Our industry must redefine “a good deal” to close the tech investment  impact gap

By Carmen Ene, CEO, BNP Paribas 3 Step IT

The first time I used the phrase Total Cost of Impact was at the World Circular Economy Forum in Helsinki. Sitting on that stage, in a room full of political leaders, industry changemakers, and global financiers, my point was deliberately simple: when it comes to technology, value is no longer just about what you pay upfront.  

That may sound obvious, but it remains one of the most persistent investment blind spots in the C-suite today. 

Technology as infrastructure 

Technology has crossed a threshold. No longer simply a collection of operational tools, it is core infrastructure that every business relies on, demanding the same rigor, oversight, and long-term thinking as any other critical system. Infrastructure carries responsibility. For efficiency, security and compliance, sustainability, and resilience. That shift fundamentally changes how technology investment decisions must be made. 

Rising complexity and accountability 

At the same time, the technology environment is becoming more and more complex. Demand for technology continues to rise despite persistent price increases, which have had “zero impact on demand”, according to the CEO of HPE, Antonio Neri. 

Innovation is accelerating. Risk is increasing as cybersecurity threats, regulatory pressure, supply chain fragility, and geopolitical instability contribute to unprecedented levels of uncertainty. The result is that organisations have less visibility of technology risks and costs than just about ever before. 

This raises the stakes for technology leaders, nearly 90% of whom say their performance is now evaluated on the wider business impact their tech investments create, according to our latest research. 

The false economy of the price tag 

Despite this tension, today most organisations still make tech investment decisions – sometimes worth billions of dollars – without a clear view of their lifecycle consequences. Instead, they default to what is easiest to assess at the point of purchase, typically upfront price.  

Our research shows that 64% of tech leaders have chosen not to procure the best tech solution because of its initial price tag, with upfront cost remaining the top investment consideration for most organisations, even beyond technical specifications. 

Upfront price tells you very little about how a technology asset will perform, how costly it will become to run, how exposed it may be to compliance or security failures, or how much financial or material value you can recover at the end of its life.  

Tech investment blind spots  

It’s not that organisations don’t understand the strategic value of technology. In fact, the technology leaders we surveyed consistently rate tech as a leading driver of competitiveness, employee performance, security, and operational resilience. And it’s not that they don’t understand the risks – 79% acknowledge tech represents a moderate to very high threat to their organisation. 

The challenge is most organisations don’t have a way to assess the broader set of long-term impacts that technology creates – from rising costs and hidden security and compliance risks to operational inefficiencies, productivity challenges, and emerging environmental and social responsibilities – all of which can emerge and intensify later in the lifecycle, long after the initial investment decision was made.  

The impact gap 

In our new report, we call this the “impact gap” where organisations expect technology to create risk but consistently underprioritise the lifecycle factors that determine whether this can be achieved. 

Let me give you an example: 82% of leaders say technology is now the leading driver of business value, alongside their people. But only 16% strongly agree that there is a link between their business strategy and tech procurement. Clearly, this makes it challenging to convert tech spend into return on investment or ensure it delivers on long-term business priorities.  

But that’s not all. When asked to rate the value of technology, a significant majority said it was a driver of efficiency, competitive advantage, and employee performance. Yet only around 1 in 10 rated these factors as business-critical¹ when making investment decisions. Meanwhile, just under half prioritise data security as a high priority², despite recognising it as the top technology threat. 

Total Cost of Impact 

These challenges are only set to intensify with the onset of emerging technologies, like AI. But businesses cannot simply opt out of technology investment. It is too foundational. So, the real question, then, is not whether to invest, but how. In a world where uncertainty is the norm, what matters most is maximising control and visibility over time. 

This is why we have developed Total Cost of Impact – a new lifecycle-based model for evaluating the full business impact of technology investment decisions. TCI captures cost, value, and risk across the technology lifecycle, enabling organisations to evaluate financial, operational, security and compliance, and environmental and social impact, as well as the operating context technology depends on. 

Put simply, it asks organisations to consider: What does this investment decision cost across its lifecycle? What risks does it create? And what value will it unlock over time? In doing so, TCI brings the trade-offs organisations must make into view early, before they become spiralling costs, unmanaged risks, and lost opportunities to recover value. 

Circularity follows impact 

One of the most important realisations tech leaders can have is that circularity is a natural extension of an impact-led approach. 

From day one, TCI requires organisations to evaluate how to maximise value as technology is financed, tracked, utilised, maintained, and ultimately retired. In doing so, it extends asset lifespans, recovers more residual value, and reduces end-of-life risk. These are all key principles of a circular economy, and also really responsible, forward-thinking business decisions.  

Ultimately, when organisations manage technology through a total impact lens, circularity follows. And when impact is visible end‑to‑end, waste can be minimised, risk becomes measurable, and maximum value can be recovered. 

The lifecycle advantage 

As I said in Helsinki, in today’s fast-moving landscape, what is most crucial is not upfront price, but control. And that only comes with an end-to-end lifecycle approach.  

Organisations that adopt a lifecycle view of technology now – treating it as critical infrastructure rather than a set of discrete investments – will build compounding advantages as decisions made early improve performance over time. From there, the gap quickly widens between organisations that optimise for lifecycle impact and those who do not, as they become increasingly efficient, agile, and resilient.