003Cnav class=\"breadcrumb\" aria-label=\"Breadcrumb\">\n        \u003Ca href=\"\u002F\">Home\u003C\u002Fa>\n        \u003Cspan class=\"breadcrumb-sep\">\u002F\u003C\u002Fspan>\n        \u003Ca href=\"\u002Finsights\">Insights\u003C\u002Fa>\n        \u003Cspan class=\"breadcrumb-sep\">\u002F\u003C\u002Fspan>\n        \u003Cspan>Digital · Implementation\u003C\u002Fspan>\n      \u003C\u002Fnav>\n\n      \u003Cheader class=\"insight-hero\">\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-tags\">\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">ROI\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">Digital investment\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">Cost modeling\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Cspan class=\"r-tag\">Decision reference\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n        \u003Ch1>Digital ROI: replace gut feel with four measurable benefit types\u003C\u002Fh1>\n        \u003Cp class=\"insight-lede\">The most common argument when setting up a digitization project is whether it is worth it or not. Arguments are often inconclusive not because the benefits don't exist, but because the two sides are speaking with different definitions - one counts the numbers that can be corroborated, the other says the feelings.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-meta\">\n          \u003Cspan>Updated 2026-09-24\u003C\u002Fspan>\n          \u003Cspan class=\"dot\" aria-hidden=\"true\">\u003C\u002Fspan>\n          \u003Cspan>~9 min read\u003C\u002Fspan>\n          \u003Cspan class=\"dot\" aria-hidden=\"true\">\u003C\u002Fspan>\n          \u003Cspan>Manufacturing digitalization · Digital · Implementation\u003C\u002Fspan>\n        \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n      \u003C\u002Fheader>\n      \u003Csection class=\"insight-takeaways\">\n        \u003Ch2>What you'll take away\u003C\u002Fh2>\n        \u003Cul>\u003Cli>The root cause of the ROI dispute is that the revenue definition is not uniform, not that the revenue does not exist.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Four types of measurable benefits - labor savings, scrap and rework reductions, audit and compliance costs, delivery and cash cycles, each of which must be evidentiary\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>The cost side must be fully calculated, the most easy to leak are internal manpower investment, training costs and follow-up maintenance.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Three common inflation tricks: treat efficiency lift as cash benefit, annualize one-time savings, and ignore maintenance cost.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Some gains are indeed unquantifiable, and it is honest to state them separately rather than scramble the numbers\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\n      \u003C\u002Fsection>\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-layout\">\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-body\">\n\u003Ch2 id=\"立项会上-两边其实没在吵同一件事\">At the project kickoff meeting, both sides were actually not arguing about the same thing.\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Finance asks, 'Where is the money?' Operations respond, 'Efficiency has increased a lot.' Sales adds, 'We can break even in a year.' The IT department throws out industry averages from vendors' case studies. The more the arguments escalate, the more deadlocked they become—not because the benefits don’t exist, but because one side talks about verifiable amounts while the other talks about perceptions and marketing claims. Mixing these two types of language in the same spreadsheet means review meetings will never end. There is only one way to make discussions productive: break down the benefits into figures that can be traced to actual documents—those that can be verified are included in calculations, those that can’t are listed separately with explanations. This way, the calculation results won’t fluctuate wildly due to differing perspectives, and the break-even narrative can withstand a review in the second year. Align the methodology first, then debate the numbers; without alignment, the numbers are meaningless.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"四类收益-每行都要说得出-取自哪张单\">Four types of income: for each item, you need to be able to say 'taken from which sheet'\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Ch3 id=\"人力节省\">Labor saving\u003C\u002Fh3>\n\u003Cp>The amounts that can usually be realized only come from actual changes: merging positions or not adding new positions (for reconciliation, statistics, ledger-related roles), a decrease in overtime hours, and a reduction in externally hired temporary workers. Evidence is obtained by comparing staffing tables, attendance overtime, and external hire settlement forms. The feeling of 'becoming more relaxed' is qualitative and is not included in calculations. If no staff have been reduced and the staffing has not been frozen, yet 'potentially releasable capacity' is recorded as cash gains, this is the most common self-comfort in project approval materials.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch3 id=\"报废与返工减少\">Reduction of scrap and rework\u003C\u002Fh3>\n\u003Cp>Material scrap losses, rework hours and capacity occupancy, customer returns and claims—the statistical scope and defect determination standards must be the same before and after, otherwise the comparison is meaningless. Evidence comes from scrap orders, rework orders, and the history of customer returns and claims.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch3 id=\"审核与合规成本\">Audit and compliance costs\u003C\u002Fh3>\n\u003Cp>Reduction in man-days required for audit preparation, decrease in external consulting and rectification costs, and reduction in rework and downtime losses caused by non-conformities. The audit itself is documented, and this type is often not difficult to provide evidence for; don't just calculate a single audit and ignore routine maintenance.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch3 id=\"交付与现金周期\">Delivery and Cash Cycle\u003C\u002Fh3>\n\u003Cp>Capacity release brought by the shortening of order or project delivery cycles, early cash collection brought by the shortening of reconciliation and invoicing cycles, and decreased capital occupation brought by improved inventory turnover—can be measured using delivery ledgers, accounts receivable aging, inventory turnover, and capital occupancy calculated by the cost of capital. Treating market fluctuations as system gains is the most common kind of switch.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cdiv class=\"table-scroll\">\u003Ctable>\u003Cthead>\u003Ctr>\u003Cth>Income Type\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Evidence recommended for linkage\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Common pitfalls\u003C\u002Fth>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Fthead>\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Labor saving\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Working hours, overtime, external hiring settlement\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Put the feeling into the amount\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Scrap rework\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Scrap\u002FRework Order, Customer Return Claim\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>The criteria for judgment are inconsistent before and after\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Audit compliance\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Nonconformities, rectification work hours, consulting contract\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Counted as one review only\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Deliver cash\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Delivery time, accounts receivable aging, inventory turnover\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Attribute the market movement to the system's merit\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Ftbody>\u003C\u002Ftable>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\u003Cp>Evaluation Criteria: For each amount in the calculation sheet, you must be able to indicate which document, which report, and which month's baseline it comes from. For rows that cannot be traced, downgrade them to qualitative descriptions first. The table header is more important than the total score: rows without a responsible person and data extraction rules will definitely be rejected in the review meeting. When calculating in stages, separately write the pre-launch, stable, and mature periods. It is forbidden to prematurely include mature period revenues that have not yet occurred into the first-year payback story — doing so will lead to immediate exposure during the second-year review.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"成本漏项怎样把回报吹高\">How to exaggerate returns by omitting costs\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>The other half of inflated ROI comes from not accounting for all costs:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cdiv class=\"table-scroll\">\u003Ctable>\u003Cthead>\u003Ctr>\u003Cth>Cost item\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Common leakage methods\u003C\u002Fth>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Fthead>\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Software cost\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Only count the first year, ignoring maintenance and expansion\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Implementation cost\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Only count the first phase, ignoring subsequent scenarios\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Hardware and Network\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Terminals, barcode scanning devices, network renovation\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Internal manpower\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Sorting, testing, and data cleaning man-hours\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Training\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Go online, retraining, and retraining after relocation\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Integration\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>API development and long-term maintenance\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Change\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Process and configuration adjustments after going live\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Ftbody>\u003C\u002Ftable>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\u003Cp>Internal manpower is the easiest to be overlooked and underestimated—it doesn’t show up as cash expenditure, yet it is the main cause of delays. The man-days spent on business process review, joint testing, and master data cleansing, if not accounted for on the cost side, will systematically inflate returns and distort scheduling. Hand the estimation table to a financially neutral party and ask them to point out any items with unclear sources; usually, if they can identify more than three, it indicates that the metrics are not solid enough.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Three exaggeration tactics need to be proactively dismantled: treating a 'few percent efficiency improvement' directly as a benefit; counting one-time savings as if they repeat every year; only accounting for construction costs and ignoring operating costs. In addition, there are tactics like shifting comparison standards and compressing benefits that only appear in the stable period into the first year — all of which artificially shorten the payback story. Any 'industry average return' claimed in vendor promotions should not be used in your analysis until verified against your onsite baseline — that is marketing material, not your financial evidence.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"底座与从零开发-别用同一张错表硬比\">Develop the base from scratch, don't forcefully compare using the same wrong chart\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>When discussing 'buying a platform' versus 'custom development,' if the cost structure is not broken down, the conclusion will inevitably be skewed:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cdiv class=\"table-scroll\">\u003Ctable>\u003Cthead>\u003Ctr>\u003Cth>Structure\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Traditional Customization\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Digital foundation\u003C\u002Fth>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Fthead>\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Initial phase of construction\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>The development and joint debugging cycle is long, and the proportion of manpower is high\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>High proportion of configurations and templates, shorter initial phase\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Change\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Revise requirements and redevelop\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>When rules are configurable, the marginal cost is lower\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Upgrade and Maintenance\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Custom code easily becomes an upgrade liability\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>It is necessary to confirm whether the extension point can be smoothly upgraded with the version\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Exit\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Having the source code ≠ business can be migrated\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Data and configuration export capabilities must be listed separately\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Ftbody>\u003C\u002Ftable>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\u003Cp>The base platform does not automatically save money — when the secondary development ratio spirals out of control, you end up paying both the platform fee and the custom development debt. Internally and externally, one should separately list the 'expected coverage ratio of configurations' and the 'expected ratio of code extensions,' and provide a three-year rolling maintenance assumption. Exit costs also need to be listed separately: whether the full structure and data can be exported, the extent to which interfaces are open, and whether privatization is feasible — having the source code does not equal business transferability. The value of base-level solutions like JEDP should be discussed in terms of change frequency, configuration coverage ratio, and exit costs, rather than throwing out an unverifiable promotional number.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"无法量化就单列-硬凑会拖垮整份材料\">If it cannot be quantified, list it separately; forcing it in will drag down the entire material.\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Common qualitative benefits: decision-making shifts from experience to data, reduced risk due to traceability, recognition of management by clients and auditors, retention of knowledge during staff turnover, meeting thresholds for client onboarding or system audits (sometimes mandatory). These are not reflected in ROI figures and can be separately explained in project initiation documents—forcing them into the calculation table can actually undermine credibility; if one item is questioned, other figures may also be doubted. For operational improvement projects, the payback period and concentration of benefits should be clearly explained before finalizing decisions; when benefits are highly concentrated in a single area and difficult to substantiate, the risks should be explicitly stated in the documentation, rather than obscured by overall scores.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Applicable four-stage structure: Input list (construction period and operation period, all seven types of costs listed) → Revenue list (four types separated, indicating the data sources and standards) → Phased calculation (pre-launch \u002F stable period \u002F mature period, not compressing all revenue into the first year) → Qualitative benefits listed separately. When looking at the conclusion, focus on the payback period and the structure of revenue sources — if it is highly concentrated in one item and difficult to verify, the risk is high.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cdiv class=\"table-scroll\">\u003Ctable>\u003Cthead>\u003Ctr>\u003Cth>Example of income items\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Baseline\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>After going online\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Conversion\u003C\u002Fth>\u003Cth>Person in charge\u003C\u002Fth>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Fthead>\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Overtime for account reconciliation\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Overtime hours for attendance in the past six months\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Monthly overtime of the same definition\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Hours × Comprehensive Hourly Cost\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Finance   Procurement\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Incoming Material Scrap Amount\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Scrap orders judged in the past twelve months\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Scrap Order for the Same Material Range\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Material Cost Variance\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Quality\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Man-days for audit preparation\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Last time the client audited the working hours\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Next time to review working hours\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Man-days × Total man-day cost\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Quality system\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd>Improvement in accounts receivable aging\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Accounts Aging Distribution Before Renovation\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Aging distribution during the stable period\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Advance Payment × Capital Cost\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd>Finance\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Ftbody>\u003C\u002Ftable>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\u003Cp>When the requirements are unclear, the pre-renovation baseline is unavailable, compliance is mandatory, the scale is too small, or the vendor's promotional figures are taken directly as revenue—these situations are not suitable for detailed calculations. Mandatory compliance, customer entry thresholds, and significant safety risks should not rely solely on return calculations as the basis, but it is still recommended to calculate costs clearly to avoid turning 'must do' into 'can do casually.' When the baseline is missing, it is better to spend some time first to account for scrapping, overtime, reconciliation cycles, and audit hours before discussing amounts; this step is often skipped, yet it forms the foundation for all subsequent comparisons. Before project initiation, an approximate ninety-day approach can be used: the first thirty days to complete the pre-renovation baseline package; the middle thirty days to freeze the revenue standards and evidence forms and have them countersigned by finance; the final thirty days to conduct a trial calculation for the pilot scenario and mark uncertain items—a draft with risk notes is more review-resistant than a single overall score.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2 id=\"评审会上换个讲法\">Change the way of speaking at the review meeting\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Don't start by throwing out 'what's the return rate'—overall scores are most likely to turn into a stance confrontation. Change the order: first show whether the baseline is complete (if there's no baseline, don't talk about returns yet); then show whether all seven cost items are included (especially internal labor and maintenance); next, only display the four types of documented benefits and indicate the source of the receipts; finally, list qualitative benefits and risk assumptions separately, and ask finance to point out the 'untrusted items'—downgrade or delete them on the spot. This protects the credibility of the materials better than stubbornly arguing 'it should exist'. Deleted items are not shameful; they pull the whole table from being a marketing piece back to auditable evidence. After calculations pass, align with the observation period of indicators in the acceptance stage, to avoid ROI tables splitting again between go-live and project closure—saying one thing at project initiation and another at closure will make the next initiation much harder.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>If your current project is stuck on 'worth it or not,' do two things first: update the pre-transformation baseline and make sure the benefit metrics are at a verifiable level. Only when the metrics are aligned can the debate turn into a decision; if the metrics are not aligned, the debate will just keep repeating. First, turn the perceived value into verifiable actions, then talk about whether it's worth it. Only when the actions are aligned does the overall score have the right to appear.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\u003Cli>Overview of JEDP Platform Capabilities\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Digital Investment ROI Calculation Sheet (with Formulas)\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>6 Weeks vs 6 Months: Comparison of Implementation Paths\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>How to set the acceptance checklist for a digital project\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\n        \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n        \u003Caside class=\"insight-toc\" aria-label=\"On this page\">\n          \u003Ch2>Contents\u003C\u002Fh2>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#立项会上-两边其实没在吵同一件事\">At the project kickoff meeting, both sides were actually not arguing about the same thing.\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#四类收益-每行都要说得出-取自哪张单\">Four types of income: for each item, you need to be able to say 'taken from which sheet'\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h3\" href=\"#人力节省\">Labor saving\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h3\" href=\"#报废与返工减少\">Reduction of scrap and rework\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h3\" href=\"#审核与合规成本\">Audit and compliance costs\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h3\" href=\"#交付与现金周期\">Delivery and Cash Cycle\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#成本漏项怎样把回报吹高\">How to exaggerate returns by omitting costs\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#底座与从零开发-别用同一张错表硬比\">Develop the base from scratch, don't forcefully compare using the same wrong chart\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#无法量化就单列-硬凑会拖垮整份材料\">If it cannot be quantified, list it separately; forcing it in will drag down the entire material.\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca class=\"h2\" href=\"#评审会上换个讲法\">Change the way of speaking at the review meeting\u003C\u002Fa>\n        \u003C\u002Faside>\n      \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-cta\">\n        \u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Want to apply this in your plant?\u003C\u002Fstrong>Resources has matching self-assessments and templates—or book a live demo.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-cta-actions\">\n          \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fresources#selftest\" class=\"btn btn-outline\">Self-assessment in Resources\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fcases#case-platform\" class=\"btn btn-outline\">Platform acceptance case\u003C\u002Fa>\n          \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fcontact?from=contact\" class=\"btn\">Get a demo\u003C\u002Fa>\n        \u003C!-- next-step:BEGIN -->\u003Ca class=\"btn\" href=\"\u002Fengines\">Product solution: \u003Cspan>Platform\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fa>\u003Ca class=\"btn btn-outline\" href=\"\u002Fres\u002Fresources\u002Fkits\u002F16-decision-digital-roi.html\">Matching resource kit: \u003Cspan>Digital investment ROI calculator\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fa>\u003C!-- next-step:END -->\n        \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n      \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n      \u003Csection class=\"insight-faq\" id=\"faq\">\n        \u003Ch2>FAQ\u003C\u002Fh2>\n        \u003Cp class=\"insight-faq-sub\">Quick answers on this topic—still stuck?\u003Ca href=\"\u002Fcontact?from=contact\">Contact\u003C\u002Fa>\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"faq-list\">\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\" open>\n          \u003Csummary>Does improving efficiency count as a benefit?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>Conversion is required. A 30% increase in efficiency is not a benefit in itself unless it translates into measurable results - reduced headcount, increased output, shorter cycles, avoided overtime. The part that cannot be converted can only be classified as qualitative income.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>How can labor savings be calculated without exaggeration?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>It is recommended to calculate only the actual reductions that have occurred, such as job consolidation, reduced overtime hours, and reductions in outsourced temporary workers. If a person does not decrease but just feels relaxed, it should be classified as a qualitative gain and not included in the calculation.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>Should internal manpower investment be included in costs?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>Yes. The business unit's sorting time, testing time, and training time are all real costs, but they are not reflected as cash expenses. Ignoring it can lead to inflated ROI and distorted project schedules.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>When will the returns start to show?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>Usually after the core scenario is online and running steadily. It is recommended to separate the pre-launch, stable period, and maturity period according to the staging calculation, rather than counting all the benefits in the first year.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003Cdetails class=\"faq-item\">\n          \u003Csummary>If the ROI calculation comes out low, should we still do it?\u003C\u002Fsummary>\n          \u003Cp>Look at the type of decision. ROI is not the only basis for mandatory compliance, customer entry thresholds, and major security risks; operational improvement projects should clearly explain the return to the current cycle and revenue concentration.\u003C\u002Fp>\n        \u003C\u002Fdetails>\n        \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n      \u003C\u002Fsection>\n      \u003Csection class=\"insight-related\">\n        \u003Ch2>Related reading\u003C\u002Fh2>\n        \u003Cdiv class=\"insight-related-grid\">\n          \u003Carticle class=\"r-card\">\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"r-tags\">Digital foundation\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n            \u003Ch3>Choosing a digital foundation: set the yardstick with these 8 questions before talking price\u003C\u002Fh3>\n            \u003Cp>When the manufacturing industry chooses a digital foundation, set the benchmark first before discussing the price. Cover the modeling limits, process engine, data ownership, secondary development boundaries, and more with 8 questions that can be verified on the spot…\u003C\u002Fp>\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"r-meta\">2026-08-13 · ~9 min\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n          \u003C\u002Farticle>\n          \u003Carticle class=\"r-card\">\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"r-tags\">Digital · Implementation\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n            \u003Ch3>What “done” means for a digital project: an executable acceptance checklist\u003C\u002Fh3>\n            \u003Cp>If 'completion' was never written down at the start of the work, the closing will only result in a dispute over positions. Clearly write down the proof methods using the four standards of functionality being usable, data being correct, users being able to use it, and metrics improving, and provide scenario sampling, phased acceptance, and the three items of the contract...\u003C\u002Fp>\n            \u003Cdiv class=\"r-meta\">2026-10-08 · ~9 min\u003C\u002Fdiv>\n          \u003C\u002Farticle>\n        \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n      \u003C\u002Fsection>\n    \u003C\u002Fdiv>\n  \u003C\u002Farticle>",1793937990351]