Skip to content
Fulkerson Advisors
Practice · No. 04

Tie AI spend to outcomes the board can defend

Most AI investments lack a credible measurement framework. We build one, with the same rigor you'd apply to any capital decision. Designed for Fortune 500 CFOs, transformation leads, and boards that need the AI line item to read like an investment, not a hope.

What this looks like in practice

Every engagement is led by one of our three partners and staffed forward-deployed: senior practitioners working inside your finance, transformation, and product teams rather than across a Zoom from a delivery center. We sit with the controllers building the cost model, the analysts pulling the baseline, and the operators whose workflows the AI is supposed to change. The output isn't a deck; it's an instrumented measurement system that lives in your BI stack, a board narrative your CFO can defend, and a kill-or-scale decision framework reviewed each quarter. When specialized depth is needed (data engineering, behavioral economics, sector benchmarks), we bring in our expert network on demand.

When you should talk to us

Three triggers tend to bring CFOs and transformation leads to our door. First: the board has asked for an AI ROI number for the next quarterly review, and the answer the team has prepared won't survive contact with the audit committee. Second: a pilot has shipped, usage looks fine, but no one can explain whether it actually moved a P&L line; the CFO suspects the answer is no. Third: the CIO is asking for another twenty million dollars to scale, and the company has nothing approaching a defensible unit-economics view of what the first ten million bought. If any of those sound familiar, the call is overdue.

How we approach value realization

We treat AI initiatives the way a serious capital committee treats any investment: baseline before deployment, instrument during production, attribute against a control where possible, and re-underwrite the thesis on a fixed cadence. The discipline is unglamorous. It is also the only thing that distinguishes programs that earn their next budget cycle from those that get quietly absorbed into IT overhead. We refuse to publish ROI we can't defend; that posture is what makes the numbers we do publish carry weight inside the building.

  • Pre-deployment baselines instrumented in production telemetry, not modeled in Excel
  • Fully-loaded unit economics: inference, observability, human review, maintenance, opportunity cost
  • Pre-committed kill criteria and re-underwriting cadence agreed at engagement start
  • Attribution against matched controls or pre/post windows; never against vendor-supplied counterfactuals
  • Board narrative drafted with the CFO's office, stress-tested against the audit committee's likely questions

Case files

The work below shows what disciplined measurement looks like when it's built into the system from the start, rather than retrofitted in the quarter before a board review. Each engagement produced a number the CFO's office signed off on, and a framework the team kept running after we left.

What we don't do

We don't author ROI estimates before a baseline exists; the number isn't real until it's measured against something. We don't accept vendor-supplied savings counterfactuals as the source of truth. We don't ship value-realization frameworks that depend on us to operate; if the controllers can't run it themselves after the engagement, we built it wrong. And we don't take on programs where the executive sponsor isn't prepared to act on a recommendation to sunset; measurement without consequences is theater, and we don't do theater.

Who you’ll work with

Bilal Bitar

Bilal Bitar

Co-Founder & Managing Partner

Bilal leads this practice; his McKinsey transformation work and development-finance investment banking background (EIB, DEG, PROPARCO, Finnfund) trained him to instrument capital decisions the way institutional LPs expect, and his INSEAD MBA grounds the financial framing the CFO's office signs off on.

Practice background

  • Bilal Bitar has spent his career at the meeting point of finance, strategy, and large-scale transformation. He began in management consulting at McKinsey & Company before moving into investment banking, where he structured and raised development finance — channeling capital from European institutions including the European Investment Bank, DEG, PROPARCO, and Finnfund into energy infrastructure.
  • That grounding in capital markets and operational strategy anchors his advisory work today. He has led enterprise-wide transformation programs for organizations across banking, retail, and technology — aligning leadership teams and rebuilding the processes beneath them — and is fluent in the financial-modeling and value-creation frameworks that decide whether a transformation actually pays for itself.

Case files

  1. Retail

    Retail labor planning & optimization

    Replaced legacy scheduling heuristics with a measured optimization layer; savings tracked weekly against a pre-deployment baseline.

  2. Asset Management

    Pension fund equity index strategy backtesting

    Built the measurement spine for a $55B US pension fund's systematic equity program; every signal carried a defensible attribution.

  3. Retail (Caribbean conglomerate)

    Demand forecasting Center of Excellence

    Stood up forecast accuracy, inventory cost, and stockout metrics the CFO's office reviews each quarter.

Frequently asked

Questions we hear most.

How do we baseline before we ship?
Before any model goes near production, we instrument the current state: cycle times, error rates, labor hours, decision latency, whatever the use case actually moves. We capture six to twelve weeks of pre-deployment data where the workflow allows, or a matched control where it doesn't. The baseline becomes the contract; the post-deployment number is measured against it, not against a hypothetical.
Which costs are real, which are theatrical?
Real costs are fully-loaded: inference, fine-tuning, evaluation infrastructure, the engineers maintaining it, the analysts reviewing outputs, and the opportunity cost of the team that built it. Theatrical costs are the ones in vendor decks that quietly exclude observability, human review, and rework. We build the all-in unit economics so the CFO sees the same number we do.
When do we double down vs. when do we kill an initiative?
We set kill criteria at the start of the engagement, not at the post-mortem. If the system misses its baseline delta after a defined runway (typically two quarters of production use), we recommend sunset. If it clears the bar, we model what the next dollar of investment buys and stack-rank against other initiatives. The discipline is making the call with the same evidence either way.
How do we report AI ROI to the board without making things up?
Three numbers, all defensible: incremental margin or cost out (measured against the baseline), all-in cost to operate (not just the build), and the residual risk on the books (model drift, vendor concentration, compliance exposure). We help draft the board narrative so it survives questioning from the audit committee, not just the technology committee.
How long until a value realization framework starts producing usable numbers?
Six to ten weeks to baseline and instrument; another quarter of production data before the numbers carry signal. We resist publishing ROI earlier than that. Premature claims are the fastest way to lose credibility with the CFO's office, and once lost it doesn't come back in the same fiscal year.
Do you measure adoption separately from value?
Yes. Adoption is a leading indicator; value is the lagging one. We track both because a system can be heavily used and produce negligible margin impact, or lightly used and move the number that matters. Conflating them is how AI programs end up reporting activity instead of outcomes.

Bring us a question, and we’ll bring you an honest read.