The structural proposition
A deterministic, open-source FDP can be deployed under institutional control, with generative AI unnecessary for its core operational functions.
NashMarkAI Investment · 02 — Reference Deployment
Reference deployment and five-year economics
A defined hospital deployment is used to measure actual implementation effort, hardware requirements, operating cost and customer value.
1m patient identities10m operational entries500 registered users
Proposal section
4. Three distinct investment propositions
The commercial proposition
Commissioning, integration, hardware supply and continuing operation can generate revenue without proprietary software licence charges.
The economic proposition
The complete service can deliver equivalent capability at a competitive lifetime cost while retaining an acceptable margin.
The reference deployment measures the third proposition. Its purpose is to establish actual delivery effort, hardware requirements, operating costs and customer value.
Proposal section
5. The first reference deployment
The initial commercial unit is one hospital organisation with a defined operational scope. A trust operating several sites must be scoped as such; a hospital building and a trust are not interchangeable sales units.
The working example uses the following assumptions:
| Requirement | Reference scope |
|---|---|
| Historical patient identities | 1 million |
| Selected operational entries | 10 million |
| Source systems | Three data feeds |
| Initial workflows | Waiting-list validation and operational work queues |
| Users | 500 registered; 100 concurrent |
| Initial sample | 10,000 synthetic patient identities and 100,000 entries |
| Infrastructure | Institution-controlled compute, storage, networking and backup |
| Operating environment | Database, Apache and FDP services |
| Continuing service | Monitoring, administration, maintenance, recovery arrangements and defined SLA |
These are sizing assumptions, not measured records held by a named hospital. The scope covers selected operational data and workflows; it does not price a complete electronic patient record replacement or imaging archive.
The sample establishes integration behaviour and workflow correctness. Hardware sizing must also be tested against concurrency, throughput, storage growth and recovery requirements.
Proposal section
6. Five-year reference deployment economics
The following is a complete planning scenario for the defined scope, expressed in constant pounds and excluding VAT. It retains the earlier customer prices and introduces explicit direct-cost assumptions for hardware and ongoing service. Those new assumptions require supplier quotations and measured delivery evidence.
Initial installation
| Item | Customer price | Assumed direct cost | Gross contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implementation, migration, integration and commissioning | £325,000 | £250,000 | £75,000 |
| Hardware and infrastructure supply | £120,000 | £96,000 | £24,000 |
| Initial total | £445,000 | £346,000 | £99,000 |
The implementation cost comprises:
| Delivery component | Assumed cost |
|---|---|
| Discovery and source-system assessment | £20,000 |
| Sample preparation and data mapping | £32,000 |
| Three source integrations | £48,000 |
| Platform deployment and access configuration | £28,000 |
| Workflows and migration reconciliation | £28,000 |
| Testing | £24,000 |
| Training and handover | £20,000 |
| Independent security and assurance work | £30,000 |
| Delivery contingency | £20,000 |
| Total | £250,000 |
The labour component assumes 250 person-days at an £800 blended direct cost. It is a planning allowance to be tested against the existing implementation and the selected hospital’s systems.
Continuing operation
The proposed annual customer charge is £96,000.
| Direct service-cost allowance | Annual amount | Five-year amount |
|---|---|---|
| Technical labour: hardware, database, Apache and FDP administration | £40,000 | £200,000 |
| Hardware warranty and maintenance cover | £8,000 | £40,000 |
| Backup operations and recovery exercises | £6,000 | £30,000 |
| Hardware replacement allowance | £8,000 | £40,000 |
| Service reporting and coordination | £4,000 | £20,000 |
| Total direct-cost allowance | £66,000 | £330,000 |
| Service revenue | £96,000 | £480,000 |
| Contribution after these allowances | £30,000 | £150,000 |
The hardware replacement allowance is a budgeting provision, not a supplier quotation or an accounting determination. The service assumes allocated capacity within a shared operations team; it does not fund a dedicated round-the-clock team for each hospital.
The resulting deployment economics are:
| Five-year measure | Amount |
|---|---|
| Customer contract revenue | £925,000 |
| Direct delivery and operating-cost allowances | £676,000 |
| Contribution after direct-cost allowances | £249,000 |
| Modelled contribution margin | 26.9% |
This contribution must also support company overheads, product development, sales expenditure and financing. It is not net profit or an investor distribution.
Hospital expenditure outside the supplier contract
A customer comparison must include costs borne directly by the hospital.
| Additional customer allowance | Five-year amount |
|---|---|
| Power and cooling: £12,000 annually | £60,000 |
| Internal participation, data-owner time and training cover | £40,000 |
| Eventual provider transition or handover | £20,000 |
| Additional customer expenditure | £120,000 |
| Modelled five-year customer total | £1,045,000 |
The scenario assumes suitable existing premises, power and network facilities. Any required facilities upgrade must be added.
Proposal section
7. Establishing the competitive saving
The model now provides a customer-cost benchmark of £1.045 million over five years for the stated scope. An equivalent competitor proposal must include the same functionality, integrations, capacity, service responsibilities and transition requirements.
The following illustrates the comparison; the competitor totals are sensitivity scenarios, not published quotations.
| Equivalent competitor five-year total | NashMarkAI customer total | Customer saving / additional cost |
|---|---|---|
| £900,000 | £1,045,000 | £145,000 additional cost |
| £1,045,000 | £1,045,000 | Cost parity |
| £1,200,000 | £1,045,000 | £155,000 saving — 12.9% |
| £1,500,000 | £1,045,000 | £455,000 saving — 30.3% |
Institutional ownership and portability remain relevant at cost parity. A claim of financial savings requires an equivalent competitor total above the NashMarkAI figure.
Supplier dependency enters this calculation through identifiable expenditure: extraction, migration, integration rework, parallel operation, retraining and transition. The comparison must avoid assigning an arbitrary monetary premium to dependency.