Leader decision guide for AI tool allocation across business units
Every employee routes to one of two AI platforms. The default is ALIA. Claude Enterprise (CE) is the exception, reserved for users where ALIA demonstrably cannot deliver.
Internal platform, broad access, full group control
Advanced reasoning, extended context, Microsoft plugins
The question is never "who deserves the better tool." It's: does the expensive tool unlock something that's currently blocked? If the cheap tool handles the job, the expensive one is waste. Seniority, title, and enthusiasm are not qualifying criteria. A blocked workflow is.
Every request for Claude Enterprise passes through four gates. If it fails any gate, the answer is ALIA. No scoring, no interpretation. Pass or fail.
The answer must be a concrete capability, not a quality difference. "Better writing" is not a gap. "Can't generate pivot tables inside Excel" is a gap. "Slightly better reasoning" is not a gap. "Truncates my 80-page contract at 40 pages" is a gap.
| Function | Gap | Why ALIA can't do it |
|---|---|---|
| Finance | Build financial models directly in Excel via plugin | ALIA has no Microsoft Office integration |
| Strategy | Synthesize 15+ source documents into a coherent thesis | ALIA's context window truncates at ~8 docs |
| Product | Reason across a full product spec + codebase context | ALIA can't hold both in context simultaneously |
| Investments | Multi-scenario financial modeling with iterative refinement | ALIA loses coherence across complex multi-turn analysis |
| Legal | Full contract review with zero-data-retention guarantee | ALIA's compliance posture differs from Claude Enterprise's ZDR |
| Innovation | Technical feasibility analysis requiring deep reasoning chains | ALIA's model can't sustain multi-step technical reasoning |
| Claim | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Claude writes better emails" | ALIA writes fine emails. Preference is not a gap. |
| "I prefer the Claude interface" | UX preference. Not a capability blocker. |
| "Claude is faster" | Speed difference. Not a blocked workflow. |
| "I need AI for my presentations" | ALIA does content generation. Unless you need the Excel/PPT plugin specifically, ALIA handles this. |
| "Everyone on my team should have it" | Not a gap. Each person assessed individually. |
The gap existing isn't enough. If someone hits it once a quarter, the workaround cost is trivial. Frequency is the multiplier that turns a capability gap into a budget justification.
| Frequency | Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Daily | Strong candidate. Proceed. | The gap is structural to their role. They work around it every day. |
| Weekly | Moderate. Proceed, start at lower tier. | Meaningful friction but not constant. Base or Standard tier. |
| Monthly | Weak. Challenge it. | Is the workaround really that painful 12 times a year? Probably manageable. |
| Rarely | No. Stay on ALIA. | The tool will sit unused. Waste of budget. |
This is the anti-inflation mechanism. Everyone will say they need the better tool. The gate is: show me. At least one of the following must be true.
| Evidence type | What it proves | Strength |
|---|---|---|
| Already paying for a personal Claude subscription | They depend on it enough to spend their own money. Usage is real, not hypothetical. | Strongest |
| Can show 3+ examples of ALIA failing their workflow | Tried the cheap tool, hit the wall, documented it. Gap is verified, not assumed. | Strong |
| Can demonstrate the workaround and its time cost | "Without the plugin, I manually build this in Excel. Takes me 3 hours. With the plugin, 20 minutes." Quantifiable. | Strong |
| "I think it would help me" with no examples | Nothing. Aspiration, not evidence. | Not evidence |
| Manager says they need it | Insufficient alone. The user needs to demonstrate it themselves. | Not evidence |
Don't guess. Don't let the leader pick the tier that "feels right." Anchor to what's observable about their current usage.
| Tier | Annual Cap | Anchor |
|---|---|---|
| BASE | $250 | Equivalent of a $20/mo plan and they don't max it out. Weekly gap frequency. Plugin-dependent but not daily-intensive. |
| STANDARD | $500 | Equivalent of a $20/mo plan and they regularly max it out. OR: no prior usage data (this is the safe default). Daily-to-weekly frequency. |
| POWER | $750 | Currently on a $100/mo personal plan. Daily frequency. Heavy analytical workflows. |
| MAX | $1,200 | Currently on $100/mo AND hitting limits regularly. The heaviest users. Exception, not norm. |
When in doubt, start at Standard ($500). It's Anthropic's stated average enterprise consumption. Raising a cap takes one approval. Revoking a license damages trust. Start low, adjust with data.
"She's a VP, she should have the best tool." Seniority is not a gap. If she uses AI 10 minutes a day for email polish, ALIA is the right tool regardless of her title. A junior analyst using Claude 6 hours daily for financial modeling is better ROI.
"He uses AI more than anyone on my team." Volume of usage on the cheap tool is not evidence that the expensive tool is needed. If ALIA handles his tasks fine and he's just a heavy user, he stays on ALIA. High volume + no capability gap = satisfied cheap-tool user.
"She's really enthusiastic and wants to explore what Claude can do." Enthusiasm is not a blocked workflow. Come back when she can show what ALIA can't do for her. The 60-day revisit exists for this reason.
Leader approves 15 seats, first month comes back at $18K, panics, and revokes access. Giving a tool and then taking it away is organizational damage. The four gates prevent this by only letting through people with real, evidenced need.
The four gates are universal. The answers differ by department. Use this as calibration, not as rules.
| Function | Typical gap | Typical frequency | Expected outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finance & Controlling | Excel/PPT plugin for financial modeling and board reporting | Daily for modelers, weekly for controllers | Highest CE penetration. The plugin gap is binary and hard to dispute. |
| Strategy & BD | Multi-source synthesis, long-context reasoning for strategy docs | Daily during strategy cycles, weekly otherwise | High CE penetration. Many already on personal subscriptions (strongest evidence). |
| Brand Management | Complex sell-through analysis, brand principal deck creation via plugin | Weekly for directors, monthly for junior BMs | Mixed. Directors likely pass all gates. Junior BMs likely don't pass frequency gate. |
| Own Concepts | Buying/merchandising modeling in Excel; e-commerce analytics synthesis | Daily for buyers, weekly for e-comm analytics | Buyers with heavy Excel workflows pass. Marketing/CRM teams stay on ALIA (content is ALIA's strength). |
| Product & Innovation | Extended context for spec synthesis, technical feasibility reasoning | Spiky: daily during exploration, low during execution | Passes during active build/research phases. May not justify a permanent seat; revisit quarterly. |
| Investments | Scenario modeling, due diligence synthesis across large datasets | Daily during evaluation periods, weekly otherwise | Passes easily during active deal flow. Tier depends on deal volume. |
| Marketing & Comms | Likely no gap. Content generation is ALIA's core strength. | Low | Most marketing tasks are ALIA-fit. Only VP-level with strategic deck needs or analytics leads might pass Gate 1. |
| Retail Operations | Minimal. Operational work is structured and template-driven. | Very low | ALIA for 90%+. Only regional managers with cross-store reporting might pass. |
| Distribution & SC | Demand planning/forecasting modeling | Weekly for planning roles, rare for ops | Classic "revisit later" department. The gap exists at planning level but readiness is low. Start with ALIA. |
| HR & People | Comp & benefits modeling (Excel complexity) | Monthly at best | Almost entirely ALIA-fit. Process work, template work, policy work. One or two comp analysts might pass. |
| Legal & Compliance | Contract analysis with ZDR compliance guarantees | Weekly for contract-heavy roles | Unique gate: compliance posture (ZDR) is the gap, not reasoning quality. Do NOT provision until ZDR is confirmed in writing. |
| Technology & Data | API access for building, Claude Code for engineering | Daily | Different access model entirely. Engineers need API/Claude Code, not per-seat web licenses. Separate budget, separate gate. |
This tool sits on your P&L. The four gates are your cost control mechanism: every seat that passes all four gates is justified. Every seat that doesn't is waste.
A Claude Enterprise seat is not a SaaS license you bulk-buy. It's a productivity investment in a specific person. If that person isn't delivering measurably more because of the tool, the seat is wasted OpEx. Evaluate each seat the way you'd evaluate whether someone needs a second monitor or a business class ticket: does the output justify the cost for this specific person?
Your blended AI cost per employee (across your full team, including ALIA users and those with no tool) should fall within these ranges. If you're significantly above, scrutinize whether every CE seat is truly passing all four gates.
| Department Profile | Blended Cost / Employee / Year | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Strategy / Finance / Analytics-heavy | $200-400 | High CE penetration justified by daily plugin/reasoning gap |
| Brand / Own Concepts / Investments | $120-200 | Mixed: some pass all gates, many stay on ALIA |
| Marketing / Innovation / Product | $80-150 | Mostly ALIA-fit; CE seats are the exception |
| Retail Ops / Distribution / HR | $50-100 | Primarily ALIA, minimal CE |
Three questions each month. Build into your existing cost review.
Any CE user under 20% of their cap for two consecutive months? Either the gap wasn't real (downgrade to ALIA) or they need enablement help. Either way, the seat isn't delivering value today.
Any CE user hitting their cap before month-end more than once? Either upgrade their tier (the gap is bigger than estimated) or investigate whether they're using it for tasks ALIA could handle (the gap was misidentified).
Your budget calculator gave you an annual number. Are you on track? If you're 20%+ over after 90 days, it means either a gate was too lenient (revisit evidence) or tiers were set too high (adjust down). Reclaim underused seats before adding new ones.
All requests go through OneReach for audit trail and cost center attribution.
| Signal | Action |
|---|---|
| ALIA user hits the wall with documented examples | Run them through the four gates |
| CE user barely uses it (under 20% cap, 60 days) | Downgrade to ALIA, reclaim seat |
| Personal subscription user doing work stuff | Priority: move to compliant tool immediately (skip to Gate 4) |
| CE user hitting cap regularly | Tier upgrade with usage data as justification |
| New team member in a role where predecessor had CE | Not automatic. Run them through gates independently. |
| When | What | Who |
|---|---|---|
| Day 30 | First usage check: is the tool being used? Is the gap real? | AI Lab + Leader |
| Monthly (Q1) | Cost rhythm: underuse, overuse, budget tracking | Leader |
| Quarterly | Cost reconciliation: actual spend vs. budget, seat utilization | Leader + Finance |
| Annually | Full framework review: are the gates still right? Has the tool landscape changed? | AI Lab |
Claude Enterprise includes multiple capability surfaces. Not all are provisioned by default.
| Surface | Default access | Gate |
|---|---|---|
| Web + App | Yes, for all CE users | Included in standard provisioning |
| Microsoft Plugins (Excel/PPT) | Yes, for all CE users | Included; this is the primary gap driver |
| Claude Code | No | Separate request. AI Lab validates. Engineering/technical roles only. |
| Cowork (computer use) | No | Research preview. Sandbox testing first. Not provisioned broadly. |
Questions about access, eligibility, or budget planning? Reach out to the AI Lab team.