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