AI ROI Calculator
Build a conservative business case from workflow volume, loaded labor cost, implementation cost, recurring cost, time reduction, and a confidence adjustment. The formula and sample calculation are visible.
Calculate AI ROI →A practical library for executives deciding where AI can create value, what evidence a project needs, how to govern risk, and when to stop. The collection connects original tools with source-graded statistics and named-company deployment evidence.
This enterprise AI research library by Paul Okhrem contains a free ROI calculator, governance checklist, readiness scorecard, use-case scorecard, governance maturity model, transformation roadmap, banking implementation checklist, source-graded statistics, and documented company examples. Use the tools to test economics and controls. Use the research to challenge assumptions. Each resource states its method, evidence limits, review date, and source links.
The label describes provenance, not quality. A calculator can be reproducible without proving an outcome. A company example can be documented without being independently audited.
| Asset type | What it contains | What it does not prove |
|---|---|---|
| Original, reproducible tool | Visible formula, scoring rule, assumptions, or editable template | That the tool caused a client result |
| Curated, source-graded evidence | External statistics with publisher, date, population, denominator, and limits | That an industry average applies to one company |
| Documented company example | A named organization, use case, and direct source | Independent validation of every provider claim |
| Disclosed commercial comparison | Buyer scenarios, provider sources, selection criteria, and publisher conflict | An independent analyst ranking or universal winner |
These resources are designed to be used in an executive working session. Inputs stay in the browser; downloadable files are editable and require no email address.
Build a conservative business case from workflow volume, loaded labor cost, implementation cost, recurring cost, time reduction, and a confidence adjustment. The formula and sample calculation are visible.
Calculate AI ROI →Score seven dimensions: economics, process, data, technology, governance, leadership, and adoption. Every score requires a named evidence owner.
Use the scorecard →Thirty-four controls organized around Govern, Map, Measure, Manage, and EU readiness, with minimum evidence and accountable-owner fields.
Open the checklist →A four-phase roadmap with executive questions, required outputs, decision gates, and a separate use-case prioritization worksheet.
Build the roadmap →Assign portfolio, workflow, production, risk, value, change, and stop decisions with a 12-decision board framework and editable RACI.
Use the governance framework →Compare value, scale, data readiness, workflow fit, time to evidence, risk, dependencies, and adoption with explicit hard-stop rules.
Prioritize AI use cases →Assess six governance domains, record evidence for each level, and define the next control improvement without using an opaque score.
Assess governance maturity →Move a bank AI workflow from mandate to controlled production with decisions, owners, model and vendor controls, evaluation, monitoring, and an editable CSV.
Use the banking guide →Statistics are grouped by decision context rather than repeated across generic articles. Check the source date, population, geography, and denominator before using any number in an investment case.
Agent adoption, economics, governance, and failure-risk evidence with source notes and limitations.
Read the report →Market size, enterprise demand, pricing context, adoption patterns, and source quality for consulting buyers.
Review the data →Governance adoption, board oversight, regulatory exposure, model risk, and operational-control evidence.
Review governance data →Chief AI Officer demand, role design, executive ownership, and evidence limits for fractional leadership.
Review CAIO data →Banking, fintech, insurance, fraud, operations, model risk, and named-source deployment evidence.
Review finance data →A repeatable prompt-panel method for separating mentions, citations, referral traffic, and qualified pipeline.
Use the benchmark method →Industry pages help teams establish a credible outside view. They do not substitute for a company-specific baseline, workflow map, control assessment, or investment decision.
Clinical, administrative, operational, and adoption evidence with source boundaries.
Healthcare data →Claims, underwriting, service, fraud, governance, and workforce evidence.
Insurance data →Maintenance, quality, supply chain, scheduling, robotics, and implementation evidence.
Manufacturing data →Diligence, portfolio operations, value creation, risk, and adoption evidence.
Private equity data →Discovery, merchandising, service, conversion, forecasting, and named-company evidence.
Retail data →A directory of documented production deployments, plus a dedicated finance collection covering major institutions.
Browse companies →Paul Okhrem publishes these first-party comparisons and offers one of the services. They are buyer guides, not independent research, analyst awards, or objective rankings. Use the visible criteria, verify primary provider sources, change the weights for your mandate, and run your own procurement process.
Compare independent, boutique, development, platform, and large-transformation options by buyer fit, with the method and publisher conflict visible.
Compare healthcare options →Compare seven strategy providers by mandate, strategy-to-production model, named senior accountability, governance, adoption, and scale.
Compare AI strategy firms →Compare named-principal, model-provider, global strategy, implementation, platform, and managed agentic AI delivery models.
Compare agentic AI providers →A page is not useful merely because it contains many numbers. This library keeps the practical artifact, the external evidence, the commercial service, and the claim boundary separate.
| Test | What the resource should show | Failure to avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Source | Named publisher, direct link, publication date, and context | Citing a secondary list that removed the denominator |
| Method | Formula, scoring rule, weights, assumptions, and decision threshold | A proprietary score that cannot be reproduced |
| Ownership | A named business, finance, risk, data, or technology owner | Assigning “the AI team” to every decision |
| Evidence limit | What the number or tool can and cannot establish | Treating an industry survey as a forecast for one company |
| Refresh | Visible review date and corrections route | Evergreen language attached to stale regulatory facts |