amr research 2009 executive guide to selecting bipm service providers[1]

8/6/2019 AMR Research 2009 Executive Guide to Selecting BIPM Service Providers[1]

1/18

2009 Executive Guide to Selecting

BI/PM Service Providers

July 2009

Service providers oer a plethora o BI and PM services that incorporate sophisticated

methodologies and packaged oerings. What buyers value highly are nuts-and-bolts technical

skills that mesh with their chosen technical architecture. Tey also continue to want it their

way on their terms.

by John Hagerty and Dana Stifer

Enterprise Perormance Management


2/18

Copyright 2009 by AMR Research, Inc.

AMR Research is a registered trademark o AMR Research, Inc.

No portion o this report may be reproduced in whole or in part without the prior written permission o AMR Research. Any writtenmaterials are protected by United States copyright laws and international treaty provisions.

AMR Research oers no speciic guarantee regarding the accuracy or completeness o the inormation presented, but the proessional stao AMR Research makes every reasonable eort to present the most reliable inormation available to it and to meet or exceed anyapplicable industry standards.

AMR Research is not a registered investment advisor, and it is not the intent o this document to recommend speciic companies orinvestment, acquisition, or other inancial considerations.


3/18

2009 AMR Research, Inc.Enterprise Performance Management | July 2009 1

EntErprisE pErformancE managEmEnt

2009 Executive Guide to SelectingBI/PM Service Providersby John Hagerty and Dana Stifer

Business intelligence (BI) and perormance manage-ment (PM) programs consume a massive amount omoney. AMR Research estimates that companies spentover $57B globally on BI/PM programs in 2008, withnearly $21B, or 37% o the total, spent on externalservices. With that much money at stake, its not sur-prising that service providers have doubled down onBI/PM as a continuing source o activity and revenuein tough economic times. While 2009s market orBI/PM external services has sotened, all rms expectgrowth this yearestimates range rom modest toexplosiveas buyers continue to invest in inrastruc-ture and programs that enable act-based decision-making.

We invited 35 leading service providers with at least100 BI/PM resources to participate in this research;23 agreed and answered a detailed RFI in 1Q09. Teinormation gathered includes acts and gures aboutthe consulting and technical capabilities necessary tosupport BI and perormance management projects,ongoing maintenance o associated inrastructure, andspecic process and/or industry specialties.

We also conducted detailed interviews with over 50organizations that use or have used external BI/PMservices. Most companies were provided as reerencesthrough the RFI process. Tey include rms that useconsultants or sta augmentation, outsourced supportand maintenance, project management, strategy devel-opment, sotware implementation, or turnkey solutiondeployment. Some engagements were as short as a ewquarters. One has been active or nearly 10 years.

We reached several conclusions:

In buyers minds, technical skills trump industryand process expertise by a wide margin.

PM programs require a blend o inance best prac-tice knowledge and sotware product expertise.

Service provider capabilities dont always matchhow theyre used.

Global delivery options allow service irms to lexstaing levels based on buyer demand and/or con-strained budgets.

Perormance issues are usually linked to individualsand their interpersonal skills.

July 2009

The Bottom Line: With billions spent on external business intelligence and perormance

management services, buyers still value cost-eective technical skills over industry or business

process expertise.

Service providers featured in this Report

Accenture (including Avanade), Archstone Consulting, Capgemini, Claraview (a division o Teradata),Cognizant Technology Solutions, Deloitte, Ernst & Young, Fujitsu, Genpact, HCL, Hewlett-Packard, IBMGlobal Business Services, Inosys, ISA Consulting, KPMG, L&T InoTech, MindTree, Palladium Group, Patni,

PricewaterhouseCoopers, Sapient, Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), Wipro


4/18

2009 AMR Research, Inc.2 Enterprise Performance Management | July 2009

Scope o practice does difer widely

Lots of emphasis areas are lumped under the terms BI

and PM. For some, BI/PM is about reporting. For others,

the emphasis is on dashboards. Data governance is the

taproot of many programs, while others frame BI/PM asintegration and data warehousing.

BI and PM are not monoliths, and service providers

have diverse practices. We asked each firm to

characterize what the scope of service entails and how

they typically engage with clients. In our definition,

any initiative is made up of at least two of the

following components:

BI products Tools that provide information

gathering, analytics, and presentation of data to end

users.

Analytic inrastructure Infrastructure to store,

organize, integrate, and prepare data for reporting,

analysis, and planning functions.

Analytic applications Delivered applications that

accurately gather, unify, coordinate, and analyze

company-wide or content-specific data. Financial

consolidation and reporting is an example of this

type of application.

Dashboard and scorecards Tools and/

or applications that help businesses track key

performance indicators (KPIs) by providing a unified

view of organizational performance data and options

on a timed or near real-time and integrated basis.

Planning, budgeting, and orecasting (PBF)

productsApplications that provide a business

with a high degree of flexibility to align financial

and/or operational plans to its specific enterprise or

departmental planning processes

BI, analytic infrastructure, and dashboards/scorecards

are primarily delivered as blank canvases withunlimited possibilities. Each company paints as many

pictures as needed, reflecting how they choose to

portray their business performance. PBF and analytic

applications are usually configured for usemore

like paint by numbers than built from scratch for each

deployment. Figure 1 shows the relative importance of

each component within a service providers portfolio.

tehl kll u duy de exee by wde

Over the past ew years, we have repeatedly heardanecdotal evidence that BI/PM service buyers are lesswedded to product and technical choices and more

interested in hiring rms with proven experience intheir industry or business processes. Some even inti-mated that sotware products have enough unctionalparity that they are interchangeable. As we kicked othis project, our hypothesis was simple: industry andprocess skills are most highly valued.

But detailed interviews with over 50 reerences indicatejust the opposite: Te vast majority still evaluates andchooses service partners based on technical skill sets. Inact, over 80% o the companies indicated that tech-nical knowledge was the No. 1 criteria or selecting a

consultant, regardless o project scope. An I VP or aquick-service retail company said he valued rock-solidexperiences in integration, database, and BIthe holytrinity o BI technology.

Tat means that nearly 20% acknowledged thatindustry or business process knowledge was their topconsideration, especially when BI/PM strategy workwas the projects ocus. More than a ew mentionedthey werent really concerned about business expertisebecause they considered it a given. But a CIO o aEuropean bank put it best: You will get a lucky strikei you nd a team that has process knowledge andknows the products in detail.

Many companies, constrained by tighter budgets,continue to supply business and process expertise romwithin their own ranks, leaving the bulk o technicaland product knowledge to third parties. A manager ata health insurance company talked about the synergythat developed with this divide and conquer approach:Tey allowed the business customer to accelerate theirlearning curve and denitely short-cut the developmentand implementation process.

See able 1 ater the sidebar or key acts or each ser-vice provider, and able 2 or service provider skills byspecic technology.


5/18

2009 AMR Research, Inc. 3Enterprise Performance Management | July 2009

Wipro

Tata Consultancy Services

Sapient

PricewaterhouseCoopers

Patni

Palladium Group

MindTree

L&T InfoTech

KPMG

ISA Consulting

Infosys

IBM Global Business Services

Hewlett-Packard

HCL

Genpact

Fujitsu

Ernst & Young

Deloitte

Cognizant Technology Solutions

Claraview, a division of Teradata

Capgemini

Archstone Consulting

Accenture (including Avanade) 35% 25% 15% 10% 15%

25% 5% 30% 10% 30%

30% 40% 20% 5% 5%

13% 47% 29% 11%

23% 29% 14% 16% 18%

35% 5% 15% 20% 25%

10% 5% 20% 10% 55%

50% 10% 15% 15% 10%

30% 20% 30% 5% 15%

40% 5% 20% 15% 20%

25% 35% 15% 15% 10%

27% 46% 12% 10% 5%

30% 30% 10% 10% 20%

20% 10% 20% 20% 30%

23% 33% 21% 17% 7%

15% 15% 20% 15% 35%

40% 5% 35% 15% 5%

35% 45% 15% 3%2%

25% 15% 10% 20% 30%

30% 5% 10% 15% 40%

30% 20% 30% 15% 5%

30% 25% 15% 20% 10%

15% 60% 15% 5% 5%

Planning, budgeting,

and forecasting

Dashboarding

and scorecarding

Analytic

applications

Analytic

infrastructure

Business

intelligence

Figure 1: Practice focus by BI/PM category

Source: AMR Research, 2009


6/18


tble 1:

Source: AMR Research estimates and/or company input, 2009

Engagement scope, practice size, and revenue facts

cy

Eee se pe sze reveue

Consulting,Project

Management,

FunctionalServices TechnologyDevelopment BI/PM FTEs BI/PMRevenue CompanyRevenue

BI/PM Service Revenue$500M to $1B

Accenture (including Avanade) 40% 60% 10,000+ $500M to $1B More than $10B

Capgemini 30% 70% 2,501 to 5,000 $500M to $1B $1B to $10B

Deloitte 40% 60% 1,001 to 2,500 $500M to $1B More than $10B

IBM Global Business Services 45% 55% 5,001 to 10,000 $500M to $1B More than $10B

Tata Consultancy Services 5% 95% 10,000+ $500M to $1B $1B to $10B

BI/PM Service Revenue$100 to $500M

Cognizant Technology Solutions 43% 57% 5,001 to 10,000 $250M to $500M $1B to $10BHewlett-Packard 35% 65% 2,501 to 5,000 $250M to $500M More than $10B

Inosys 43% 57% 5,001 to 10,000 $250M to $500M $1B to $10B

Wipro 40% 60% 5,001 to 10,000 $250M to $500M $1B to $10B

Genpact 50% 50% 1,001 to 2,500 $100M to $250M $1B to $10B

BI/PM Service Revenue$50M to $100M

Ernst & Young 70% 30% 100 to 500 $50M to $100M More than $10B

Fujitsu 30% 70% 100 to 500 $50M to $100M More than $10B

HCL 40% 60% 1,001 to 2,500 $50M to $100M $1B to $10B

KPMG 85% 15% 100 to 500 $50M to $100M More than $10B

Palladium Group 40% 60% 100 to 500 $50M to $100M $10M to $50M

Patni 18% 82% 1,001 to 2,500 $50M to $100M $500M to $1B

PricewaterhouseCoopers 60% 40% 100 to 500 $50M to $100M More than $10B

Sapient 15% 85% 100 to 500 $50M to $100M $500M to $1B

BI/PM Service Revenue$10M to $50M

ISA Consulting 5% 95% 100 to 500 $10M to $50M $10M to $50M

Archstone Consulting 65% 35% 100 to 500 $10M to $50M $10M to $50M

Claraview, a division o Teradata 25% 75% 100 to 500 $10M to $50M $1B to $10B

L&T InoTech 6% 94% 501 to 1,000 $10M to $50M $100M to $500M

MindTree 15% 85% 100 to 500 $10M to $50M $100M to $500M


7/18


tble 2: Skilled head count for BI/PM ISVs

cyiBm

cif-

m-

fm-

ey

oleBi dHye-

sapBueobje sas

te-d

ohebe

l

Accenture (including Avanade) 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7

Archstone Consulting 2 n/a n/a 1 3 2 n/a n/a 1

Capgemini 7 6 5 4 6 7 5 4 6

Claraview, a division o Teradata 2 1 1 2 1 1 n/a 2 1

Cognizant Technology Solutions 7 7 6 6 6 7 6 5 4

Deloitte 5 4 n/a n/a 7 5 3 3 1

Ernst & Young 2 n/a 1 n/a 4 4 n/a n/a n/a

Fujitsu 3 2 2 1 2 4 1 n/a 2

Genpact 2 3 n/a n/a 4 3 6 n/a 2

HCL 5 4 2 2 3 5 2 4 2

Hewlett-Packard 6 6 4 4 5 6 5 4 4

IBM Global Business Services 7 4 3 3 6 7 4 5 4

Inosys 6 7 6 4 6 7 2 5 5

ISA Consulting 3 1 n/a n/a 3 n/a n/a n/a 1

KPMG 2 1 2 1 3 3 2 1 1

L&T InoTech 3 2 4 2 4 4 3 4 3

MindTree 3 4 4 1 3 3 2 n/a n/a

Palladium Group 2 1 1 n/a 3 1 n/a n/a n/a

Patni 4 4 2 n/a 4 5 2 2 4

PricewaterhouseCoopers 2 2 5 1 3 3 2 n/a 3

Sapient 2 2 3 n/a 2 3 n/a n/a 3

Tata Consultancy Services 7 7 5 4 7 7 6 6 7

Wipro 7 7 6 5 6 7 4 5 4

Head count:

1 to 19 1

20 to 49 2

50 to 99 3

100 to 249 4

250 to 499 5

500 to 999 6

1,000+ 7

Note: All BI/PM assets of ISVs are included in skilledhead count numbers. For example, IBM Cognosincludes BI, analytic infrastructure, analytic appli-cations, dashboards/scorecards and PBF productcapabilities.

Source: AMR Research estimatesand/or company input, 2009


8/18


pm eque bled ffe be e kwlede dfwe du exee

Initially, we planned to segment the written researchinto two Reports: one on BI service providers, the other

or PM consultants. Not surprisingly, PM programsat reerence companies were largely nance based. Temore we interacted with providers and buyers, the moreapparent it was that BI and PM capabilities are inexora-bly linked. It became nearly impossible to separate thediscussions because PM implementations all containeda healthy dose o BI requirements.

Te 20% o companies that most valued businessprocess/industry expertise reected on their ongoingPM programs. Tey expected consultants would comeequipped with rock-solid expertise in world-class nancial

perormance management processesplanning, prot-ability, and management reporting capabilities were mostcommonly mentionedand know how to best conguresotware products to make best practice a reality.

Several rms we spoke with were quite vocal about theneed or good business skills as part o any PM project.

An I director or a European consumer productscompany that rolled out a global planning systemsaid, You expect technical skills. But the businessskills are the real dierentiators. Without thatexpertise, he said the project would have come to a

grinding halt.A VP o inancial analysis at a U.S.-based telecom-munications company considered consultants asadvisors, not just implementers: You need a partnerthat knows the ropes, when to put their ist down inront o the steering committee when a bad decisionis made. I you dont implement whats beneicial tothe business, you are not doing it right. Althoughhe added that the irm used stumbled a ew times inthis role, it eventually stepped up to the challenge.

he CIO o a global media company discussing

a large-scale PM program not rooted in inancecautioned that the buyer had to retain leadershipand oversight because, Unless the program is trulywell-designed, a hands-o approach wont work.While he would have liked to turn the programover to his selected service provider, he elt thecompany didnt have the expertise to deal with theprogram on its own.

The Other Three re-emerge in BI/PMsystems integration and consulting

Over the last few years, weve seen three audit firms

that consciously exited the systems integration business

earlier this decade re-engage with a vengeance: Ernst

& Young (E&Y), KPMG, and PricewaterhouseCoopers

(PwC). Deloitte, the fourth member of the Big Four, took

a decidedly different strategy years ago and kept its

systems integration operations intact.

In 2006, these other three were nowhere to be found

in the BI/PM services landscape. While they continued

to offer clients advisory services and best-practice

consulting by industry and across finance and IT

functions, they no longer engaged in formative

systems work. For the most part, they had agreed

to abstain as a condition of sale of their systems

integration businesses.

PwC has been the most aggressive in re-establishing

itself in this segment, even purchasing large parts of

bankrupt BearingPoint(a spin-out from KPMG) to

augment its own capabilities. E&Y and KPMG are in

close pursuit.

Why is this important? These firms have maintained

close advisory relationships with many clients. They

havent been absent from the marketplace, just

engaging on a slightly different playing field. Its been

relatively easy for them to jump back in, especially

in the offices of the CFO and CIO where theyve

maintained the strongest connections. While the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 stipulated that auditors

could not implement software at audit clients that

significantly impacted financial reporting, theres lotsof business beyond their audit clientsand theyre

going for it.


9/18


seve vde ble dlwy h hw heye ued

Engagements can be categorized in many ways. Ata macro level, BI/PM work can be broken into ourdisciplines:

Consulting Including strategy and conceptualdesign

Implementation Incorporating coniguration,deployment, and go-live

Managed services Where external organizationsdeliver a agreed-upon service level on an ongoingbasis

Business process outsourcing (BPO) Whereanalytics and reporting are delivered by the servicesirm on behal o the buyer

All rms included in this report oer consulting andimplementation services. Many also oer managedservices, but smaller organizations tend to provideongoing maintenance services on a time-and-materialsbasis, rather than a ormal product oering. BPO isdenitely the new kid on the block, and BI/PM ser-vices are emerging in this area, but not yet a commondelivery vehicle. See Figure 2 or a list o capabilities byprovider.

Reputation is important

Interestingly, no buyer mentioned service rm meth-odology during reerence calls as a key dierentiator.While providers spend a lot o time talking aboutwhat makes them dierent rom their competitors,

reputation and experience rule the day. Service provid-ers with a legacy o sta augmentation and managedservice capabilities are likely boxed into a corner. Teyare viewed only as highly competent doers. A programmanager at a high-tech company thought o her serviceprovider in black-and-white terms: Tey are executors,not thinkers. And we are only willing to pay or execu-tors. A CIO at a consumer products rm that hadsuccessully used technical sta augmentation resourcesor years was unwilling to expand the engagement. Hebluntly responded, Im just not willing to take the riskand give them ormative consulting work. Maybe some

time in the uture ... just not now.


10/18


Wipro


Sapient


Patni

Palladium Group

MindTree

L&T InfoTech

KPMG

ISA Consulting

Infosys


Hewlett-Packard

HCL

Genpact

Fujitsu

Ernst & Young

Deloitte

Cognizant Technology Solutions


Capgemini


Accenture (including Avanade) 30% 40% 20% 10%

65% 30% 5%

30% 70%

25% 75%

33% 40% 21%

40% 50% 10%

70% 30%

30% 55% 14% 1%

10% 40% 40% 10%

40% 40% 20%

30% 35% 30% 5%

11% 61% 25% 3%

15% 65% 20%

60% 30% 5% 5%

17% 59% 22% 2%

40% 60%

15% 60% 25%

6% 24% 70%

85% 15%

5% 90% 5%

43% 30% 25% 2%

40% 45% 10% 5%

35% 60% 3% 2%

Implementation

and integration

BPOManaged servicesConsulting

6%

Figure 2: Service provider capabilities by service type



11/18


glbl delvey llw evef flex ff level

Troughout the reerence-checking process, one topicremained prominent with many rms: cost control.When asked i there was anything theyd like AMR

Research to tell their service provider anonymously,more than a handul o respondents replied, ell themto lower their prices!

Te cost issue maniested itsel in dierent ways:

he CIO o a global media company remarked,You pay more, you get more experience. His workplan didnt warrant the budget commitment ormore highly skilled workers.

he BI and analytics delivery head or a regionalinancial services irm said, he irms sta-ing model allows me to lex worker levels at a

moments notice. I I need more people next week,I can pretty much be assured I can get them.Conversely, he could skinny-down a project rapidlyi costs become a constraint. He viewed this lex-ible staing model as his service providers greateststrength.

Global delivery models let buyers work closely withproviders to construct stafng models that made senseto them. Appropriate skills could be made available incost-eective geographies while maintaining on-sitesta to keep projects moving orward. Tis works well

in the current, sluggish I services market. Prior to themarket downturn, however, we saw risks with large-scale tactical stafng that let clients vulnerable to attri-tion and wage ination. We expect to see this situationagain once the market strengthens and large numberso BI/PM projects are taken o o hold status.

Creating the right mix o onsite/ofshoreresources

On average, buyers that contracted with rms oer-ing global delivery options maintained roughly a 35%onsite/65% oshore mix. Sufce to say, the ratios

swung wildly, depending on the phase o the initiativeand the maturity o the client.

Some irms had no visibility into onshore/oshorestaingthey just contracted with irms to deliverprojects and didnt care where the work was done.

An I director or a lie sciences company reportedshe was operating at a 25%/75% ratio. Her goalwas to reduce it to 15% onsite/85% osite. Ivebeen able to run other application developmentprograms at better onsite/oshore ratios. I dontknow i Ill ever get the BI program below where itis nowits undamentally dierent.

Global delivery is not solely the province o India-basedservice providers. A wide range o rms rom aroundthe globe oer this option to customers. In act, thestrongest global delivery endorsement came rom a VPo BI at a health insurance organization. When speak-ing o his U.S.-based consulting partner, he remarked,Tey awlessly executed the outsourced model. Teyhire aggressive people, and they take the ball andrun. He did add they sometimes ran in the wrongdirectionreinorcing the need or buyers to maintainstrong oversight and control over outsourced/oshore

projects. For global delivery capabilities, see Figure 3.able 3 indicates the geographic breadth o each rmsbusiness.


12/18


Genpact

Patni

Accenture (including Avanade)

MindTree

L&T InfoTech

Infosys

Wipro


Sapient

Cognizant

Hewlett-Packard

HCL


Deloitte

Capgemini


Fujitsu


KPMG

Palladium Group

Ernst & Young


ISA Consulting 100%

100%

100%

100%

92% 8%

85% 15%

70% 30%

65% 35%

15% 85%

20% 80%

30% 70%

30% 70%

30% 70%

35% 65%

35% 65%

35% 65%

35% 65%

40% 60%

40% 60%

55% 45%

60% 40%

Onshore Oshore

75% 25%

25% 75%

Figure 3: Global delivery capabilities



13/18


tble 3:


Geographic business distribution

cy nh ae EmEa a-pf L ae

Accenture (including Avanade) 50% 40% 8% 2%

Archstone Consulting 70% 30% 0% 0%

Capgemini 20% 69% 10% 1%

Claraview, a division o Teradata 100% 0% 0% 0%

Cognizant Technology Solutions 60% 39% 1% 0%

Deloitte 72% 27% 0% 1%

Ernst & Young 34% 64% 2% 0%

Fujitsu 50% 25% 25% 0%

Genpact 90% 4% 6% 0%

HCL 35% 35% 30% 0%

Hewlett-Packard 56% 24% 13% 7%

IBM Global Business Services 45% 30% 20% 5%

Inosys 68% 20% 12% 0%

ISA Consulting 95% 5% 0% 0%

KPMG 38% 50% 10% 2%

L&T InoTech 91% 5% 4% 0%

MindTree 42% 28% 29% 1%

Palladium Group 50% 35% 15% 0%

Patni 78% 15% 7% 0%

PricewaterhouseCoopers 60% 20% 15% 5%Sapient 68% 32% 0% 0%

Tata Consultancy Services 61% 34% 5% 1%

Wipro 60% 28% 10% 2%


14/18


pefe ue uully lk dvdul d he eelkll

Whenever we talk to service buyers, they are morethan willing to discuss the cons as well as the pros o

working with their service provider and/or sotwarevendor. With consulting such a people-based businessand subject to the personalities o people involved, itis not a surprise that nearly 60% o the companies wespoke to said their BI/PM ventures got o to a rockystart because o interpersonal mismatches betweenproject sta and in-house program owners. More otenthan not, it was the hired program manager that wastagged as the problemhe or she lacked good com-munication skills or didnt ag issues early enough inthe process. Additionally, obstinate consultantsthosewho were unwilling to compromise with clientswereagged as problems, too.

Most customers viewed these problems as isolated to anindividual and not a weakness o the rm they hired.In all cases, service provider management took switaction, replaced the worker(s), and did what it took tomake sure the customer was satised. All reported thatreplacement sta made the dierence in project success.

reed

Retain business governance in house

. Client aterclient indicated that this was the key to projectsuccess. he program manager or a county schoolsystem was emphatic: Always have business peopleinvolved in the project. he operations execu-tive VP at a retailer was even blunter: Im all orprocess quality, but sometimes you have to pull thetrigger. Ive had to coach to know when enough isenough.

Set the ground rules clearly up front . Whenthere are hiccups in program execution, its usuallybecause there were issues let undeined at the out-set. Be as clear and succinct as possible. Some com-panies recommend a rolling three-month renewal,meaning programs are justiied at pre-deined

checkpoints. his will provide ongoing clarity to allparticipants. Its also a two-way street: An engineerat an energy company pointed out, You have toset the initial expectations on both sides. Make sureyou outline speciic rules o engagement up rontand get hoped-or conclusions ironed out.

Leverage hired expertise to build a foundationfor the future. For skills development or architec-tural direction, rely on your trusted service providerto assist you in establishing the right approach orlong-term sustainability. he global BI manager at

a consumer sotware company gave credit where itwas due: Beore, it was run and gun. But with theservice providers help, weve evolved into a maturedelivery organization.

Let service provider relationships evolve natu-rally. You may start tactically and expand the rela-tionship to a long-term partnership. Or you maydecide each program is independent and separatelybid. Organizations that have long-term relation-ships generally have evolved to a comortable andcost-eective association. A program director or abranch o the military was very complimentary oher service provider journey. hey have put theirheart and soul into this eort. hey were subcon-tractors at the beginning. Years later, they are nowthe directors. For another point o view, a programmanager at a U.S. state government agency signedo on a turnkey system deployment that lastedthree quarters. She praised her providers speed andbusiness practices: In my 23 years administeringlots o projects and contracts, this has been the bestexperience Ive had.


15/18


Appendices

aedx a: Hw ue h re buld eve vde hl

AMR Research collected volumes o data based on adetailed RFI and in-depth briengs with service provid-ers as well as interviews with reerences and our clients.Companies can use this Report to help build a list opotential service provider partners. Tis eort startswith our steps:

1. Determine type o service needed:

BI/PM domain skills (see Figure 1)

Mix o technical and unctional skills required (seeable 1, columns 1 and 2)

2. Determine specic skills needed:Service capabilities (see Figure 2)

BI/PM technologies supported (see able 2)

3. Determine local and global delivery requirements:

Global locations served (see able 3)

Global delivery capacity (see Figure 3)

4. Schedule an inquiry call with AMR Researchanalysts:

o discuss program to urther hone in on the rightservice partners to interview

o better understand any additional actors andnuances that are best analyzed through inquiry

Bringing the decision matrix to lie

Te best way to illustrate this decision process is todescribe possible use cases and derive a potential listo providers that might t the bill. Te companiesmentioned below have demonstrated strengths in eachscenario, but other rms may also meet the require-ments as stated.

Use Case 1: Designing and deploying an enterprisedata warehouse

A health insurance organization based in NorthAmerica wants to use inormation gleaned rommember diagnostic data to determine which treatmentsdeliver the best clinical outcomes. In order to deploy asystem or health analysts, it must rst model an enter-prise data warehouse with all available patient-basedhealth data. Te company has chosen eradata or itswarehouse technology and Inormatica as its integra-tion standard. It wants to engage a service provider withproven expertise in modeling and deploying a ware-house within its chosen architecture.

Five service providers potentially t these requirements:

Accenture

Claraview

Cognizant echnology Solutions

Inosys

ata Consultancy Services

Use Case 2: Implementing a standard fnancialplanning application globally

A consumer products company based in Europe ispreparing to roll out a business planning system to 50+geographically dispersed business groups around theglobe. Tere are two major phases to the project: busi-ness strategy and planning design, ollowed by imple-mentation. Te company has yet to select a sotwareprovider. At this time, the company has decided tosearch or a strategic partner to guide it through thedecisions necessary to rethink how it currently plans.Once that step is done, they will select a sotware pro-vider and put out the implementation to bid.

Five service providers potentially t these requirementsor Phase 1:

Deloitte

Ernst & Young


KPMG



16/18


Use Case 3: Establishing an integration competencycenter

A global bank needs to centralize all integration skillsinto one competency center so it can reduce skillsredundancy across the organization and provide a

consistent and sustainable level o service or newand ongoing projects at a relatively modest cost. Teinstitution has chosen IBMs InoSphere products orthe core o its integration strategy. Because the CIOknows programs ebb and ow, she decides she wantsto pursue a managed service that can scale up or downeasily depending on organizational demand. Shes hadsuccess with outsourcing beore, but wants to makesure she chooses the right partner with proven capa-bilities. Although things are slower now, she expectsmergers and acquisitions to play an important rolein the banks growth, leading to peaks and valleys o

demand.Five service providers potentially t these requirements:

Genpact

HCL

L& Inoech

Patni

Wipro

Use Case 4: Implementing Hyperion or managementreporting

A $1B+ lie sciences company headquartered in theU.S. mid-Atlantic region has made the decision toupgrade a management reporting system that is rootedin Oracles Hyperion products, implementing somenew capabilities while upgrading other components.

Te companys new controller has been tapped to leadthis project because he managed a program at his lastcompany, but it used a dierent technology oundation.He has a preerence to work with a specialist rm ashes been successul with this model in the past, but hedoesnt want to limit his options. Since hes new to the

technology but well versed in lie sciences, hes lookingor someone who knows the Hyperion products well.



Cognizant echnology Solutions

Deloitte

ISA Consulting

Palladium Group

Use Case 5: Dashboards or the masses

A European retailer plans to roll out a measurementsystem that calls or merchandising dashboards thattrack which SKUs are selling to specic buyer cat-egories. While this is just the start, the COO andCFO both expect that dashboards will need to bedeployed across the business regardless o unctionalarea. Te company has been a long-time user o SAPBusinessObjects BI and integration technologies, andwants to implement dashboards in the same vein.


CapgeminiFujitsu

Hewlett-Packard

Mindtree

Sapient


17/18


Notes


18/18

reeh d adve th me

AMR Research is the No. 1 independent

advisory firm serving supply chain, operations,

and technology executives. Founded in 1986,

AMR Research focuses on the intersection

of business processes with value chain and

enterprise technologies. We provide our

clients in the consumer products, life sciences,

manufacturing, retail, and technology sectors

with subscription advisory services and

expert-led Peer Forums. To learn more about

our research and services, please visit

www.amrresearch.com.

More information is available at

www.amrresearch.com. Your comments are

welcome. Reprints are available. Send any

comments or questions to:

AMR Research, Inc.

125 Summer Street

Boston, MA 02110

Tel: +1 (617) 542-6600

Fax: +1 (617) 542-5670

amr research 2009 executive guide to selecting bipm service providers[1]

Documents