The classic example of this is a typical data migration effort. Months of work goes into creating a one-off artefact, primarily to ensure the system down-time is minimized. There are other advantages (testing, pre-transition sign-off, auditing), but in most cases these just exist to mitigate against the risk of downtime, so it's still all about the execution interval.
What I'd not really thought about until the other day was that this also applies to refactoring efforts on code. Any large refactoring burns a considerable amount of time just keeping up with the changes people check-in whilst you're still working away. Given a sizable enough refactoring, and enough code-churn, you get to a point beyond which you actually can't keep up, and end up trapped in merge integration hell.
There are two normal responses to this. The first is to keep the size down in the first place, and bite off smaller, more manageable chunks. This can involve some duplication of effort, which is why many team-leads will take the second option: come in in the evening or over the weekend for a big-bang macho refactorfest.
But there is a 'third way': the refactoring can be as big as you like, as long as you keep it brief. If you can take the latest version of the codebase, refactor it and check it in before anyone else commits any more changes then you only have to worry about the pained expressions on the face of your co-workers as the entire solution restructures in front of their eyes. But you'll get that anyway, right?
Right now I've got some 50 projects, spread over 4 solutions, most of which have inconsistent folder name to project names to assemblyname to base namespace, some of which we just want to rename as the solution has matured.
To do this by hand would be an absolute swine of a job, and highly prone to checkin-integration churn (all those merges on .csproj / .sln files! the pain! the pain!). Fortunately however Powershell just eats this kind of stuff up. It's taken the best part of the day to get the script ready, but now it has the whole thing can be done and checked in in some 15 mins, solutions and source control included. And there's no point-of-no-return: any point up till checkin all I've done is improve the script for next time, no time has been wasted.
And by de-costing the whole process, we can do it again some day...
 ok, I'm sorry for 'de-costing'. But I struggled to come up with a better term for 'reducing the overhead to next-to-nothing' that wasn't unnecessarily verbose, or had 'demean' connotations.