from it cost to business value

8/2/2019 From IT Cost to Business Value

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/from-it-cost-to-business-value 1/24

Application Outsourcing the way we see it

From IT Costto Business Value

Focusing investment for competitive advantage

Transorming applications into business advantage



Contents

1 Summary 3

2 Support and maintenance central to value creation 4

3 Thinking about business over technology 5

4 Business alignment is not nodding 6

5 Know the value 7

6 Concentrate on dierentiation 8

7 Rationalize in line with the business 9

8 One size doesn’t ft all – understanding the roadmap 11

9 Removing customization to eliminate costs 12

10 Focusing on ROI 16

11 The impact o Application Portolio Strategy 18

12 Conclusion 20


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/from-it-cost-to-business-value 3/24From IT Cost to Business Value. Focusing investment or competitive advantage. 3


Summary

The challenge o portolio management has been summed up in the extensiveresearch conducted by the ormer CIO o the US Department o Deense,Paul A. Strassmann1,2,3. He demonstrated there is no relation betweeninormation management per employee and return on shareholder equity. Healso showed there is no relation between prots and annual IT spending. Thus,the key decision o portolio management should not center on how much to

spend but on what to spend on. The goal is to create a portolio managementapproach in which “decisions on whether to invest in IT are based on potentialreturn, and decisions to terminate or make additional investments are based onperormance, much like an investment broker is measured and rewarded basedon managing risk and achieving results.”4

The challenge or any CIO, but particularly one aced with the requirement tocreate more value rather than just to cut costs, is to develop a balanced portoliothat allocates IT unding in a targeted, controlled and measurable way.



When CIOs look at the current cost structure o their IT estate they see aconsistent picture: the majority o unding is spent on Business as Usual (BAU)and a minority on new investment.

These challenges o cost distribution mean that any plan to drive value rom ITmust be ocused primarily on improvement and value that can be driven rom theexisting estate. The CIO who concentrates purely on new projects aces two keyproblems. Firstly, these projects are mostly already dened by the business andthereore not IT-driven; and secondly, the new projects represent the minority o IT spending. For the CIO to truly demonstrate value creation rom an IT estate, hemust understand how the value can be driven out o all IT, and most especiallyout o Business-as-Usual IT. It is in this area that the CIO can really create theexibility and slack5 needed to drive innovation and value within the business.

This understanding means that to really drive value rom IT the CIO must thinko Support and Maintenance as integral parts o the value creation strategy.

By looking at how Support and Maintenance can be modied to drive value,the CIO has the opportunity to directly demonstrate how the IT department iscognizant o the business challenges and can react to them within the existingspending structure. Rather than continually requiring new unding to achieve newthings, this approach helps to repurpose old money in line with the business.

4

BAU

New

Figure 1. Current cost model

Costs

Support and maintenancecentral to value creation



The biggest challenges in IT are not technological but sociological6. Thus, thebiggest change aced by the IT organization is to change the way it thinks aboutthe business and to re-orient itsel towards business value. IT organizationsand their suppliers need to shit away rom the technology (i.e. a network-and application-centric) view towards a business-centric view. They need

to understand the way business operates, its drivers and goals, and – mostimportantly – the language it uses to describe itsel. Instead o centering onimplementation and technology, the goals o IT need to be dened in businesslanguage and ocused on the prevailing business model.

The most eective way or an IT organization to do this is to understand thebusiness services7 o the organization. This Business Service Architecture helps togive the context and ramework or IT and organizational decisions.

The Business Service Architecture represents the map o the business; it denesits objectives and drivers. The “big picture” it provides represents the ITorganization’s aim, namely: to create an IT estate that looks like, evolves like andis budgeted like the business it supports.

By constructing a Business Service Architecture, the CIO can start to mapout the vision and goals or IT and to look at the organizational and business

structure within which IT can sit. Work is underway to improve these denitions,to move away rom the abstract towards more ormal, manageable entities8.

From IT Cost to Business Value. Focusing investment or competitive advantage. 5

Make ItemsManufacturing Sales

Contact

Deliver

Send

Materials

Add to Stock Ship Order

Logistics &

Warehouse

Deliver

Check Stock

Ship Order

Ship

Finance

Order

Pay

Pay

Invoice

Invoice

Bill CustomerBuy

3PL Supplier

Customer

Figure 2. Manuacturing Level 0 Service Model

Thinking about business overtechnology




One challenge IT departments ace is the erroneous idea that business alignmentis about doing what business people say, which conuses “alignment with thebusiness” with “alignment with individual objectives.” People will rarely, i ever,admit that their area is not strategic or dierentiating to the business. One o the hardest lessons or IT to learn is that its goal is not to simply do what business

people say but to do what the overall business strategy says. This means that ITmust be there to challenge the business around its IT spending; the challenge isnecessary to ensure business spending on a service is in line withthe expectations.

Too oten IT and business alignment is taken to mean that the IT department is todo what business tells it to do. Comments like “they do what I ask which is great,but it’s very expensive” highlight the risk o such approach, in which IT ails torein in spending and to stop needless optimizations, preventing the whole estaterom becoming a dierentiated solution against the competition. This means thatthere is a lack o ocus in the spending and the end result is almost alwaysa massively more expensive IT estate than bets the business strategy.

The goal or the dynamic CIO thereore is to have an IT department and partnerswho are able to actively engage in debate with the business and assist in shapingthe course or the uture, in line with the overarching business strategy ratherthan simply based on the last conversation had with a business person.

Business alignment is notnodding



Once you have the business context, you can then properly understand thebusiness value. Too oten IT equates value with the amount o money spent on asystem rather than on the value derived rom that investment. Taking a business-value approach to assessing the validity o spending oten leads to a dramaticreassessment o IT priorities. Understanding the business value o a businessservice is relatively simple. Answers must be provided to two questions: rstly,what would be the driver or changing a service, and, secondly, what would bethe justication or the change.

Figure 3 shows a standard Value Classication Matrix. The top o each boxdenes the Business Driver or change; the bottom denes the Decision Driver orapproval. This helps the IT department to identiy areas genuinely important tothe business, as opposed to those that merely cost a lot to support.

The Business Service Architecture and the Value Classication Matrix can be usedto create a “heatmap” o the business.

Know the value

Opportunity

ROI

Issue

Cost

Utility

Service Level

Market Change

Competitive

Advantage

Manufacturing

Logistics & Warehouse Finance

Sales

Warehouse

Stock Control

SuppliersForecasting

R&D Quality Control

Planning

Compliance

Engagement

TreasuryShipping

Stock Control

Sales Tracking Management

Invoicing

Procurement

General Ledger

Heatmaps quickly showcase the business areas where value can be created(Orange and Red) and where costs should be reduced (Blue and Purple).

Importantly, even within an area where cost reduction is the norm, it isreasonable to nd business services that have the potential to really change theway the business works and to drive signicant new value.

Figure 3. Value Clasication Matrix

Figure 4. Sample heatmap




One o the most striking conclusions o this type o exercise is that many partso the existing back ofce are considered to be either a utility- or an issue-basedsystem. It has been claimed9 that 95% o what all companies do is eectivelythe same, and only 5% o their activities provide the strategic dierentiation.Oddly, in most companies today these non-dierentiating parts are oten the most

expensive parts o an IT estate. The heatmap gives a business-value perspectiveand thereore it highlights the supporting IT system investment and cost drivers.

Thereore the CIO’s goal is to dramatically reduce costs in the “cold” areasand to ocus the best people and investment on the areas delivering real businessvalue. The cold areas (Blue and Purple) should be outsourced; partners shouldbe sought to co-develop the warm (Orange) areas; and the hot (Red) areas shouldbe retained and developed through internal investment and, i needed, skills romoutside. The quality o sta is the single biggest orce driving productivity10;using high quality and productive sta in non-value-generating areas is a greatwaste o IT resources. The uture IT organization should concentrate its sta oncreating dierentiation in value-creating areas and look to third parties to providestandardized cost-reduction solutions elsewhere. This dierentiation ocus tends to require a dierent skills prole than the onenormally ound in corporate IT departments.

Concentrate on dierentiation



Another key challenge many companies ace in applications rationalization is tounderstand not just the technical and unctional overlap o applications but alsohow this overlap ts with the business model and, thereore, which rationalizationapproach is optimal. The Business Service Architecture and the ValueClassication Matrix make it easier to answer the questions o “Own, Manage,

Rent, Retire” as they help to create a more accurate applications map, one whichexposes not just the overlaps in applications but also the gaps – areas in which noapplication supports the business.

Rationalize in linewith the business

R&D

Own

Manage

Rent

Retire

Quality

Control

QCA

Stock

Control

Planning Complianc

X2 Advance

Phoenix

ERP A

ERP B

ERP C

In Figure 5, a limited number o dierentiating applications should be retained

directly by the organization. One application (Phoenix) should be managedvia a third party provider (i.e. it should be outsourced); three ERP applicationsshould be replaced with a single ERP instance; and one application (QCA) shouldbe retired as it duplicates unctionality. In this example the overlaps are clear andobvious, yet sometimes the situation is much harder to decipher.

In the scenario drawn up in Figure 6 there are not only a number o overlappingapplications but there are also signicant gaps in core areas, most notably inorecasting. The question is thereore not o a simple rationalization but o howto undertake the rationalization and start delivering solutions to one o the keybusiness dierentiators. This is a good example o a case in which elements, suchas SOA Build and Run-Build-Run contracts described later, can be used to actively

manage the rationalization either via a replacement strategy or by using SOAprinciples to reuse those parts o the legacy most representative o the company’sstrategy.

Figure 5. Example o straightorward application rationalization



http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/from-it-cost-to-business-value 10/24 10

Forecasting Suppliers

MMW

Stock

Control

Shipping Warehouse

Phoenix 2

Gerald

SCM

FSB EU

FS2

In this example, the most appropriate approach would be to look atrationalization as part o the move towards delivering an IT estate that better tsthe business. The latter sections o this paper will deal with the dierent approachesto rationalization, but broadly what could be done in such an estate would bea combination o SaaS solutions, Run-Build-Run outsourcing, and new build.

Figure 6. Example o challenging application rationalization

Forecasting

Build

Own

Manage(Outsource

Run-Build-Run)

Rent

Retire

Suppliers

MMW

Stock

Control

Shipping Warehouse

Build

SOA Build

Gerald

SCM

FS2

FSB EUPhoenix 2

Build

Figure 7. Application rationalization with new build

The goal o strategic rationalization thereore is not just to retire and consolidateapplications but also to identiy areas that need to be extended and to create amore complete solution. Focusing purely on cost reduction oten means thatrationalization delivers lower costs but also less unctionality, which can meanuture difculties in adding strategic dierentiation since such dierentiation was

not dened as a goal o the rationalization process.



This new value-ocused model demands great exibility rom IT delivery.In particular, IT departments and outsourcers ace a signicant challenge as Mess-or-Less is no longer “enough” when it comes to cost cutting and it clearly doesnot assure the exibility required to continually deliver business value. There aretwo clear roadmaps, the choice o the right one depends on whether an area is

capable o creating value or not.

One size doesn’t t all –understanding the roadmap

B u s i n e s s V a l u e A d d

C o s t C o n t a i n m e n t

ApplicationPortfolioStrategy

BusinessService

Architecture

SOA Build

Business Process Insight

ERP Run

(utility pricing)

Shared Services

SaaS

ITO + BPO

Business Service FocusTechnology Focus

SOA Run

Application Mashups

Application Hosting

Application Skills on Demand

Application Management

Application Upgrades

Application Testing

Application Development

Application Modernization

Responsiveness & Flexibility

Saving Money

Capgemini Application Outsourcing Service Roadmap

Figure 8. Application Portolio Roadmap11

Broadly there are two roadmaps, one which is ocused on reducing the costso elements and the other aimed at driving competitive advantage. To note,competitive advantage only ever comes rom having a business ocus and neverrom a technology ocus.




The dreaded package upgrade is one o the most consistent problems aced by ITestate management. The reason or the dread is simple: i the package had beenlet vanilla then there would be no problem, but the package is never let vanilla.In eect, the customizations cost many multiples o their actual implementationcosts. Thereore, one question must always be asked: was the customization

genuinely required or was it required only because we didn’t want to changethe business. All too oten the business makes no move to change in order tomake the IT solution work. This leads to the worst o all worlds: the adoption o a packaged solution customized to t the existing business. The goal in cost-basedareas is thereore to eliminate customization and, thus, to remove needless costsand, in particular, to support upgrades implemented in the most cost- eectivemanner possible.

Removing customization toeliminate costs

Forecasting

Build

Own

Manage(Outsource

Run-Build-Run)

Rent

Retire

Suppliers

MMW

Stock

Control

Shipping Warehouse

Build

SOA Build

Gerald

SCM

FS2

FSB EU

Phoenix 2

Build

Figure 9. Cost based Roadmap

I a package is the answer, which tends to mean either cost- or utility-basedservices, then there is no competitive advantage to be gained. This means thathaving business- or IT- dierentiation in such areas is a waste o money. Thebusiness heatmap is there to highlight these areas to the CIO and to help themdrive a more dramatic cost-savings agenda. The mantra or cost-based areas shouldalways promote the adoption o commodity-packaged solutions and the change o the business to adopt the processes and standards o the package. The selection o

a package solution is a statement o intent: it says that it is okay i in this area thebusiness is just as good as everyone else’s. There is no value to be created romcustomization and only signicantly higher costs.



The rst goal or any CIO in package implementation, upgrade or supportshould be to move towards as vanilla a solution as possible and to work with thebusiness to develop and implement a business change program that will supportthe commoditization. Companies are currently wasting millions to customizepackages whose costs increase over time.

Custom

Vanilla

Implementation Support Upgrade

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Figure 10. Relative cost o package customization

This means that a Mess-or-Less style o application support and management isdesigned to increase the long-term costs o package solutions as it ails to addressthe underlying challenges o business change or to continually look to replacecustomizations by vanilla solutions. Simply put, Mess-or-Less is designed toensure the upgrade o a package solution is more expensive.

For new packages the answer is simple: change the business not the package.This mantra will signicantly reduce implementation, support and upgrade costsand will also help to ensure the package delivers against its original business case.

For existing packages the challenge is clear: how to remove the customizationsto eliminate the extraneous cost. To this end, applications support must shitaway rom merely patching and updating towards being part o a business and

technology change program. This represents a signicant shit and tends to beimplemented with varying success in one o our ways:




Description ProsName Cons

High Quality Evolution Assign a high quality supportand implementation teamaligned to an incrementalbusiness change program.

Evolutionary approachwith small steps. Enablesbusiness to remove costsover time.

High Quality Evolution Expensive to resourceand sta. Does not quicklydeliver the benets.

Break the package downinto its constituentmodules and replaceelements in denedgroups and businessareas. E.g. i doing HRand Finance, upgrade

Finance rst.

Evolutionary approachwith large jumps orward.Enables the targetingo key challenge areas.Gives a staged businesschange program.

IncrementalRun-Build-Run

Does not deliver benetsas quickly as possible.Requires ongoing supportto combine implementationand upgrade.

Single program approachto support existingapplication and thenreplace with a newversion, then take thatinto support. Largechange program andmigration all managedtogether.

Gives all benets asquickly as possible.Enables the new buildto be done independentlyo ongoing support.Ensures build andmigration are done withthe existing support team.

Run-Build-Run Change program canbe very large i it coversmultiple applicationareas. Oten works bestor limited area packages.

Existing organizationdoes the support anda new program isestablished or a newbuild, this undertakesthe business change andimplementation. There isthen a migration programto move the inormationrom the existing systemand to establish new

support.

Separates support romimplementation. Givesa targeted project orthe new build andchange.

New build and migrate Oten very expensive.Creates organizationaltension between BAUand new, oten with BAUadding modicationsrom the businessand thus causingdisengagement romthe change program.

The last o these elements is oten what companies are orced into doing as aresult o existing Mess-or-Less outsourcing deals. The existing contracts orcethem to create a new structure in which to deliver the new package. Additionally,the existing support team knows it will be replaced and oten becomes counter-productive by accepting business change requests which are being maderedundant by the new implementation. This oten leads to a big disconnectbetween the previous implementation and the new package, and sometimes to the

rejection o the new package by the business.



Contractually thereore the most sensible approach is to choose an implementation

approach that works with the existing support organization and which provides

a clear strategy or moving the new application into support. These contracts should

look at the demonstrable benets that are expected through the implementation

and link its costs and bonuses to the achievement o the benets. Normally, these

benets should include both business change and technology savings targets.By making a single entity accountable or the migration and linking protability

and KPIs to the achievement o the savings, emphasis shits clearly away rom Mess-

or-Less towards the delivery o quantiable business advantage.

The logical conclusion: moving to shared services and SaaS

I a given area is not dierentiating, then many companies can use the same

solution without any impact on competition. This is best illustrated today by the

adoption o standard packages, or instance SAP ISU in utilities or Retek in retail,

adopted by multiple companies in a sector specically to achieve standardization.

Horizontal business unctions represent other areas where dierentiation does not

yield competitive advantage; hence packages like PeopleSot rom Oracle are otenused or HR solutions.

The next logical question thereore is why do I have my own? I a company has

elected to change its business practices to t a given package solution then it is hard

to see how the cost o inrastructure and dedicated IT support would represent the

lowest cost option or the provision o the service. I a service is considered a utility

then it should be charged as a utility. Companies do not go out building mobile

telephone inrastructures just so their employees can have mobile phones, nor do

they build power stations and gas pipelines just to keep the heat and lights on.

The decision driver or utility elements is service level: as long as a service reaches

the required service level then the cheapest option wins; companies will pay more

or extended service levels in the same way as they pay more to have mobile email

access than simply to make phone calls. These services are utilities whose costs are

directly linked to the business activity that creates the costs.



ApplicationPortfolio

Strategy

BusinessService

Architecture

SOA Build


ERP Run(utility pricing)

Shared Services

SaaS

ITO + BPO


SOA Run

Application Mashups

Application Hosting




Application Testing




Saving Money


Figure 11. Utility Roadmap




With phones the unit is the phone call and with electricity it is the Watt. ITservices must nd the equivalent usage measure or charging. The cost o invoicing should be driven by the number o invoices; the cost o Employee Sel-Service should be calculated by the number o employees. Once a business serviceis understood to be a utility, it becomes sensible to think about its provision and

costing in the terms o a utility. This is where Shared Services and Sotware as aService (SaaS) should be considered as the de acto choice or delivery.

The question or shared services or SaaS, and potentially even BPO, should notbe “why” but “why not.” There are suggestions12 that all computing will moveinto this mode o delivery although this is probably an extreme view. The realityis that many services would be better o being provisioned in this way. Thereare hurdles to be overcome or the adoption o Shared Services and SaaS or theservices business cost to be directly linked to its business activities.

For utility-ocused business services the only logical conclusion is that costingshould be linked to the business volume metric that it supports. This suggests

that SaaS, Shared Services or BPO are the only proessional answers.



The rst area o ocus or IT departments looking to drive value should be in theROI category, as this is the place where traditional business cases can be builtand new opportunities created. The rst stage in many o these programs will be toclearly identiy which parts within an area have the potential to dierentiate andadd value and which can be moved towards commodity and standardization. Thegoal o this process is to ree up budget to be invested in areas that can actuallycreate a return on investment. In these areas thereore there are two orms o ROIprograms to be considered: those that create the headroom or innovation andthose that deliver the innovation.

This approach ocuses the ROI in one o the two places and gives the ITdepartment the opportunity to demonstrate the creation o business value byestablishing the budgetary headroom that is required to commission the new work.In creating a two phase program there is an obvious risk that the business, mostnormally the nance department, will elect to “book” the cost savings instead o investing in the innovation and value creation exercises. This risk is exactly whyit is important to rst identiy those areas where a strong ROI case can be built.Too oten IT departments undertake these exercises in non-dierentiating and non-

value-creating areas thus in areas where any potential or re-investment o savingsdoes not represent good sense rom a business perspective.

Focusing on ROI


It is most eective to consider the cost and innovation elements within a single

program ramework with a dual business case as justication. Both o the businesscases should have clearly measurable metrics that either represent bottom-line costreduction or top-line growth. By tting the two elements in a single program,

Support

Development

Platform

Infrastructure

Original Cost Result Innovation

Figure 12. ROI approach to applications



the minds o suppliers and employees can be made to ocus on the overall goalso the program rather than simply looking rst at cost reduction and, by doing so,potentially making the innovation and top-line impact harder to deliver.



ApplicationPortfolioStrategy

BusinessService

Architecture

SOA Build


ERP Run(utility pricing)

Shared Services

SaaS

ITO + BPO


SOA Run

Application Mashups

Application Hosting




Application Testing




Saving Money


Figure 13. ROI roadmap

A common challenge in this area is ound when looking at extensions to packagesotware solutions or when looking at reducing costs o traditional bespoke

applications: how can we clearly identiy the pieces that should be cost reducedwhile eeding exibility where there is an underlying business rationale. This iswhere the next generation o SOA technologies and approaches are most eectiveas they support a common base to be leveraged and dierentiation to be addedonly where it counts.



A successul Application Portolio Strategy is about aligning budget ocus towardseither investment or cost reduction. This approach must ever evolve with thebusiness to enable the CIO and the IT department to rene and update the portolioto guarantee the maximum ocus on business value at all times. The goal o thebusiness-oriented CIO is to move the IT department away rom skills-based

management towards value-based management. To do this the portolio strategyshould aim to drive initial cost savings which can be re-invested in the value-creating areas o the business.

The impact o ApplicationPortolio Strategy


Infrastructure Management

Networks

Helpdesk

Development

Hardware

Software

Before After

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Figure 14. Skills based changes as a result o Portolio Management

Clearly while it is possible to see some changes when looking rom a skillsperspective, or instance the slight increase in application development and adecrease in traditional support costs, the exercise in Figure 14 highlights one o the key tasks beore Application Portolio Strategy: Application Portolio Strategymust drive change rom a skills-based assessment o IT towards a value-based

assessment. A skills-based approach leads to inefcient spending, with the bulk o spending around cost- and utility-based areas. It also does not give a holistic viewas to whether the spending was correctly ocused.





Infrastructure Management

Networks

Helpdesk

Development

Hardware

Software

Before After

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Figure 15. Value base changes as a result o Application Portolio Strategy

While the skills change is interesting to IT, the impact on business valuerepresents the real change. This is because spending allocated to cost- or utility-based areas, or instance ERP customization, can be redirected to much moreefcient spending decisions, e.g. vanilla ERP with value-based customization inmiddleware or even a move towards SaaS instead o traditional ERP. This change

needs to be visible throughout the organization and is a major reason that onmost occasions the rst stage o any portolio strategy is a value-based assessmento today’s IT spending.


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/from-it-cost-to-business-value 21/24From IT Cost to Business Value. Focusing investment or competitive advantage. C2

IT needs to become business centric. This requires a business-centric applicationportolio strategy. The strategy needs to ocus on where value can be created andwhere costs should be reduced. By reorienting the application portolio strategyaway rom IT and towards business, it is possible to demonstrate the value IT candeliver and to create room or investment rom within the existing IT portolio.

Spending more on IT does give better results; the results are achieved by targetingthat spending to where the investment will create the greatest added value.

Conclusion

Works cited

1. P.A. Strassmann. Inormation PayoO—The Transormation o Work in the Electronic Age,

The Inormation Economics Press, New Canaan, Connecticut, USA, 1985.

2. P.A. Strassmann. The Business Value o Computers—An Executive’s Guide, The Inormation Economics Press,

New Canaan, Connecticut, USA, 1990.

3. P.A. Strassmann. The policies and realities o CIM—lessons learned, in the Proc. 4th Armed Forces.4 Communications and Electronics Association Con., AFCEA, Fairax, VA, USA, 1993, pp. 1–19.

4. The Standish Group. CHAOS, 1995. Retrievable via: standishgroup.com/visitor/chaos.htm (Current February 2001).

5. De Marco, Tom. Slack. s.l. : Broadway Books, 2003. 978-0767907699.

6. De Marco, Tom and Lister, Timothy. Peopleware 2nd Edition. s.l. : Dorset House Publishing Company, 1999. 978-

0932633439.

7. Jones, Steve. Enterprise SOA Adoption Strategies. s.l. : InoQ, 2005. p. 146. ISBN 978-1847283986.

8. Jones, Steve. Towards an acceptable denition o service. 3, s.l. : IEEE, 2006, Sotware, Vol. 22, pp. 87-93.

9. Agassi, Shai. Drive Strategic Dierentiation. s.l. : SAP TechEd ‘06, 2006.

http://www.crmchump.org/2006/09/saps_major_anno.html.

10. Brooks, Frederick P. The Mythical Man Month. s.l. : Addison-Wesley Proessional, 1995. 978-0201835953.

11. Mulholland, Andy. Redening Business Capabilities. s.l. : Capgemini, 2007.

12. Carr, Nick. The Big Switch Our New Digital Destiny. s.l. : W.W. Norton & Co, 2008. 978-0393062281.




7 0 5

0 8 S J S T A O W P 1

Copyright © 2008 Capgemini. All rights reserved.

Capgemini, oneo the world’s

oremost providers o consulting, technology and outsourcingservices, enables its clients to transormand perorm through technologies.Capgemini provides its clients withinsights and capabilities that boost theirreedom to achieve superior resultsthrough a unique way o working, theCollaborative Business Experience.

The Group relies on its global deliverymodel called Rightshore®, which aims

to get the right balance o the best talentrom multiple locations, working as oneteam to create and deliver the optimumsolution or clients. Present in more than30 countries, Capgemini reported 2008global revenues o EUR 8.7 billion andemploys over 92,000 people worldwide.

More inormation is available atwww.capgemini.com.

About Capgemini and the

Collaborative Business Experience



www.capgemini.com/application-outsourcing

For urther inormation please contact:

Steve Jones

Head o SOA,

Global Outsourcing

[email protected]

Tel: +44 (0) 789 115 7026

Glenn Adams

Global Product Director,

Application Outsourcing

For details o Capgemini’s Application

Outsourcing solutions, visit:

from it cost to business value

Documents