Same projects. Different combination. Greater results.
You can achieve higher returns with your existing projects.
We calculate the optimum scenario - before you decide.
Free of charge. Without obligation. Based on your existing projects.
StratePlan calculates the optimal portfolio where traditional tools reach their limits.
Instead of evaluating projects in isolation, we analyze all possible combinations - and identify the best solution.
The global optimum is not an assumption - it can be calculated.
Select business area:
Blog main article:
Optimal financial plan with AI: the basis for optimal business decisions
Today, an optimal financial plan is much more than a budget list or an annual Excel exercise. In companies with several parallel initiatives, limited resources and a high degree of uncertainty, financial planning becomes a decision science: capital, risk, time, resources and strategic goals must be brought together in a consistent model that not only reports figures, but also evaluates options for action and resolves conflicting goals.
The optimal business decision is not made by "the best individual project", but by the best combination of projects and sub-projects under real restrictions. This is exactly where StratePlan comes in: as a decision engine for portfolio optimization that delivers what classic tools cannot, despite increasing complexity: mathematically reliable optimal solutions instead of estimates and gut feelings.
Optimal financial plan: Definition, aspiration and operational consequences
Optimal financial plan means: target achievement under restrictions
"Optimal" is not the same as "maximum profit". An optimal financial plan maximizes the degree of target achievement under given restrictions. Typical target figures are
- ROI / value contribution (e.g. NPV, IRR, EVA, contribution margin)
- Liquidity (cash in/out, working capital, covenants)
- Risk (volatility, downside, correlations)
- Strategic impact (market position, technology, capability development)
- Capacities (personnel, machines, supply chain, time window)
Why traditional financial planning reaches its limits
Traditional financial planning often works with simplified assumptions: linear models, isolated business cases, point-by-point ROI calculations and top-down budgeting. This is practicable for a small number of projects. However, as soon as several projects compete simultaneously, a combinatorial decision space is created:
| Number of projects | Project combinations (2^N) | Practical consequence |
|---|---|---|
| 7 | 128 | Manually still laborious, high probability of error |
| 10 | 1.024 | Excel scenarios become confusing |
| 15 | 32.768 | Suboptimal selection almost guaranteed |
| 20 | 1.048.576 | Complete review practically impossible |
As a result, companies often make decisions based on "top project" logic. This seems rational, but is often systematically suboptimal in complex portfolios.
Optimal business decision: Why the best individual project is rarely the best solution
The top project trap
The most common trap is: "We'll take the project with the highest ROI." In reality, projects interact via:
- Capital commitment (liquidity/capex shifts)
- Resource conflicts (key people, bottleneck facilities)
- Dependencies (prerequisites, sequences, milestones)
- Risk coupling (same markets/suppliers, same technologies)
- Strategic synergies (platform effects, cross-selling, economies of scale)
The optimal business decision is therefore the decision for the best portfolio, not for the "best" individual project.
FLOP-HOP-TOP: portfolio logic instead of individual ROI
A practical approach is to consider projects in three zones:
- FLOP: weak in the short term, but strategically/structurally necessary (e.g. compliance, basic infrastructure)
- HOP: solid, robust, medium ROI with high stability (e.g. process optimization, efficiency measures)
- TOP: high ROI, but often with higher risk or high resource commitment (e.g. expansion, new product lines)
In practice, an optimal solution often results from an intelligent mix. It is precisely this mix optimization that is the core of an optimal financial plan.
Restriction density in the optimal financial plan: The real driver of complexity
Restriction density explains why planning "suddenly" becomes difficult
Restrictiondensity describes the number and intensity of restrictions that limit a decision. Examples:
- Budget caps per area, quarter or investment category
- Capacities: personnel hours, machine running time, delivery windows
- Regulations: compliance, approvals, ESG requirements
- Technical dependencies and integration risks
- Liquidity and covenant limits
The higher the density of restrictions, the less linear, isolated business cases work. You need a method that can simultaneously optimize projects, restrictions, targets and uncertainties.
StratePlan in the optimal financial plan: From planning to mathematically robust optimization
Why StratePlan is faster than classic tools
StratePlan is not a reporting or BI tool, but an optimization and decision-making logic that solves complex portfolios under restrictions. The decisive difference:
- not "one scenario", but many scenarios
- not "one project", but the best combination
- not "distribute budget", but solve conflicting objectives mathematically
StratePlan addresses the reality of modern management: from a certain number of projects, the combinatorics increase exponentially (2^N). StratePlan can systematically analyze such decision spaces and deliver robust solutions, even if framework conditions change.
Optimal financial plan with StratePlan: quality of results instead of model cosmetics
An optimal financial plan with StratePlan typically delivers:
- Portfolio optimum under budget, capacity and risk restrictions
- Rankings and sensitivities: Which projects topple when?
- Robust variants: Solutions that remain good in multiple scenarios
- Transparency: Why is this combination optimal?
Comparison table: Traditional financial planning vs. optimal financial plan with StratePlan
| Criterion | Classic financial planning | Optimal financial plan with StratePlan |
|---|---|---|
| Pattern of thought | Individual project & budget pot | Portfolio & optimization under restrictions |
| Combination check | few scenarios | very many combinations systematic |
| Conflicting objectives | often implicit / manual | explicit, mathematically solved |
| Risk logic | isolated, often qualitative assessment | portfolio-capable, incl. dependencies possible |
| Scalability | low | high |
| Result | "good enough" | comprehensibly optimal (within the model framework) |
Optimal business decisions under uncertainty: scenarios instead of forecasts
Why forecasts alone are not enough
Markets, interest rates, supply chains and regulation do not change linearly. An optimal financial plan is therefore not a rigid annual plan, but a dynamic system that works with scenarios:
- Best case: growth, good margins, stable supply chain
- Base case: expected development
- Stress case: drop in demand, cost increases, delays
The optimal business decision is the one that not only shines in the best case, but also survives in the stress case and performs above average in the base case.
Practice: Building an optimal financial plan (blueprint)
1) Specify objectives (multi-objective system)
- ROI / NPV / Cash
- Risk corridor
- strategic must-haves
- Liquidity limits
2) Create project map (incl. sub-projects)
- Work breakdown structure (WBS) & dependencies
- Capex/Opex, time profiles, resource capacities
- Synergy assumptions and bottlenecks
3) Model restrictions (make restriction density visible)
- Budgets per period
- Resources per team/skill
- Delivery/construction/go-live window
- Compliance/ESG/regulation
4) Optimization and variants (StratePlan)
- Portfolio optimum
- Scenarios & robustness variants
- Sensitivities: Which assumptions drive the decision?
FAQ: Optimal financial plan & optimal business decision
What is the most common mistake in the optimal financial plan?
Projects are evaluated in isolation, although in reality they compete with each other (capital, resources, time) and influence each other (synergies, dependencies, risks).
When is an optimal business decision particularly difficult?
When the density of restrictions is high: many bottlenecks, hard time windows, several target variables (ROI, cash, risk, strategy) and simultaneously volatile framework conditions.
Why is Excel not enough despite good models?
Excel is excellent for visualization and traceability. However, it is not an optimization system for exponential combination spaces (2^N). From a certain number of projects, complete testing becomes practically impossible.
How does StratePlan position itself in the optimal financial plan?
StratePlan addresses portfolio decisions where classic planning fails: with many projects, high restriction density and multi-objective optimization. It provides not just one view, but the best combination within the model framework.
Does an optimal financial plan replace management?
No. It does not replace responsibility, but reduces blind flying. Management continues to decide on goals, values and strategic priorities - but with a reliable basis for decision-making.
Summary: Optimal financial plan as a system for better decisions
- An optimal financial plan is a dynamic decision-making model, not a static budget document.
- The optimal business decision is based on the best combination of projects - not on the best individual project.
- Above a certain number of projects, the combinatorics increase exponentially (2^N) - classical methods become suboptimal.
- Restriction density is the main driver why planning becomes difficult and optimization is required.
- StratePlan enables portfolio optimization under real restrictions and significantly increases the decision quality.
| No. | Scientific field | Central theory / discipline | Key message for the optimal financial plan | Typical error of classic financial planning | Added value for optimal business decisions | Relevance for StratePlan |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Multi-objective optimization | Multi-Objective Optimization (MOO), MCDM | An optimal financial plan optimizes several target figures simultaneously (ROI, risk, liquidity, strategy). | Reduction to one key figure (e.g. ROI) - conflicting objectives remain implicit. | Conscious trade-offs instead of fictitious accuracy; better governance decisions. | Core: portfolio optimization instead of individual ROI; multi-objective logic can be mapped. |
| 2 | Pareto efficiency | Pareto theory, dominance relations | There is rarely "the" best solution - but Pareto-optimal alternatives. | Search for "the one number"; false security through single-point optimum. | Portfolio selection becomes comprehensible; decisions become justifiable. | Can identify efficient solutions and make decision spaces transparent. |
| 3 | Stochastic optimization | Operations research, scenario trees | Financial planning must model uncertainty as distributions/scenarios. | Fixed forecasts; confusion between planned value and reality. | More robust decisions in volatile markets; less "plan breakage". | Scenario and uncertainty logic can be systematically incorporated into optimization. |
| 4 | Risk economics | Downside risk, CVaR, tail risk | Risk is downside/loss exposure, not just variance. | Isolated risk assessment per project; tail risks are underestimated. | Portfolio protects against heavy losses; better resilience. | Risk corridors and risk measures can be integrated as constraints/targets. |
| 5 | Robustness analysis | Robust optimization, sensitivity | Robust solutions are often more valuable than fragile optima. | Optimization only in the base case; small changes in assumptions tilt the result. | Stability of the decision; less re-planning and escalations. | Evaluates decision stability via scenarios/parameters. |
| 6 | Restriction density | Complexity, constraints, feasibility | The higher the restriction density, the more important mathematical optimization becomes. | Omitting/softening restrictions → "plan" cannot be implemented. | Realizable portfolios instead of PowerPoint planning; better deliverability. | Optimizes explicitly under real constraints (budget, capacity, time window). |
| 7 | Combinatorics / Exponential spaces | Discrete mathematics, 2^N | Project portfolios generate exponential decision spaces. | Manual scenario selection; the optimum remains invisible. | Significantly higher quality of results because the solution space is systematically checked. | Key advantage: many combinations can be analyzed - beyond Excel. |
| 8 | Systemic risks & correlation | Network theory, portfolio logic | Risks are correlated; two "good" projects can be bad together. | Risks are added together instead of aggregated; cluster risks are overlooked. | Reduction of systemic vulnerability; better crisis resilience. | Allows portfolio risk optimization instead of individual risk management. |
| 9 | Real options | Real Options Theory | Flexibility (wait, extend, cancel) has economic value. | Static NPV; flexibility value is ignored. | Better decisions for innovation and growth projects. | Time and option logic can be modeled as a dynamic portfolio. |
| 10 | Dynamic financial planning | Dynamic programming, path dependency | Decisions today change options tomorrow (lock-ins, sequences). | Annual snapshot instead of multi-period logic; subsequent effects are overlooked. | Fewer strategic dead ends; better roadmaps. | Multi-period optimization and sequencing of projects possible. |
| 11 | Decision psychology | Behavioral finance, bias research | People make biased decisions (overconfidence, anchoring, sunk cost). | "Experience" is confused with objectivity; figures confirm prejudices. | Better governance, less politicized portfolios. | Algorithmic objectification reduces bias in selection. |
| 12 | Information economy | Value of Information (VoI) | Analysis has costs; information gain must be evaluated. | Too much analysis without benefit or too little analysis with high risks. | Optimal decision depth; faster and better decisions. | Efficient decision support and prioritization of data requirements. |
| 13 | Normative decision theory | Rational choice, decision logic | Optimal is a target concept: how decisions should be made - not as usual. | "Best practice" without justification; tradition replaces logic. | Strategic clarity; comprehensible priorities and rules. | Mathematically normative approach to portfolio decisions. |
| 14 | Time value & irreversibility | Investment theory, irreversible investing | Early decisions can irreversibly destroy options. | Committing too early; lock-in through capex and structures. | Better timing decisions and optional roadmaps. | Consider timing and sequencing in portfolio optimization. |
| 15 | Complex systems | Systems theory, complex-adaptive systems | Companies are complex: local optima can destroy global optima. | Linear cause-effect logic; optimization in silos. | Holistic, systemic decisions instead of area optimization. | Basis: Whole-space analysis & optimization across silo boundaries. |
Additional scientific in-depth levels for the optimal financial plan
| No. | In-depth dimension | Scientific context | New insights for the optimal financial plan | Why traditional financial thinking fails here | Strategic added value for top decisions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Epistemic vs. aleatory uncertainty | Decision theory, uncertainty research | Not all uncertainty is random - some is merely unknown and reducible. | All uncertainties are treated equally; information value remains unused. | Targeted investment in knowledge instead of blanket risk premiums. |
| 2 | Decision irreversibility & thresholds | Investment theory, system dynamics | Some decisions generate points of no return - timing becomes a critical factor. | All decisions are modeled as reversible. | Avoiding strategic dead ends and tying up capital too early. |
| 3 | Endogenous restrictions | Systems theory, organizational economics | Many restrictions only arise through earlier decisions themselves. | Restrictions are seen as external and unchangeable. | Design of future scope for action instead of pure adaptation. |
| 4 | Information asymmetries | Principal-agent theory | Financial plans often reflect power and incentive structures, not reality. | Figures are assumed to be objective, although they are strategically colored. | Higher quality of governance and less political bias. |
| 5 | Non-linear value creation | Industrial economics, network theory | Value often emerges only after critical thresholds are reached. | Linear cash flow models underestimate tipping and economies of scale. | Avoid chronic underfunding of strategic initiatives. |
| 6 | Path-dependent capability development | Evolutionary economics, capability-based view | Financial plans implicitly determine future capabilities. | Focus exclusively on short-term financial metrics. | Strategic management of the organizational learning curve. |
| 7 | Time-inconsistent preferences | Behavioral economics, time preference models | Organizations prefer decisions today that they will regret tomorrow. | Short-term key figures dominate long-term target systems. | Stabilization of strategic priorities over time. |
| 8 | Second-order effects & feedback | System dynamics | Optimized decisions can generate unexpected side effects. | Consideration of direct first-order effects only. | Reduction of negative knock-on effects on the organization and market. |
| 9 | Decision entropy | Information theory | Many seemingly equally good options increase decision stress and conflicts. | Complexity is ignored or politicized. | Reduction of cognitive load and faster consensus building. |
| 10 | Goal clarity vs. algorithmic optimization | Normative decision theory | Algorithms optimize exactly what has been defined - not what is meant. | Imprecise goal definitions lead to formally optimal wrong decisions. | Clean separation of objective (human) and solution (system). |
Further in-depth dimensions for maximum scientific depth in the optimal financial plan
| No. | Field of specialization | Scientific frame of reference | New perspective on the optimal financial plan | Limit of classic planning | Strategic benefit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Antifragility | Systems theory, risk dynamics | The optimal financial plan can be designed in such a way that volatility is not only cushioned but also utilized. | Focus on stability instead of learning and upside effects. | Portfolios actively benefit from uncertainty instead of merely tolerating it. |
| 2 | Optional redundancy | Resilience research | Deliberate overlaps increase robustness and responsiveness. | Redundancy is interpreted as inefficiency. | Lower failure costs and faster strategic course changes. |
| 3 | Decision latency | Organizational theory, time economy | Time to decision is itself a cost and risk factor. | Planning processes ignore time lost through coordination. | Faster, well-founded decisions with the same or higher quality. |
| 4 | Capital structure dynamics | Corporate finance, dynamic capital theory | Financing form and timing influence the real project value. | Financing is considered downstream. | Optimal combination of equity, debt and hybrid capital. |
| 5 | Intertemporal opportunity costs | Macroeconomics, time preference models | Capital commitment today prevents better options tomorrow. | Opportunity costs are calculated statically. | Better prioritization and timing of major investments. |
| 6 | Endogenous goal shift | Organizational cybernetics | Goals change themselves through measurement and control. | Goals are considered stable and objective. | Avoidance of KPI gaming and misdirection. |
| 7 | Decision architecture | Choice architecture | How options are presented has a massive influence on decisions. | Neutrality of the presentation is assumed. | Better management and board decisions through clear decision spaces. |
| 8 | Meta-Risks | Risk sociology | Risks also arise from dealing with risks themselves. | Risk management is managed in isolation from the decision-making process. | Reduction of escalation, reputational and governance damage. |
| 9 | Decision diversity | Collective intelligence | Heterogeneous perspectives increase solution quality in the face of complexity. | Homogeneous management teams increase blind spots. | Higher quality of strategic decisions in uncertain environments. |
| 10 | Decision sustainability | Long-term economics, ESG impact models | Financial decisions create long-term ecological and social paths. | ESG is considered additively, not integrated. | Sustainable capital allocation and regulatory resilience. |
Scientific reference matrix for the optimal financial plan (paper-oriented)
| Discipline | Central theory / authors | Scientific core contribution | Implication for optimal financial plan | Consequence for management practice |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operations research | Multi-objective optimization, Pareto (Pareto, Debreu) | Optimal solutions exist as sets, not as individual points. | Financial plans must explicitly model conflicting objectives. | Conscious trade-off decisions instead of KPI fetishism. |
| Decision theory | Normative rationality (Savage, von Neumann) | Rationality is normative, not descriptive. | The optimal financial plan defines target decisions. | Separation of opinions and decision logic. |
| Behavioral finance | Cognitive biases (Kahneman, Tversky) | People are systematically irrational. | Algorithms reduce biases in financial decisions. | Objectification of investment and portfolio decisions. |
| Financial economics | Real options (Myers, Dixit/Pindyck) | Flexibility has economic value. | Financial plans must evaluate options in time. | Better decisions for innovation and growth. |
| Systems theory | Complex adaptive systems (Simon) | Local optima destroy global optima. | Financial planning must be holistic. | End of silo optimization. |
CEO Decision Bible - Optimal financial plan (compact & maximum depth)
| CEO question | Classic answer (insufficient) | Optimal answer in the financial plan | Decision logic | Strategic effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Where do we invest? | In the project with the highest ROI. | In the best project combination under all restrictions. | Portfolio optimization instead of individual optimization. | Higher overall value with lower risk. |
| How much risk do we take? | As little as possible. | As much as is strategically sensible and robustly sustainable. | Downside and robustness logic. | Resilience instead of false security. |
| What happens if assumptions are wrong? | Then we plan anew. | We choose robust solutions from the outset. | Scenario and stability analysis. | Less re-planning, greater implementation power. |
| How do we avoid political decisions? | Through meetings and coordination. | Through objective decision spaces. | Algorithmic prioritization. | Higher governance quality. |
| How does strategy remain consistent in the long term? | Through vision statements. | Through time-stable target systems in the financial plan. | Intertemporal optimization. | Avoidance of strategic zigzags. |
Conclusion
"The greatest illusion of modern corporate management is the assumption that complex decisions can be solved with simple models. An optimal financial plan is not an instrument of control, but of liberation from false assumptions. StratePlan makes visible what remains hidden in the combinatorial space - not to replace people, but to enable them to make truly optimal business decisions."
Dr. Igor Kadoshchuk
Mathematician & computer scientist
Architect of the StratePlan algorithms
Dr. Igor Kadoshchuk is a computer scientist, algorithm architect, and one of the leading minds behind mAInthink's optimization and decision-making algorithms. As scientific director of the StratePlan™ and DeepAnT platforms, he combines in-depth mathematical research with practical applications in project portfolio optimization, business, finance, and public administration.
He holds a PhD in computer science from the renowned Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (MIPT), where he also taught as a professor of computer engineering and mathematics. He has decades of experience developing highly complex mathematical models for project portfolio optimization and financial systems, investment planning, and strategic decision-making. His professional career includes leading positions such as Head of IT at Gazprombank and Director of Project Management at TransTeleCom.
Dr. Kadoshchuk writes on the mAInthink AI Blog. Kadoshchuk on:
- Algorithmic strategy optimization
- New methods for calculating ROI and impact
- Project portfolio optimization beyond traditional tools
- The limits of human decision-making – and how AI overcomes them
His aim: to calculate strategy, not estimate it.
His contributions combine scientific precision with clear, understandable language – always with the goal of making complex decision-making spaces transparent, manageable, and measurable.