When you are building a case for refreshing devices across a school or trust, there can be a lot of technical, financial and operational information to bring together. A clear business case helps turn that information into a proposal that senior leaders, governors and trustees can consider with confidence.

The proposal will often be developed with the headteacher or CEO, alongside colleagues responsible for IT, finance and the curriculum. Their involvement can help ensure the proposed approach reflects the school’s priorities and financial position before it moves through the appropriate governance process.

The business case needs to explain more than the age or condition of the equipment. It should set out why investment is being considered, what the financial commitment could be and what the implications of delaying might be. Technical evidence will sit alongside considerations such as the overall cost, the effect on teaching and learning, the risks associated with the existing devices and the reasons for recommending a particular funding route.

The paper can also clarify the scope of the decision being requested. Depending on the school or trust’s governance arrangements, the board may be asked to approve a budget or preferred funding route, while detailed supplier selection and procurement can be handled through the organisation’s established procedures. Setting out what is being approved at this stage, and what will follow later, keeps the discussion focused and provides a clear record of the decision.

Information the paper could include

Every business case will be slightly different. The following areas could provide a useful starting point for deciding what to include.

• The current position and case for change. Device age, failure rates, software performance and operating system support dates all help explain why a refresh is being considered. The paper could also set out the likely implications of delaying, including any effect on repair costs, classroom use, security or safeguarding where relevant.

Much of this information may already be available through asset records, procurement paperwork and IT support data.

• Device age. A breakdown by purchase year, grouped into bands, from asset records or procurement paperwork may make the overall position easier to understand than including a full inventory.
  • Failure rate. Where records are available, repairs or replacements over the last one or two academic years, shown relative to fleet size, can make comparisons between years more meaningful.
  • Operating system support dates. Manufacturer support information can be checked against the devices in the school’s estate. Where a significant number of devices are approaching the end of support, including the relevant dates can help to provide a clear timeframe for the board to consider.

A short summary of the available evidence, with its source noted, can give the board a clear picture without requiring a full audit to be included in the main paper.

• The recommendation and the options considered. The main paper can provide a short summary of the recommended route and the reasons for selecting it, with a fuller comparison included as supporting information if needed.

The comparison might cover total cost, timing of payments, ownership at the end of the term, length of the commitment, flexibility to change device numbers, and any support or management included. The relevant factors will depend on the routes being considered.

If leasing is being considered, check the current requirements for your type of school or trust before making a commitment.

It is also worth noting any practical limitations or delivery considerations that come with the recommended approach. These might include deployment timescales, staff training, infrastructure changes or the school’s capacity to manage the transition.

• Costs over the relevant period. Showing the costs across the full period of the proposed commitment gives a more useful comparison than first-year expenditure alone. Where it can be estimated, the potential financial effect of delaying is worth including too.

The financial effect of delaying may not be possible to calculate precisely, but available evidence can still provide a useful indication. It helps to show where the estimate has come from, what assumptions have been made and where there is still uncertainty.

• Rising repair spend. Repair costs from the last one or two years can indicate how expenditure is changing. If these figures are used to estimate future costs, the assumptions behind the estimate should be stated clearly.
  • Support and staff time. Older devices generally require more support or create additional work for staff. This may not lead to a direct additional cost, but it can reduce the time available for other work. It is worth making that distinction clear in the paper.
  • Future replacement costs. Current market prices and recent comparable purchases provide a basis for estimating replacement costs. Any allowance for future price or specification changes should be identified as an assumption.
  • Security and operational risk. Devices or operating systems that are no longer supported carry security, compatibility or operational risks. These are best described in practical terms, with safeguarding included only where there is a clear and specific connection.

Label estimates as estimates, and explain how they were reached. This gives the board the context they need when considering the proposal.

Anticipating likely questions

The questions will vary between boards, but considering them in advance can help identify information that belongs in the paper or its appendices.

Could the refresh wait another year?
The answer might draw on device condition, failure trends, support dates, repair costs and the operational effect of delaying.

Could the existing devices be repaired or upgraded?
Where repair or upgrade has been considered, the paper can compare the cost and expected benefit with replacement.

Why is this funding route being recommended?
A short explanation of the alternatives considered and the reasons for the recommendation can provide useful context.

How confident are we in the figures?
The paper can identify the source and date of the costs, along with any assumptions or areas that still need to be confirmed through procurement.

What happens if the arrangement does not meet expectations?
For a lease or managed service, the paper can identify the proposed length of the commitment and any contractual points that will need to be explored during procurement, including review and exit arrangements.

Additional considerations for MATs

For a MAT, the business case may need to show both the trust-wide position and the circumstances of individual schools. Differences in device age, infrastructure, support arrangements and curriculum requirements affect whether a single approach or timetable is suitable across the trust.

The paper could explain which decisions will be made centrally, how any phased programme has been prioritised and whether procurement will be combined across multiple sites. Showing costs by school as well as for the trust as a whole can also make the proposed allocation of investment clearer.

Where a phased refresh is being considered, the paper could set out the proposed order, the reasons behind it and the capacity available to deploy and support the new devices.

Make the paper easy to use

Presentation matters. Keeping the main document concise, putting the recommendation near the beginning and moving supporting detail to an appendix can make the paper easier to work through in the meeting.

For a more complex proposal, it can be helpful to have someone available to answer technical, financial or procurement questions. Timing matters too, particularly where the decision needs to fit with the board’s meeting schedule or the school’s budget cycle.

Device refresh business case checklist

Before the paper is submitted, check whether it includes:

• the decision governors or trustees are being asked to make
• the proposed budget, funding route and timeframe
• whether the approach applies across the trust or only to specified schools, where relevant
• how costs will be allocated across schools, where relevant
• a summary of the current device estate
• evidence supporting the case for change
• the reason the decision is needed now
• the likely implications of delaying
• the recommended approach and the reasons for it
• a summary of the alternatives considered
• costs across the full period of the commitment
• the source and date of the financial figures
• the assumptions behind any estimates
• any proposed deployment phases and the support capacity required
• any key contractual considerations to cover during procurement
• any supporting information that belongs in an appendix
• the procurement steps that will follow approval

Not every item will be relevant to every proposal. The checklist can be adapted to the school’s circumstances, governance arrangements and the scale of the investment.

Moving from approval to procurement

Once the proposed direction has been approved, schools and trusts can move into the detailed procurement stage. This includes confirming the requirements, selecting a compliant route to market and testing the proposed approach with suppliers.

Everything ICT can support schools and trusts through this stage. We can help develop the requirement, engage suitable suppliers through a compliant route and manage the process through to contract award. For MATs, we’re able to help coordinate the approach across schools where a consistent model is appropriate.

If you are preparing a device refresh case and are ready to move into procurement, speak to our team.