Mercury Program Margin Management Tool (MMT) Recommended Approach 23-January-2014
Dec 25, 2015
Mercury ProgramMargin Management Tool (MMT)
Recommended Approach
23-January-2014
Page 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
Page 3
The Margin Modeling Tool supports the emphasis on margin as a key metric
Continue the focus on Margin
► 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
Harmonize and standardize
►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
Provide consistency with other tools
► 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
► 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:
Page 4
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
Page 5
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
Page 6
Total Requirements for the future state MMT
280 requirements
User Interface Reuse for future state MMT
0%► The future platform will align
with the Mercury and EY User Experience standards being developed
Data Layer Reuse for future state MMT
10-20%► The data layer is highly GFIS centric, therefore
most objects would have to be re-worked to support SAP data structures
Application Layer Reuse for future state MMT
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.
Current MMT Interface will not be reused
Fit/Gap Requirements Analysis
► Four detailed requirements sessions were performed
► No Functional Requirements to date have been written
► UX requirements to be identified during design phase
► 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.
0%
Page 7
Conceptual Architecture
MDM(MDS)
MMT(SharePoint
.NetSQL Server)
PPM & MRS(SAP)
CRM (SAP)
ActualsCost RatesEmployee DataNSROrg StructureResource AssignmentsResource availability
Eng BudgetsResource Requests
Exchange Rates
Production values (Hours * NSR)Plan IDSold at PricePlan MeasuresCalendarization
GCSPAccountLine Item IDOpportunity IDClient Id, NameSort Code and NameMarket SegmentMarket Segment LeaderOpportunity Roles
Page 8
MMT Timeline
Page 9
Delivery ModelA combined EY and IBM team that utilizes existing EY knowledge and aligns to Mercury Governance structure.
Page 10
Delivery Model - TeamA combined EY and IBM team that utilizes existing EY knowledge and aligns to Mercury Governance structure.
Page 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
Page 12
Appendix
► Context Diagram► Risk / Issue List► Iteration Schedule
Page 13
High Level Architecture – mapped to KDD & SAP
Page 14
Key Program Issues & Risks► Issue
► 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.
Page 15
Iteration Schedule