27.12.2014 Views

Sourcing Insight - Simplifying Risk Management - Trestle Group

Sourcing Insight - Simplifying Risk Management - Trestle Group

Sourcing Insight - Simplifying Risk Management - Trestle Group

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!