Credible value review
Objective. Equip Sales and CSM to run the value-review play: the customer (or the renewal) needs a defensible account of the value Time Champ has delivered, not a vanity deck. Show how Value Leakage, RCM Operations and the operational applications assemble a review that survives a sceptical CFO - built on the customer's baseline, with capacity kept separate from cash and every figure traceable to evidence.
A value review fails when it is a slide of impressive-looking numbers no one can defend. This play builds a credible one: start from the customer's own baseline, show verified recovery with evidence in Value Leakage, connect operational actions to outcomes in RCM Operations, and draw the supporting figures from the applications that produced them - Work Output, Capacity Planning, Quality and the rest. The value is a review the customer co-signs and a CFO cannot puncture. The boundary is the honesty discipline itself: capacity separate from cash, verified separate from projected, correlation separate from proven causality, and the customer's validation on the record.
See it in the demo
The problem and who feels it
A quarterly or renewal value review is coming and the temptation is a deck of big numbers. But the audience has changed: a CFO or procurement lead now wants to know how each figure was derived, whether it is realised or projected, and whether the customer agrees with it. Who feels it: a CSM whose renewal rests on a credible value story; an account executive defending expansion against a 'show me the ROI' challenge; the customer champion who has to carry the numbers to their own finance team and cannot afford to be caught with an inflated claim.
The problem is credibility. A review built on unverified or conflated numbers does more harm than none - one indefensible figure discredits the whole story and hands the sceptic the win.
The business impact
An uncredible value review costs the relationship, not just the meeting. Renewal and expansion risk - a CFO who disbelieves one number disbelieves the platform, and the renewal or expansion stalls. Lost trust - a champion burned by a figure they could not defend stops advocating. Wasted delivered value - real value that was actually delivered goes uncredited because it was buried in an unbelievable total. And in a displacement setting, a competitive opening - an inflated claim is exactly what an incumbent or rival uses to paint the whole business case as marketing.
The decision this play protects is the renewal or expansion itself, and the durability of the customer's trust, which is the CSM's core asset.
Which applications address it and how they chain
The play assembles the review from the applications that produced the evidence, in the order a sceptic will test it.
- The customer's baseline first - established at pilot (the S08 charter) and tracked since. Every value claim is a delta from this agreed starting point, not an absolute assertion.
- Value Leakage (https://leakage.demo.timechamp.io/) - the spine of the review: it shows findings moved from baseline to action to measurement to verified recovery, with evidence and an owner, and it keeps recovered capacity explicitly separate from cash recovered.
- RCM Operations (https://rcm-ops.demo.timechamp.io/#/mission) - connects the operational actions taken to the revenue-cycle outcomes, with the agreed AR/denial/TAT measures and validated outcomes.
- The source applications - Work Output (cost per clean unit, output per paid hour), Capacity Planning (plan accuracy), Quality and Call QA (recurring-error reduction) - each supplying the specific figure it produced, so every number traces back to where it was measured.
The chain: agreed baseline - verified recovery with evidence (Value Leakage) - operational actions tied to outcomes (RCM Operations) - each figure sourced from the application that measured it. Nothing in the review is unattributed.
The value story and how it is measured
The value is a review the customer co-signs and a CFO cannot puncture: every figure traceable to the application that produced it, every claim a delta from the agreed baseline, and the customer's validation on the record.
Build it from the applications' own measures: from Value Leakage, verified recovery with evidence and time to verification (not open or projected findings); from RCM Operations, validated outcomes against agreed measures; from Work Output, cost per clean unit; supported by the relevant others. Separate three columns explicitly - verified/realised value, capacity opportunity not yet converted, and projected value still to be proven - so the CFO sees exactly what is banked versus what is upside. The headline is the verified column; capacity and projected are shown honestly as separate, labelled upside.
The honest boundary - what this does not solve
This play produces a credible review; it does not let you claim value the account has not actually produced. The discipline is the deliverable.
- Capacity is not cash: recovered capacity (freed time) is reported separately from cash recovered, always. Adding them is the fastest way to lose a CFO.
- Verified is not projected: only verified recovery with evidence belongs in the headline. Open findings, projections and simulated improvements are labelled upside, never banked.
- Correlation is not causality: where value is attributed to a Time Champ action, acknowledge confounders (seasonality, staffing, other initiatives) and let the customer-validated before/after carry the claim, not an assertion of sole cause.
- No overlap-summing: overlapping findings cannot be added into one total - they may double-count the same capacity.
- The customer validates, you do not self-certify: a value review without the customer's agreement to the baseline and the numbers is a sales artifact, not a credible review. And commercial specifics (pricing, contractual ROI commitments) follow internal commercial ownership, not the CSM's own figures.
Interpretation check
A credible value review separates three things on the page: verified/realised value (the headline), capacity opportunity not yet converted, and projected value still to be proven. Capacity is never added to cash, verified is never mixed with projected, and the customer validates the baseline and the numbers - the CSM does not self-certify them.
In the field
KnackGlobal RCM renewal under ProHance pressure, and OVO's POC-to-expansion review: both need a value review a sceptical finance team cannot puncture. The play leads with Value Leakage verified recoveries and RCM Operations validated outcomes against the agreed baseline, shows capacity opportunity and projected upside as clearly separate upside, and puts the customer's validation on the record - the credible version that protects the renewal instead of a deck that invites the incumbent's counter-attack.
Practical task
Using the demo, assemble a one-page value review for a sample account: a three-column table (verified/realised, capacity opportunity, projected), each figure sourced from the application that produced it and expressed against the agreed baseline, with Value Leakage verified recoveries as the headline and RCM Operations validated outcomes beside them. Write the sentence that keeps capacity separate from cash and the step where the customer validates the numbers before the review is final.
Self-check
A CSM wants to open the QBR with one big combined value number. Why is that risky and what do you do instead?
A single combined number usually conflates verified cash, unconverted capacity and projected upside, and one indefensible component discredits the whole figure. Instead show three separate, labelled columns - verified/realised, capacity opportunity, projected - and lead with the verified column.
How do you make every figure in the review defensible to a CFO?
Trace each to the application that measured it (Value Leakage verified recovery, RCM Operations validated outcome, Work Output cost per clean unit) and express it as a delta from the agreed baseline. If a figure cannot be sourced and baselined, it does not go in the review.
Where is the capacity-versus-cash line in a value review?
Recovered capacity (freed time) and cash recovered are reported in separate columns and never added. Capacity is an opportunity until the customer converts it by redeploying, avoiding a cost or taking on more volume - the review says so explicitly.
An improvement coincided with a staffing change. How do you present the value honestly?
Acknowledge the confounder, present the customer-validated before/after rather than asserting Time Champ was the sole cause, and avoid claiming full credit. Correlation plus customer agreement is defensible; a sole-cause assertion is not.
Who signs off the numbers in a credible value review, and why does it matter?
The customer validates the baseline and the figures - it is a co-signed review, not a self-certified sales deck. Customer validation is what makes the champion able to carry it to their own finance team and what a CFO ultimately trusts.
Verified vs demo. The verified-recovery tracking, the capacity-versus-cash separation and the outcome-to-action linkage are demo-shown on seeded data. A specific account's value is NOT demo-provable - it requires the customer's agreed baseline, validated figures from each application, and the customer's own sign-off; capacity is opportunity, not cash, and commercial/ROI commitments follow internal commercial ownership.