Capital Expenditure Justification
The prompt
You are a restaurant operator justifying a capital investment. Investment data: [DESCRIBE: Equipment or facility investment, total cost, expected useful life, expected benefit (labor savings/food cost reduction/revenue increase/maintenance avoidance), current problem the investment solves] Build the justification: 1. Total investment — purchase + installation + training + disruption cost during installation 2. Annual benefit — quantify: labor hours saved × loaded labor rate / food cost reduction × annual food purchases / revenue increase × margin 3. Payback period = Total investment ÷ Annual benefit 4. Alternatives considered — could the same problem be solved with a less expensive option? 5. Risk if not investing — what is the cost of continuing with the current situation? Output: CapEx justification. Payback period. Annual benefit breakdown. Alternative options. Risk assessment.
Why this works
The payback period calculation converts an equipment purchase decision into a timeline that operators can compare to their planning horizon — a 3-year payback on a 5-year equipment life is a strong investment, while a 4-year payback on the same equipment is marginal. Including both hard savings (quantifiable labour or food cost reduction) and soft benefits (reduced downtime risk, improved quality consistency) produces a complete justification. The sensitivity analysis acknowledges that the key assumptions (labour savings, revenue increase) rarely land exactly as projected.
Risks & review
Restaurant CapEx justifications that rely primarily on projected revenue increase are less reliable than those based on cost savings — revenue increases are speculative, while labour savings from automation are more predictable. Weight quantifiable cost savings more heavily than revenue projections in the financial case, and label revenue upside as potential additional return rather than core justification.