FIN.19:4.6 - Compare the burden that each remedy moves

Trace a local gain to its other consequences. Centralization may reduce duplicated bank negotiations while increasing waiting time for local exceptions. Decentralization may preserve customer knowledge while requiring a dependable way to enforce a group funding limit. Faster execution can increase the burden on reconciliation or create concentrated dependence on one provider. The relevant comparison follows those effects rather than the visual simplicity of an organization chart.

Count recurring work as well as initial transition. Who prepares the additional forecast, resolves discrepancies and responds when a report is late? Which operating decisions wait while that happens? Is local detail lost, or can the central receiver request it when it changes the choice? A proposal that saves central effort by requiring every small unit to submit an elaborate daily model may be disproportionate to the financial use.

Examine timing under normal and consequential adverse conditions. A shared decision that takes one day can be adequate for a monthly capital allocation yet unusable for an expiring same-day funding offer. A local envelope can preserve speed but needs a response when several adverse events exhaust it together. Include provider failure, a missing authorized performer and a new commitment where they can reverse the arrangement choice.

Use an appropriate comparison for the financial consequence and preserve other material burdens. Funding cost and delayed project value can be quantified when their grounds support it. Loss of useful local knowledge, excessive interruption or an unsupported authority claim should not be concealed by an arbitrary monetary estimate. OPS can develop a work and resource plan within existing authority; OCE can develop the organizational change needed to make a different arrangement effective.