Sourcing Insight - Simplifying Risk Management - Trestle Group
Sourcing Insight - Simplifying Risk Management - Trestle Group
Sourcing Insight - Simplifying Risk Management - Trestle Group
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
SOURCING INSIGHT<br />
Outsourcing and Offshoring<br />
<strong>Simplifying</strong> <strong>Risk</strong> <strong>Management</strong><br />
Outsourcing and Offshoring as corporate strategies continue to thrive,<br />
notwithstanding the fact that both approaches sometimes present<br />
themselves as overly-complex and imbued with risk. Truly understanding risk<br />
and reward from both a quantitative and qualitative perspective simplifies<br />
the decision-making process, as managing Outsourcing and Offshoring risk is<br />
not merely an equation or calculation but much more of an abstract activity –<br />
and that’s because not everything that counts can actually be counted.<br />
A <strong>Trestle</strong> <strong>Group</strong> Research Publication<br />
New York — London — Frankfurt — Zurich — Bangalore
Table of Contents<br />
Overview 3<br />
Controlling and Managing <strong>Risk</strong> 5<br />
Conclusion 11<br />
About This Document 12<br />
SOURCING INSIGHT | Outsourcing and Offshoring - <strong>Simplifying</strong> <strong>Risk</strong> <strong>Management</strong> 2
Overview<br />
Newton’s third law of motion states that for every action, there is always an equal and opposite reaction.<br />
This appears to be just as relevant in the commercial world, as the continuing weakness in the global<br />
economy engenders a welcome and commensurate strengthening in the outsourcing and offshoring<br />
services sector. Indeed, 2012 saw a rise in global technology spending despite economic downturn in the<br />
USA and Europe, and a commensurate rise in sourcing in new regions and emerging markets in South<br />
America, Africa and the Middle East.<br />
Outsourcing and Offshoring as corporate strategies therefore continue to thrive, notwithstanding the fact<br />
that often both (or a combination of both) approaches sometimes present themselves as overly-complex<br />
and imbued with risk. Truly understanding risk and reward from both a quantitative and qualitative<br />
perspective simplifies the decision-making process, as managing Outsourcing and Offshoring risk is not<br />
merely an equation or calculation but much more of an abstract activity – and that’s because not<br />
everything that counts can actually be counted.<br />
Evolving Strategy<br />
Outsourcing and Offshoring are not quite as old as Newton, however, less than forty years after his death<br />
and with the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, embryonic companies began the struggle for competitive<br />
advantages that heralded relentless expansion into new markets in a continuing search for cost<br />
reductions and a consequent increase in their profit margins. Offshoring and outsourcing are the logical,<br />
modern, extensions of that early entrepreneurship.<br />
Initially, offshoring or outsourcing processes were demand-led, with a focus on cost savings or cost<br />
avoidance through labour cost arbitrage. Although this “service delivery” approach was fruitful in the<br />
early days, companies soon realised that their predicted costs savings were unlikely to continue to reap<br />
the same benefits, in terms of percentage of the total cost base, in the longer term.<br />
To an extent this was often because the actual costs of the target processes and functions were not<br />
always fully understood at the outset, with many organisations unaware of the full extent of the tasks<br />
performed and the services delivered by those functions to be outsourced. There were too many<br />
“unknown unknowns” that ultimately affected the cost of the initiative and the performance and delivery<br />
of the end service.<br />
Optimisation of processes both in and out-house and on and offshore therefore replaced labour arbitrage<br />
as a primary element of outsourcing strategies and companies subsequently began placing greater<br />
emphasis on outsourcing and offshoring projects that explicitly supported key pillars of corporate<br />
strategy. Nevertheless, the methodologies employed and the approaches to managing risk throughout<br />
from start-up, selection, negotiation, transition and transformation can sometimes lack the rigour that<br />
creates true sustainability and produce the required results, due to weaknesses in decision making.<br />
Process Selection and Decision-Making<br />
The decision-making process has in most cases always been rigorous, as the right decision and selection<br />
of processes (business, knowledge or IT) can obviously add significantly to an organisation's profit<br />
SOURCING INSIGHT | Outsourcing and Offshoring - <strong>Simplifying</strong> <strong>Risk</strong> <strong>Management</strong> 3
margins whilst freeing resources, bringing fresh perspective and producing marked efficiency gains. The<br />
decision, however, sometimes focuses unduly on the strategic importance of the activity to be<br />
outsourced and the consequent impact on operational performance, at the expense of a more riskintelligent<br />
process.<br />
Plotting these two criteria (strategic importance and impact on performance) on x and y axes and<br />
dividing the graph into sensible quadrants summarises previous go / no-go decisions in their simplest<br />
form:<br />
Strategic Importance<br />
Develop<br />
Alternatives<br />
Retain In-<br />
House<br />
Impact on Performance<br />
Retain Under<br />
Assessment<br />
Outsource<br />
This simple model often presented knotty problems as it is heavily reliant on the calculation of cost /<br />
benefit which is notoriously difficult to control as a methodology. Experience shows that there are many<br />
variations in the way that organisations and sometimes parts of the same organisation, calculate the<br />
financial cases for these initiatives. For example, there are:<br />
Disparities in methodologies:<br />
• Cash flows, price and inferred discounted or non-discounted rates providing different<br />
yields<br />
• Emphasis on quantitative calculations rather than a balance with qualitative assessments<br />
Inconsistent underlying assumptions:<br />
• Varying inflation rates<br />
• Different time horizons (e.g. used in Net Present Value calculations)<br />
Divergences in cost elements that are applied to different initiatives:<br />
• Cost neutrality<br />
• Cost avoidance<br />
• Offshore remuneration as part of costs per FTE<br />
• Net savings calculations<br />
SOURCING INSIGHT | Outsourcing and Offshoring - <strong>Simplifying</strong> <strong>Risk</strong> <strong>Management</strong> 4
All of these and more, previously resulted in limited comparability of business case benefits matched by a<br />
limited comparability of the rewards of the initiative compared to other strategic proposals: All of which<br />
left our bottom left quadrant, above, full of assessments and re-assessments, due to the difficulty in<br />
aggregating returns to calculate the overall value contribution.<br />
Experience also shows that qualitative assessments appeared in the past to be inconsistent, with a mix of<br />
factors such as working hour extensions, capacity extensions, efficiency gains, quality improvements and<br />
flexibility improvements all at the mercy of “finger-in-the-air” merchants.<br />
Controlling and Managing <strong>Risk</strong><br />
Despite this finger-waving, strategy has continued to evolve and the focus is now on “big ticket” items<br />
that are viewed as a way to strengthen business models, allowing for operational leverage (i.e. the<br />
exploitation of synergies and process improvements, both within business groups and globally) that will<br />
fully realise anticipated cost benefits and create efficiencies through shared services and captive models.<br />
Consequently, the less complex decision-making process is now redundant and something more<br />
sophisticated is in use, especially now that it is abundantly clear that dependencies must be understood<br />
in their totality, as they are an indirect driver of cost. These total (i.e. dependencies), but hitherto overlooked,<br />
costs must now also be included as part of any outsourcing or offshoring equation. The new<br />
requirement for a structured and consistent risk management process that reflects the global nature of<br />
businesses and that echoes a company-wide strategy, rather than a discrete business group or<br />
geographic area approach has been quickly met but it is still unclear whether such a methodology is<br />
consistently employed by organisations in assessing proposals in terms of their quantitative (i.e. cost<br />
savings) and qualitative benefits (i.e. operational leverage), to allow executive management clear sight of<br />
those areas that offer clear value. Indeed, the evidence for this absence of total risk-intelligence lies in our<br />
collective ability to recount stories where processes (business, knowledge or IT) have been outsourced<br />
prematurely only to be returned in-house or where costs have spiralled or where processes in-scope are<br />
broken and incapable of optimisation by outsource service suppliers or in captive locations. This is where<br />
the things that can’t be counted do indeed need to be reckoned.<br />
Operational Performance <strong>Risk</strong><br />
The most successful practitioners in overcoming these issues have focused on the following six areas of<br />
operational performance:<br />
• Service Levels<br />
• Revenue Performance<br />
• Operating Capacity<br />
• Staff Flexibility<br />
• Organisational Capability<br />
• Process Maturity<br />
SOURCING INSIGHT | Outsourcing and Offshoring - <strong>Simplifying</strong> <strong>Risk</strong> <strong>Management</strong> 5
Focus, though, is not enough in itself because the real trick is to know which of these, or which<br />
combination of these, are the most important for the organisation at the relevant time and therefore<br />
which will reap the greatest cost/benefits, generate the most innovation and therefore speed the<br />
transformation of the company. Clearly, focusing merely on capacity and flexibility may not realise the<br />
same benefits as majoring on organisational capability and service levels, however, each of these areas<br />
needs to be weighted in any assessment. A properly risk-weighted assessment, for instance, may indicate<br />
that offshoring to a captive with higher set-up costs and longer lead-in times, rather than outsourcing,<br />
may realise increased savings in the longer term. Lack of focus merely continues to fill the bottom left<br />
quadrant.<br />
Process Selection <strong>Risk</strong><br />
Even after such a risk-weighted process is accurately completed, often the problems in large and<br />
distributed corporates are reignited by laborious approvals processes that place undue emphasis on<br />
addressing the potential for risks to be realised at one end, or the other, of the cycle – either in the<br />
selection and negotiation stages or at the service delivery stage (defined as service implementation risks<br />
below) and too little emphasis is placed on preparation, transition and the move to “steady state”. This is a<br />
direct result of approvers too often being requested to score the anticipated benefits associated with the<br />
initiative itself, without full visibility of the inherent risks. In effect, the risk assessment is uncoupled from<br />
the reward as sometimes only the residual risks (delivery, costs) are apparent to the approvers.<br />
These service implementation risks include but are not limited to:<br />
• Sub-optimal Project Definition for Transition (or the total absence of )<br />
• Staff Mobility<br />
• Contracts, SLAs, KPIs<br />
• Interface<br />
• Hand-over<br />
• Service <strong>Management</strong><br />
• Reporting<br />
• Process Improvement<br />
A second and just as obvious problem is that often selection and approvals processes are overly<br />
bureaucratic, complicated and inefficient, requiring parallel submissions to, and approvals from, multiple<br />
control functions. A standardised approvals method based on a rigorous risk assessment is therefore<br />
fundamental to addressing the inherent risks in transitions, leading to the optimal situation where the<br />
risk analysis that is completed at initiation (selection, negotiation) is carried over into true, rigorous and<br />
transparent management for the full lifecycle of the program. This is where the risk-intelligent approach,<br />
i.e. end-to-end risk management, comes to the fore.<br />
A third and less talked about issue is that in any global offshoring or outsourcing program where the<br />
business finds itself under intense margin pressure (which is in turn driving the program) there is the<br />
SOURCING INSIGHT | Outsourcing and Offshoring - <strong>Simplifying</strong> <strong>Risk</strong> <strong>Management</strong> 6
temptation not necessarily to throw processing over the wall as such, but to rush to selection in order to<br />
find immediate cost-savings and reductions in headcount. This is extremely risky. It does go on.<br />
Pulling these three issues together - say for instance (and this is a randomly concocted example) an<br />
Investment Banking arm of a global financial powerhouse in the USA under cost pressures decides to<br />
offshore to a corporate captive in Brazil, owned and operated by the headquarters function of its masters<br />
in Germany. The process selection is completed in isolation by the US arm of the Investment Bank, which<br />
has subordinate legal entities and branches in other regions too. The process, although local, relies on<br />
systems and services that store and exchange data across the whole of the enterprise not just the<br />
Investment Bank. The process also involves the data of an Institutional Client that also has a relationship<br />
with the Asset <strong>Management</strong> arm of the organisation based in the UK but with interests in Luxembourg<br />
and Monaco. The negotiation takes place with the captive entity. Then the approvals process becomes a<br />
joint enterprise between HQ functions, captive and Investment Bank and requires sign-off from the<br />
Investment Bank and <strong>Group</strong> Tax, Legal and Compliance functions, IT Infrastructure, IT Application<br />
Managers, Data Owners, IT Security, HQ executive Committee, the Captive Executive, New Business<br />
Approval body, <strong>Group</strong> Offshoring Committee, Asset <strong>Management</strong> Executive, local sign-off in<br />
Luxembourg, Monaco, etc. etc. etc. It is now more than apparent how bureaucratic, risky and opaque the<br />
whole project can become. To top it all, the process is sub-optimal and in need of remediation - no-one is<br />
sure if the client has signed a waiver.<br />
<strong>Risk</strong> Analysis <strong>Risk</strong><br />
Yes, even the method and approach to risk analysis carries its own risks. Accepting for the moment that<br />
the problems with decision-making outlined above have been overcome, the problem with risk analysis<br />
is that, essentially, it is too often a point-in-time exercise; which for an outsourcing program over a<br />
number of years has obvious pitfalls. This is where total risk intelligence must be applied – end-to-end,<br />
throughout the lifecycle of the project and the lifetime of the contract.<br />
Any point-in-time assessment can lead to many issues downstream. Without careful selection,<br />
negotiation and monitoring, and in the absence of robust contingency planning, sometimes product and<br />
service delivery can deteriorate through time with disastrous effects. Thankfully, this is not the norm but<br />
without a full understanding of the risks, an appropriate transition plan, including knowledge transfer<br />
and parallel processing, client organisations can dig themselves into a hole if they do not constantly<br />
revisit and revise the risk profile and management of the initiative.<br />
Supplier Selection <strong>Risk</strong><br />
It is a truism to say that rigorous selection is of the utmost importance. It is transparently obvious that<br />
determining the right supplier is not always that easy. Take, for instance, one institution that decided for<br />
very real reasons of security to offshore to a captive rather than outsource to an external vendor, in order<br />
to protect sensitive data, only to find that the very risk that it was trying to avoid was manifest and<br />
unmanageable, resulting in rapid closure, embarrassment all round, repatriation of processes, the sale of<br />
the installation and the transfer of staff.<br />
Whether outsourcing or offshoring, the fundamentals of supplier selection remain the same and it is not<br />
intended to go into extensive detail on that subject here. Suffice to say that country and political<br />
SOURCING INSIGHT | Outsourcing and Offshoring - <strong>Simplifying</strong> <strong>Risk</strong> <strong>Management</strong> 7
assessments, the health and long-term viability of the supplier, escrow arrangements, due diligence in<br />
relation to the agility and operability of supplier systems, concentration risks and business resilience<br />
should not play second fiddle to financial reputation and market share of the chosen vendor. It is<br />
surprising what can suddenly knock you over, whether it is terrorism, tsunamis, trojans or even<br />
duplicitous and fraudulent mis-management on unprecedented scales.<br />
Contract <strong>Risk</strong><br />
Too often, insufficient planning frustrates the outsourcing manager or executive as they enter into the<br />
negotiation process, finding that expectations and requirements fail to be the match made in Heaven<br />
that they first appeared, due to ill-defined terms and conditions around performance and sudden issues<br />
around capability. Providers need to be cognisant of, and be prepared for, proactive performance<br />
management and the process that they will need to follow to demonstrate compliance, not merely with<br />
availability, timeliness and cost stipulations in the contract but also the regulatory, privacy, confidentiality<br />
and quality requirements. These aspects are not always managed effectively.<br />
For new and existing contracts, using a similar quadrant as above, organisations can easily identify the<br />
outsourcing suppliers and contracts that have the highest risk potential. Using the same criteria<br />
(strategic importance and impact on performance) we can design the quadrant thus:<br />
Strategic Importance<br />
Category 3<br />
Non-Business critical<br />
Significant value<br />
Low volume<br />
Category 4<br />
Non-Business critical<br />
Low value<br />
Low volume<br />
Category 1<br />
Business critical<br />
High value<br />
High volume<br />
Category 2<br />
Business critical<br />
Significant value<br />
Significant volume<br />
Impact on Performance<br />
Self-evidently, category 1 risks are the highest priority, categories 2 and 3 are medium and category 4 is<br />
low. Once this initial assessment is complete, each contract should be the subject of an individual<br />
assessment that should examine service descriptions, service levels, key performance indicators, quality<br />
criteria and performance metrics.<br />
The higher category contracts should be subject to continuous review with a contract manager assigned.<br />
Category 2 and 3 contracts will need active periodic monitoring, on a formalised basis, whilst category 4<br />
contracts will be reviewed annually. For all categories ad hoc reviews will be regularly triggered by failure<br />
to meet performance requirements through metrics and KPI reporting of service delivery and end-user<br />
satisfaction.<br />
Again, experience shows that major companies do not always have a policy-driven outsourcing/<br />
offshoring contract and negotiation strategy, under-pinned by a consistent and auditable process. This is<br />
SOURCING INSIGHT | Outsourcing and Offshoring - <strong>Simplifying</strong> <strong>Risk</strong> <strong>Management</strong> 8
est practice and is often adhered to for major capital contracts, however, some organisations, amazingly,<br />
do not consider risks that would realise a loss of less than $50 million USD as sufficient to warrant<br />
escalation to the company level risk register. Shareholders sometimes have no idea how their stakes are<br />
being managed.<br />
Project <strong>Risk</strong><br />
Systematic and exhaustive planning and management are fundamental to the success of sourcing<br />
initiatives. In addition to deep functional knowledge, market experience and the right skills sets in terms<br />
of supply, demand and pricing analytics, project risk management is a primary requisite. The planning<br />
and execution of such a project goes well-beyond PRINCE 2 and colourful sets of gauges, graphs and bar<br />
charts. Managing the risk entails appropriate governance, ensuring the right people deploy rigorous risk<br />
controls that are effective both in design and operation. The sourcing team must employ risk specialists,<br />
with the ability to think critically, provide accurate and timely assessments and back these with<br />
mitigation and contingency actions as part of an effective risk treatment plan. Again, experience shows<br />
that assessing project risks is quite often left on the back-burner as the project gains momentum.<br />
A suitable model is needed to assess and manage project risk.<br />
already that are in use in major programs, for example SAP integrations.<br />
Many templates and examples exist<br />
Nevertheless, the basic<br />
expectation that the project will be continuously evaluated, monitored and reported on accurately is<br />
often not met. “Water Melon” reporting is repeatedly all too plain (it might look green on the outside but<br />
we all know it is red on the inside. How many times have risk reports been presented, explained and<br />
accepted without the right level of intellectual and commercial scrutiny The answer is “too often” and I<br />
would wager that this resonates with every reader of this article who has ever sat and looked at some<br />
fancy PowerPoint or Excel RAG report.<br />
Transition <strong>Risk</strong><br />
Transition is the phase where a great deal of the risk is concentrated.<br />
This is where responsibilities<br />
transfer from the start-up team to the managers and operators of the processes and is the point where<br />
often risks materialise for the first time due to deficient planning, that has failed to anticipate likelihood<br />
and impact of transition risks, including service supply interruption, asset transfer problems,<br />
infrastructure readiness and related change management issues. These will be familiar:<br />
• Scope Creep<br />
• Vendor cannot match in-house knowledge in quick time<br />
• Missed Milestones and back door deals on delivery<br />
• Sudden and unexpected political upheaval in target destination<br />
• Political change in target destination leading to redrafting of local tax regulations<br />
• Incompatible Quality and Security Standards despite previous analysis<br />
• Insufficient knowledge transfer in planned timescale<br />
• Security breaches including finding that staff have not been vetted sufficiently<br />
• Infrastructure failures<br />
SOURCING INSIGHT | Outsourcing and Offshoring - <strong>Simplifying</strong> <strong>Risk</strong> <strong>Management</strong> 9
• Business resilience (disaster recovery and continuity plans) affected by vendor<br />
concentration risk<br />
• Increased costs including labour rates<br />
• Legal and Regulatory compliance issues surfacing<br />
• Non-conformance with KPI and metrics reporting due to inability to parse data<br />
• Poor response times due to time zone differences<br />
• Poor design leading to new non-alignment of new products<br />
Human Capital <strong>Risk</strong><br />
Employee resistance and industrial relations are major risks that are manifest in the majority of sourcing<br />
projects. Often handled badly, this should be a much bigger concern than it is for many organisations.<br />
Not many of us would relish reading, in the freebie evening paper on the train on the way home, that our<br />
jobs were going to India, however, this has happened in the recent past. The consequent loss of morale,<br />
cooperation and therefore productivity in the interim are rarely factored into anyone’s cost / benefit<br />
calculations. Neither is the cost to downstream users or consumers.<br />
Sensitive, timely and sympathetic consultations and communications go a long way to defraying the<br />
sometimes hidden or otherwise not included costs of outsourcing that pertain to human capital risk:<br />
• Compensation and benefits (equity vestings, pensions, etc.)<br />
• Transference of undertakings<br />
• Outplacement<br />
• Re-training<br />
• Re-deployment<br />
• Retrenchment<br />
• Redundancy<br />
Steady State <strong>Risk</strong>s<br />
With contractual arrangements ensuring all relevant criteria are in place, by which to measure supplier<br />
performance (service descriptions, agreed service levels, key performance indicators, quality criteria and<br />
performance metrics) it is easy to sit back and allow the supplier to run things. Once Steady State has<br />
been reached, experience shows that when events do take a turn for the worse that often the client<br />
organisation finds itself with little recourse when it comes to deteriorating performance.<br />
Too many<br />
contracts do not allow for the exercise of performance credits and the ability to withhold or recoup<br />
expenditure.<br />
This is a most important method of both mitigating risk and keeping suppliers in check, as is the right to<br />
audit but readers will know that management of audits of providers is frequently ineffective. ISAE 3402<br />
type audits focusing on financial controls are all very well but client organisations need to ensure that<br />
their own internal control frameworks, bespoke or otherwise (ISO 13001, 14001, 27000 series, ITIL, etc.<br />
etc.) are operated and complied with to at least the same standard by the service supplier. Outsourcing<br />
compliance per se of course is still a philosophical argument.<br />
SOURCING INSIGHT | Outsourcing and Offshoring - <strong>Simplifying</strong> <strong>Risk</strong> <strong>Management</strong> 10
In order to manage all this, appropriate governance and management structures must be designed and<br />
operated in order to monitor, analyse and control performance risks and to act as the responsible body<br />
for relationship management, including escalation and management of account issues, such as:<br />
• Account management<br />
• Change requests<br />
• Change planning<br />
• Human capital issues<br />
• Billing and invoicing<br />
• Service and process issues<br />
• Interface and workflow management<br />
Conclusion<br />
Good risk control and management should all be standard fare in any organisation, however, it is<br />
surprising how many horror stories abound because organisations still do not adhere to simple<br />
management practices.<br />
This is evidenced by the fact that through the last decade we have seen a<br />
marked increase in client organisations cancelling, curtailing or even terminating contracts.<br />
In many<br />
cases, “Water Melon” risk management will have been all too evident which brings us full circle to Newton<br />
- this time to gravity rather than motion. Perhaps Newton can count himself lucky that in the popular<br />
story that it was indeed only an apple. A Water Melon would have done far more damage. Luckily for old<br />
Isaac they do not grow on trees - but effective outsourcing risk managers already know that.<br />
SOURCING INSIGHT | Outsourcing and Offshoring - <strong>Simplifying</strong> <strong>Risk</strong> <strong>Management</strong> 11
About This Document<br />
About Steve O’Reilly<br />
Steve has extensive international corporate experience drawn from a variety of roles in different sectors.<br />
During his career he has held senior roles in IT <strong>Risk</strong> and Governance, Data Privacy, HR and Outsourcing/<br />
Offshoring, with three of the World’s largest, most complex and distributed corporations: BHP Billiton<br />
(Melbourne), UBS AG (Zürich) and Siemens (London). He has also consulted widely, including projects for<br />
the European Commission, the UK Government and Health Service and in the Retail and Financial<br />
Services sectors. Steve has been published on the subject of Information Systems Governance, vendor<br />
management and business resilience and other related subjects. He holds a Masters Degree (MSc) in <strong>Risk</strong><br />
<strong>Management</strong> and is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute for IT and the British Computer Society.<br />
SOURCING INSIGHT | Outsourcing and Offshoring - <strong>Simplifying</strong> <strong>Risk</strong> <strong>Management</strong> 12
Organizations are under constant pressure to increase revenues and optimize costs while responding to a rapidly<br />
changing world. Through a combination of shared services, vendors and a global workforce, significant<br />
opportunities exist to manage these challenges.<br />
<strong>Trestle</strong> <strong>Group</strong> is an international advisory firm focused on helping companies design and implement strategies that<br />
maximize their potential. Our areas of support include:<br />
• Opportunity Assessments<br />
• Organizational Design<br />
• Governance<br />
• Process Design<br />
• Process Optimization<br />
• Vendor Selection<br />
• Vendor <strong>Management</strong><br />
• Service Level Agreements<br />
Framework Activities<br />
• Consolidation / Centralization<br />
• Project Implementation<br />
• Change <strong>Management</strong><br />
• Procurement Support<br />
• <strong>Risk</strong> Assessments<br />
• Performance Audits<br />
• Compliance Reviews<br />
• Benchmarking<br />
1 Identifying potential<br />
2 Analyzing status quo<br />
3 Planning target state<br />
4 Transformation to target state<br />
5 Continuous optimization<br />
Confirmation of objectives, benefits and risks.<br />
Assessment of options using proven methodologies.<br />
Current state analysis and benchmark of existing sourcing landscape.<br />
Business case/ risk evaluation of potential versus current state.<br />
Establishment of requirements for selecting vendor/ model.<br />
Vendor and location selection process.<br />
Planning and implementing transformation phase.<br />
Support in business continuity management and go-live.<br />
Ongoing optimization of business model.<br />
Vendor sustainability and risk / compliance audits.<br />
Contact <strong>Trestle</strong> <strong>Group</strong><br />
For more information about the services <strong>Trestle</strong> <strong>Group</strong> provides, please contact one of our offices or visit our website.<br />
New York City, USA<br />
245 Park Avenue<br />
10167 New York<br />
Tel: +1 212 672 1740<br />
Fax: +1 212 792 4001<br />
Zurich, Switzerland<br />
Limmatquai 94<br />
8001 Zurich<br />
Tel: +41 43 500 1740<br />
Fax: +41 43 500 1744<br />
London, United Kingdom<br />
1 Ropemaker Street<br />
EC2Y 9HT London<br />
Tel: +44 207 153 1006<br />
Fax: +44 207 153 1111<br />
Bangalore, India<br />
Bangalore Raheja Towers<br />
26-27 Mahatma Gandhi Road<br />
560 001 Bangalore<br />
Tel: +91 80 41 800 880<br />
Fax: +91 80 41 800 900<br />
Frankfurt, Germany<br />
Friedrich-Ebert-Anlage 36<br />
60325 Frankfurt am Main<br />
Tel: +49 69 244 333 162<br />
Fax: +49 69 244 333 207<br />
www.trestlegroup.com