To war-game a budget cut before the board commits to it, put the list of proposed cuts with amounts and owners, the contracts and renewal dates behind each vendor line, the current forecast, and the target the board has set into one request. Then instruct Pingpong to test every line for timing, side effects, and double counting: when the saving actually starts, whether it moves cost somewhere else, whether it reduces revenue later, and whether it is already in the forecast. Ask for the savings this fiscal year and the annual run rate as separate figures, and for every cut that puts a customer commitment at risk.
This page is for chief executives, chief financial officers, and finance leads preparing a non-headcount cost reduction: vendors, cloud, software, marketing, travel, contractors, or a freeze on open roles. It covers spending cuts without layoffs. If these cuts are not enough and a workforce reduction is under discussion, see check the decision is ready before you announce layoffs. Executive starting points live under Pingpong for executives.
Four tests for every line
Timing. Can the spending stop now, or is it locked in a contract until renewal? Prepaid annual tools and cloud commitments often save nothing until next year.
Displacement. Does the cut move cost to people or to another budget? Dropping a tool can mean more manual work. Cutting contractors can mean overtime or delay.
Revenue effect. Will the cut reduce pipeline, renewals, or a deal in progress? Marketing and customer travel cuts often show up as lower bookings two or three quarters later.
Double counting. Is the saving already in the forecast? A freeze on roles the forecast never included saves nothing against it.
A worked example
This example is illustrative and does not describe a customer. A 320-person business software company has committed to its board to reach operating breakeven by the fourth quarter. The finance team has proposed $5 million in annual non-headcount cuts: $2 million in marketing, $1.2 million in cloud costs, $800,000 in software tools, $600,000 in travel and events, and $400,000 in contractors. A freeze on 12 open roles is presented separately.
The chief financial officer pastes the cut list, vendor contracts and renewal dates, the forecast, pipeline by source, and the renewal calendar.
A useful pass finds that the cloud saving depends on new committed pricing, but the current commitment runs until next August, so only about four months of the saving lands this fiscal year. Two of the larger software tools were prepaid annually in January, so canceling them saves nothing until next year. The contractor cut includes the team preparing a security audit that a large enterprise deal depends on.
The marketing cut removes the two channels that produced about 40% of last year's qualified pipeline. With a five-month sales cycle, the effect would appear as lower bookings in the first half of next year. Half of the travel cut comes from visits to the 30 largest accounts during renewal season. The hiring freeze is presented as $1.1 million in savings, but the forecast already excludes those roles.
The pass rebuilds the numbers. Savings that land this fiscal year come to about $2.6 million against the $5 million claimed, and the freeze adds nothing against the forecast. The run rate is closer to the original figure, but with a revenue risk the plan does not mention.
The chief financial officer revises the plan. Marketing cuts drop to $1 million, taken from the lowest-converting channels. Renewal travel and the security audit contractors are protected. The cloud and software savings are shown by the month they start, and the procurement team opens early renewal talks with both vendors. The freeze is removed from the savings total. The board sees in-year savings, run-rate savings, and the revenue risk on one page, along with the effect on the runway figure.
A request you can copy
Below are our proposed non-headcount cuts with amounts and owners, the contracts and renewal dates behind them, our forecast, our pipeline by source, and our renewal calendar. Test each line for timing, displacement, revenue effect, and double counting. Show savings this fiscal year and annual run rate separately. Flag any cut that puts a customer commitment, a renewal, or an open deal at risk, and list the questions our board will ask about the plan.
To carry the result into the cash section of the board deck, see war-game a cash runway brief before the number reaches the board.
How Pingpong runs the war-game
The web review app sends your request through several models in order. Each later model receives the original request and every earlier answer, with instructions to assess the work so far. Confirm contract dates with procurement and recheck every figure in your own model. For the steps inside the app, see running your first review.
What a model can't war-game
A model does not know which vendors will negotiate, how your teams will absorb the work, or how customers will respond to fewer visits. Procurement and counsel own contract questions, and budget owners own whether each cut is workable.
When the plan goes to the board, see war-game a decision before the board meeting. More guides live under work decisions before you commit.