Engagement pricing, budgeting & economics Ready for approval

Page 2 Program mercury — November design review session Engagement pricing, budgeting & economics — business requirements Business need: opportunity pricing Accomplished through solution Role based access Price at weekly, monthly, summary level Price at opportunity, opportunity line item, engagement and activity Price by rank/grade (summary or individual) or named resource Model alternative team structures to understand the impact on revenue and margin Include expenses and single line adjustments in total or by period View key metrics View impact of irrecoverable expenses Copy previous pricing plan or actuals Handle cross border engagements See impact of fee sharing arrangement Enable consolidated view of engagements relating to single opportunity

Page 3 Program mercury — November design review session Engagement pricing, budgeting & economics — business requirements Business need: engagement budgeting: as per pricing plus: Accomplished through solution Retain visibility of “sold at” price for opportunity Use pricing plan as starting point Daily as well as weekly, monthly, summary levelWeekly only Model the impact of resource promotions Create multiple versions; revert to previous versions if applicable Support automated approvals Automate resource requests Finalize and lock original budget

Page 4 Program mercury — November design review session Engagement pricing, budgeting & economics — business requirements Business need: engagement economics Accomplished through solution View Budget against Actual by: ► weekly, monthly or summary level ► Rank, rank-grade or named resource ► specific period View “forecast”: actuals to date plus most recent ETC (or original budget if no ETC) Review engagement metrics Include “action required” flags on same basis as automated EAF triggers Retain visibility of original budget and “sold at” price Update ETC on identical basis to budget Use booked resource hours as basis for ETC if required Send requests to engagement team for ETC collection Add/remove resources with option to update resource schedules Review latest ETC hours against resourced hours Approval process to manage EAF adjustments

Page 5 Program mercury — November design review session Update estimate to complete: “delivering at” ► 1 plan per opportunity line item ► All opportunities must have a plan created using the Margin Modeling Tool unless they are below the SL threshold ► Client server (CS) launches price plan from line item ► CS selects time period & granularity ► Work effort added: rank / grade or individuals ► CS models alternatives and reviews metrics ► Deal review approval noted (optional) ► Resources soft tagged (optional) ► When price agreed, opp partner approves ► Systems based approvals workflow: approvals to be based on Account (G360) or market segment targets (Core) ► Final price and key metrics locked and displayed in opportunity info ► CS reviews budget to date v actual to date and latest forecast ► CS send requests to team members asking for ETC ► CS adds new resources and rolls off current resources ► CS updates forecast by revising estimate to complete hours or by importing resource booking data ► Additional fees added [in CRM] ► Metrics can be reviewed and updated ► CS reviews forecast and booked hours ► Changes to resource hours can be sent through to resourcing ► Consistent visibility of original plan as well as latest forecast and audit trail of forecast updates over life of engagement Create engagement budget: “planned at” ► Price plan forms the starting point for the budget ► Engagement budget required for every new engagement ► CS can “clone” plan, copy in full or part to support the creation of multiple budgets from one price plan ► CS can pull in plan / actual data from other engagements ► CS enters work effort per resource per activity (optional) per week ► CS models alternatives and reviews metrics ► CS sends resource request to resource manager; budget updated with allocated resources (new version) ► If GFS, system calculates EAF for all engagements linked to the opportunity ► EP, OP, GCSP / Market segment lead approves ► Once agreed, original budget is locked and stored in MMT and SAP Create pricing plan: “sold at” Engagement pricing, budgeting & economics – process overview

Page 6 Program mercury — November design review session Engagement pricing, budgeting & economics – process overview Who we spoke to: Program Mercury teams: Opportunity Management Finance Revenue recognition Architecture Risk & Controls Change Management Reporting Co-existence SMRs: SDA SMR Network Localisation workshops Tax: Stephen Day, Peter Sand, Alison Eaves Assurance: Jon Pye, Estelle Billy, Cassandra Wolfe, Rod Grant, Ruchi Gupta, Robert Newton, Stephen Konenkamp (call to be held) Time Tracker: Seth Golub, Michele Gianonne

Page 7 Program mercury — November design review session Engagement pricing, budgeting & economics – Current State vs. Future State AreaCurrent StateFuture State Visibility of metrics through life of engagement Significant manual effort to report price, agreed budget and delivery metrics for an engagement Manual effort required to consolidate results for all engagements related to an opportunity Visibility and transparency of movements between “sold at” price, “planned at” budget and “delivered at” results. Easy to update forecast and view audit trail of changes through life of engagement. All engagements related to an opportunity linked by opportunity ID to support reporting and analysis ToolsVariety of tools: no standard SL or Area approach: MMT.net B&PR Time Tracker Local SL/SSL tools User spreadsheets Single suite of tools supporting a globally standardized and harmonized approach B&PR, Time Tracker and local tools to be decommissioned MetricsInconsistent metrics and calculations eg cost capping, mergin pre / post PNC One set of key metrics calculated consistently RatesMany tools only include local country rates, inconsistent rate data utilised Single set of bill (NSR) and cost rates applied. Same rates used for plan and actuals CRMNo automated link with CRMIntegration with CRM to support user experience and visibility of opportunity related engagement metrics ResourcingNo integration outside B&PRPlans, budgets and ETC can be used to send booking requests and budgets can be updated to reflect assigned resources

Page 8 Program mercury — January design review session These changes require a significant extension of the current MMT scope AreaCurrent StateFuture State IntegrationData feeds from GFISIntegration with CRM, Resourcing and SAP systems Support for pricing and budgeting process Plans created for individual engagements No linkage to opportunities or connected engagements Supports creation of pricing plans and engagement budgets – separately identifiable All plans tie back to an opportunity All engagements related to same opportunity are linked and consolidated metrics can be viewed User ExperienceFunctional screens No mobile access User interfaces to be redesigned to be consistent with mercury UX Mobile (tablet) enabled ResourcingNo integrationPlans, budgets and ETC can be used to send booking requests Users can budget by rank/grade or select named resources Budgets can be updated to reflect assigned resources ApprovalsNo automated approvalsWorkflow to support approvals Record of approval and which version was approved Supports deal review Security modelSingle sign on: user can access own plans or those than have been delegated Role based access based on opportunity / engagement roles Additional access can be added ActivitiesNo activity functionalityCan be included in plan / budget Fee sharingNo supportSupports automation of fee sharing: captures required information from plan and budget and calculates planned “common EAF” Use of previous data Copy plansCopy full or partial plans and prior year / other engagement actuals

Page 9 Program mercury — January design review session ► The future platform will align with the Mercury and EY User Experience standards being developed and therefore will be redeveloped in Sharepoint We conducted a detailed fit/gap analysis to review how much of the current tool can be reused We propose that replacement MMT should be built to align with Program Mercury and EY UX strategy by building it on the EY Standard platforms: including Microsoft SharePoint and.NET frameworks. This will support our approach to streamlined maintenance and operability, thereby keeping costs in line. ► The current application is tightly bound to GFIS source data org and metrics for the calculations it performs. In consequence, a large proportion will need to be reworked to support the new Mercury global processes. User Interface Reuse 0% Application Layer Reuse 10 – 20% ► The data layer is highly GFIS centric, therefore most objects will have to be re-worked to support the SAP data model Data Layer Reuse 10 – 20% ► The only existing interface is with GFIS, which will be decommissioned Systems Interface reuse 0%

Page 10 Program mercury — January design review session Interaction between MMT and Mercury MMT EDW ECC Exchange rates PPM CRM Opportunity line item data Pricing info Org structure NSR & cost rates Employee data Engagement budget; rate card(s) Resource demand Resource assignment Predefined activities Actuals & ETC Ref #Data transferred automatically by interface 1Organisation structure 2NSR and cost rates 3Currency exchange rates 4Engagement budget and rate cards 5Opportunity line item information re client & account, roles, service code 6Pricing information: sold at price & key metrics, production value, calendarization 7Employee data to enable users to select named resources 8Resource requests 9Resource assignments: confirmation of booked resources 10Pre-defined activities 11Actuals / forecast data to use as basis for creating plan / budget

Page 11 Program mercury — January design review session Ref #InterfaceSAP complexity MMT complexity Rationale for complexity of medium or high Recommendation 1Org structureLowMedium MMT – need to identify new or changed records Essential 2NSR and cost ratesMediumLowSAP – pulls data from multiple tablesEssential 3Currency exchange ratesLow Essential 4Engagement budget; rate card(s)HighMedium Interfaced data feeds multiple areas of SAP with updates and edits Essential 5Opportunity line item informationHigh Additional complexity arising from SAP cloud re middleware and data encryption Defer to next release 6Pricing informationHigh Same as interface #5Defer to next release 7Employee dataLow Include 8Resource requestsHighLowMultiple edits and updates in SAP Include – can leverage development of interface #4 9Resource assignmentsMediumLowTBC re SAPInclude 10Pre-defined activitiesLow Under review to understand extent of usage 11Actuals / forecast dataMedium Pulls data from multiple tables. Data manipulation on receipt Include Recommendations re automated data transfers

Page 12 Program mercury — January design review session Proposed Delivery Model: Combined EY and IBM team that utilizes existing EY knowledge and aligns to Mercury Governance structure.

Page 13 Program mercury — November design review session Engagement pricing, budgeting & economics –SMR and user experience overview Client server representation for each Area and SL Day in the life overview Detailed “deep” dive sessions planned: NSR & EAF, T&E, Billing & collections In person meetings set up for Feb: will include Budget to Actual and ETC preparation SDA SMR Network Being coordinated as part of UX workstream SDA SMR network invited to provide UX feedback across SDA workstream In addition, a number of experienced MMT users being identified to provide UX feedback User Experience

Page 14 Program mercury — November design review session Engagement pricing, budgeting & economics — outstanding items ► Detailed fee sharing design ► Out of scope fees ► Coexistence strategy ► Agreement re removal of surcharges ► Mechanism for booking resources at opportunity stage ► Process for collating the G360 approval thresholds and for establishing and collating approval thresholds for core accounts ► Establishment of “exemptions” from MMT usage: $ value per country / SSL or service offering per country?

Page 15 Program mercury — November design review session People ► Client servers will need training to use new tools and understand new revenue metrics eg NSR and EAF ► For some countries, preparation of plans, budgets and ETC to shift from FMAs to client servers ► New processes include: creation of pricing plan as part of opportunity creation use of pricing plan to create engagement budget preparation of ETC automated resource requests and feedback ► Greater visibility of fee sharing arrangements and results ► New tools being introduced to support processes ► Existing tools being decommissioned ► Current MMT to change significantly Technology Policies ► Mandatory use of pricing and budgeting tool unless deal value is below country / SL thresholds ► All engagements connected to single opportunity will have same plan EAF ► Approvals based on Account / market segment rather than country / SL Culture ► Some local views of key metrics and margin calculations out of line with Mercury approach ► Linkage between “sold at”, “planned at” and “delivered at” is new concept ► No longer possible to avoid creation of plans by entering metrics directly into system (unless deals are below agreed thresholds) ► Removal of surcharges will be a major change especially for the Assurance SL Engagement pricing, budgeting & economics — Change impact Process

Page 16 Program mercury — November design review session Engagement pricing, budgeting & economics — key benefits: ► Globally consistent approach to modelling revenue and margin for pricing and budgeting ► Globally consistent calculation of key metrics ► Tools support set up and management of larger cross border engagements ► Integrated solution reduces manual rekeying and ensures consistency of data between solutions ► Technical solution enables client server to move seamlessly between applications to support business process ► Scaleable process: client handler is only required to add detail if necessary ► Enables data to be used for multiple purposes eg update forecast metrics and resource bookings from one screen ► Minimises effort required to update forecast metrics ► Approvals and notifications minimised ► Supports focus on margin ► Transparency and visibility of “sold at”, “planned at” and “delivered at” metrics encourages focus on management of engagement financials; early visibility of over runs supports corrective action Streamlined Global Strategic Focus