You are on page 1of 18

July 2009

2009 Executive Guide to Selecting BI/PM Service Providers


by John Hagerty and Dana Stiffler Service providers offer a plethora of BI and PM services that incorporate sophisticated methodologies and packaged offerings. What buyers value highly are nuts-and-bolts technical skills that mesh with their chosen technical architecture. They also continue to want it their way on their terms.

Enterprise Performance Management

Copyright 2009 by AMR Research, Inc. AMR Research is a registered trademark of AMR Research, Inc.
No portion of this report may be reproduced in whole or in part without the prior written permission of AMR Research. Any written materials are protected by United States copyright laws and international treaty provisions. AMR Research offers no specific guarantee regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information presented, but the professional staff of AMR Research makes every reasonable effort to present the most reliable information available to it and to meet or exceed any applicable industry standards. AMR Research is not a registered investment advisor, and it is not the intent of this document to recommend specific companies for investment, acquisition, or other financial considerations.

EntErprisE pErformancE managEmEnt


July 2009

2009 Executive Guide to Selecting BI/PM Service Providers


by John Hagerty and Dana Stiffler

The Bottom Line: With billions spent on external business intelligence and performance management services, buyers still value cost-effective technical skills over industry or business process expertise.

Business intelligence (BI) and performance management (PM) programs consume a massive amount of money. AMR Research estimates that companies spent over $57B globally on BI/PM programs in 2008, with nearly $21B, or 37% of the total, spent on external services. With that much money at stake, its not surprising that service providers have doubled down on BI/PM as a continuing source of activity and revenue in tough economic times. While 2009s market for BI/PM external services has softened, all firms expect growth this yearestimates range from modest to explosiveas buyers continue to invest in infrastructure and programs that enable fact-based decisionmaking. We invited 35 leading service providers with at least 100 BI/PM resources to participate in this research; 23 agreed and answered a detailed RFI in 1Q09. The information gathered includes facts and figures about the consulting and technical capabilities necessary to support BI and performance management projects, ongoing maintenance of associated infrastructure, and specific process and/or industry specialties.

We also conducted detailed interviews with over 50 organizations that use or have used external BI/PM services. Most companies were provided as references through the RFI process. They include firms that use consultants for staff augmentation, outsourced support and maintenance, project management, strategy development, software implementation, or turnkey solution deployment. Some engagements were as short as a few quarters. One has been active for nearly 10 years. We reached several conclusions: In buyers minds, technical skills trump industry and process expertise by a wide margin. PM programs require a blend of finance best practice knowledge and software product expertise. Service provider capabilities dont always match how theyre used. Global delivery options allow service firms to flex staffing levels based on buyer demand and/or constrained budgets. Performance issues are usually linked to individuals and their interpersonal skills.

Service providers featured in this Report


Accenture (including Avanade), Archstone Consulting, Capgemini, Claraview (a division of Teradata), Cognizant Technology Solutions, Deloitte, Ernst & Young, Fujitsu, Genpact, HCL, Hewlett-Packard, IBM Global Business Services, Infosys, ISA Consulting, KPMG, L&T InfoTech, MindTree, Palladium Group, Patni, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Sapient, Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), Wipro
Enterprise Performance Management | July 2009 2009 AMR Research, Inc. 1

Scope of practice does differ 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 as integration 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 productsTools that provide information gathering, analytics, and presentation of data to end users. Analytic infrastructureInfrastructure to store, organize, integrate, and prepare data for reporting, analysis, and planning functions. Analytic applicationsDelivered 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 scorecardsTools 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 forecasting (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 with unlimited 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.

technical skills trump industry and process expertise by a wide margin


Over the past few years, we have repeatedly heard anecdotal evidence that BI/PM service buyers are less wedded to product and technical choices and more interested in hiring firms with proven experience in their industry or business processes. Some even intimated that software products have enough functional parity that they are interchangeable. As we kicked off this project, our hypothesis was simple: industry and process skills are most highly valued. But detailed interviews with over 50 references indicate just the opposite: The vast majority still evaluates and chooses service partners based on technical skill sets. In fact, over 80% of the companies indicated that technical knowledge was the No. 1 criteria for selecting a consultant, regardless of project scope. An IT VP for a quick-service retail company said he valued rock-solid experiences in integration, database, and BIthe holy trinity of BI technology. That means that nearly 20% acknowledged that industry or business process knowledge was their top consideration, especially when BI/PM strategy work was the projects focus. More than a few mentioned they werent really concerned about business expertise because they considered it a given. But a CIO of a European bank put it best: You will get a lucky strike if you find a team that has process knowledge and knows the products in detail. Many companies, constrained by tighter budgets, continue to supply business and process expertise from within their own ranks, leaving the bulk of technical and product knowledge to third parties. A manager at a health insurance company talked about the synergy that developed with this divide and conquer approach: They allowed the business customer to accelerate their learning curve and definitely short-cut the development and implementation process. See Table 1 after the sidebar for key facts for each service provider, and Table 2 for service provider skills by specific technology.

2009 AMR Research, Inc.

Enterprise Performance Management | July 2009

Figure 1: Practice focus by BI/PM category


Accenture (including Avanade) Archstone Consulting Capgemini Claraview, a division of Teradata Cognizant Technology Solutions Deloitte Ernst & Young Fujitsu Genpact HCL Hewlett-Packard IBM Global Business Services Infosys ISA Consulting KPMG L&T InfoTech MindTree Palladium Group Patni PricewaterhouseCoopers Sapient Tata Consultancy Services Wipro

35% 25% 30% 13% 23% 35% 10% 5% 20% 50% 30% 40% 15% 30% 30% 30% 25% 35% 40% 15% 23% 20% 30% 27% 25% 10% 15% 5% 20% 33% 20% 5% 15% 20% 5% 47% 29% 5% 10% 5%

25% 30% 40%

15% 10%

10% 30% 20% 29%

15%

5% 5% 11% 18% 25%

14% 15% 20%

16%

55% 10% 15% 30% 20% 15% 15% 15% 30% 15% 10% 20% 45% 35% 15% 21% 20% 10% 46% 10% 12% 15% 15% 35% 17% 30% 20% 10% 5% 10% 7% 40% 30% 15% 15% 2% 3% 5% 20% 15% 15% 5% 10% 15% 20% 5% 5% 10% 5%

60% 25% 20% 10%

30%

35%

Business intelligence

Analytic infrastructure

Analytic applications

Dashboarding and scorecarding

Planning, budgeting, and forecasting

Source: AMR Research, 2009

Enterprise Performance Management | July 2009

2009 AMR Research, Inc.

table 1: Engagement scope, practice size, and revenue facts


Engagement scope Consulting, Project Management, Functional Services practice size revenue

company

Technology Development

BI/PM FTEs

BI/PM Revenue

Company Revenue

BI/PM Service Revenue$500M to $1B Accenture (including Avanade) Capgemini Deloitte IBM Global Business Services Tata Consultancy Services BI/PM Service Revenue$100 to $500M Cognizant Technology Solutions Hewlett-Packard Infosys Wipro Genpact BI/PM Service Revenue$50M to $100M Ernst & Young Fujitsu HCL KPMG Palladium Group Patni PricewaterhouseCoopers Sapient BI/PM Service Revenue$10M to $50M ISA Consulting Archstone Consulting Claraview, a division of Teradata L&T InfoTech MindTree 5% 65% 25% 6% 15% 95% 35% 75% 94% 85% 100 to 500 100 to 500 100 to 500 501 to 1,000 100 to 500 $10M to $50M $10M to $50M $10M to $50M $10M to $50M $10M to $50M $10M to $50M $10M to $50M $1B to $10B $100M to $500M $100M to $500M 70% 30% 40% 85% 40% 18% 60% 15% 30% 70% 60% 15% 60% 82% 40% 85% 100 to 500 100 to 500 1,001 to 2,500 100 to 500 100 to 500 1,001 to 2,500 100 to 500 100 to 500 $50M to $100M $50M to $100M $50M to $100M $50M to $100M $50M to $100M $50M to $100M $50M to $100M $50M to $100M More than $10B More than $10B $1B to $10B More than $10B $10M to $50M $500M to $1B More than $10B $500M to $1B 43% 35% 43% 40% 50% 57% 65% 57% 60% 50% 5,001 to 10,000 2,501 to 5,000 5,001 to 10,000 5,001 to 10,000 1,001 to 2,500 $250M to $500M $250M to $500M $250M to $500M $250M to $500M $100M to $250M $1B to $10B More than $10B $1B to $10B $1B to $10B $1B to $10B 40% 30% 40% 45% 5% 60% 70% 60% 55% 95% 10,000+ 2,501 to 5,000 1,001 to 2,500 5,001 to 10,000 10,000+ $500M to $1B $500M to $1B $500M to $1B $500M to $1B $500M to $1B More than $10B $1B to $10B More than $10B More than $10B $1B to $10B

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

2009 AMR Research, Inc.

Enterprise Performance Management | July 2009

table 2: Skilled head count for BI/PM ISVs


iBm cognos 7 2 7 2 7 5 2 3 2 5 6 7 6 3 2 3 3 2 4 2 2 7 7 informatica 7 n/a 6 1 7 4 n/a 2 3 4 6 4 7 1 1 2 4 1 4 2 2 7 7 microsoft 7 n/a 5 1 6 n/a 1 2 n/a 2 4 3 6 n/a 2 4 4 1 2 5 3 5 6 microstrategy 6 1 4 2 6 n/a n/a 1 n/a 2 4 3 4 n/a 1 2 1 n/a n/a 1 n/a 4 5 oracle Bi and Hyperion 7 3 6 1 6 7 4 2 4 3 5 6 6 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 2 7 6 sap Business objects 7 2 7 1 7 5 4 4 3 5 6 7 7 n/a 3 4 3 1 5 3 3 7 7 teradata 7 n/a 5 n/a 6 3 n/a 1 6 2 5 4 2 n/a 2 3 2 n/a 2 2 n/a 6 4 7 n/a 4 2 5 3 n/a n/a n/a 4 4 5 5 n/a 1 4 n/a n/a 2 n/a n/a 6 5 other best in class 7 1 6 1 4 1 n/a 2 2 2 4 4 5 1 1 3 n/a n/a 4 3 3 7 4

company Accenture (including Avanade) Archstone Consulting Capgemini Claraview, a division of Teradata Cognizant Technology Solutions Deloitte Ernst & Young Fujitsu Genpact HCL Hewlett-Packard IBM Global Business Services Infosys ISA Consulting KPMG L&T InfoTech MindTree Palladium Group Patni PricewaterhouseCoopers Sapient Tata Consultancy Services Wipro

sas

Head count: 1 to 19 20 to 49 50 to 99 100 to 249 250 to 499 500 to 999 1,000+ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Note: All BI/PM assets of ISVs are included in skilled head count numbers. For example, IBM Cognos includes BI, analytic infrastructure, analytic applications, dashboards/scorecards and PBF product capabilities.

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

Enterprise Performance Management | July 2009

2009 AMR Research, Inc.

pm programs require a blend of finance best practice knowledge and software product expertise
Initially, we planned to segment the written research into two Reports: one on BI service providers, the other for PM consultants. Not surprisingly, PM programs at reference companies were largely finance based. The more we interacted with providers and buyers, the more apparent it was that BI and PM capabilities are inexorably linked. It became nearly impossible to separate the discussions because PM implementations all contained a healthy dose of BI requirements. The 20% of companies that most valued business process/industry expertise reflected on their ongoing PM programs. They expected consultants would come equipped with rock-solid expertise in world-class financial performance management processesplanning, profitability, and management reporting capabilities were most commonly mentionedand know how to best configure software products to make best practice a reality. Several firms we spoke with were quite vocal about the need for good business skills as part of any PM project. An IT director for a European consumer products company that rolled out a global planning system said, You expect technical skills. But the business skills are the real differentiators. Without that expertise, he said the project would have come to a grinding halt. A VP of financial analysis at a U.S.-based telecommunications company considered consultants as advisors, not just implementers: You need a partner that knows the ropes, when to put their fist down in front of the steering committee when a bad decision is made. If you dont implement whats beneficial to the business, you are not doing it right. Although he added that the firm used stumbled a few times in this role, it eventually stepped up to the challenge. The CIO of a global media company discussing a large-scale PM program not rooted in finance cautioned that the buyer had to retain leadership and oversight because, Unless the program is truly well-designed, a hands-off approach wont work. While he would have liked to turn the program over to his selected service provider, he felt the company didnt have the expertise to deal with the program on its own.

The Other Three re-emerge in BI/PM systems 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 lots of business beyond their audit clientsand theyre going for it.

2009 AMR Research, Inc.

Enterprise Performance Management | July 2009

service provider capabilities dont always match how theyre used


Engagements can be categorized in many ways. At a macro level, BI/PM work can be broken into four disciplines: ConsultingIncluding strategy and conceptual design ImplementationIncorporating configuration, deployment, and go-live Managed servicesWhere external organizations deliver a agreed-upon service level on an ongoing basis Business process outsourcing (BPO)Where analytics and reporting are delivered by the services firm on behalf of the buyer All firms included in this report offer consulting and implementation services. Many also offer managed services, but smaller organizations tend to provide ongoing maintenance services on a time-and-materials basis, rather than a formal product offering. BPO is definitely the new kid on the block, and BI/PM services are emerging in this area, but not yet a common delivery vehicle. See Figure 2 for a list of capabilities by provider.

Reputation is important
Interestingly, no buyer mentioned service firm methodology during reference calls as a key differentiator. While providers spend a lot of time talking about what makes them different from their competitors, reputation and experience rule the day. Service providers with a legacy of staff augmentation and managed service capabilities are likely boxed into a corner. They are viewed only as highly competent doers. A program manager at a high-tech company thought of her service provider in black-and-white terms: They are executors, not thinkers. And we are only willing to pay for executors. A CIO at a consumer products firm that had successfully used technical staff augmentation resources for years was unwilling to expand the engagement. He bluntly responded, Im just not willing to take the risk and give them formative consulting work. Maybe some time in the future ... just not now.

Enterprise Performance Management | July 2009

2009 AMR Research, Inc.

Figure 2: Service provider capabilities by service type


Accenture (including Avanade) Archstone Consulting Capgemini Claraview, a division of Teradata Cognizant Technology Solutions Deloitte Ernst & Young Fujitsu Genpact HCL Hewlett-Packard IBM Global Business Services Infosys ISA Consulting 5% KPMG L&T InfoTech 6% MindTree Palladium Group Patni PricewaterhouseCoopers Sapient Tata Consultancy Services Wipro

30% 65% 30% 25% 33% 40% 70% 30% 10% 40% 35% 40% 43% 40%

40%

20% 30% 70% 75%

10% 5%

40% 50%

21%

6% 10%

30% 55% 40% 40% 60% 45% 30% 90% 85% 15% 70% 60% 25% 60% 59% 22% 30% 65% 61% 25% 30% 5% 5% 20% 3% 5% 2% 14% 10% 20% 3% 2% 10% 5% 25% 5% 2% 1%

24% 15% 40% 17% 60% 15%

11% 30%

35%

Consulting

Implementation and integration

Managed services

BPO

Source: AMR Research, 2009

2009 AMR Research, Inc.

Enterprise Performance Management | July 2009

global delivery options allow service firms to flex staffing levels


Throughout the reference-checking process, one topic remained prominent with many firms: cost control. When asked if there was anything theyd like AMR Research to tell their service provider anonymously, more than a handful of respondents replied, Tell them to lower their prices! The cost issue manifested itself in different ways: The CIO of a global media company remarked, You pay more, you get more experience. His work plan didnt warrant the budget commitment for more highly skilled workers. The BI and analytics delivery head for a regional financial services firm said, The firms staffing model allows me to flex worker levels at a moments notice. If I need more people next week, I can pretty much be assured I can get them. Conversely, he could skinny-down a project rapidly if costs become a constraint. He viewed this flexible staffing model as his service providers greatest strength. Global delivery models let buyers work closely with providers to construct staffing models that made sense to them. Appropriate skills could be made available in cost-effective geographies while maintaining on-site staff to keep projects moving forward. This works well in the current, sluggish IT services market. Prior to the market downturn, however, we saw risks with largescale tactical staffing that left clients vulnerable to attrition and wage inflation. We expect to see this situation again once the market strengthens and large numbers of BI/PM projects are taken off of hold status.

Creating the right mix of onsite/offshore resources


On average, buyers that contracted with firms offering global delivery options maintained roughly a 35% onsite/65% offshore mix. Suffice to say, the ratios swung wildly, depending on the phase of the initiative and the maturity of the client. Some firms had no visibility into onshore/offshore staffingthey just contracted with firms to deliver projects and didnt care where the work was done. An IT director for a life sciences company reported she was operating at a 25%/75% ratio. Her goal was to reduce it to 15% onsite/85% offsite. Ive been able to run other application development programs at better onsite/offshore ratios. I dont know if Ill ever get the BI program below where it is nowits fundamentally different. Global delivery is not solely the province of India-based service providers. A wide range of firms from around the globe offer this option to customers. In fact, the strongest global delivery endorsement came from a VP of BI at a health insurance organization. When speaking of his U.S.-based consulting partner, he remarked, They flawlessly executed the outsourced model. They hire aggressive people, and they take the ball and run. He did add they sometimes ran in the wrong directionreinforcing the need for buyers to maintain strong oversight and control over outsourced/offshore projects. For global delivery capabilities, see Figure 3. Table 3 indicates the geographic breadth of each firms business.

Enterprise Performance Management | July 2009

2009 AMR Research, Inc.

Figure 3: Global delivery capabilities


ISA Consulting Archstone Consulting Ernst & Young Palladium Group KPMG Claraview, a division of Teradata Fujitsu PricewaterhouseCoopers Capgemini Deloitte IBM Global Business Services HCL Hewlett-Packard Cognizant Sapient Tata Consultancy Services Wipro Infosys L&T InfoTech MindTree Accenture (including Avanade) Patni Genpact

100% 100% 100% 100% 92% 85% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 40% 40% 35% 35% 35% 35% 30% 30% 30% 25% 20% 15% Onshore 60% 60% 65% 65% 65% 65% 70% 70% 70% 75% 80% 85% 8% 15% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

O shore

Source: AMR Research, 2009

10

2009 AMR Research, Inc.

Enterprise Performance Management | July 2009

table 3: Geographic business distribution


company Accenture (including Avanade) Archstone Consulting Capgemini Claraview, a division of Teradata Cognizant Technology Solutions Deloitte Ernst & Young Fujitsu Genpact HCL Hewlett-Packard IBM Global Business Services Infosys ISA Consulting KPMG L&T InfoTech MindTree Palladium Group Patni PricewaterhouseCoopers Sapient Tata Consultancy Services Wipro north america 50% 70% 20% 100% 60% 72% 34% 50% 90% 35% 56% 45% 68% 95% 38% 91% 42% 50% 78% 60% 68% 61% 60% EmEa 40% 30% 69% 0% 39% 27% 64% 25% 4% 35% 24% 30% 20% 5% 50% 5% 28% 35% 15% 20% 32% 34% 28% asia-pacific 8% 0% 10% 0% 1% 0% 2% 25% 6% 30% 13% 20% 12% 0% 10% 4% 29% 15% 7% 15% 0% 5% 10% Latin america 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 5% 0% 0% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 5% 0% 1% 2%

Source: AMR Research, 2009

Enterprise Performance Management | July 2009

2009 AMR Research, Inc.

11

performance issues usually link to individuals and their interpersonal skills


Whenever we talk to service buyers, they are more than willing to discuss the cons as well as the pros of working with their service provider and/or software vendor. With consulting such a people-based business and subject to the personalities of people involved, it is not a surprise that nearly 60% of the companies we spoke to said their BI/PM ventures got off to a rocky start because of interpersonal mismatches between project staff and in-house program owners. More often than not, it was the hired program manager that was tagged as the problemhe or she lacked good communication skills or didnt flag issues early enough in the process. Additionally, obstinate consultantsthose who were unwilling to compromise with clientswere flagged as problems, too. Most customers viewed these problems as isolated to an individual and not a weakness of the firm they hired. In all cases, service provider management took swift action, replaced the worker(s), and did what it took to make sure the customer was satisfied. All reported that replacement staff made the difference in project success.

recommendations
Retain business governance in house. Client after client indicated that this was the key to project success. The program manager for a county school system was emphatic: Always have business people involved in the project. The operations executive VP at a retailer was even blunter: Im all for process quality, but sometimes you have to pull the trigger. Ive had to coach to know when enough is enough.

Set the ground rules clearly up front. When there are hiccups in program execution, its usually because there were issues left undefined at the outset. Be as clear and succinct as possible. Some companies recommend a rolling three-month renewal, meaning programs are justified at pre-defined checkpoints. This will provide ongoing clarity to all participants. Its also a two-way street: An engineer at an energy company pointed out, You have to set the initial expectations on both sides. Make sure you outline specific rules of engagement up front and get hoped-for conclusions ironed out. Leverage hired expertise to build a foundation for the future. For skills development or architectural direction, rely on your trusted service provider to assist you in establishing the right approach for long-term sustainability. The global BI manager at a consumer software company gave credit where it was due: Before, it was run and gun. But with the service providers help, weve evolved into a mature delivery organization. Let service provider relationships evolve naturally. You may start tactically and expand the relationship to a long-term partnership. Or you may decide each program is independent and separately bid. Organizations that have long-term relationships generally have evolved to a comfortable and cost-effective association. A program director for a branch of the military was very complimentary of her service provider journey. They have put their heart and soul into this effort. They were subcontractors at the beginning. Years later, they are now the directors. For another point of view, a program manager at a U.S. state government agency signed off on a turnkey system deployment that lasted three quarters. She praised her providers speed and business practices: In my 23 years administering lots of projects and contracts, this has been the best experience Ive had.

12

2009 AMR Research, Inc.

Enterprise Performance Management | July 2009

Appendices
appendix a: How to use this report to build a service provider shortlist
AMR Research collected volumes of data based on a detailed RFI and in-depth briefings with service providers as well as interviews with references and our clients. Companies can use this Report to help build a list of potential service provider partners. This effort starts with four steps: 1. Determine type of service needed: BI/PM domain skills (see Figure 1) Mix of technical and functional skills required (see Table 1, columns 1 and 2) 2. Determine specific skills needed: Service capabilities (see Figure 2) BI/PM technologies supported (see Table 2) 3. Determine local and global delivery requirements: Global locations served (see Table 3) Global delivery capacity (see Figure 3) 4. Schedule an inquiry call with AMR Research analysts: To discuss program to further hone in on the right service partners to interview To better understand any additional factors and nuances that are best analyzed through inquiry Use Case 1: Designing and deploying an enterprise data warehouse A health insurance organization based in North America wants to use information gleaned from member diagnostic data to determine which treatments deliver the best clinical outcomes. In order to deploy a system for health analysts, it must first model an enterprise data warehouse with all available patient-based health data. The company has chosen Teradata for its warehouse technology and Informatica as its integration standard. It wants to engage a service provider with proven expertise in modeling and deploying a warehouse within its chosen architecture. Five service providers potentially fit these requirements: Accenture Claraview Cognizant Technology Solutions Infosys Tata Consultancy Services Use Case 2: Implementing a standard financial planning application globally A consumer products company based in Europe is preparing to roll out a business planning system to 50+ geographically dispersed business groups around the globe. There are two major phases to the project: business strategy and planning design, followed by implementation. The company has yet to select a software provider. At this time, the company has decided to search for a strategic partner to guide it through the decisions necessary to rethink how it currently plans. Once that step is done, they will select a software provider and put out the implementation to bid. Five service providers potentially fit these requirements for Phase 1: Deloitte Ernst & Young IBM Global Business Services KPMG PricewaterhouseCoopers

Bringing the decision matrix to life


The best way to illustrate this decision process is to describe possible use cases and derive a potential list of providers that might fit the bill. The companies mentioned below have demonstrated strengths in each scenario, but other firms may also meet the requirements as stated.

Enterprise Performance Management | July 2009

2009 AMR Research, Inc.

13

Use Case 3: Establishing an integration competency center A global bank needs to centralize all integration skills into one competency center so it can reduce skills redundancy across the organization and provide a consistent and sustainable level of service for new and ongoing projects at a relatively modest cost. The institution has chosen IBMs InfoSphere products for the core of its integration strategy. Because the CIO knows programs ebb and flow, she decides she wants to pursue a managed service that can scale up or down easily depending on organizational demand. Shes had success with outsourcing before, but wants to make sure she chooses the right partner with proven capabilities. Although things are slower now, she expects mergers and acquisitions to play an important role in the banks growth, leading to peaks and valleys of demand. Five service providers potentially fit these requirements: Genpact HCL L&T InfoTech Patni Wipro Use Case 4: Implementing Hyperion for management reporting A $1B+ life sciences company headquartered in the U.S. mid-Atlantic region has made the decision to upgrade a management reporting system that is rooted in Oracles Hyperion products, implementing some new capabilities while upgrading other components.

The companys new controller has been tapped to lead this project because he managed a program at his last company, but it used a different technology foundation. He has a preference to work with a specialist firm as hes been successful with this model in the past, but he doesnt want to limit his options. Since hes new to the technology but well versed in life sciences, hes looking for someone who knows the Hyperion products well. Five service providers potentially fit these requirements: Archstone Consulting Cognizant Technology Solutions Deloitte ISA Consulting Palladium Group Use Case 5: Dashboards for the masses A European retailer plans to roll out a measurement system that calls for merchandising dashboards that track which SKUs are selling to specific buyer categories. While this is just the start, the COO and CFO both expect that dashboards will need to be deployed across the business regardless of functional area. The company has been a long-time user of SAP BusinessObjects BI and integration technologies, and wants to implement dashboards in the same vein. Five service providers potentially fit these requirements: Capgemini Fujitsu Hewlett-Packard Mindtree Sapient

14

2009 AMR Research, Inc.

Enterprise Performance Management | July 2009

Notes

Enterprise Performance Management | July 2009

2009 AMR Research, Inc.

15

research and advice that matter 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