Creating the Innovation Platform

© 2013 Information Services Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Proprietary and Confidential. No part of this document may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means,
including information storage and retrieval devices or systems, without prior written permission from Information Services Group, Inc.
Creating the Innovation Platform – RFS and
Other Techniques
Dave Tienstra – Partner – Retail, CPG, Travel & Transportation, Hospitality
Clay Calhoun – Partner – Banking, Financial Services, Insurance
Paul Schmidt – Partner – Retail, CPG, Travel & Transportation, Hospitality
September 10, 2013
2013 Sourcing Industry Conference

© 2013 Information Services Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved 2
A Market View

The CIO Heat Map has never been more complex. Many players in the eco-system
are opining from north, south, east and west.
Issues that are on the Desk of our Clients
Big Data
IT Consumerization
Green
Talent
Management Security
Business Unit
Alignment
Business Enabler
Vs.
Business Inhibitor
Self-Funding Models
Unified Communications
& Analytics

In today’s market, change is everywhere and is accelerating exponentially…
Pace of Change
Change
Time
This suggests that if we adjust our pace of
learning, that we will remain aligned.
What if the Pace of Change is Non-Linear?
What-if?

Pace of Learning < Pace of Change
In today’s market, the pace of change exceeds our pace of learning. The divide is
noticeable and increasing at an alarming rate.
Business
Alignment
Technology
& Services
Business
Practices
We are
here
Growing
Misalignment

Evolution of procuring a managed service is becoming a revolution
Single supplier / multiple
functions
 Very large contracts
 Long duration (~7-10 )
 Often lift and shift –
custom requirements
 Often with asset transfer
 9 – 12 month project
RFP is best vehicle for going
to market due to custom
requirements.
Often two providers –
Infrastructure and ADM split
 Large deals
 Long duration (~5 – 7)
 Leverages best practices
 Still leveraging custom
requirements
 6 -9 month project
RFP is a good fit but now
includes some industry
standard requirements –
CMMI, ITIL
True multi-sourcing – best
provider for the Service and
SIAM
 Medium size deals
 Shorter duration (~5
years)
 More use of standard
solutions
 Usually no asset transfer
 4 – 6 month project
RFP is an adequate fit and
now includes cross-vendor
integration (SIAM)
requirements
Multi-sourcing with new
technology, commercial
models & new provider
entrants
 Small size
 Short Duration ( 3 – 5
years)
 Often includes
innovation
 3 -4 month project
RFP can be too time-
consuming and may stifle
innovation – what are the
alternatives?
2013…1990 2000 2010
PluralisticBipartisanMonolithic Dynamic

Where have we been and where are we going?
In 2012 ISG suggested that the “RFP is dead” (or should be) in today’s market. In
2013 it is time to explore a framework of Evolutionary Contracting
Classic Contracting is decreasing
► RFP is too prescriptive.
► RFP limits innovation.
► RFP’s are too formal and they do not foster
trust or transparency
► Need something more flexible in the market 
RFS process.
► RFS can yield more innovative solutions for the
base contract.
► RFS with Collaborative Contracting, done well,
can foster trust and transparency.
Evolutionary Contracting is increasing
► Contracts need to evolve over time.
► Static operating models for multi-year durations
do not make sense.
► Base Contract is just the beginning of the
business relationship – it must grow/evolve or
run the risk of becoming outdated and
irrelevant.
► Buyers and Sellers need to engage in Mutual
Consent Commerce.
 True win/win with easy on easy off terms.
 Think handshake with 100 pages vs. classical 1000
page contract.
 Think dating vs. marriage

ISG’s award winning innovation in sourcing process
Request for Solution

IACCM 2013 Innovation Award - RFS
RFS is already short-listed – final award presented in October at
the IACCM Americas Forum 2013 in Arizona.
IACCM Innovation Awards
Recognizing outstanding leadership & innovation in commercial contracting
Award for outstanding service providers - For consultants, service or
application service providers who have led or enabled high value initiatives at
client organizations.

Client Innovation Challenges
Dialogue ISG has “behind closed doors”…

Clients want to source a service, but want innovation too . . .
► Describing innovation in an RFP can be very difficult or impossible
 The marketplace for services is changing rapidly – in some cases, so quickly that
service provider’s own marketing can’t keep up
 Every day there are announcements of new technologies; new and emerging
standards; and changing delivery and commercial models
► You could consider a less structured, more collaborative approach to the provider
marketplace, and ask for a solution to your problem from providers most suited to
know your business, and their best ideas, using their latest offerings!
Leverage knowledge to power results – and achieve objectives – and more.
The Request for Solution process allows you and your potential providers the best
chance to find the right answer for you, and lets the expert provider architect that
answer with the very latest technology and business process solutions.

RFS allows the Provider to show their best
Less prescription, more collaboration, better result. RFS allows the Provider to show
their best approach and solution to the problem.
How do you
leverage
the best
knowledge to
power your
results?
The RFP:
The Buyer’s Solution
► Focus: getting to
“perfect” base contract
► Process is client-led
► Solution approach
requires transparency
► Buyer is prescriptive;
Seller is restricted to
solution buyer requests
► Slow and expensive
The RFS:
The Seller’s Solution
► Focus: evolutionary
contract
► Process is supplier-led
► Commercially available
solutions-utility model
► Buyer does not constrain;
Seller is encouraged to be
innovative & creative
► Faster, less costly

When and why should RFS be considered
The RFS best suits clients who have sourcing experience, a sourcing strategy,
service integration and governance processes in place.
In-scope areas are subject to major
innovation or transformation
A high degree of competition and
solution diversity is needed from
bidders
Speed to an agreement is paramount
and the transaction is solution
focused
For completely new businesses where
there is almost complete flexibility in
technology solution choices
If one of the
following
situations
applies, then RFS
is most likely the
best process to
follow:
The RFS delivers
a Case for
Change within
the client team
when they have
multiple factions
trying to drive in
different
directions

What’s different about RFS?
Using RFS, with expert advice from ISG, ensures clients ask the right questions to
the right providers to get the right solution, in the most time efficient way.
RFI
Query the Market
RFS
Engage the Market
Question Provider’s Answer
Unstructured Unstructured
Structured Unstructured
RFP
Instruct & Test
the Market
Structured Structured
The RFS process and ISG
consultants helps you:
► Ask the right questions –
based on our expertise
► Ask the right service
providers – based on our deal
database
► Ask the questions in the right
context – based on ISG
knowledge of the market and
the business domain
► Interpret the response based
on ISG expertise in
transactions

RFS has many benefits
Solution-driven approach allows service providers to offer their innovative,
thought-leading solutions – or identifies if there are no solutions in the market.
Right providers ►Engaging appropriate providers allows focus, saves time
►Reduces the churn of too many providers with marginal solution
►Dramatically increases probability of finding right solution
►Lowers cost of transaction – for both parties!
Right questions ►Stating the problem clearly allows providers to innovate
►Allows adaptation to market conditions – real time
►Facilitates collaborative process that refines problem statement
►Recognises that there maybe more than one answer
Right experience ►Recent market experience with the provider participants
►Domain experience and data to help evaluate solutions
►Focused on the key questions so the process is no longer that it
needs to be while managing risk!

The RFS Process
The RFS Process to start – then back to Strategy if no success
Check-
point
A
B
Possible RFS outcomes and service design
RFS may not lead exactly where you think it will go . . . If the RFS yields strong and
innovative solutions, it makes sense to continue – otherwise, re-evaluate.
* or solutions!
If no acceptable solutions
emerge, the project must
re-evaluate the Design using
the new information gained
from the RFS process – and
perhaps issue an RFP
If a strong solution
emerges in Phase 1 and 2,
the Client can leverage
Collaborative Contracting
to move through the
Transaction.
Prepare Solution
Due
Diligence
Contract
Transition and
Transformation
Review:
► Sourcing Strategy
► Target Operating Model
► Service Design

Once the Client finds the right solution, the detailed solution and proposed value
are further scrutinized and captured in a market typical sourcing agreement
Time
Primary
Activities
Perform pre-agreement
activities
Assign the team members
Prepare project plan
Conduct kickoff
Develop engagement
package and base case
Determine and contact
participating providers
Assist the service
providers during proposal
development
Conduct solution and
indicative pricing
evaluation
Downselect
Release key contract
documents and pricing
forms
Conduct due diligence and
submit updated proposals
Perform the service
provider walk-through
Evaluate provider solution,
pricing and legal response
Downselect
Develop contract
documents and plan
negotiations
Conduct negotiations
Develop final employee
retention and transfer
plan
Prepare to kickoff
transition/transformation
Sign the contract
Prepare
~ 2 weeks
Solution
~ 6 weeks
Due Diligence
~ 6 weeks
Contract
~ 4 weeks
RFS
Prototypical Schedule

The RFS Methodology

RFS Approach
High level visual depicting the major phases, activities and deliverables
from the ISG RFS sourcing transaction process
Walk-through EAS Sessions MVD Sessions
Prepare
1 – 2 weeks
Solution
6 – 8 weeks
 Engagement scope
 Project plan
 Project kickoff Deck
 Engagement package and
base case
 Provider capabilities and
recomendations
 Evaluation results and
downselect
 Key contract documents
 Due diligence approach
 Updated evaluation model
 Downselect recommendation
 Contract documents
 Negotiations preparation
 Signed contracts
Time
Primary
Activities
Deliverables
6 – 8 weeks
Due Diligence
5 – 6 weeks
Contract
E M WM
E MW
documents and pricing forms
Perform the service provider
walk-through
Develop future-state SIAM
operating model
Downselect
Develop contract documents
and plan negotiations
Conduct negotiations
Develop final employee
retention and transfer plan
Develop final future-state
SIAM operating model
Prepare to kickoff
transition/transformation
Sign the contract
Develop engagement package
and base case
Assist the service providers
during proposal development
Conduct solution and
indicative pricing evaluation
Develop first pass future-state
SIAMM design work plan
Downselect
Determine and contact
participating providers
Perform pre-agreement
activities
Assign the team members
Prepare project plan
Conduct kickoff

RFS Phase 1: Prepare
Focuses on finalizing the project set-up, preparing the ISG and
COMPANY XYZ project teams for their project role and responsibilities
* Initial interviews with key stakeholders to validate sourcing objectives and prepare kickoff materials.
Prepare Solution Due Diligence Contract
Prepare engagement plan Define engagement plan tasks, responsibilities, timelines and milestones. Validate PSA, SOW
and PO in place.
Identify engagement resources Define project organisation. Communicate resources and responsibilities.
Confirm engagement scope Engagement lead validates defined scope of services with client.
Stakeholder interviews* Conduct interviews to help ISG understand business priorities, obtain contextual information
including project objectives and determine project deliverables expectations.
Develop the kickoff presentation
materials
Develop the deck including the project approach; project plan and milestones; team structure;
assigned resources and their roles and responsibilities.
Conduct the project team
kickoff
Hold a workshop to deliver the kickoff presentation including a Q&A session with the team.
Secure agreement with team on roles, responsibilities and deliverables – begin assignments.
Deliverables Engagement plan Engagement scope Kickoff deck
1
2
3
1 2 3

RFS Phase 2: Solution
Focuses on articulating the objectives and collaborating with a group
of bidders to develop the best solutions to meet the objectives
Develop engagement package
and base case
Develop an engagement package to describe the clients sourcing and project objectives,
background and current environment description. Develop base case.
Determine and contact participating
providers
Provide client with ISG provider capabilities materials. Provide ISG recommendation if
requested. Develop provider facing communications and conduct kickoff.
Assist the service providers during
proposal development
Initiate and facilitate a Q&A process to provide clarification. Hold Q&A meetings to discuss
topics as needed. Conduct MVD sessions to provide solution feedback.
Conduct solution and indicative
pricing evaluation
Develop an evaluation model and business case. Review the providers proposals and conduct
MVD sessions to clarify solutions. Evaluate the solutions and indicative pricing.
Develop first pass future-state SIAM
design work plan
Review current service management and governance structures, tools and processes. Develop
future state vision and gap analysis.
Downselect Facilitate scenario, risk and SWAT analysis to help the team develop a recommendation.
Finalize the financial evaluation. Develop and present a steering committee presentation.
Deliverables Engagement package and
base case
Provider capabilities and
recomendations
Evaluation results and
downselect
1
2
3
1 2 3
$$

RFS Phase 3: Due Diligence
Focuses on conducting in-bound and out-bound Due Diligence (DD),
beginning the contracting workstream and helping the Providers
fine-tune their proposals
documents
Develop and release MSA, Exhibits 1,2 , 3 and 4 (to the extent necessary) along with a detailed
Attachment 4-A with resource unit baselines.
Conduct outbound and inbound due diligence. Conduct workshops as needed to clarify and
document Technical Solution Document, Transition and Transformation Plans. Provider
submits updated proposal with detailed pricing.
Perform the service provider
walk-through
Conduct MVD or "Walkthrough" of Provider updated proposals. Review the solution, key
contract document responses and detailed pricing response.
After Provider submits post MVD final bid, conduct evaluation using the valuation model
developed in phase 2.
Develop future-state SIAM
operating model
Develop any revised roles and responsibilities, staff new or changed positions, develop
processes and prepare to stand-up revised organization and processes.
Downselect Facilitate scenario, risk and SWOT analysis to help the team develop a recommendation.
Finalize the financial evaluation. Develop and present a steering committee presentation.
Deliverables Key contract
documents
Due diligence
approach
Evaluation model Downselect
1
3
1
2
4
4
2 3
4

RFS Phase 4: Contract
Focuses on final negotiations and getting to contract.
Develop contract documents Develop remaining contract documents not provided in Phase 3. Convert Phase responses to
final documents for negotiations.
Prepare for negotiations Fine tune negotiations strategies and tactics, assign and assemble the negotiations team;
prepare negotiation logistics; document remaining open issues and negotiations objectives;
and prepare and deliver negotiations training.
Conduct negotiations Conduct negotiations; update contract documents and open issues lists as issues are closed;
prepare and conduct follow-on sessions. Track and complete action items.
Develop final future-state SIAM
operating model
Deploy the updated SIAM operating model and processes for "day 1"; continue development
of remaining processes and begin to collaborate with Provider on Service Management
Manual.
Prepare to kickoff
transition/transformation (T&T)
Help the client constitute an internal T&T project team; develop project governance; and
prepare to kickoff the workstream with the Provider after signature.
Sign the contract Signature ready contract documents are developed and processed through COMPANY XYZ and
Provider approval processes and both Parties sign the agreement.
Deliverables Contract documents Negotiations preparation Signed contracts
1
2
3
1 2 3
RFX

Creating Service Innovation with Your Clients

It’s a cliché – but it still causes heartburn in outsourcing
► “Innovation” used 33,528 times in quarterly &
annual reports in 2011
► 255 books published in the first quarter of 2012
with the word Innovation in the title
► 43% of surveyed execs state they have a Chief
Innovation Officer or similar role
► 28% of business schools use the word in their
mission statement
► So. . . What does it mean for our industry?
The Wall Street Journal provided depressing statistics last year. . .
WSJ Marketplace 23 May 2012

The Holy Grail
► Contract may contain an innovation clause, and
governance for innovation
► Clients expect innovation without understanding
the context and are disappointed when they don’t
get it (usually in top 3 things most disappointing in
services relationships)
► ISG observes that innovation is generally hindered
by client behaviors
► We thought it made sense to look at this subject
from the provider perspective
► A while back . . . we tried to do something about it:
TPI research on Innovation – 2008
 Business drivers, investment, organizational
alignment and disciplined execution must all
exist for innovation to occur.
Every client wants innovation from their provider – for free, right now, and to make
huge improvement and/or savings in their work. . .
Need to Innovate Ability to Innovate
Managing the Innovation Model
Business
Innovation
Process
Innovation
Technical
Innovation

What we missed. . .
► We created language for a Terms sheet, a governance meeting name for Innovation
meetings, and processes for how to do it . . . We were sure we had the answer…
► Clients and providers did this, and much beautiful shelfware ensued.
► And nothing has happened; Clients are as unhappy as they have ever been about
innovation – to the extent that we have started to advise clients to not bother with
extensive innovation language in their contracts . . .
We believed that by identifying the requirements, building the processes, and
priming the documents, we could help solve the problem.
Why?
Because innovation is a human-based activity, which needs
humans to engage with each other and to do it together.

What gets in the way of clients and providers working together?
► Episodic and/or infrequent discussions about innovation, allowing it to slip from top-of-
mind
► Failure to identify a meaningful problem that needs to be solved
► Failure to understand (and take on board) required conditions for innovation
► Inability to create an environment of mutual trust
► Perception of motivation of provider (the paradox of outsourcing)
► Reluctance to engage in change – no burning platform
You are the only party in the relationship with the capacity to step back and
evaluate – clients seldom can stop long enough to question.
* Setting corporate culture aside
Often budget is named as the inhibitor, but if the matter is probed, it
becomes much more complex and human factors emerge as the real reason.

And here’s what we heard you say. Let’s discuss further.
We talked to you at last year’s SIC . . .

Define innovation together
► Clients have many different perceptions of innovation
► The lack of a common definition between client and service provider can create
unrealistic expectations or preconceived ideas on the part of the client, which creates
frustration that is directed at you, the provider
Getting a client to come to the table to jointly create a definition can address false
expectations on the client’s side, and open ideas and awareness for you.
How might this work in practice?
► What level of the organization would
you engage for maximum impact?
► Who would come from your side?
► How might such a discussion be framed
up? Facilitated or freewheeling?
► How would your client’s culture affect
how you structured such a meeting?
► What output would you expect? Is a
Mission Statement enough to get you
going? Mission and Actions?
1

Integrate innovation throughout the business
► Not all client companies have a culture of innovation in the back office services
► Many companies see strategic planning and innovation only on the product side of the
business. Finding a way to bring together the business strategy and planning with the
business operations will allow the provider to deliver innovation that matters to the
client’s business.
As a provider delivering common services to multiple clients, you have deep and
unique insight on opportunities for innovation – but clients don’t think about that.
► How might you work with your client to
discover the problem that is most on
their mind, for which an innovative
solution might be applicable?
► How can a service provider “live” the
message of innovation in business
operations so a client sees it?
► What would be done differently day-to-
day?
2

Invest in innovation.
► Technology and back office services are usually seen as cost centers; even though clients
insist on contractual obligations for the provider to deliver innovation, they are generally
not interested in innovation if it costs more
► In addition, pressures on the provider to continuously provide cost savings to the client
means less margin that could incent or pay for innovation
You are spending money continuously to improve your delivery efficiency; how are
your thoughts about your own innovation filtering to your engagement teams?
► Are there resources, visionary
individuals, or think tanks that create
ideas in your organization that can help
educate your client on the need for
investment in innovation?
► How do you change the way you
manage your on-site teams to keep this
door of ideas and innovation open?
► Question?
3

Recognize the difference between “Big I” innovation
and continuous improvement
► Client business executives expect business innovation, but operations executives expect
technical and process innovation; it can be difficult to bridge the gap and create
meaningful solutions that support both areas
► Some forms of continuous improvement can be very valuable to a client both from an
efficiency and a cost savings perspective but do not get the recognition as “Big I”
innovation.
Operations teams often don’t see innovation as their objective – but every dollar
saved through innovation in operations goes straight to the bottom line.
► How would you change your overall
reporting to your client to emphasize the
“little i” or continuous improvement
activities, and link that back to
Innovation?
► Could you bring your own innovation
teams to meet with your client’s
operations people to create awareness
and open eyes?
► Question?
4

Bring more minds to the table.
► You, the provider, can bring leadership to this kind of multiple player situation, but you
need to help your client recognize their role to be the driver.
Multi-service provider environments, which are the norm today, require a number
of providers to be engaged in a complex services situation.
► How would you look at the complex
services of your client, to help bring
them to awareness of the value of
collaboration between providers?
► How would you overcome your own
reluctance to collaborate with a
competitor?
5

How to keep innovation top of mind. . .
► Talk about it – all the time
► Create a program about it
► Make your own people listen through programs to measure apprehension; measure their
frequency to discuss with their customers
► Make metrics that are achievable around young innovation programs
► Understand that innovation may not be earth-shattering to be important, valuable, and
worth the time and effort
We suspect this is as difficult in provider’s client teams as it is in the client
themselves. . . So a program is required.

Continued Evolution

Foundation – Trust & Transparency
Outcome Based
Stage 3
Evolutionary
Contracting
Base*
Contract
2.0
The primary focus of most sourcing initiatives is to get to the base contract. However, the
value of a relationship is to be derived in the evolutionary contracting phase.
Evolutionary Contracting: Key to Continuous Value
► * - Base Contract 2.0: Solutions may be different, but regardless of the approach (top down or bottoms up), a well run process will end up with similar T’s & C’s and market pricing.
Input Based
Stage 1
Transaction Based
Stage 2
Contract Pricing & Terms
Faster Less Costly
Buyer Unconstrained
Seller Innovative & Creative
Approach Requires Transparency
Process Builds Foundation of Trust
Focus on Evolutionary Contract Phase
Focus on Getting to “Perfect” Base Contract
Process is Formal – Trust is Thin
Approach is Closed Book
Seller is Restricted in Solution
Buyer is Prescriptive
Slow/Expensive Innovation
Seller Solution
Buyer Solution
Mutual
Consent
Commerce

What Needs to Change?
The focus of commerce needs to shift from the “deal” or event of signing, to the
framework and evolution of the deal as we move through a dynamic market.
► Base Contract 2.0
 Looks more like 100 pages than 1000
pages
 Ease of expansion AND exit for both
parties
 Focus on bi-lateral transparency
 Rely on trust not legal terms
► Evolutionary Contracting
 Mindset that the contract is an
understanding not a document
 Focus on change and evolving structure
 Input  Transaction  Outcome
 Mutual Consent Commerce
 Both parties need to ensure that the
other party is succeeding.
Base
Contract
Base
Contract
2.0
Contract Term
Evolutionary
Contracting
Typical Base Contract
& Governance Framework
New Framework that recognizes
that the world is changing
faster than we are

The suggested change from RFP to RFS and Evolutionary Contracting is radical and
drives lots of dialog and disagreement. But all revolutions are radical and our
industry needs a revolution.
Typical Client Questions
► Where should I try this? Has anyone done this?
► We have strict rules for buying services, how can I change that?
► What level of transparency is required? What about confidentiality?
► How do I know if I am getting value? Am I leaving something “on the table”?
► Who can help my company explore this?
► My procurement department requires me to compete all new business? How will that
work?
► Trust is personal, how can you develop trust between corporations?

Current Market Perspective and Contracting
The market evolved in terms of maturity, standardization, and modularization. This
should also be reflected in the contract architecture, i.e., the “big contracts” of the
past must be modularized and can often be simplified.
LOW MATURITY AND STANDARDIZATION HIGH(ER)
LOW
HIGH
MODULARIZATION
Past
►Large, complex deals
 Full scope, long term
 Asset and HR transfer
 Dedicated resources
 Customized services/solutions
 High transaction cost
acceptable
►Low degree of flexibility
 Exclusivity
 Inflexible pricing
 Minimum commitments
 Termination next-to-
impossible
►Single-sourcing
 Single provider
 No Service Integration
Today
►Smaller, less complex deals
 Smaller scope, shorter term
 No asset or HR transfer
 Shared resources (e.g., cloud)
 More standardized
services/solutions
 Need for lower transaction cost
►Higher degree of flexibility
 Non-exclusive
 Flexible utility pricing
 Fewer minimum commitments
 Termination less expensive/risky
►Multi-sourcing
 Multiple providers
 Service Integration

Scope-Specific Contract
Relationship-Level Contract
Transaction-Specific Contract
SDC Exhibit
MSA Schedule
Contract Architecture
Provides a scope-agnostic Master Services Agreement (MSA) defining terms on the
relationship, and a Service Delivery Contract with terms specific to a particular
outsourcing transaction and the in-scope services.
Source: ISG, K&L Gates
…
…
Service Delivery
Contract (SDC)
Master Services
Agreement (MSA)
Supplemental Provision X
Supplemental Provision Y
Menu of Supplemental
Provisions
MSA SCHEDULE CONTENTS
Relationship-level details, e.g.,
► Governance
► Customer Policies and
Procedures
SDC EXHIBIT CONTENTS
Service-specific content, e.g.,
► Statement of Work
► Service Levels
► Pricing
► Reports
► Transition/Transformation Plan
SDC CONTENTS
“Wrapper” document
containing those terms that
are specific to a particular
outsourcing transaction
MSA
Scope-agnostic MSA containing
only those terms commonly
and consistently present in
most ITO and BPO deals
WORK IN PROGRESS

Exhibit 4
Pricing
Exhibit 3
SLA
Exhibit 2
SoW
Service Catalog and Contract
The modularization of a contract enables the establishment of a clear link between
a Technical Service Catalog and the corresponding Service Delivery Contract.
Component 1.1
Component 1.2
Tower 1
Tower 2
Component 2.1
Component 2.2
Module 1.1
Module 1.2
Module
Group 1
Module
Group 2
Module 2.1
Module 2.2
Business Product 1.1
Product
Group 1
Product
Group 2
Technical
Product/
Service
Catalog
Business
Product/
Service
Catalog
a b
Product/Service Catalogs Product/Service Structure
ILLUSTRATIVE
Service Delivery Contracts
 Tasks  SLs  RUs
Service Catalog

A change in perspectives on a Service Contract
Contract Management Perspective
► Exhibit 2 – Statement of Work
 Service A
• Task A.1
• Task A.2
 Service B
• Task B.1
• Task B.2
► Exhibit 3 – Service Levels
 Service A
• SLA A.1
• SLA A.2
 Service B
• SLA B.1
• SLA B.2
Service-Oriented Perspective
► Service A
 Exhibit 2 – Statement of Work
• Task A.1
• Task A.2
 Exhibit 3 – Service Levels
• SLA A.1
• SLA A.2
► Service B
 Exhibit 2 – Statement of Work
• Task B.1
• Task B.2
 Exhibit 3 – Service Levels
• SLA B.1
• SLA B.2
Modularization enables content (e.g., tasks, SLAs) to be aligned in a Service-
Oriented Perspective rather than a Contract Management Perspective.

Automation - DecisionDirector – Online RFX Platform
DecisionDirector is ISG’s strategic tool for managing the modularized, authoritative
content and for running RFP processes in the future. The platform provides the
ability to tag and filter content as required.
NOTE
Will use tags to markup content,
e.g., by iSRA service, ISG product
(e.g., “RFP Lite”), and applicability
(e.g., for geography, industry).

Creating the Innovation Platform

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (18)

Ähnlich wie Creating the Innovation Platform

Ähnlich wie Creating the Innovation Platform (20)

Mehr von Information Services Group (ISG)

Mehr von Information Services Group (ISG) (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Creating the Innovation Platform