Cost of Delay Modeler Guide for Wisconsin

What this calculator does

Run this scenario in DocketMath using the Cost Of Delay calculator.

DocketMath’s Cost of Delay Modeler (for Wisconsin / US‑WI) helps you translate “time passing” into measurable financial impact—so you can compare options that differ by months or years.

The calculator is designed to model the cost effects of delay across a timeline, using inputs like:

• Start date (when delay begins)
• End date (when the modeled outcome occurs)
• Annual cost of delay (your estimated $ impact per year)
• Discount rate (optional, to reflect the time value of money)
• Penalty structure (optional, if you want step-ups or phase-in costs)

Then it produces outputs such as:

• Total cost of delay over the selected period
• Annualized cost equivalents (depending on your inputs)
• Sensitivity-style impact when you adjust key parameters (e.g., discount rate or annual cost)

Wisconsin-specific timing context (the “6-year” constraint)

Because Wisconsin criminal statutes of limitation are a common driver of “time horizon” decisions, this guide anchors to Wisconsin’s general statute of limitations period of 6 years for covered offenses:

• Wis. Stat. § 939.74(1) provides a 6-year limitations period.
  Source: https://codes.findlaw.com/wi/crimes-ch-938-to-951/wi-st-939-74/

If your scenario is tied to limitations timing, you’ll generally want your model’s end date to reflect the relevant limitations window or a comparison window within it. The calculator itself does not compute eligibility for limitations; it only converts your chosen timeline into dollars.

When to use it

Use DocketMath’s Cost of Delay Modeler when you need to evaluate how delay affects costs—and you want a repeatable way to quantify tradeoffs.

Common triggers in Wisconsin-focused workflows include:

• Scheduling decisions

  • Comparing two resolution paths that differ by, for example, 9 months vs 2 years
• Resource planning

  • Estimating how a longer case lifecycle affects staffing, overhead, or downstream costs
• **Negotiation leverage / settlement economics (non-legal)

  • Preparing internal business reasoning for why earlier resolution can reduce total spend
• Policy or operational reviews

  • Testing whether process changes that reduce average delay produce measurable savings

A practical “use it now” checklist

Consider running the model when at least one of these is true:

• You can identify a reasonable date range (start/end) for the delay
• You have an estimate for annual $ impact (even a range)
• You need to compare two timelines that differ meaningfully (≥ 6 months is a good threshold for practical differentiation)
• The project outcome is sensitive to time (e.g., budgets, staffing plans, operational throughput)

Step-by-step example

Below is a concrete walkthrough using a Wisconsin-oriented timeline. Adjust the numbers to fit your situation; the process stays the same.

Scenario: comparing two resolution timelines

Assume you want to compare:

• Option A: Delay ends in 18 months
• Option B: Delay ends in 36 months

You estimate the cost of delay is $120,000 per year, reflecting things like overhead, continuing case management costs, and downstream operational friction.

You also choose a discount rate of 5% annually (optional but often helpful).

Step 1: Set your timeline (start and end)

• Start date: 2026-03-22
• Option A end date: 2027-09-22 (18 months later)
• Option B end date: 2028-03-22 (36 months later)

In the calculator, enter those dates so the model knows the exact period length rather than relying on approximate month counts.

Step 2: Enter annual cost assumptions

• Annual cost of delay: $120,000

  • This is the baseline “cost per year” that delay generates.
  • If you prefer, you can model different phases (e.g., lower cost early, higher cost later), but keep it consistent across options.

Step 3: Choose whether to discount future costs

• Discount rate: 5%

  • If your organization doesn’t apply discounting internally, you can set it to 0% (no discounting).
  • Changing discount rate mainly affects the weight of later costs.

Step 4: Run both options

Run the calculator twice:

• Run 1: Start = 2026-03-22, End = 2027-09-22
• Run 2: Start = 2026-03-22, End = 2028-03-22

Step 5: Compare outputs

You’ll typically see:

• Option B total cost > Option A total cost
• The gap grows superlinearly if you apply step-ups or higher phase costs later

To make comparisons easy, capture results in a small table:

Where Wisconsin’s 6-year concept may matter

If your timeline choice is being driven by Wisconsin’s statute of limitations context, remember the Wisconsin general limitations period is 6 years under Wis. Stat. § 939.74(1) (6-year period). That’s not a cost rule—it’s a timing constraint commonly used to define what “maximum relevant horizon” looks like.

Source: https://codes.findlaw.com/wi/crimes-ch-938-to-951/wi-st-939-74/

So, if you’re comparing “best-case within the limitations window” vs “worst-case within the limitations window,” your end dates should usually land within a 6-year-bounded frame.

Common scenarios

The best way to use a cost-of-delay model is to match your inputs to how costs actually behave over time. Below are common modeling patterns you can mirror in DocketMath.

1) Flat annual cost (simplest and often sufficient)

Use when overhead and friction rise roughly proportionally over time.

• Annual cost of delay: constant (e.g., $80,000/year)
• No discounting (or a consistent internal discounting rule)

Typical use cases

• Administrative staffing levels
• General overhead tied to prolonged processing

2) Phase-in costs (low early, higher later)

Use when delay causes escalation after a certain point (e.g., additional review cycles, new staffing, or increased operational disruption).

Example structure

• First 12 months: $60,000/year
• Months 13–36: $100,000/year
• After 36 months: $140,000/year

Run the model for each option timeline so you can see which phase you trigger.

3) Step changes tied to discrete events

Use when costs jump on identifiable milestones:

• A new review stage begins
• A resource reallocation happens
• Certain recurring expenses start after a trigger date

This can be more realistic than a smooth annual cost assumption.

4) Comparing “moving targets” rather than fixed end dates

Instead of assuming end date certainty, you can model alternative end dates (e.g., 24 months vs 48 months) and treat outputs as scenario bands.

Recommended practice

• Model at least 3 scenarios:

  • Best-case
  • Expected
  • **Worst-case (still within your relevant horizon)

Then compute a simple range:

• Low estimate = best-case modeled cost
• Mid estimate = expected modeled cost
• High estimate = worst-case modeled cost

5) Discounting to compare early vs late outcomes

Discounting matters most when:

• The time gap between options is large (e.g., 2 years or more)
• Your annual cost estimate includes future components that accrue later

If you set discount rate to 0%, the model becomes “cash-neutral over time.” With a positive discount rate, later costs count less than earlier costs.

Tips for accuracy

You’ll get better outputs when your inputs reflect real decision mechanics. Use these calibration tips.

Align model dates to the decision horizon

A common accuracy issue is mixing dates from different decision contexts. Keep it consistent:

• Start date = when the delay scenario begins for your model
• End date = when costs stop accruing for your modeled outcome

If you’re comparing two resolution strategies, both should share the same start date unless your strategies truly begin differently.

Make your annual cost assumption defensible

If you only have a monthly estimate, convert it carefully:

• If monthly cost is $10,000, annual equivalent is typically:

  • $10,000 × 12 = $120,000/year

Avoid rounding midstream. If you do round, keep the rounding method identical across options so comparisons remain fair.

Test sensitivity on the top 1–2 parameters

Two parameters typically dominate:

• Annual cost of delay
• Discount rate

Run small variations, such as:

• Discount rate: 0% → 3% → 5%
• Annual cost: $100,000 → $120,000 → $140,000

A quick sensitivity table helps you see whether your result is robust or fragile:

Use Wisconsin’s 6-year timing only as a horizon anchor (not as a cost rule)

If your model is grounded in Wisconsin criminal statute of

Related reading

• Cost of Delay Modeler Guide for Alabama
• Cost of Delay Modeler Guide for Arizona
• Cost of Delay Modeler Guide for California