1. Margin Management Tool (MMT) Recommended Approach 23-January-2014
Mercury Program
Margin Management Tool (MMT)
Recommended Approach
23-January-2014

2. Agenda What we need from Managing Sponsors Sign Off on this approach
MMT Deck Overview
MMT Focus
Current –vs- Future State
MMT Benefits
Fit/Gap Requirement Analysis
Conceptual Future State Architecture
MMT Timeline
Delivery Model
Appendix
MMT Context Diagram
Key Issues & Risks
Iteration Schedule 2

3. Harmonize and standardize Provide consistency with other tools
The Margin Modeling Tool supports the emphasis on margin as a key metric
The ability to measure and manage margin at account and partner portfolio level is a key element of Vision 2020
The MMT was developed as a single global margin modeling tool
The use of the MMT, with the proposed enhancements, combined with the new Mercury business processes will:
Continue the focus
on Margin
Harmonize and standardize
Provide consistency with other tools
Margin will be visible as a key metric throughout the life of the opportunity and engagement
The approvals in MMT for pricing and budgeting will be margin based and related to the Account (G360) or market segment (Core)
Enables partners to calculate impact of current opportunity on their portfolio
Consistent way to calculate Margin with globally consistent approach to calculating direct cost rates for staff and partners
“What if” scenario modeling provides transparency about impact of resourcing choices on margin
Ensures globally consistent reporting of margin on Opportunities to support Account level decision making
MyBusiness metrics will also be shown in MMT
MMT will support improved backlog reporting
Introduce “Aligning on Margin” initiative as a globally consistent initiative enabling everyone to be able to understand Margin and its components.
Share:
Key elements of the Margin initiative
Most important/significant change of the initiative
Key points:
Utilizes straight-forward Margin calculation that includes both revenue and a standard direct cost rate. A balanced focus on both the revenue side and the cost side are important
Provides an intuitive Margin Modeling Tool deployed to support more informed business decisions on Margin and how Margin changes as you pull various levers
Enables account/portfolio decisions with policies for client servers on charging their business development hours for OCA accounts to help support decision making at the account level

4. Engagement pricing, budgeting & economics – Current State vs
Engagement pricing, budgeting & economics – Current State vs. Future State
Area
Current State
Future 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
Tools
Variety 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
Metrics
Inconsistent metrics and calculations eg cost capping, mergin pre / post PNC
One set of key metrics calculated consistently
Rates
Many 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
CRM
No automated link with CRM
Integration with CRM to support client experience and visibility of opportunity related engagement metrics
Resourcing
No integration outside B&PR
Plans, budgets and ETC can be used to send booking requests and budgets can be updated to reflect assigned resources

5. Engagement pricing, budgeting & economics - — key benefits:
Global
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
Streamlined
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
Strategic Focus
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

6. Fit/Gap Requirements Analysis
Total Requirements for the future state MMT
User Interface Reuse for future state MMT
Application Layer Reuse for future state MMT
280 requirements 0%
10-20%
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 function in an SAP world.
Four detailed requirements sessions were performed
No Functional Requirements to date have been written
UX requirements to be identified during design phase
The future platform will align with the Mercury and EY User Experience standards being developed
Data Layer Reuse for future state MMT
Current MMT Interface will not be reused
10-20% 0%
The data layer is highly GFIS centric, therefore most objects would have to be re-worked to support SAP data structures
The only existing interface is with GFIS, which will be decommissioned
The new MMT will align with Program Mercury and EY UX strategy by building it on EY Standard platforms like Microsoft SharePoint and  .NET frameworks. This will support our approach to streamlined maintenance and operability, thereby keeping costs in line.

7. Conceptual Architecture

8. MMT Timeline

9. Delivery Model
A combined EY and IBM team that utilizes existing EY knowledge and aligns to Mercury Governance structure.

10. Delivery Model - Team
A combined EY and IBM team that utilizes existing EY knowledge and aligns to Mercury Governance structure.

11. Dependencies and Immediate Next Steps
Key Dependencies
Fee Sharing design from Finance team
Opportunity Management design from CRM team
What we need from the Managing Sponsors
Sign Off on this approach
Permission to commercially engage IBM for resources

12. Appendix
Context Diagram
Risk / Issue List
Iteration Schedule

13. High Level Architecture – mapped to KDD & SAP

14. Key Program Issues & Risks
Time to complete the Functional requirements
The SAP Interface work stream has started building transactions for MMT and the MMT team is not yet formed, data model not designed, and the knock on effect to the Maintenance Team is growing rapidly.
The User Experience Work stream, expected to generate additional requirements, has not started.
Risk
If EY is able to ramp up the team in one week, that only allows 8 weeks to complete design. Mitigation – accelerate the staffing of MMT.
Each time a current MMT system problem occurs, the MMT Subject Matter Resources will not be available to the MMT development teams resulting in schedule delays. Mitigation – Provide additional resources to production support and dedicate MMT Subject Matter Resources to the new development effort.

15. Iteration Schedule