Review the remaining commitment after funding approval

A programme has spent 400,000 and asks for its next funding release. The original approval is still in the pack, but the expected service has changed. A smaller scope may now meet part of the need, and stopping would still incur exit and service costs.

A business case remaining commitments review should compare the choices available from today. Past expenditure belongs in the history and accountability record. It cannot, on its own, explain why the next commitment is worthwhile.

Establish one forward comparison period

Consider a fictional programme with three options over the next 18 months. The team estimates remaining costs of 800,000 for the full scope, 450,000 for a reduced scope and 120,000 to stop while meeting permitted exit and existing service obligations.

These are illustrative amounts in the same unspecified currency. They are not supplier quotes, a valuation or a recommendation to choose the cheapest option.

The 400,000 already spent is disclosed separately. Do not add it to only one option or describe stopping as free. Also avoid comparing a multi-year full service with a short exit cost while omitting obligations beyond that exit. Use a consistent horizon and disclose consequential costs or benefits that fall outside it.

Reconcile commitments before treating them as avoidable

Some future costs may be contractually committed under every option. Others may change if scope or timing changes. The decision record needs the basis for those distinctions, including the owner who confirmed them.

List the remaining commitments, cancellation or transition terms, ongoing service needs and resources that could be used elsewhere. A resource already paid for may still have an opportunity cost if another use is available.

The Green Book's treatment of sunk costs provides a useful conceptual boundary: costs already incurred differ from costs and benefits affected by the decision, while opportunity costs still matter. Its context is UK public-sector appraisal. The simple table here is not a complete Green Book appraisal or a discounted cash-flow model. The Green Book 2026, section 6.32.

Compare outcomes alongside the remaining spend

The reduced scope costs less in the example, but may leave an important service need unmet. Continuing may retain more benefits while exposing the organisation to a delivery risk that has increased. Stopping may release capacity but create disruption for people already depending on the programme.

For each option, identify the evidence for the expected outcome, the dependencies, the time to benefit and the operating owner. Keep unproven benefits visible as assumptions. Do not invent a monetary value simply to make the table calculate a favourable return.

The business-case sensitivity guide explores how changes in assumptions affect a product case. This review asks a different question: which remaining commitment should the organisation now accept?

Record the new decision without rewriting the old one

Retain the original approval and the assumptions that supported it. The current review should explain what changed, which evidence is now available and which future obligations the decision creates.

If the sponsor chooses the reduced scope, specify the service boundary and the needs deferred or abandoned. If the full scope continues, record the conditions attached to the next release. If the programme stops, identify the exit owner and the evidence needed to close its obligations.

Review timing should follow a meaningful change or commitment point, rather than wait for a standard reporting date after the money is already committed. A prior approval can explain how the programme arrived here. The next release needs a case for what the organisation will receive from the spending it can still decide.