Research
AI Implementation Cost Model
The cost structure of an implementation programme and the variables that move a quote up or down.
- Type
- Research
- Topic
- Economics
- Author
- AEGIS OS™
- Published
- Updated
Key takeaways
- Licence cost is the smallest line in an implementation. The expensive work is establishing truth, defining process and building governance around them.
- Six drivers explain most of the variance between two quotes for superficially similar scopes.
- Data condition and process definition are assessed before anything is built, because they move cost further than any other factor.
- This page publishes the model, not a price. AEGIS quotes from an approved architecture and makes no claim of savings or return.
Where the money actually goes
Buyers arrive expecting a software price and a subscription. An implementation programme has a different shape: most of the effort is spent making the organization legible enough for intelligence to operate on it safely.
| What it covers | What drives its size | |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture Assessment | The paid diagnostic: operating model map, truth definition, blueprint, readiness analysis, roadmap and quote | Number of functions in scope and organizational complexity |
| Truth and data work | Agreeing records, definitions and owners; reconciling duplicates; establishing data contracts | How fragmented and undefined the current records are |
| Process definition | Mapping how work actually runs, including undocumented exceptions | How much the process varies by individual |
| Build and configuration | Workflows, intelligence roles, interfaces and permissions | Number of workflows and distinct roles, not headcount |
| Integration | Connections to systems of record and work execution | Interface quality of the systems, not their quantity |
| Governance and validation | Approval boundaries, audit trail, testing against real work, operator training | Regulatory, contractual and audit obligations |
| Managed Intelligence | Ongoing operation, monitoring, governance review and continued build | Deployed footprint and review cadence |
The six drivers and how far each one moves a quote
Direction and relative magnitude are given below. Absolute figures are deliberately absent: a number published without the architecture behind it is a guess wearing a decimal point.
| Lower end looks like | Upper end looks like | Relative effect | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data condition | Records structured, owned and broadly trusted | Duplicated records, contested definitions, spreadsheets as systems of record | Largest single driver |
| Process definition | Documented, consistent, exceptions understood | Every operator runs it differently and exception is the norm | Large |
| Functions in scope | One team, one end-to-end path | Several functions with shared handoffs and competing definitions | Large, and compounding rather than additive |
| Integration surface | Modern systems with usable interfaces | Legacy systems, manual exports, no supported interface | Moderate to large |
| Governance obligations | Standard internal approvals | Regulated, contractual or externally audited controls | Moderate, concentrated in validation |
| Change capacity | Engaged executive owner, operators available for sessions | No named owner, operators unavailable to validate | Moderate on cost, decisive on timeline |
The compounding effect
Two functions cost more than twice one function, because the expensive part is reconciling their competing definitions of the same entity — a cost that does not exist in a single-function scope.
How to read a quote you are given
- Ask which architecture the quote was produced from. A quote that precedes an architecture is a guess about your business.
- Ask what the data work assumes. An implementation priced without inspecting record condition will be re-priced later.
- Ask which steps carry a human approver and who is named. Governance omitted from scope is governance omitted from the build.
- Ask what happens after go-live, and at what cadence. A system nobody operates degrades within a quarter.
- Ask what is excluded. The exclusions describe the real scope more accurately than the inclusions.
No return promised
AEGIS prices work, not outcomes. Nothing in this model constitutes a projection of savings, efficiency or return; those depend on decisions, adoption and conditions outside our control.
Sources and references
- AEGIS engagement scope records — Confirm which drivers actually moved scope across completed engagements. Any published magnitude must be supportable from these records or removed.
- Pricing page — Published cost-driver table — keep the two consistent.
Reviewed and published. Magnitudes are relative and directional only. No absolute price, saving or return is stated, and AEGIS quotes only from an approved architecture.
Start with an Architecture Assessment
An Architecture Assessment turns these questions into a documented blueprint, readiness analysis, implementation roadmap and quote for your organization.
Related resources
Guide
Architecture Assessment Checklist
What to gather before a diagnostic: systems, data, workflows, decision rights, constraints and desired outcomes.
Research
Measuring AI Workflow ROI
A measurement framework for intelligence work: baselines, cycle time, throughput, quality and decision latency.