Cost Reduction Waterfall — Where The Savings Come From (Infographic)
Best for: presenting a savings programme as a bridge from current to target cost Avoid when: savings are still estimates with wide ranges (say so in prose instead) Answers: which levers deliver the reduction, and how much each contributes
infographic list-waterfall-badge-card
theme
colorPrimary #2b66c4
palette
- #2b66c4
- #2f9e44
- #f3a33c
- #d1242f
- #7048e8
- #0f9b9b
- #c16f8a
- #7c5a3d
data
title Run-Rate Cost Bridge
desc From $6.8M to $5.2M annualised
lists
- label Current run rate
desc $6.80M
- label Vendor consolidation
desc -$0.62M
- label Storage tiering
desc -$0.41M
- label Idle capacity
desc -$0.35M
- label Contract renegotiation
desc -$0.22M
- label Target run rate
desc $5.20MData Shape
Same waterfall contract as any bridge: opening level, signed movements, closing level. Six items is the practical maximum before the steps get too small to read.
Key Options
| Option | Effect |
|---|---|
infographic list-waterfall-badge-card |
Badge steps; legible with short labels |
list-waterfall-compact-card |
Cards with room for a longer qualifier |
compare-hierarchy-row-* |
Use when savings are per-vendor rather than per-lever |
Pitfalls
- ❌ Levers that overlap (storage tiering inside vendor consolidation) → ✅ one lever per step, or say "included in"
- ❌ Missing the closing level → ✅ a bridge without an endpoint is not a decision
- ❌ Showing only the biggest lever → ✅ small levers are what make the target achievable
Alternatives
| Variant | Use instead |
|---|---|
| Budget consumption over a year | budget-drawdown-waterfall.md |
| Cost split by category | cost-structure-split.md |
| Capacity cost trade-off | capacity-cost-dual-axis.md (vega-lite) |