Your organization has bought Microsoft 365 Copilot licenses. Now you’re asking for more money — to rebuild a template that, to most of the finance team, already exists and looks fine. That’s a harder conversation than the license was, because the value of the template is less visible than the value of the tool.
This post is a structure for that business case: what to include, what numbers to use, and how to make it credible to a skeptical reader. It’s built on one principle: use your own numbers, cite outside evidence with its conditions, and commit to measuring the result.
1. The problem, in one paragraph
Lead with the problem, not the solution. Something like:
We’ve licensed Copilot for [number] people. Copilot in PowerPoint learns from our template — Microsoft describes the template’s sample slides as its primary learning source, and says that without enough of them Copilot “falls back to the Slide Master — which may result in less optimal output.” Our current template was built for people, not for a model: [findings — e.g. brand colors hardcoded rather than in the theme, layouts built from text boxes, no example slides]. As a result, generated decks need significant correction before use, which reduces the return on our licenses.
The findings should come from an actual review of your template against Microsoft’s published guidance. Specifics persuade; generalities don’t.
2. Why now
Finance teams reasonably ask why this can’t wait. Good reasons:
- The licenses are already being paid for. Every month the template teaches poorly is a month of reduced return on an existing cost.
- Microsoft now lets us lock Copilot to the template. Strict brand adherence, announced in September 2026, restricts Copilot to approved layouts. That’s a strong control — and it makes every gap in the template apply to every locked deck.
- Volume is growing. As more people generate more decks, the template’s flaws are multiplied more often.
3. The options
Show that you’ve considered alternatives:
| Option | Cost | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Do nothing | None up front | Generated decks keep needing heavy correction; flaws multiply as usage grows |
| Train people to prompt better | Training time | Helps with argument and structure; doesn’t fix what the template teaches |
| Configure settings only | Minimal | Brand Kit and settings in place; output still limited by the template |
| Rebuild the template for Copilot | Project cost + upkeep | Addresses the cause; improves every future generated deck |
The key point: training and configuration are useful and cheap, but neither changes what Copilot learns from. Only the template does.
4. The numbers
This is where business cases lose credibility, usually by borrowing someone else’s savings figure. Instead:
Estimate current presentation effort. Decks per year by type — routine, important internal, high-stakes — and hours per deck today, including designer and agency time.
Estimate fix-up time with the current template. Ideally from a small pilot: a few people generate real decks and record how much correction each needed. This is the number the template affects most.
Estimate fix-up time after the rebuild. Use a conservative assumption, clearly labeled as such, and commit to measuring the real figure.
Value the difference using a loaded hourly cost, and be explicit about what’s capacity and what’s cash. Reduced agency or contractor spending on routine decks is cash; freed employee time is capacity.
Subtract the cost of the rebuild, written rules, testing and a year of upkeep.
Show a range — conservative, expected, optimistic — rather than a single figure.
If you want to reference outside research, cite it with its conditions. The most-cited study, Forrester’s Total Economic Impact™ of Microsoft 365 Copilot, reported 34.2% time savings in content creation for a composite organization — but it was commissioned by Microsoft, it describes a modeled organization rather than a real one, it gives no PowerPoint-specific figure, and Forrester itself “strongly advises that readers use their own estimates.” It’s supporting context, not your forecast.
5. The risks
A credible case names its risks:
- Adoption. If people don’t use Copilot for presentations, the template’s value is limited. Mitigation: pilot group, short guidance, measure usage alongside fix-up.
- Platform change. Microsoft updates Copilot continuously — twice in September 2026 on template behavior alone. Mitigation: quarterly re-testing and upkeep, budgeted.
- High-stakes misuse. Generated drafts used for decks that need experienced people. Mitigation: clear guidance on which decks go to Copilot.
- Measurement. Savings claimed but not proven. Mitigation: the measurement plan below.
6. How you’ll prove it
End with a commitment finance can hold you to:
- Baseline: fix-up scores for a fixed set of realistic prompts, and for a sample of real generated decks, before the rebuild.
- After: the same measures after the rebuild.
- Ongoing: quarterly re-testing and a sample of real decks, reported in writing.
- Spending: routine presentation spending with agencies and contractors tracked before and after.
A business case that promises measurement is more persuasive than one that promises savings, because it doesn’t ask anyone to take the numbers on faith.
Common questions
What if we can’t run a pilot before the business case?
Use conservative assumptions, clearly labeled, and make measurement a condition of the investment. A case that commits to measuring is more credible than one that claims certainty.
Should we include the Forrester figures?
As context, with their conditions: commissioned by Microsoft, a composite organization, no PowerPoint-specific figure. Don’t use them as your forecast.
How big should the ask be?
Start with an audit if scope is uncertain. It turns the rebuild from an estimate into a plan, and it gives finance a smaller first decision.
Key takeaways
- Lead with the problem, grounded in a real review of your template against Microsoft’s guidance.
- Explain why now: licenses are already paid for, strict brand adherence raises the stakes, and volume is growing.
- Show the options; only the template changes what Copilot learns from.
- Use your own numbers, focus on fix-up time, separate cash from capacity, and show a range.
- Name the risks, and commit to measuring the result.
Need findings for your business case? Have your template scored.**
Related reading
- Estimate your own presentation savings: a model you can fill in
- What the research says about Copilot time savings — and what it doesn’t
- What Copilot for PowerPoint costs in 2026
Sources
- Microsoft Support, Keep your presentation on-brand with Copilot (July 2026)
- Microsoft Support, Manage template settings in your Brand Kit for Copilot in PowerPoint (August 2026)
- Microsoft 365 Message Center, MC1470415 and MC1473166 (Sep 2026)
- Forrester Consulting, The Total Economic Impact™ Of Microsoft 365 Copilot (March 2025), commissioned by Microsoft
