Finance Information & Systems Strategy

Finance Information & Systems Strategy
Blueprint & Roadmap for the Future
10/21/20
Version 1.0
Page 1
Document Approvals
This document is for review and approval by the Finance Information & Systems Project
Control Group:
Project Working Group Member Signature Date
[Name](Project Sponsor)
[Name]
[Name]
[Name]
[Name]
[Name]
Page 2
About this document… > It is recommended that you view this document on
your computer, but If you do want to print it out,
only print the Executive Summary (pages 1 to 20)
> The Table of Contents (and various images) contain

hyperlinks that will take you directly to the relative
section. The “Post” logo at the bottom right hand
corner will take you back to the Table of Contents
home page
> This strategic document is expected to have a diverse
audience and by its nature will not be able to address
all individual requirements. The reader should look to
extract what they need and ignore anything superfluous
> The primary objective of the overall strategy was to

setup a blueprint of how Finance might deliver an
environment that would enable business partners to
gain deeper insight into the critical success factors of
their operations
> The current systems environment is acknowledged as being fragmented and required a
review to determine a more coherent setting in which to manage and promote financial
and business information
> Numerous workshops and stakeholder interviews were held to extract Business
Information Requirements and are outlined within the body of this document
> This blueprint has not been completed in isolation. There

are many other Systems related projects in flight at the [Image removed]
current time and the contents of this document needs to
be considered with other potentially moving parts.
Page 3
Table of Contents
Executive Summary Current Pain Points
Forward Requirements
High Level Solution Blueprint
Introducing the BIC Concept…
Proposed Incremental Investment Profile
Suggested High-level Roadmap
Anticipated Benefits
Approach Project Background

Finance Architecture
Vendor Solution Overview
Industry Assessment
Investment Model
Transformation Roadmap
Proposed Program Governance
Business Information Centre
Supporting Evidence Voice of the Customer

Business & Technology Workshops
Current Systems Review
Architecture View
Appendices Workshop Outcomes

Vendor SWOT Analysis
Vendor Marketplace Assessment
Page 4
Proposed Blueprint & Roadmap
Executive Summary
Business Needs:
[Client] has identified that it needs to be able to make better decisions and Finance needs to be able to provide better
information that its business partners can exploit. Currently, supporting systems are isolated and self sustained, reporting the
financial ledger via IBM/TM1 and profitability modelling out of a SAS Activity Based Costing engine. At the transactional level the
financial information is entered into SAP ERP, which has been fully partitioned and managed by Post IT. Feeds to the TM1
systems are largely manual, as there is no direct interface. This complex environment has led to an increasing number of pain-
points as the business structure has changed and current system architecture is no longer sustainable nor suitable for enabling
better decision making.
A review of the Information & Systems environment for business strategic fit was conducted and the findings are contained
within the body of this document. A key finding from the review identified that the pain points revolve around information
distrust and inconsistent reporting. Future requirements propose value added information based on agreed key performance
metrics, both financial and operational. The existing Vendors were assessed against this need and were determined to be
sufficient for [Client]’s need in terms of the specialisation areas. Therefore an incremental improvement solution is proposed.
Solution design:
The following approach is recommended:
• To address distrust, the creation of a Business Information Centre (BIC) is proposed. The BIC would be charged with rolling out
a data governance program and centralising reporting capability to boost efficiency and speed to action
• Introduce enriched dashboard reporting capability to distribute standardised, but agile, content via IBM/Cognos BI
• To meet future business requirements, the construction of additional fit-for-purpose profit models is recommended, focussing
on Customer, Segment, Channel and Product via SAS
• Analysis has also revealed that IBM TM1 is the preferred tool suit to meet Planning & Forecasting requirements coupled with
SAS Strategy Manager supporting detailed analytics and TM1 Contributor managing workflow.
Financial summary:
Proposed solution balances agility and strength against cost of ownership. Forecast financials are as follows:
Costs: Year 1 $3.8m Year 2 $5.6m Year 3 $0.7m Total $10.1m
Benefit: Year 2 $0.5m Year 3 $0.5m Net $9.1m
Page 5
Current Pain Points Cycle
Opportunity
Use a common and clear
Data Duplication
language to ensure we’re all
talking about the same thing
Data Errors
Clear up erroneous
information with stronger
Data Disputes data governance
Remove duplication and

Mis
wasted effort by ensuring

com
that data is understood and

-
Mi s
mu
trusted
Distrust
c om
nic
Improve decision making by

Un
at i
Ba
ensuring that data is truly

mu
t
f oc
ortr tess
on
dD
p reflective of the meaning

nic
o ie
Reep -wrirt
us
eci
R e-w
a ti
ce
sed
R
Re n
Clear &
sio
a
on
n
te
ns
n
ai or
t Efficient
h
M
Ef
f Common
ig d Data
H
as
te Financial
W Governance
Language
Fit for
Purpose
Page 6
Forward Looking Business Model and Requirements
> Key to the [Client] Business model is the large
network resource capability used to distribute our
letters and parcels
> It is important to understand the impact of [Client]’s

community service obligations on activities, volumes
and network costs
> Demand drivers are often locally based and not
necessarily known or understood at a macro level.
Not enough is known or understood about key
customers
> The current Business strategy focuses on substantial

growth in parcels volume, despite escalating
competitive pressure
> The organisation requires greater understanding of
Profitability across key customer, product, channel
and segment dimensions
> Performance metrics will also be key in

understanding market and operational efficiency
trends
Page 7
High level Business requirements…
Critical Success Factors required in Performance Measurement
> Business scorecards > Planning & Forecasting
[Image removed] will need to deliver will need to include a
lead and lag metrics focus on key business
on Critical Success Critical Success
Factors within each Factors, market
business unit conditions and future
expectations
> Key Metrics will include direct data on operational > Processes will need re-engineering to become
& sales volumes, profit, revenue, cost etc. and more customer focussed and demand driver
performance based measures, such as FTE per driven. Stakeholders will require the ability to the
Sale, Delivery, operational efficiency/utilisation scenario plan on regular basis
and customer experience
> Business information will need to be supported by
> Business partners will require sales and profit trusted and reliable data that is easy to
information based on key elements like customer, understand and made available as and when
market and the efficiency of their operations. required
> The ability to the view > Standardised and
this information against conformed views of key
multiple dimensions is a dimensions & measures
key requirement like org structure and
volumes, will help level
> Views need to include business understanding
Customer, Business Unit, and enable deeper
Channel, Distribution insight.
Page 8 point etc...
[Client] is commencing a journey but…
New Systems alone will only go so far:
> How might we move toward
Information System & Process Requirements
Key Characteristics
Leading and World Class
Automated Controls • Built in controls to manage
performance given we already
World Class •
compliance and risk
What if and scenario have functionally capable
Predictive Analytics
Opportunity
Firms planning modeling /
•
predictive tools
Enrichment at customer level
systems?
• Integrated finance processes
Leading Firms Workflow and Alerts and tools > SAP BW (Business Data Warehouse)
• On-line analytics in
Customer level data

distributed environment
has valuable content, but is not
currently understood sufficiently,
• Real time performance
Typical Finance monitoring
• Some customer level data
Organizations Multi-dimensional Reporting used to support multi-
dimensional views
nor readily available to the TM1 /
• Some integrated processes
and tools SAS environments
Ledger Based Drill Down • Analytic repository available
to finance users
> Creating a central data store (via
Expense Variance Analysis • Manual ad hoc analysis BW) with both financial and
• Ledger based data
External Reporting
• Static reporting
detailed operational information
will provide an essential
Management Information Sophistication environment for data mining and
detailed analysis
> Creating a Business Information Centre (BIC) that
> Underpinning the strength of any system is the integrates Finance and Technology resources and
quality and availability of data capabilities focussed on managing and rapidly
> [Client] has both quality and accessibility delivering information to stakeholders
complications with Finance data corralled in > Capability can then be enriched over time as we
TM1 / SAS and subject to continual challenge focus on improving data content, quality and
when compared with other Business Unit views hierarchy management
Page 9
[Image removed]
High Level Solution Blueprint:
Capability up-lift to be delivered by three enabling pillars,
under-pinned by a Data Governance foundation
> Improved Performance
Measurement Capability will
provide our business partners
Performance Measurement
with greater insight into
their businesses
> Capability uplift will be
provided by improvements in
the areas of Planning &
Planning and Performance Forecasting, Performance
Profitability Reporting and Profitability
Forecasting Reporting
Analytics
> Data Governance will provide
greater consistency and
conformance in the measures
used for the Planning and
Forecasting, Performance
Data Management: MDM / Data Governance Reporting and Profitability
Analytics Pillars
Page 10
Page 11
• Fully understand “as is” profitability modelling
• Fully understand and document the requirements for multi-dimensional profitability
• Develop business cases, and commence projects, to build profitability models across the
Profit Modelling
desired dimensions of customer, product, segment and channel in SAS
• Build an easy to use reporting dashboard in IBM COGNOS
• Develop a balanced scorecard, linking strategy to execution, and incorporating operational,
reporting
financial, balance sheet, HR and customer measures
• Deliver the dashboard on a range of devices
Performance
• Implement a revised planning and forecasting tool, supporting a revised process
• Rolling forecasts built into TM1 for the next budget
forecasting
• IBM TM1 to manage the collection and dissemination of planning and budgeting data
• Create a driver based budgeting model in SAS as the central element of the model
Planning and
• Identify and agree authoritative data sources for finance and operational data
• Create a Finance Data Governance Council
• Create a Business Information Centre to bring together IT, finance and other operational /
Data Management
functional skill sets
• Over the long term develop tools and processes to better manage data at the enterprise level
Proposed Work-streams approach
How the High Level Solution blueprint will be delivered
Our existing systems are fit-for-purpose, but will now
be integrated and perform defined tasks, reducing
duplication and overlaps
IBM Cognos (including TM1) will be the user interaction layer to:
• Manage the Planning & Forecasting process
• Present balanced scorecard reporting via an executive dashboard
• Provide a drill down capability to support analysis
• Enable data entry for bottom-up budgeting and scenario analysis
• Provide data to SAS for driver based budgeting, and reports outputs
• Provide data to SAP BW and ERP (budgets / actuals)
• Receive data from SAS and SAP for reporting
SAS will be used as the central analytical tool set, containing analytical
models, which will provide:
• ACCC calculations and reporting
• Profitability calculation engines (customer, product, segment, channel)
• Driver based budgeting calculations
• Links to both SAP and IBM Cognos
SAP BW will become the authoritative source of truth for financial

data and, over time, for other operational and functional data and
metrics.
SAP ERP is the enterprise transaction engine.
Page 12
Proposed Technical Solution Blueprint
This diagram sets out the application architecture to be implemented
Key
SAP
IBM
SAS
Other
TBD
Page 13
Pain Points Addressed by the Proposed End Solution Design
The end solution will deal with the Finance pain points identified in the workshops
Bad
Decisions
Wasted
Unfocussed Effort Data
- No consistency in
Disputes
managing to KPIs
Report
Past Re-writes
Performance
focus
High
Maintenance
No single view of
• Product
• Customer Disaggregated
rollup /
• Organisation
consolidation
Data
Data Errors
Errors
Data Errors
Data Key
Duplication SAP
IBM
SAS
Other
TBD
Multiple versions Inconsistently used

of master data terminology
Page 14
Services to Proposed Solution Blueprint
Finance Services will be supported by specific applications and trusted data
sources
Service Category
Accounting, Tax Specialist Finance Analysis Planning & Credit Transactional Performance Finance Systems Finance Strategy
& Governance Services & Advice Forecasting Management Services Reporting & Data & Administration
Finance & Business Financial Strategy

Taxation Strategic
Investment Analysis Fixed Assets Development
Compliance Planning
Advisory & Advice
Taxation Risk Financial Financial Policies &

Management Project Analysis Planning Procedures
Direct & Advice
Accounting Corporate Benchmarking & Analysis Finance Service

Risk Mgmt Development Research & Advice Delivery Model
Efficiency Manage
Improvement Quarterly Policy Monitoring
Assurance Treasury Compliance Support Data Security
Role Type
Support Forecasting
Financial Shared Services

Manage
Governance Interface
Master Data Enterprise
Solution TBD
Control Governance
Manage Data
Audit Quality
Regulatory
Manage
Compliance
Infrastructure
Taxation Capital Credit Financial Provide Special Projects &

Advice Planning, Reporting Internal Reports
Facilities Adjustments Systems Support Internal Consulting
Reporting &
External Process
Reporting / Recharging Finance Staffing &
Management Reporting
Consolidations Services External Retention
Execute Internal
Reports &
Announcements Finance Strategy
SAP CATs
Reconciliations
Reporting Execution
Stock
Regulatory Accounting
Advice
SAS Modules IBM Modules SAP Modules
Page 15
Introducing the Business Information Centre (BIC)
concept for Data management with Virtual
organisation design elements…
Design Work
Creation of a Finance Data Quality Council, with Finance, IT and SBU
representation, to identify and resolve data quality and ownership issues
Stage 1
Evaluate design options for the BIC as a Virtual team, including: size, skills,
governance, location, culture, role design, performance measures, funding
and ensure speed to market focus
Stage 2
Progressive implementation of the BIC, potentially driven by delivery of
capability from process / technology work-streams
Stage 3
Leverage enterprise Master Data Management tools, processes and
governance forums to improve data supporting finance tools and processes
Page 16
Suggested Implementation Approach
Work-streams launched from the Finance Transformation Program should be run
via the standard [Client] Project Life Cycle supported by the Finance Change
Management Approach
Typical Project Life Cycle
Business Monitor and

Case Design Build Implement Support
Educate & Innovate & Sustain &

Vision
Communicate Involve Transform
Change Management Approach
Our Change Vision Building Change capability Use new and existing Monitors Ownership, Self
builds awareness & through the design and forums to engage with Sufficiency and staff’s
alignment of our change implementation of tailored Stakeholder groups willingness to take
program. solutions, supported by gaining commitment responsibility for realising
Allow for resistance and learning and understanding and acceptance to the of business benefits of
questioning. the impact of the change change program our change programs
Page 17
Suggested High Level Roadmap with Work-streams
2011 2012 2013
Jun Sep Jan Mar Jun Sep Jan Mar Jun Sep Jan
Stage Gate 1 Stage Gate 2 Stage Gate 3 Stage Gate 4 Stage Gate 5
Governance
Approvals Approvals Program close out 
Business Case Business Case
Net Incremental Investment: $9.1m

New
New P&F
P&F Tool
Tool Investment
Investment
Planning & Forecasting New
New P&F
P&F Process
Process in
in place
place Investment: $3.0m
Mobilise Data Requirements Benefit: $1m
Tactical System Changes Design & Build New System
Effort ~9 FTE for 1 year
Capacity Release
Refine As-Is Tactical Approach Implement and Roll-out Close Capacity Release
Change Training Change Training Review & Improve process
BIC Mobilise Data

Data Mgmt
Mgmt in
in place
BIC design BIC Stage 1-moves BIC Stage 3-moves Effort ~7 FTE for 6 months
BIC Stage 2-moves
Data Review DQ Improvement DQ Continuous Improve Program Close
Establish Build ADS MDM Tool Deploy Stage 2: Report/Dashboard Capability Stage 3: Modelling Support
Finance Data
Council Data Catalogue Operationalise
New
New Dashboard
Dashboard Tool
Tool Investment
Investment
Performance Reporting Document Requirements Investment: $2.8m
Mobilise
Reporting Quick Wins Change Training Change Training Effort ~7 FTE for 1 year
Business KPI build Close
As-Is Review Implement Dashboard Tool Balanced Scorecard
Self Service Capability Reassess KPI View
Performance Measurement Requirements
Build Data Warehouse Operationalise to BIC
Profit Modelling Mobilise Build Data Warehouse Investment: $3.1m

Document Requirements Change Training Change Training Close
Effort ~9FTE for 1 year
As-Is Review / DNA Discovery
Quick Wins Tactical Fixes Customer Profit Model Multiple Segment Profit Model Review Models
Channel Profit Model Product Profit Model
Data Review Operationalise to BIC
BAU/Separate
Governance Process Systems People Change Mgmt Data
Effort
Page 18
Proposed Incremental Investment Profile over 3 years
Work-stream Investment Waterfall Work-stream Investment by Year
12.0 2011 2012 2013 Total
$m $m $m $m
Planning & Forecasting 1.5 1.5 0.2 3.2
10.0 Business Info Centre 0.9 0.3 0.0 1.3
Performance Reporting 0.7 1.8 0.2 2.7
Profit Modelling 0.7 2.0 0.2 2.9
8.0 Benefits 0.0 -0.5 -0.5 -1.0
Total 3.8 5.2 0.2 9.1
6.0 Commentary:
With the recommended four project initiatives there will be
four streams of investment:
$m
4.0 > Planning & Forecasting has already commenced and is

expected to have an investment spend of $3.2m
> The creation of the BIC is expected to have an
operational expense of $1.3m to merge the related
2.0
teams in IT and Finance
> Performance Reporting will require investment of $2.7m
in a new Dashboard tool from Cognos BI and associated
0.0 implementation costs
> The construction of four new profit models is required to
re
l
ng
g
ta
fit
in
in
nt
l li
To
st
rt
ne
Ce
meet multidimensional profit views. Controlled expected

de
po
ca
Be
Mo
re
Re
o
nf
cost of this development could be limited to $2.9m or

Fo
it
ce
sI
of
&
an
es
flexed –up if required

Pr
ng
sin
m
ni
or
Bu
Benefits are expected from the Planning & Forecasting stream

an
rf
Pe
Pl
where there will be some form of capacity release. Potential

Hardware Software Implementation benefits are $1.0m from capacity release.
Benefit Total
Page 19
Page 20
• Develop internal capability to deliver profitability models across the desired
dimensions of customer; product; segment and channel
Profit Modelling
• Reduce risk with progressive build of models
• Improved selection of metrics, based on needs of decision makers, not data
availability
• Balanced scorecard linking strategy to execution; incorporating operational,
reporting
financial, balance sheet, HR and customer measures enabling deeper business
insight and performance measurement
Performance
• Easy to use interface to reports and supporting data
• Reduced time and effort in budgeting process should lead to a capability release
• Enhance value of process to business leadership by linking management actions to
forecasting
financial outcomes
• Scenario analysis at enterprise and business unit level to support forward looking
Planning and
decision making processes
• Build trust between Finance and IT staff by creating a team focussed on common
goals
• Embedded capability to develop and use existing and new technologies to support
Information Centre
business needs
• Long term cost reduction opportunities through the implementation of improved
Business
planning, forecasting, profitability and reporting tools
Anticipated Benefits from each Proposed Work-stream
Table of Contents

Industry Assessment
Investment Model

Architecture View

Page 21
Approach
Project Background
Industry Assessment
Investment Model
Page 22
Project Background
Approach the Project used to build the Strategy
Page 23
Finance Information & Systems Strategy – Scope & Objectives
The Objective of the Finance Information & Systems Stream Strategy is to document a strategy and a
blueprint for the implementation of finance systems that will enable the use of trusted business
information in decision making
The Scope of the Project includes the following;
 Alignment of Finance and Operating data that enables deeper insight for business decision making
 Extraction and Analysis of future information requirements for Finance to enable or strengthen
better business decision making
 Review of the existing finance systems and business architecture
 Assessment of Industry best practice against Finance requirements and current capability gaps
 Proposed Implementation roadmap to move Finance to the end systems and business view
Page 24
Finance Information & Systems Strategy – Guiding Principles
The following are the guiding principles for the formation of Finance Transformation Information &
Systems Stream strategy
# Principle
The strategic objectives for Finance will be used as the guide and the measure of success across the Finance
1
Information & Systems stream
2 Any change or initiative considered must not detract from the stability of Post’s financial governance
The Finance Information & Systems strategy will most likely recommend an investment in infrastructure that
3
may not provide a positive NPV
Initiatives identified from the strategy will need to be cost justified as Infrastructure projects on a case-by-
4
case basis prior to their execution and managed via standard EPMO methodology
The Finance Transformation Steering Committee will help align, prioritise and shape funding for all roadmap
5
initiatives
Short-term value may include increased job effectiveness to provide a sense of Finance Transformation
6
Program traction
7 Existing capability in both business process and core systems (eg SAP) will be leveraged wherever possible
The strategy roadmap as an output will guide the future direction of Finance Transformation and ongoing
8
operations
Page 25
Finance Information & Systems Strategy Work Plan
March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011
Work Schedule
Mobilise
Current Capability
Current State View Current Costs

• Define Scope
• Define Schedule
Business Requirements
• Define Deliverables •
Understand Cost base
• Understand Operating Model Future State View
Vendor Capability
• Prepare for workshops
• Processes to Applications
Business Drivers
• Obtain Voice of the Customer
Document IT Gap Analysis
Workshops
• Business Model Success Drivers Blueprint &
• Common Financial Language Roadmap Draft Strategy & Roadmap
• Finance Hierarchies
• Multi-Dimensional Profitability • Vendor follow-up
• Operational Perform. metrics • Draft Recommendations
Socialisation
• Planning & Forecasting and Roadmap
Issue Final
• Socialise & Iterate Draft Report
Strategy & Roadmap
with FEM & IT Transition to
Transformation
Program
Document
Document Potential
Potential Quick Win Mobilise Quick
Initiatives
Initiatives &
& Quick
Quick Wins
Wins Technical review Win Initiatives …
Project Control Group, Stakeholder Engagement & Communication
FST Newsletter PCG # 1 FIN Update PCG #2 FST Newsletter PCG #3 FIN Update PCG #4 PCG #5 FST Newsletter FIN Update PCG #6
Key : Deliverable Interim Deliverable Meeting / Communications
Page 26
Workshop Flow
Strategic Guidance Business Requirements Technology & Toolsets Recommendation
Week 1 Weeks 2 & 3 Week 4

1. Sponsor / Key stakeholder direction 3. Business workshops with subject matter experts to define requirements 6. Project PCB defines
2. FEM and Senior Stakeholders defined 4. Establish Vendor Evaluation criteria and understand wider MDM challenges draft Blue Print /
input into business workshops 5. Vendor capability presentations based on Post requirements and Roadmap
evaluation by group
1. Define 3. Common
Operational Financial
Model Language
4. Master Data
5. IBM
Management
Presentation 6. Solution
Requirement
3. Finance & Road Map
Hierarchies
2. Define
5. SAS
Business
3. Multi- Presentation
Drivers
dimensional
Profitability Draft
Report
4. Vendor 5. SAP
Evaluation Presentation
3.Operational Criteria
Metrics
1. Voice of
the Customer
Interviews Workshop Statistics Summary
• 65 Participants
3. Planning &
• 64 hours of workshop activity
Forecasting
• 240 plus hours of preparation time
• Refer to the Appendix for a complete list
of attendees
Page 27
View of Finance Systems Architecture
Page 28
Current Applications Mapped to Finance Services
Finance Services supported by current applications and data sources

Taxation Strategic
Compliance Planning
Advisory & Advice
Taxation Risk Financial Financial Policies &
Management Planning Procedures
Direct Accounting Corporate Analysis Finance Service

Risk Mgmt Development Project Analysis & Advice Delivery Model
& Advice
Benchmarking &
Research
Efficiency Manage
Quarterly Policy Monitoring
Assurance Treasury Improvement Compliance Support Data Security
Forecasting
Support
Role Type
Financial Manage Master Shared Services

Governance Data Interface
Control Governance Manage Data

Audit
Quality
Regulatory
Compliance Manage
Infrastructure

Reporting &
External Process
Execute Internal
Reports &
Reconciliations
SAP CATs
Reporting Execution
Stock
Advice
SAS Modules IBM Modules SAP Modules
Area of Key Areas

Interest of Focus
Page 29
Finance Conceptual Architecture (1 of 2)
A conceptual architecture has been developed, that outlines the core technology
capabilities required to enable the Finance Service Delivery Model
> The model identifies:

• Business applications which support core Finance operational, management,
analytical and strategic services
• Key presentation formats through which business users interact with and seek
information
• Access methods required for each type of interaction
• Business process and workflow orchestration to enable automation of business
processes
• Delivery technology required to enable the core capabilities
> The model provides a context for understanding:
• How well current technology supports the delivery of the required finance
capabilities
• What options are available for delivering an improved finance technology
capability
Page 30
Finance Conceptual Architecture (2 of 2)
Provides a view of what capability is required and how it should be accessed
Page 31
Logical Architecture Solution
There are a number of technology components required to deliver all of the required capability
Page 32
Logical Architecture Solution Business Reporting and Analytics
applications consume the Core BI
Services to enable enterprise
information delivery. E.g.,
Provides a standardised Financial Reporting applications
and consolidated produce reports that deliver
information delivery financial statements based on
portal. Self service accounting results for both
reporting tools are external and internal audiences.
available via the portal Analytical applications, such as
Cost and Profitability
management provide detailed
Core Business Intelligence
analysis to improve margins.
Services layer provide query, data
mining & analytics, alerting and
Business Strategy & Management
presentation tools available for
solutions support the
users to conduct reporting and
measurement of strategy and
analysis tasks
performance goals and
The Data Warehouse Services objectives, and Planning
Layer includes physical and solutions support a variety of
logical views, (Cubes, Conformed scenario-based planning and
and Shared Enterprise Data) that budgeting activities as well as
forecasting processes
present the information in an
integrated granular, atomic,
historic and current format. A Within the Data Governance
Semantic Data Layer provides a layer, the CFL provides an
business view of the data. enterprise-wide repository to
store and manage agreed
The Integration layer provides an common, consistent and shared
enterprise –wide data hub. Data definitions of information, such
integration services provide a as as master data entities, KPIs
landing zone for atomic source and other metrics. Master Data
data, before merging and Management enables the
mapping data to the conformed creation, maintenance and
information model, which is then synchronisation of a consistent,
loaded into the Data Warehousing accurate and timely set of
layer. Validation and cleansing Source system data is extracted Master Data.
may also occur here and loaded into the Data and
Application Integration hub for
staging and data transformation
Page 33
Overview of the Vendor Solution Approach
Page 34
> 4 Alternates were considered
ed
n d
Ble
1 .
Current Conceptual Architecture
2. IBM
3.
4.
4. SAP
SA
S
SAP
Key
SAP
IBM
SAS
Unsupported
Other
Page 35
Proposed High-Level Vendor & Capability View
Data and Information Diamond Mining
Presentation Dashboard & Performance Reporting

Layer
IBM – High level Analytics & Modeling layer

Informa
tion
Activity
Extrapolation & SAS – Deep Dive Analytic layer Level Value from
Value of Information
Process & Deep-dive Transactions
Attribution Analytics are fed to the
Layer Activity Level General
Ledger and
reported up
Transaction
HR
HR
Data Store
Data store
SAP – Authoritative BW
BW
Data from Data Source
source systems FI
FI CO
CO CPOS
CPOS
is fed up Level
through
Customer Interface tion Operational Reports
authoritative
Channels data sources Transac
into analytical
and reporting
tools
Span of detail
Page 36
Vendor Capability Summary
Based on SWOT Analysis workshops
SAS is acknowledged as being strong in analytic capability, with its core strength being a “point”
based solution directed at business driver analysis. [Client]’s diverse Profit views requirement is
ideally suited to this environment.
SAS is also been acknowledged as being quite strong in managing the planning and forecasting
workflow, but is yet to provide a reference site of [Client]’s size and complexity.
Considerable funding is provided for research and development to support development of the SAS
toolset.
SAS skills are available in the marketplace ([Client] currently use Agility), but demand and prices
are high.
SAP markets itself as a whole of business solution provider with strong integration between ERP and
Business Data Warehousing. It is acknowledged as being the strongest in transactional capability and is
working toward harmonizing recent reporting capability added to its suite of products.
SAP has made large investments in the Business Objects suite of products, as it has recognised a
weakness in this area. The long term roadmap will bring the individually acquired products into a single
suite, but at this stage, the products appear to still function separately. It is likely that over the long
term, SAP BO products will link more effectively with SAP ERP than other tools.
SAP skills are readily available within [Client] and in the marketplace.
IBM is seen as being quite strong in report presentation with its CFO Portal and being quite agile
with delivery using its Blueprint methodology and rapid report deployment capability.
IBM’s other strengths relate to scalability and its Planning & Forecasting approach, which is
currently in use at [Client].
IBM has made significant investment in Business Intelligence, acquiring COGNOS and SPSS, and
creating a Business Analytics and Optimisation team to provide services. This investment will
continue, as IBM has identified BI as a development area.
Skills for TM1 and COGNOS are readily available, with [Client] currently using Tridant for
development.
Page 37
Vendor Functional Capability View SAS IBM SAP
One vendor cannot provide a total solution Statutory Reporting
Capital & Project
SAS IBM SAP Reporting
Management
Strategy Management
Strategic
Asset Management
Finance
Finance
Performance
Management Credit Management
Risk Management
Taxation Management
Modelling &
Optimisation Treasury
Predictive Analytics
Analytical
Asset Register
Finance
Data Insights &
Operational
Ad hoc Queries Procurement
Cost & Profitability
Finance
Analysis Accounts Receivable
Management &
Financial Reporting Accounts Payable
Management
Consolidation General Ledger

Finance
Planning, Budgeting & B2B

Forecasting
Graphical OLAP
OLAP Cross-Tab
Analysis
Visualisation
Exception Reporting
Key & Alerts
Not Available Reports
Available not licensed Forecasting
Available and licensed
Dashboards
Partially licensed
Scorecards
Page 38
Vendor Functional Assessment
Each vendor presented their product’s capability to the working group, which was then
assessed against our future service model and non-function requirements:
Category Assessed / Vendor First Second Third

Analysis & Advice SAS IBM SAP
Accounting, Tax, Governance SAP
Credit Management SAP
Service Model
Finance Systems and Data IBM SAS SAP

Performance Reporting IBM SAP SAS
Planning and forecasting IBM SAP SAS
Specialist Finance Services SAP
Transactional Services SAP
Useability IBM SAS SAP
Agility & Flexibility IBM SAP SAS
Architectural Fit SAP IBM SAS
Non-Functional
Speed to Market IBM SAP SAS

Market Share IBM SAS SAP
Vendor Relationship SAP IBM SAS
Product Profile SAS IBM SAP
Support Requirements SAP IBM SAS
Upgradability IBM SAP SAS
Page 39
Industry Assessment
Assessment overview of Industry Practice
Page 40
IBM and SAP lead in Business Performance Management
Gartner Research and Forrester both position IBM and SAP as Leaders within the Business Performance
Management Suite marketplace. Gartner place SAS in the Challengers quadrant, whereas Forrester place
SAS just within the Leaders segment. The Forrester assessment dates from 4Q 2009 and that there have
been significant products releases for all three vendors since then.
MQ for Corporate Performance Management Suites
Page 41
All vendors have strong BI Platform capabilities
Gartner Research and Forrester both position SAS, SAP and IBM as Leaders within the Business Intelligence
Platform marketplace. SAS has weaknesses in the key areas of ease of development; pricing and licensing;
partnership ecosystem and install base. This differs to the [Client] analysis of vendor presentations.
Gartner Magic quadrant for BI Platforms, 2011
Page 42
SAS and IBM lead in Predictive Analytics and Data Mining
Forrester positions SAS and IBM as Leaders within the Predictive Analytics and Data Mining marketplace.
According to Forrester, both offer mature, high-performance, scalable, flexible, and robust PA/DM solutions
that combine a wide range of statistical algorithms with integrated support for in-database analytics and a
broad range of information types. Gartner assess PA/DM capabilities as part of the BI platform (overleaf).
Page 43
Investment Model
Overview of the Investment Model Considered
Page 44
Total Cost of Ownership – Industry View (1 of 2)
Proportionally, administrative cost is the most significant cost
Industry-based assessments of TCO typically consider

three main components:
• Software licenses (License Fees, Support &
Maintenance)
• Implementation fees (Hardware cost, Data
Architecture, Software Architecture & Scaleability,
Software Functionality, Time to Implement, User
Training)
• Administrative costs
• System administration
• DB administration
• User developed reporting
Page 45
Total Cost of Ownership – Industry View (2 of 2)
Industry analysis demonstrates no clear advantage for any one solution when considering
Total Cost of Ownership
The total administrative cost per

The total business
business user:
intelligence platform
cost per business user: • Comparing SAP Business Objects
• and IBM Cognos shows a slight
SAP Business
advantage to IBM.
Objects and IBM
Cognos were found • SAS has a higher administrative
to average cost per user.
approximately
$1,000
• SAS is a higher cost The total administrative cost per
at approximately user are annual recurring costs.
$4,000 They are based upon the number
of IT and business administration
full-time equivalents reported by
respondents. This number was
multiplied by an average annual
salary cost. The chard shows the
first year cost only. [N=1,169
Source: Gartner (March 2011) 1]
1
BI Platforms User Survey, 2011: Customers Rate Their
BI Platform Vendor Cost of Ownership Rita L. Sallam,
The variation is underpinned by a significantly lower mean number However, It should be Gartner 29 March 2011
of end users in SAS installations (SAP and IBM near 3,500; SAS noted the [Client] does
nears 800). already own SAP BO
Page 46
Total Cost Ownership: Current State Services View
• Approximately 12% of Finance’s spend on IT

is on TM1 and SAS. This cost comprises
license, support and infrastructure; but is Total IT Annual Cost
exclusive of Finance‘s internal business
support costs
2011/12 ($k)
• SAS and TM1 costs are incurred by Post at
Finance’s discretion
Other Variable
• The structure of the SAP Enterprise License Cost; $1,523
Agreement provides little advantage if
specific modules are not used. Similarly,
infrastructure and support costs are
subsequently pooled across Post
Other Fixed Cost;
• SAP recharge of $3,162k are for software
$4,526
maintenance and hardware related costs for
Finance use, an additional $319k is for a SAP, $3,481
direct finance resource cost
• Other Fixed Cost of $4,526k represents IT
Overhead, Application Services, Voice
Communications
• Other Variable Cost $1,523 of comprises
Desktop Services, Helpdesk Services and
Discretionary Projects SAS; $358 TM1; $968
Total IT Costs $10,856
Page 47
Current State Cost View ($k)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total
SAS
•Finance Support for SAS 60 60 60 180
•Software Maintenance / License 153 153 153 459
•Infrastructure 145 145 145 435
358 358 358 1,074
TM1
•Finance Support of TM1 638 638 638 1,914
•Software Maintenance / License 206 206 206 618
•Infrastructure 124 124 124 372
968 968 968 2,904
Core Finance Subtotal 1,326 1,326 1,326 3,978
SAP / IT Recharge Costs
•Finance support for SAP 319 319 319 957
•Software Maintenance / License & Infrastructure 3,162 3,162 3,162 9,486
3,481 3,481 3,481 10,443
•Other Fixed & Variable IT Related Recharge Costs 6,049 6,049 6,049 18,147
Total IT Related Costs 10,856 10,856 10,856 32,568
Key
SAP
IBM
SAS
Unsupported
Other
Page 48
Proposed Incremental Cost of Ownership: Option 1 - Blended
Users Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total Effort
Software Maintenance / License $k $k $k $k Days
•TM1 Contributor (Planning & Forecasting) 110 205 41 41 287
•Cognos BI (Performance Reporting) 134 374 75 449
•SAS ABM (Upgrade) (Profit Models) 70 74 57 57 188
•SAS Strategy Mgt (Planning & Forecasting) 97 63 17 17 97
•SAS Data Surveyor/SAP Connect/Platform suite (BIC) 174 46 46 266
Infrastructure
•SAS (Doubling current cost) 145 145 145 435
•Cognos BI (Doubling current cost) 124 124 124 372
Software/Hardware: 785 804 505 2,094
Implementation
•Planning & Forecasting (incl. Strategy Management) 1138 1388 88 2,614 2,178 say 9FTE over 1 year
•Business Information Centre 746 264 1,010 842 say 7FTE over 6 months
•Performance Reporting 564 1,332 22 1,918 1,598 say 7FTE over 1 year
•Profit Models (Customer, Segment, Product, Channel)# 564 1,866 44 2,474 2,062 say 9FTE over 1 year
Implementation: 3,012 4,850 154 8,016 6,680
Incremental Cost of Ownership 3,797 5,654 659 10,110
Current State Cost 10,856 10,856 10,856 32,568
Total Cost of Ow nership 14,653 16,510 11,515 42,678
Notes: Key
• Assume software license has 50% discount from SAP
IBM
list
SAS
• Upgrade considered in year 4
Unsupported
• #Profit Modelling is proposed in a controlled
Other
approach. Industry analysis highlights the
potential for significant over-runs
• Days effort is based on the average daily rate
Page 49 of $1200
Proposed Incremental Cost of Ownership: Option 2 – IBM
•TM1 Contributor (Planning & Forecasting) 110 205 41 41 287
•Cognos BI & Statistics Engine (Performance 240 548 110 658
Reporting)
•Cognos SPSS (Profit Modelling) 28 71 15 14 100
Infrastructure
•Cognos BI (Doubling Existing Cost) 124 124 124 372
Software/Hardware: 400 728 289 1,417
Implementation
•Planning & Forecasting (incl. Strategy Management) 1,138 1,388 88 2,614 2,178 say 9FTE over 1 year
•Profit Models (Customer, Segment, Product, Channel) 705 2,333 55 3,093 2,577 say 11FTE over 1 year#
Implementation: 3,153 5,317 165 8,635 7,195
Incremental Cost of Ownership 3,553 6,045 454 10,052
Total Cost of Ownership 14,409 16,901 10,952 42,620
Notes:
• Using SPSS to undertake ABM Key
• Assume software license has 50% discount SAP
on list IBM
• Upgrade considered in year 4 SAS
• Current State costs of $358k to be saved Unsupported
Other
from Year 3
• #Additional effort has been allowed for in
the implementation of Profit Models
Page 50
Proposed Incremental Cost of Ownership: Option 3 - SAS Only
•SAS (Performance Reporting) 728 574 574 1,876
•SAS (Planning & Forecasting) 179 89 89 357
•SAS Strategy Mgt (for Planning & Forecasting) 42 46 15 15 76
Infrastructure
•SAS (Tripling Existing Cost) 435 435 435 1,305
Software/Hardware: 1,462 1,170 1,170 3,802
Implementation
•Planning & Forecasting (incl. Strategy Management) 1423 1735 110 3,268 2,723 say 11FTE over 1 year#
•Profit Models (Customer, Segment, Product, Channel) 564 1,866 44 2,474 2,062 say 9FTE over 1 year
Implementation: 3,297 5,197 176 8,670 7,225
Incremental Cost of Ownership 4,759 6,367 1,346 12,472
Notes:
• Assume software license has 50% Key
discount from list SAP
• Upgrade considered in year 4 IBM
• Current State costs of $968k to be saved SAS

Unsupported
from Year 3
Other
• #Additional effort has been allowed for
Planning & Forecasting
Page 51
Proposed Incremental Cost of Ownership: Option 4 - SAP
•SAP EPM & BPC 2,478 3,320 842 6,640
Infrastructure
•SAS (Doubling current cost) 145 145 145 435
Software/Hardware: 2,697 3,522 1,044 7,263
Implementation
•Planning & Forecasting (incl. Strategy Management) 1,992 2,429 154 4,575 3,812 say 16FTE over 1 year#
•Business Information Centre 1,306 462 1,768 1,473 say 12FTE over 6 months#
•Performance Reporting 987 2,331 39 3,357 2,797 say 12FTE over 1 year#
•Profit Models (Customer, Segment, Product, Channel) 987 3,266 77 4,330 3,608 say 15FTE over 1 year#
Implementation: 5,271 8,488 270 14,028 11,690

Incremental Cost of Ownership 7,968 12,010 1,314 21,291
Notes:
• *SAP recharge to be re-assessed and on-
charged to Finance
• Software license has 70% discount on list Key
• SAS included to fill SAP functional gap SAP
• #Implementation ratio of 1.75:1 used IBM
SAS
based on [Client] current SAP experience
Unsupported
• Upgrade considered in year 4
Other
• Current State costs of $968k to be
saved from Year 3
Page 52
Suggested approach for

implementing the Strategy
Page 53
Proposed Transformation Roadmap development
5 capabilities 4 work-streams in scope
4 detailed roadmaps
[Images removed]
1 Plan 11 Tactical Initiatives
Page 54
5 capabilities support corporate performance
management
People and organisation:

communication and training for
the people and structure that
delivers the plan
Data: the information used to

Knowledge sharing: learning and People track and measure success,
sharing from experiences within enabling consistent and timely
the organisation and beyond its input for re-forecasting and the
boundaries Knowledg
Knowledg preparation of future business
e
e Data
plans and strategies
Capabilities
Process: establishing an effective

process that is recognises that Process System Systems: an efficient means of
planning must exist alongside, and assisting and monitoring how the
ultimately as part of, business as plan is being executed, designed
usual to support the process defined
above
Page 55
The Proposed roadmap has 4 Work-streams with many
initiatives supporting Performance Management
Objective
Performance Measurement
Planning and Performance

Profitability
Forecasting Reporting
Enablers
Data Management: MDM / Data Governance
Page 56
1. Planning and Forecasting – Proposed Transformation Map
By 1st Dec 2011 By 1st Mar 2012 Beyond 
2
2–– Clear
Clear 55 –– Staff
Staff capacity
capacity
outcomes,
outcomes, 44 –– Cultural
Cultural change:
change: developed –– focus Future state
People & Organisation
Managing stakeholder developed focus

deadlines
deadlines and
and role
role Managing stakeholder
clarity
clarity
expectations;
expectations; high
planning;
high level
planning; advisory
level
on
on value
value added
added
activities
planning and
advisory activities
33 –– Learning
Learning &&
capacity
capacity forecasting
1
1–– Customer
Customer development:
development: 11
11 –– Deliver
Deliver data
data
education:
education: 3 forecasting;
forecasting;
quantifying initiatives;
required
required for
for
Comms;
Comms; Monthly
Monthly ROE
forecasting
forecasting &&
ROE drivers
drivers
finance
finance meetings;
meetings; budgeting
budgeting
10 88 –– Balanced
Balanced
customer.
customer. 10 –– Agreed
Agreed scorecard
endorsement sources of
sources of truth
truth scorecard
endorsement 99 –– Agree
Agree data
data reporting
reporting
types
types required
required for
for 77 –– Self-service
Self-service
budgeting
budgeting and
and
6
6–– Agree
Agree data
data 88 –– Deliver
Deliver data
data reporting
reporting (access
(access to
to
types forecasting
forecasting planning
types required
required for
for required
required for
for planning
budgeting assumptions,
budgeting and
and forecasting
forecasting & & assumptions,
4
4–– Identify
Identify forecasting budgeting 55 –– Full
Full MDM
MDM drivers,
drivers, etc.)
etc.)
forecasting budgeting 55 –– Formal
Formal
1
1–– Agree
Agree data
data ownership
ownership ofof data
data solution
solution mentorship
mentorship
types
types required
required for
for (right
(right reference
reference
budgeting
budgeting and
and data)
data) 7 88 –– To
To be
be process,
7–– Agreed
Agreed sources
sources 5
5–– Full
Full integrated
integrated 44 –
process,
forecasting
forecasting of – Align
Align planning
planning leveraging
of truth
truth planning
planning && model
leveraging
5
5–– Deliver
Deliver data
data forecasting
forecasting &
& model with
with improved
improved systems
systems
required performance
performance mgt
mgt
2 required for
for performance
performance mgtmgt
2–– Consider
Consider level
level forecasting
forecasting && tool
tool
system
system 44 –– knowledge
knowledge
of
of detail
detail required le library
library //
required ltip
Data
budgeting
budgeting
Mu ps repository
repository
44 –– Tool
Tool dro
consolidation &
consolidation &
3
3–– Agreed
Agreed sources
sources retire
retire legacy
legacy
es 3
3–– Create
Create aa model
model
of
of truth
truth
c ess with
with business
business 77 –– Interim
Interim
ro drivers,
drivers, planning
planning process, with
process, with 66 –– Co-ordination
Co-ordination
3
3–– Common dP assumptions
assumptions and reduced of
of business
a te
Common and reduced business
scenarios
scenarios in
in centre
hierarchies
hierarchies &
&
te gr centre timeframe
timeframe and
work
and re-
re-
33 –– Official
Official
planning/
planning/ finance/
finance/
strategy
strategy forums
other
other master
master data
data In work
standard
standard
forums
governance
governance induction
induction process
process
5
5–– Determine
Determine level
level
of
of detail
detail and
and
business
business 44 –– Cross-BU
Cross-BU
2
2–– Clearer
Clearer rules
rules
segmentation
segmentation forum
forum to to identify
identify 3 22 –– Design
Design future
future
required pain process
&
& controls
controls over
over
required pain points,
points, process
22 –– Understand
1 2 develop review Understand & &
versions
versions 2–– Establish
Establish rules
rules develop review communicate roles
&
& responsibilities
responsibilities tools
tools & & efficiency
efficiency 3 communicate
&
roles
& opportunities & responsibilities
responsibilities
& central
central co-
co- opportunities 33 –– Design
Design central
central (finance
11 – ordination (finance teams)
teams)
– Reduce
Reduce Excel
Excel ordination analytical
analytical
use
use –– better
better using
using tools/view
tools/view 11 –– regular
regular
existing systems
existing systems forums
forums with
with set
set
1
1 –– Clear
Clear ? Initiatives
Systems
1 55 –– Early
Early SBU
SBU 66 –– Clarify
Clarify use
use of
of objectives
objectives (1-2
(1-2
1–– Agree
Agree holistic
holistic accountability
accountability for
for
process
process map
map process
process
targets
targets with
with clear
assumptions
clear GL
GL vs.
vs. PPM
PPM for
for 2 per month)
per month)
assumptions planning
planning
components
components
Process Knowledge Sharing

Page 57
2. Performance Reporting – Proposed Transformation Map
6 months 12 months Beyond 
44 –– Learning
Learning &&
development on Future state
development on
2
2–– Clear
Clear both
both tools
tools and
and
outcomes,
outcomes, process
process
deadlines
deadlines and
and role
role 3
3–– Learning
Learning &&
clarity
clarity development 11
11 –– Deliver
Deliver data
data
development onon
both required
required for
for
both tools
tools and
and
process performance
performance
process
1
1–– Effective
Effective management
management
10 10
10 –– Balanced
Balanced
stakeholder
stakeholder 10 –– Agreed
Agreed scorecard
sources of
sources of truth
truth scorecard
management
management 99 –– Agree
Agree data
data reporting
reporting
types
types required
required for
for
performance
performance 99 –– Self-service
6
6–– Agree
Agree data
Deliver data
data Self-service
management
management reporting
types
types required
required for
for required
required for
for reporting onon
performance
performance performance
performance mobile
mobile devices
devices
4
4–– Identify
Identify management management 88 –– Build
Build &
& 55 –– Formal
management management Formal
1
1–– Agree
Agree data
data ownership
ownership ofof data
data Deploy
Deploy mentorship
mentorship
types
types required
required for
for (right
(right reference
reference Performance
Performance
performance
performance data)
data) Management
Management tool 44 –– Leverage
7
7–– Agreed
Agreed sources
sources tool Leverage from
from
management
management of systems
of truth
truth systems
5
5–– Deliver
Deliver data
data implementation
implementation
required
required for
for
2
2–– Consider
Consider level
level performance 44 –– knowledge
performance le knowledge
of
of detail
detail required
required ltip
Data
management
management library
library //
Mu ps repository
66 –– Progressive
Progressive dro repository
development of
development of
3
3–– Agreed
Agreed sources tool
tool and
and views 77 –– Design
sources views Design CFO
CFO
of
of truth
truth dashboard
dashboard
22 –– Design 33 –– Align
Align and
and
Design future
future
process, cascade
cascade KPIs
KPIs
process, linking
linking 33 –– Official
Official standard
standard
strategy,
strategy, business
business induction
induction process
process
planning
planning andand KPIs
KPIs
3
3–– Clearer
Clearer rules
rules
&
& controls
controls over
over 5
5–– Mobility
Mobility trial
trial
versions
versions
1
1–– Identify
Identify
required KPIs
required KPIs
22 –– Understand
Understand & &
4
4–– Digital
Digital version
version 11 –– Refine
Refine current
current communicate
communicate roles
roles &
&
of
of paper
paper based
4 based
reports
process
process responsibilities (finance
responsibilities (finance
reports teams)
teams)
2
2–– Paper
Paper based
based
reporting
reporting
5.
5. Document
Document existing
existing
5 11 –– regular
regular forums
forums with
with set
set ? Initiatives
Systems
1 Performance
Performance
1–– Agree
Agree holistic
holistic objectives
objectives (1-2
(1-2 per
per month)
month)
process management
management process
process
process map
map

Page 58
3. Profitability – Proposed Transformation Map
Future state
3
3–– Clear
Clear
outcomes,
outcomes,
deadlines
deadlines and
and role
role 1
1–– Learning
Learning &&
clarity
clarity development
development onon 11
11 –– Deliver
Deliver data
data
both
both tools
tools and
and required
required for
for
process
process profitability
profitability tool
tool
2
2–– Effective
Effective
stakeholder 10
10 –– Agreed
Agreed
stakeholder 88 –– Full
management sources of
sources of truth
truth Full IT
IT
management 99 –– Agree
Agree data
data solution
solution
types
types required
required for
for 33 –– Leverage
Leverage from
from
profitability
profitability tool
tool systems
systems
6
6–– Agree
Agree data
Deliver data
data
types implementation
implementation
types required
required for
for required
required for
for
4 profitability
profitability tool
tool profitability
profitability tool
tool
4–– Identify
Identify 55 –– Formal
Formal
ownership
ownership ofof data
data mentorship
1
1–– Agree
Agree data
data mentorship
(right
(right reference
reference 77 –– Agreed
Agreed and
and understood
understood
types
types required
required for
for data)
data) 7 multi-profitability
multi-profitability tool
tool linked
linked
profitability
profitability tool
tool 7–– Agreed
Agreed sources
sources
of to
to strategic plans and
strategic plans and KPIs
KPIs
of truth
truth
(transparent business
(transparent business
5
5–– Deliver
Deliver data
data drivers)
required le drivers)
2
2–– Consider
Consider level
level required for
for ltip 44 –– knowledge
knowledge
of
of detail
detail required
required profitability
profitability tool
tool Mu ps library
library //
Data
55 –– Rebuild dro
Rebuild of
of repository
repository
profitability
profitability tool
tool
and views
and views
3
3–– Agreed
Agreed sources
sources 66 –– Maintain
Maintain and
and
of
of truth
truth enhance
enhance ACCC
ACCC
model
model
22 –– Design
Design future
future
process
process 33 –– Official
Official standard
standard
4
4–– Lineage
Lineage of
of induction
induction process
process
business
business rules
rules //
3
3–– Evaluate
Evaluate // re-
re- identify
identify “black
“black
7
assess
assess IP
IP and
and holes”
holes”
determine
determine trusted
trusted
1
1–– Redevelop
Redevelop drivers
drivers
existing
existing tool
tool to
to
support 22 –– Understand
Understand & &
support executive
executive 4
requirements 4–– Lineage
Lineage of
of 11 –– Refine
Refine current
current communicate
communicate roles
roles &
&
requirements 6 business
business rules
rules // process
process responsibilities
(finance
identify
identify “black
“black teams)
teams)
holes”
holes”
2
2–– Clearer
Clearer rules
rules
&
& controls
controls over
over
versions
versions ? Initiatives
Systems
1
1–– Agree
Agree holistic
holistic 11 –– regular
regular forums
forums
process
process map
map with
with setset objectives
objectives (1-
(1-
22 per month)
per month)

Page 59
4. Master Data Management – Proposed Transformation Map
11 –– Identify
Identify data
data 4
4–– Define
Define Target
Target 10
10 –– MDM
MDM team
team
owners and
owners and SMEs
SMEs Operating Model 8
8 -- On-going
mobilisation
mobilisation 13
13 –– Move
Move to
to Future state
Operating Model On-going

communications Shared Services
Shared Services
communications 11
11 –– Governance
Governance
2
2–– Develop
Develop
8 5
5–– Mobilise
Mobilise meetings
meetings
communications
communications MDM
MDM
plan 12
12 –– Refine
plan / expected
/ expected governance
governance // Refine
behaviours leadership 9 organisation
organisation
behaviours leadership 9–– Celebrate
Celebrate
success model
model
success for
for pilot
pilot
6
6 -- Links
Links to
to other
other 55 –– Data
Data quality
quality
BUs
BUs improvement 88 –– Full
Full MDM
MDM
33 –– Develop
Develop case
case improvement
solution
solution
for
for change
change 77 –
– Role
Role definition
definition 44 –– Leverage
Leverage from
from
MDM
MDM systems
systems
implementation
implementation
4
4 –– Data
Data quality
quality 66 –– Benefits
Benefits
improvement
improvement realisation
realisation
11 –
– Identify
Identify ADS
ADS 6
6–– Fixed
Fixed Asset
Asset
“as
“as is”
is” Hierarchy
Hierarchy
44 -- Enterprise
Enterprise tool
tool selection
selection
22 –
– Data
Data profiling
profiling // le
business 10 ltip
business data
data Mu ps 66 -- Business
Business case
case
Data
integrity
integrity dro for
for full
full program
program
33 –– Proof
Proof of
of
concept
concept
3
3–– Finance
Finance 55 –– Agreed
Agreed
“Golden
“Golden Records”
Records” enterprise
enterprise MDM
MDM
&
& CMM
CMM solution
solution
33 –– Design
Design future
future
process
process 55 –– Business
Business case
case
2
2–– IT
IT Roadmap
Roadmap for
for pilot
pilot
“Straw
“Straw Man”
Man” 44 –– Agreed
Agreed future
future
state
state
22 –– Develop 44 –– Priority
Priority of
of
33 –– Finance Develop
Finance data
data service catalogue needs
needs roadmap
roadmap 33 –– Finance
1 model service catalogue
developed for Finance data
data
1–– Product
Product model for
for MDM developed for model
selection
MDM
finance model defined
defined and
and
selection
hypothesis
9 finance agreed
agreed
hypothesis
2
2–– “Straw
“Straw Man”
Man”
MDM 11 –– Define
Define
MDM 11 –– Set
Set vision
vision and
and
architecture governance
governance
architecture strategy
strategy and
and
process
process
1
1–– “as
“as is” socialise
socialise ? Initiatives
Systems
is” 22 –– Strawman
architecture Strawman
architecture MDM
MDM
review
review Architecture
Architecture

Page 60
Potential Tactical Initiatives identified in each Work-stream
Reporting
Reporting
Improve
Improve Evaluate
Evaluate
Review and
and pilot of
pilot of
use of
use of Review current
current
improve operationa
operationa Detailed
current
current improve PPM model
PPM model Detailed
current
current ll KPIs
KPIs Document
Document definition of
definition of
tools
tools existing
process
process existing ΩΩ model
model
reporting
reporting objectives
objectives
process
process
Cross BU
Cross BU
Forum
Forum
Planning and Performance

Profitability
forecasting reporting
Business
Business
Information
Information Review
Review
Centre
Centre tool for
tool for
finance
finance
Data management: MDM / Data Governance

Fixed
Fixed Finance
Finance
assets
assets data
data
hierarchy
hierarchy council
council
Page 61
Planning and Forecasting – Proposed Tactical Initiatives
1. Improved use of current Planning and Forecasting systems and tools

Start date: End date: Cost: Benefit:
1 July 2011 1 December 2011 $300k
Objective Risks
To improve the use of current systems and tools by: Stakeholders have a vested interest in the status quo,
• Sources of truth and ownership of data is agreed so their behaviour is key to improving system use.
• Major hierarchies are defined and agreed System ownership is unclear.
• Business rules are defined and documented
• Version control process documented and executed
Approach Delivery capability / resources

To set up a small working group, driven by the The Planning and Forecasting Project Manager will
Planning and Forecasting Project Manager, to perform need to be supported by a full-time BA .
a rapid review of the current system and data and Significant input will be required from staff who
publish a document outlining how they will be used in understand the current process and systems.
the upcoming (2012) budget process.
Dependencies Pain points addressed

This initiative has no dependencies, but will support • Confusion over hierarchies
the implementation of an improved process. • Confusion over data sources and ownership
• Version control
Page 62
2. Review current Planning and Forecasting process and refine

1 July 2011 1 December 2011 $500k $1m
Objective Risks
To improve the current process by: Stakeholders have a vested interest in the status quo,
• Clarifying roles and responsibilities of individuals so their behaviour is key to improving the current
and teams over the end-to-end process process while existing systems are still in use.
• Clarify the role of systems and tools over the end-
to-end process The end process will need a business owner that is
• Ensure SBU targets are set early and communicated dedicated to flawless execution.
effectively.
To set up a small working group, driven by the The Planning and Forecasting Project Manager will
Planning and Forecasting Project Manager, to perform need to be supported by a full-time BA .
a rapid review of the current process and publish a Significant input will be required from staff who
2012 budget process document outlining a simplified understand the current process and systems.
process, to be used across [Client].

This initiative is linked to the improved use of • Process poorly understood
systems and tools. • Process poorly executed
• Process is time-consuming, inefficient and
unpopular with staff involved.
Page 63
3. Create cross Business Unit forum

1 July 2011 1 August 2011
Objective Risks
To provide a forum for staff involved in the planning The forum will need to be well run to add value to
and forecasting process to deal with issues arising, the Planning and Forecasting community. It must be
across: positive and action oriented, not just a forum for
• Data complaint.
• System
• Process.
Central Change Management to coordinate the setup The Planning and Forecasting Project Manager should
of a cross Business Unit forum. Although the initial schedule and organise the first meeting, after which
setup would be dedicated to the Planning & it should be handed over to the business to maintain.
Forecasting initiatives, it is expected that the forum
would broaden to cover the wider Finance
Transformation and BAU initiatives. Longer term
ownership of the forum to reside with the business
units.
The forum could provide a useful working party to • Stakeholder confusion over the process and use of
support other quick win initiatives in the planning and tools and data.
forecasting workstream.
Page 64
Performance Reporting – Proposed Tactical Initiatives
4. Reporting Pilot
1 July 2011 1 December 2011
Objective Risks
Develop a draft report, including an initial set of KPIs The KPIs developed in the FISS workshop have not
that allow the executive and other layers of been widely socialised, so are likely to only be 60-
management to measure the alignment of their 80% “right”. Work will need to be done across
actions with strategy. finance, HR, marketing and operational areas to
develop genuine “key” performance indicators that
link to corporate strategy.
Use the FISS operational KPI workshop outputs to The Performance Management project manager
define an initial balanced scorecard to be produced should be able to commence this work with the
as a paper report. support of a business analyst and input from a variety
Source data for the initial report and agree single of finance and non-finance stakeholders.
source of truth for KPIs.
None. • Few non-finance KPIs reported
• KPIs poorly aligned with strategic objectives of
[Client].
Page 65
Performance Reporting – Proposed Tactical Initiatives
5. Document existing performance management process

1 August 2011 1 October 2011
Objective Risks
To comprehensively document the current reporting Reporting has a potentially huge scope, it will be
cycle, including: important to set clear objectives and boundaries to
• What is reported? To whom? “as is” analysis.
• Process / technology / data used in reporting Reporting also has a diverse range of stakeholders.
• Alignment to strategy
• Link to planning and forecasting
Perform a rapid review of the current process and The Performance Management project manager
tools, and report on the major opportunities for should be able to commence this work with the
standardisation and simplification. support of a business analyst and input from a variety
A list of redundant reports should be generated and of finance and non-finance stakeholders.
their production terminated.
None. • Evaluation of opportunities to simplify and
standardise the performance management process.
Page 66
Profitability – Proposed Tactical Initiatives
6. Evaluate current Planning & Performance Management (PPM) model

Objective Risks
To evaluate the current PPM model and document: The current model incites considerable passion
• Selection and maintenance of drivers among stakeholders. It must be clearly
• Data gaps / ownership / sources communicated that this model is likely to be retained
• Business rules. for ACCC reporting, but that the evaluation will be
The evaluation will feed into assessments of how to used as input to decide whether the model is a
develop a multi-dimensional profitability tool. suitable basis for multi-dimensional profitability
reporting.
The project team will work with the current PPM The Performance Management project manager will
team to document the current model. This commence this work with the support of a business
documentation will be used to work with broader analyst and input from a variety of finance and non-
stakeholders to identify whether the current model is finance stakeholders.
a suitable basis for multi-dimensional profitability
reporting, or whether a new model is required.
This initiative will be run in parallel with an initiative • None, but an important step to baseline
to define the future model, and it would be understanding of the current tools
beneficial for the same team to be involved.
Page 67
Profitability – Proposed Tactical Initiatives
7. Define objectives of a multi-dimensional profit engine

Objective Risks
To define the objectives of a multi-dimensional profit This is a complex area in which stakeholders have
engine. divergent opinions on the tool and drivers. These
The definition will need to move beyond a definition views will need to be aired and managed.
of profit and the desire to report profit by product,
customer and channel.

This initiative will build on the FISS multi-dimensional The Performance Management project manager will
profitability work-shop to better define the process, commence this work with the support of a business
data and tools the objectives outlined in the analyst and input from a variety of finance and non-
workshop. finance stakeholders.

This initiative will be run in parallel with the • None, but an important step to baseline
evaluation of the current model, and it would be understanding of the objectives of the multi-
beneficial for the same team to be involved. dimensional profit engine.
Page 68
Master Data Management – Proposed Tactical Initiatives
8. Management Information Competence Centre

1 August 2011 1 December 2011
Objective Risks
To design and implement an organisation that brings This is a significant organisation change and
together current finance and IT staff into a new team potentially shifts staff who have already been
focussed on delivery of management information. impacted by change.

Identify current staff engaged in management Finance Transformation staff, including people and
reporting tasks in finance, and relevant IT support change specialists.
staff. HR business partners from Finance and IT.
Define a “to be” organisations structure.
Migrate nominated staff to the “to be” structure

Linked to Finance Data Council, who would be the • Low trust between Finance and IT
stakeholder representatives for the BIC. • Skills spread across teams, not effectively
harnessed.
Page 69
9. Set up a Finance Data Council

Objective Risks
To provide a forum for the Finance Leadership team The Finance Data Council may not need to exist
to better manage Finance data, and develop a holistic beyond the creation of an Enterprise wide forum with
finance view to feed into an enterprise MDM forum Finance representation, so clear exit criteria should
should one eventuate. be defined in the TOR

Create a Finance Data Council. The Finance Transformation Program Manager should
The first meeting should agree Terms of Reference nominate a Finance Data Council, potentially based
and membership. on the Project Control Group, and create Terms of
Reference as the agenda item for its first meeting.

None. • Widely held belief that there is poor governance
over Finance data.
• Limited capacity to provide a “finance view” into
Enterprise data governance fora.
Page 70
10. Review viability of an interim tool to manage finance data or hierarchies

Objective Risks
To examine the justification for, and viability of, an None.
interim tool to manage finance meta-data and
hierarchies.

Prepare a short paper outlining the pros and cons of a Finance Transformation business analyst to complete
tool for the management of finance meta-data and the paper.
hierarchies, incorporating work-shop material from
the FISS stream.

None. • Hierarchy management.
Page 71
11. Fixed Assets Hierarchy

Objective Risks
To review and redefine a hierarchy for Fixed Assets Fixed assets coding has been reviewed in the past,
reporting. with little change made, as many codes drive tax
treatment.

Prepare a short paper outlining the pros and cons of Finance Transformation business analyst to complete
implementing an improved hierarchy for reporting of the analysis, with access to relevant subject matter
fixed assets, including a reduction in the number of expertise.
asset classes reported.

None • Timely and accurate reporting
• Hierarchy management.
Page 72
Suggested High Level Roadmap with Work-streams
2011 2012 2013
Jun Sep Jan Mar Jun Sep Jan Mar Jun Sep Jan
Stage Gate 1 Stage Gate 2 Stage Gate 3 Stage Gate 4 Stage Gate 5
Governance
Approvals Approvals Program close out 
Business Case Business Case
Net Incremental Investment: $9.1m

New
New P&F
P&F Tool
Tool Investment
Investment
Planning & Forecasting New
New P&F
P&F Process
Process in
in place
Mobilise Data Requirements Benefit: $1m
Tactical System Changes Design & Build New System
Effort ~9 FTE for 1 year
Capacity Release
Refine As-Is Tactical Approach Implement and Roll-out Close Capacity Release
Change Training Change Training Review & Improve process
BIC Mobilise Data

Data Mgmt
Mgmt in
in place
BIC design BIC Stage 1-moves BIC Stage 3-moves Effort ~7 FTE for 6 months
BIC Stage 2-moves
Data Review DQ Improvement DQ Continuous Improve Program Close
Establish Build ADS MDM Tool Deploy Stage 2: Report/Dashboard Capability Stage 3: Modelling Support
Finance Data
Council Data Catalogue Operationalise
New
New Dashboard
Dashboard Tool
Tool Investment
Investment
Performance Reporting Document Requirements Investment: $2.8m
Mobilise
Reporting Quick Wins Change Training Change Training Effort ~7 FTE for 1 year
Business KPI build Close
As-Is Review Implement Dashboard Tool Balanced Scorecard
Self Service Capability Reassess KPI View
Performance Measurement Requirements
Build Data Warehouse Operationalise to BIC
Profit Modelling Mobilise Build Data Warehouse Investment: $3.1m

Document Requirements Change Training Change Training Close
Effort ~9FTE for 1 year
As-Is Review / DNA Discovery
Quick Wins Tactical Fixes Customer Profit Model Multiple Segment Profit Model Review Models
Channel Profit Model Product Profit Model
Data Review Operationalise to BIC
BAU/Separate
Governance Process Systems People Change Mgmt Data
Effort
Page 73
Conceptual Architecture with Roadmap Overlay
Page 74
Governance Approach for implementing the Strategy
Page 75
Proposed Governance Framework
Initiatives to be overseen by the Finance Transformation Steering Committee with individual Project Control
Boards assigned for each Initiative Stream. Quick Wins to be aligned within relevant stream.
Functional Business Unit (FBU)
Forum • Own and manage the program accountabilities and
benefit realisation
• Ultimate accountability on the Finance • Assess the project within overall program context
Operating Model • Provide updates to the FEM
Finance Executive Management

• Independent guidance & support to (FEM)
• Direct the overall • Direct the overall
Project Leadership providing project project
advice on strategy delivery and • Own the scope, • Own the scope,
industry best practice Finance Transformation schedule and schedule and
• Assist in delivering key outputs
Steering Committee resources resources
Project Leadership Support
External Consulting Project Initiative Streams • Day to day

project
management
• Stakeholder
Planning & Forecasting Profitability Performance Reporting Finance Data Mgmnt engagement
• Deliverable
Project Control Board Project Control Board ownership
Project Control Board Project Control Board
Project Management Project Management Project Management Project Management

People
Project Team Project Team Project Team Project Team
Data Cross Cross Cross Cross
Transformation Team Transformation Team Transformation Team Transformation Team
Systems and include and include and include and include
Business & Tech Business & Tech Business & Tech Business & Tech
Process SMEs as required SMEs as required SMEs as required
SMEs as required
Knowledge Mgmnt SMEs Team
• Participate in interviews and workshops • Facilitate stakeholder participation, workshops, interviews and data collection
• Provide feedback on design proposals • Produce Finance Info Sys strategy deliverables
• Advise on potential risks, issues and value propositions • Champion program within own organisation
Page 76
Agile Project Management should be used to develop models
within each work-stream
> Traditional project

management
approaches are
designed with
considerable up-front
planning and
requirements
development to reduce
“change”
> Agile project

management focuses on
reducing the cost of
change
Page 77
Vendor capacity to support an Agile approach
SAS is used as the analytical tool underpinning the PPM tool, but
their response on Agile approach was reference to:
• Industry based frameworks, incorporating pre-built models with industry specific
performance measures
• SAS also has industry based data models, designed for analytics
[Client] has extensive implementation experience with SAP,

who claim
• Best practice templates for the BPC module, including application models, business
process flows and reports
• Rapid deployment packages combining pre-configured software; best practices and
fixed scope implementation services
IBM TM1 has been extensively deployed at [Client]

• IBM have provided access to blueprint documents that would support rapid
implementation of management and financial reporting; product profitability
analysis; and retail finance workbench
• IBM claim to have “analytical applications” pre-built, but no evidence was provided
Page 78
In addition to process & systems, Finance Transformation
requires behavioural change
Finance Transformation is more than a set of integrated processes and systems. It is a mind-set and a set of
behaviours in the business that will embed the philosophy of “integration” across markets, customers,
functions, brands and services.
Active collaboration
Focus on the end

Analytical rigour customer
Compliance Successful Integrated Trust the assumptions

Business Planning
Regular cross
Active sponsorship
functional dialogue
True consensus
Page 79
Most factors affecting implementation are related to people,
not funding
Politics
18% 18%
Entrenched tools or
3% processes
Lack of Resources
21% 24%
Lack of Mgmt. Support
Lack of IT Support
18%
Too Busy
Source: IBM BPM Webcast
Page 80
Page 81
Sustaining
• Reinforce the changes and
• Promote the internalisation of new behaviours transform
• Encourage sustained acceptance and internalisation of new culture
• Build on current awareness Innovate
• Motivate people to let go of the old way of doing things and involve
• Influence people to accept the new way of doing things
Educate and
• Ensure stakeholders are engaged in design activities and project management forum communicate
• Develop change, communication and training programs over the project lifecycle
• Focus on 2-way communications with FEM members and other key stakeholders Vision
• Allow for resistance and questioning
th
Explaining
• the Difference workshop on 4th May was the opportunity for stakeholders from across finance to the need
agree the compelling business reasons for the change for change
• The workshops run to date have effectively motivated and prepared people for change
the business for change
A communications plan will need to be developed to prepare
Responsibility for communicating the Strategy lies with the
PCG and Project Leadership
Project Control Group • Agree on Strategy and key

(PCG) presentation materials
• One-on-one meetings with FEM
[Name](Sponsor) members and other key stakeholders
[Name] • Manage feedback and overall
[Name]
communication process
• Develop communication materials for

Project Leadership use at all levels
• Run a series of information sessions
[Name] to communicate to the broader finance
[Name]
and IT teams
• Manage feedback (positive and
negative)
Page 82
A draft communications timetable is set out below
Action End date Responsible Accountable Consulted Informed

1 Vision 26 July •Project •PCG •FEM •Finance
2011 sponsor stakeholders
•Non-finance
stakeholders
2 Educate and 5 August •FI&SS project •PCG •FEM •Finance
communicate 2011 team stakeholders
•Non-finance
stakeholders
3 Innovate and Continuous •Work-stream •PCG •FEM •Finance
involve leaders •Workgroups stakeholders
•FT Program •Non-finance
stakeholders
4 Sustain and Continuous •Work-stream •PCG •FEM •Finance
transform leaders •Workgroups stakeholders
•FT Program •Non-finance
stakeholders
Page 83
Finance Point of View
Page 84
Why [Client] should look to implement a Business
Information Centre
Benefits Risks
> Creates a “Virtual /As-is” environment with immediate > Unable to persuade the right people to work in the team
additional capability uplift • Team members will be immediately available from
> Enables effort to be shifted away from justifying ‘who’s the as-is environment but strong team leadership is
data is right’ to be focussed on rapid delivery of customer required to ensure the team coheres
requirements • Some internal and external resourcing maybe
> Allows for adoption of a standardised approach to required, to balance skills and ensure a spirit of
deliverables and prioritisation of resources collaboration is developed
> Expected reduction of waste and duplicated effort > Perceived not to provide an appropriate career path for
> Extends Finance & IT’s involvement in influencing the core finance staff
direction of business intelligence • Career Finance people are not likely to be attracted
> Breaks-down FBU (both inter and intra team) silos and to these roles, so SME selection may need to be on a
rotational basis
potentially extend to SBUs
> Does not fit with the Finance Service Model
> Gives Finance greater access to development and
deployment resource and IT access to SME • The BIC is actually a good fit with the Finance
> Provides Finance more influence in the delivery of Services Model, as it will enable the creation of a
Centre of Excellence that builds & delivers Self
Management Information requirements
Service tools for finance users
> Natural fit with the current Finance Services model by
> Change fatigue being encountered as a result
creating a centre of excellence focussed on delivering
self-service tools to customers > Full use of change management techniques to
> Greater agility in meeting ad hoc requests from a diverse energise and support the creation of the team and
the adoption of its outputs
customer base
Page 85
Financial Services companies move management information
and reporting to shared services
Page 86
Business Information Centre – Proposed Architectural Fit
Tool set and experience will blend systems, data and Business Knowledge
BIC Specialisation Sphere

> Exposes the team to a broader toolset
(and capability) including;
> Business Objects Suite (BO,
Event Viewer, Xcelcius) and SAP
BW
> Existing Finance tools TM1 & SAS
also used as well as Cognos BI
> Business knowledge and understanding
is brought to the team via SMEs from
Finance and other Business Units
> Use of tools can be based on strength
of requirement using a Gold, Silver
Bronze approach. Gold for production
strength delivery (BO), Silver for
temporary / ad hoc reporting
requirements, Bronze for rapid
deployment and development
http://www.b-eye-network.com/view/7105
Page 89 “Techno Babble: Components of a Business Intelligence Architecture”
BIC manages MDM which contains enterprise elements that
are outside the control of Finance
> SAP ERP (CoA, Cost Centre)

Circle
Circle of
control
of
control
> TM1 cubes / hierarchies
> SAS (PPM)
> SAP ERP (other master data)

Circle
Circle of
of influence
influence
> CRM / ePOS
> MDM
Circle
Circle of
of concern
concern > Mail statistics
> Other production data
Steven Covey – The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People
Page 90
Proposed Finance MDM Governance Model for Post
EGM Finance &

Executive Sponsor (Chair) • CIO or Delegate
Corporate Services
• CFO or Delegate
Info Governance leadership group • BU Heads
(business delegates)
Finance Data Council
Master Data Membership:

Management Team EA , Process Excellence, BU
(By Delegate) Leaders, SMEs
Operations / Custodians, Data

Business Information Execution team Maintenance Leads,
Centre Data Govt Team
(self service) Leads
FINANCE DATA OTHER BU’s DATA

DIRECT OWNERSHIP INFLUENCE ROLE
Page 91
Table of Contents

Industry Assessment
Investment Model

Architecture View

Page 92
Supporting Evidence
Voice of the Customer

Business Workshops
Technology Workshops
Industry Leading Practice
Page 93
Voice of the Customer
“
Managing Director : Feb 2011
Customer :
May 2011 Finance Information & Systems Workshops and
Finance Strategy Workshops in August 2010
Page 94
Voice of the Customer – Managing Director
“
Ahmed Fahour, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of [Client] spoke to the Finance Executive
Management Team on 28 February 2011. He spoke about his views and expectations for the [Client]
Finance function
The discussion points from this session are encapsulated below;
“We all need to wear the [Client] hat and not “We need predictive analysis prior to month
just the siloed Business Unit hat” end. If we have volumes daily we should be
better at predicting results”
“No more disputes about data! It distracts us
from our decision making “ “Business cases need more than just present
historical data. Future financial impacts must
“Trusted data is essential and it needs to enable be demonstrated (next month, next half, Next
insightful analytics” year or year-on-year)”
“Financial and non-financial data needs a tighter “Profitability views need to be Financial and
linkage” by product, customer and channel“
“Data needs to be flexible in its applications so “It’s ok for “broad reasonably accurate” data
that it can handle changes in our business” (it doesn’t have to be 100% accurate)”.
Page 95
Customer Voice – Decision Support
“
“I would like to see the Finance function “Some SBU finance teams are very
become a true Business Partner” proactive and involved with our
business”
“I don’t need rear vision, accounting “Finance needs to help drive a profit
advice after the event” centric culture”
“We need more support understanding

“The current cost allocation method makes scenario planning”
some products look unprofitable and may
drive incorrect outcomes”
“We will need new types of support as
the business evolves”
“I want to see profitability by customer
product and channel in order to make
strategic customer decisions” “We struggle to get accurate
information to understand:
• which products are contributing to
“Timely information that isn’t quite
perfect is more useful than perfect profit
• what is the unit cost and cost to serve
information that’s too late”
• how should I price products
• which channels are the most profitable
“The people are great and always give • how can I optimise a store profitability”
their best”
Page 96
Customer Voice – Planning & Forecasting
“
“We need consultation and consensus in “Finance have done a great job getting
the budgeting and planning process so we this far under huge stress”
have ownership of the numbers”
“The forecasting process needs to be “We need an efficient and consistent

based on the future expectations, not just methodology and information for Sales and
on historical trend” Operational Planning process for each
business”
Customer Voice – Transactional

“Changes to processes are required to There is a need for streamlining
drive efficiency and consistency e.g.. reporting and processes so that less
expenses, approvals, capital approval” time is spent in operations
“We expect a mindset of continuous

improvement”
Page 97
Customer Voice – Reporting
“
“Numbers should be developed “We need one single source of truth”
collaboratively with the business before
they are reported upwards”
“Too biased towards financial reporting “There are too many systems being
and not enough emphasis on financial used and the definitions used are not
management” consistent”
“We need real-time financial

“The GL is not set up for financial
information to manage the business”
management”
“Let us provide the commentary on the “We need the reports earlier”
monthly numbers”
“Root out all inverse outcomes in cost
“We want a transparent and consistent allocation where one businesses’
methodology in the cost allocation and performance impacts another business
transfer pricing process” results”
Page 98
Customer Panel Feedback
“
“Finance needs to be a true partner “SBU needs more sensitivity analysis”
• Shared customer
• “no surprises” between finance and SBU “Finance needs to go from reporting to
• not competing” diagnostic analysis”
“Finance needs more High level

“Finance needs commercial minded people” reporting to sensitivity planning”
“SBU and Finance have to have shared accountability “Finance needs One Source of Truth”
• Compliance
• Reporting” “IT and Finance to develop information
strategy”
“Finance needs to give information on product and
channel profitability” “Big role in capital allocation for IT and
Finance”
“Finance needs to understand the business and impact
decisions “SBU needs sensitivity analysis for
• Collaborated / stand out of defined boxes business options”
• Cost of ownership / sensitivity of loss”
“SBU need numbers earlier”
* The Customer Panel comprised members from Postal, Retail, Distribution & e-Services (August 2010)
Page 99
Business & Technology Workshop Outcomes
Summary
Page 100
Workshop Flow
Strategic Guidance Business Requirements Technology & Toolsets Recommendation
Week 1 Weeks 2 & 3 Week 4

1. Sponsor / Key stakeholder direction 3. Business workshops with subject matter experts to define requirements 6. Project PCB defines
2. FEM and Senior Stakeholders defined 4. Establish Vendor Evaluation criteria and understand wider MDM challenges draft Blue Print /
input into business workshops 5. Vendor capability presentations based on Post requirements and Roadmap
evaluation by group
1. Define 3. Common
Operational Financial
Model Language
4. Master Data
5. IBM
Management
Presentation 6. Solution
Requirement
3. Finance & Road Map
Hierarchies
2. Define
5. SAS
Business
3. Multi- Presentation
Drivers
dimensional
Profitability Draft
Report
4. Vendor 5. SAP
Evaluation Presentation
3.Operational Criteria
Metrics
1. Voice of
the Customer
Interviews Workshop Statistics Summary
• 65 Participants
3. Planning &
• 64 hours of workshop activity
Forecasting
• 240 plus hours of preparation time
• Refer to the Appendix for a complete list
of attendees
Page 101
Common Financial Language - Workshop Outcomes
Issue Impact Solution
 Data disputes over  Misaligned decision  Define Terms

report meaning and making  Establish Ownership &
interpretation  Wasted time / effort Maintenance approach
 Miscommunication seeking clarification  Publish Centrally and
over commonly used on meanings promote widely
financial terms  Can provoke  Report Remediation to
misdirection and ensure terms are used
non-productive consistently across systems
conversation and reports
 Leads to non-  Oversee terminology
outcome focus application on new report
 Duplication of production.
report creation &
management
Page 102
Finance Hierarchies - Workshop Outcomes
 Multiple versions  Inconsistent reports  Implement ownership

of same hierarchy in  No single view of & governance
different systems  Product framework for MDM
 Disaggregated  Customer  Review adjustments to
rollup /  Organisation allocation &
consolidation  Potential misalignment apportionment policies
 Large numbers of in decision making  Simplify /
hierarchies  Inaccurate attribution standardise /
 Variations to of cost / revenue to rationalise
hierarchies / product / customer /  Publish and enforce
incomplete/ roll up organisation use of revised
 High cost of reporting hierarchies
 Inefficient
maintenance of
hierarchies
Page 103
Multi Dimensional Profitability – Workshop Outcomes
 Fragmented views  Not meeting  Industrial strength profit

of profit stakeholder needs for engine
 Focus on product profit by;  Algorithm
 Inaccurate views of  Product  Data integrity
profit  Channel  Reporting views
 PPM built to support  Customer  Standards
ACCC  Market Segment  Drill down to transaction
considerations  Management decision  Data mining
 Used for other views making delayed /  Balance agility against
 Point solutions for incorrect data quantity / quality.
customer / contract  Wasted effort in data
profit calculations management across
multiple systems
Page 104
Operational Metrics - Workshop Outcomes
 No core focus or  Poor decision making  Scorecard

consistency in  Unfocussed on true  Balanced
managing to KPIs organisation needs  Financial / Customer /
 Numerous adhoc  Internal / $ focussed / Internal process &
assessment of KPIs
- not external People
 Not balanced
across quadrants of customer / profit  Leading / lagging
the Balanced Score focussed  Scenario modelling
Card  Wrong data at each capability
 Past performance level in the  Supported by reporting layer
focus organisation  Drill down / rollup
 Wasted effort  Standard views
 Data mining
 Agility enabling
Page 105
Business Driver View
Operational Execution Demand Drivers
Customer Customer
Key Partners: Key Activities:
• Supply Partners • Logistics Relationship: Segments:
• Mail Houses • Retail • Local market • Consumer
• Operations • Bought rather sold • Government
• Many services; One • Large Business
provider • USO
Value Proposition
• Marketing
Key Stakeholders: Channels:

Competitors:
• Regulatory Key Resources: • Outlets
• Market based
• Groups/Associations • Mail Network • Digital
• • Channel
• Retail Network Mail centres
• Some track & substitution
• Intellectual Prop
• Brand trace
Cost Drivers Interaction

Revenue Stream:
Cost Structure: • Letters (40% of revenue and declining)
• Large fixed cost base • Parcels (33% and needs to grow)
• Labour intensive nature in acceptance & delivery Profit views: • 70% of revenue is commodity based and under
• Simple service but complex process • Customer threat
• High cost in meeting regulatory requirements • Product
• Channel
• Segment
Page 106
Future Information Requirements
VALUE / BUSINESS • Customer returns
• Identified preferred channel FINANCE
PROPOSITION 3 Must have
• Competitor analysis 1 7 Multiple views of 5 Of Strategic
4 • Contract performance/compliance Importance
• Insight on end user
(customer’s customer)
• Price elasticity
• Future value of customer 2 Profitability
• None are
• Customer churn / loyalty
- Internal and external use
• Segmentation 2 4 a clear callout as First
1 Priority
• Insight on end user
• Market pricing
the top priority
• Individual customer profitability
(customer’s customer) 4 Second
- Internal and external use Priority
• Self management of • Credit history
master data • Profitability17 4
• Pricing/contract
• Privacy compliance - Customer
negotiation 2 3
• [Client] product /
• Market analysis8 3 - Product
service data on usage • Cross-sell
for customer (spend, • Future customer - Segment
opportunities
rebate, quality)
needs
10 6 - Channel 3 3 • Churn 3
• [Client] relationship
1 data
2 • Fixed/variable
7 cost to serve
• Capacity utilisation
UNIQUE COMMON CORE
• Share of wallet COMMON UNIQUE
• Network and demand • Satisfaction with channel • Growing customer
• Variable value proposition - Market spend
3 10
planning • Profitability7 • Customer4 1 - Growth profile
• Quality and service reliability
• Customer review (pricing and
• Cost to serve
1
profitability • Large dominant
2 • Interaction profile
• Cost to serve 3 channel) • Profitability by customer
(account) customer
5 - Profitability and
(cost of channel) • Cost to serve (customer segment • Channel
segment) 1 price management
3 • Channel and location substitution
• Price - Specific channel
• [Client] preferred channel
optimisation usage
• Channel Productivity
channel 1 - Geographic
• Cost to serve (cost of • Channel Investment
Market &
• None
customer) 1
dispersal on
price
2 • Channel integration
Operational • Cross-selling
Consumer
Performance - Trends in media,
technology, shopping,
Metrics also key • Online performance reporting
to customer
etc.
• Competitor analysis 2 - Reach and depth of CUSTOMER
relationship
OPERATIONS - Trends
- Development
CHANNELS
- Insight
informing opportunities
for other segments
Page 107
Common Financial Language
Key Term Summary
Key Term Finance Definition
Channel Avenue for interaction with customers
An external entity who we transact with for the provision of a good or

Customer
service
A sub-set of a market made up of entities with one or more

Market Segment characteristics that cause them to demand similar product and/or
services based on qualities of those products such as price or function
Product Good and / or service sold to an end customer
Profit Income less Expense
Volume Quantity of Goods or Service produced by an activity or process
Page 108
Key Financial Hierarchies
Other BU Ownership Finance Own and Control Key Complications:

• Mechanism for
• Many versions
Management & Control is
• SAP should be inconsistently applied
Org Source of truth
• Marketing driven • No standard toolset to
• Single View of • Via SAP HR
manage hierarchies is in
Customer Customer Project • Finance owned & use
via SAP Controlled • Hierarchies maintained in
• TM1 ≠ SAP • Considered too numerous locations &
Chart complicated systems (SAP, SAS, TM1)
• SAP  TM1 • Conflicting hierarchy views
(unique view in exist causing data disputes
SAS)
Management
& Control • ABC driven
Activities • Originally built for
ACCC Opportunities
• Endorse Data governance
approach and resource
accordingly
• Functional • Partner with other Bus to
• Marketing Driven breakdown of costs implement a BU wide
Prod Cost • Aids ABC analysis
• Essential for Profit governance model
Product reporting • SAP TM1 SAS • With Technology
• Via SAS & TM1 implement centralised
MDM Tool to manage
hierarchies
Influence Govern & Manage
There are numerous other hierarchies that are in use but the above are key to Finance reporting requirements
Page 109
Multidimensional Profit Views
Customer
t
en
gm
Product 1 + 2… Se
ACCC
-------------------- =
ACCC
Sales
π
Bus Unit Profitability
Market
π Finance Txn level
Channel
Operations
Profitability Board Product
From… To…
> Originally built for ACCC reporting > Multidimensional views based primarily on
purposes transactional level data attributes, and
> Well accepted by the stakeholder and without allocation models wherever possible
integrated into operations and considered > Supported by fit-for-purpose analytical
a best-of-breed solution for requirement models built specifically for each
> Current model now asked to meet other requirement
more diverse analytical requirements that > Based on agreed conformed measures from
are not necessarily a natural fit the Common Financial Language and
> Varying complexity has lead to difficulty in standard Financial Hierarchies
application and explanation of the derived > Enables more accurate forecasting and
output scenario planning
Page 110
Critical Success Factor Measures – CFO Dashboard
Access to CFL
Year On Year % Line item – Top & Bottom Customer
relationships based on Definitions
Trends Actual to Plan
profit & revenue
Starting point for
Performance Reporting
Daily, Weekly, Monthly
Trending / Operational views
Key Financial
metrics: profit,
e
Sales, Expenses
Operational
t i v
a
Performance metrics:
Volumes, Efficiency
rates, Unit Cost,
t r
s
Delivery on time rates,
Carded rates etc
u
Error Rates,
l
complaints, Lost
il
Time From Injury
Trend –
Warning lights
Drill through to more

Channel specific or detailed
Performance metrics
measures as required
Page 111
Finance Point of View
Page 112
Finance Systems Overview
Observations
Minimal
Finance View Finance Data 1. Minimal use of SAP BW by the Finance
community. Data currently limited to Cost
Business Centre data for specific GL accounts.
Objects
SAP BW 2. TM1 Cubes / Executive Viewers are the
Product Cost reporting predominate reporting tools used by the
Reporting Layer
(limited OLAP viewer Finance community.
audience)
3. Master data is not managed separately in
Direct access TM1 (principle hierarchies imported from
Back-end only
Customer &
SAP and replicated in TM1 with each
Multiple
Multiple source
source Retail Statistical import). The Principle hierarchies are the
SAS
applications
applications
Transactional data following structures - Profit Centre, Cost
data Activity Based Costing
including
including netPOS,
netPOS, Centre, GL Account, & Customer
POSI
POSI ,, ADDS,
ADDS, etc.
etc. CDW 4. Alternate Hierarchies requested by Business
(Transaction data)
are developed (TM1 Dev) and loaded in to
GL ABC Data TM1 Production when completed. Example
Customer
data (PPM cube)
data Alternate hierarchies “BU Hierarchy “(Sate
based view), “Consolidated BU” includes
Subs and Associates.
Model
5. Subs and Associate data (not available from
Multiple
Multiple source
source SAP) is loaded directly into TM1
specific data
applications
applications TM1 Database • Cube Direct
including • 6. SAP is not structured to report at the lowest
including Colliers,
Colliers, Planning & Forecasting Excel Interface
DMI,
• Executive Viewer hierarchy level. Currently there 16,259 Cost
DMI, ComOps,
ComOps, Modelling
Elms, (approx.1200 Users) Centres; 10,032 Profit Centres. TM1 imports
Elms, United,
United, Management Information
MPCDS, SAP Cost Centre and Profit Centre
MPCDS, LTFI
LTFI (and
(and
others) Cost Centre Hierarchies, reconciles to validate, any
others) Transaction
Accounting, SD, Data
Monthly Balancing Items are arbitrarily placed at
& MM data GL, PCA, Current Subs data
year budget
higher levels which is potentially incorrect
CCA, & Org
data data
Subs, Assocs &

Joint Ventures
Multiple
Multiple source
source SAP ERP
applications
applications Source
including data
including netPOS,
netPOS, Cost
Cost Centre
Centre Asset
Asset Project
Project
POSI GL EC
EC -CS
POSI ,, CBA,
CBA, AMEX,
AMEX, GL Accounting
Accounting Accounting
Accounting Accounting
Accounting
-CS
PowerTax Statutory
etc. PowerTax Reports
etc.
Special
Special Purpose
Purpose Accounts
Accounts
HR
HR SD
SD MM
MM GRC
GRC
Ledger
Ledger Payable
Payable
Integrity
Integrity
Source Systems
Source Applications based on main known sources
Page 113
TM1 Overview
Source : Colliers
Freq - Monthly
Data – Property Management Source : SAP-ERP Daily, Monthly, Cube Direct
Freq - Daily Weekly reporting 1200 Users
Source : DMI
Data – Excel Interface
Freq - Monthly Actual & Plan
Data – Mail Volumes Sends : Full GL Data, PCA & CCA
Post including Executive Viewer
Org Structure (Principle structures)
Subs & Associates
Source : ComOps Receives : Updated Budget data
Freq - Monthly (half / full year
Data - SSD Feed Observations
Source : Elms 1. Master Data not managed separately in TM1
Freq - Monthly
Data – Customer Activities
(principle hierarchies imported from SAP and
replicated in TM1 with each import). The Principle
190 TM1 Data
hierarchies are the following structures - Profit
Source : CDW Models
Centre, Cost Centre, GL Account, & Customer
Freq - Monthly
Data – Customer , SAP CRM 2. Alternate Hierarchies requested by Business are
developed (TM1 Dev) and loaded in to Prod when
Source : United completed. Example Alternate hierarchies “BU
Freq - Monthly TM1 Database (16 servers) Hierarchy “(Sate based view), “Consolidated BU”
Data – Property Management includes Subs and Associates.
Alternate Hierarchies
3. Existing known issues with Disaster Recovery /
Source : Subs & Assoc Business Continuity (Technology project underway)
Freq - Monthly
Data – Financials (PL/BS/CF) 4. Planning Process - Data is extracted from TM1 via
an Excel Interface. Users update the budget
Source : SAP HR number in spreadsheet and the data is ‘written’
Freq - Daily back to TM1 in real-time.
Data – Hours per cost centre
Source : Other Planning 5. Subs and Associate data (not available from SAP)
Manual Loads Process is loaded directly into TM1.
Source : SAP Projects
Freq - Daily E.g. Benefits
Data - Capital Project (Actual & Tracking , WCIS
Commitment data)
Source : SAP IM (Invest Mgt)

Freq - Daily
Data - Capital Project (Budget) Source : TM1 TM1 Central Team.
Source : SAS
Freq - Monthly Freq – Yearly & Quarterly (as
Source : Messenger Post Courier required) • Maintenance
Dispatch System
Data – • Support
Receives : GL Data for ABC Reads TM1 Data via Excel ,
Freq - Monthly updated data is then written • Report Generation
Data – despatch data / Cust Costs process • Development.
Sends : Processed ABC outputs back to the cube.
• 3 FTE
Source : LTIFR Data
Freq - Monthly
Data – Mail Stats
Source Applications based on main known sources
Page 114
SAS Overview
TM1 Users
Specific SAS users via

OLAP viewer (limited
to Facility model)
Observations
PPM PPM Data 1. Master Data not managed separately in
Source : TM1 sent to TM1 SAS.
Freq - Daily
2. A separate SBU Hierarchy is maintained
Data –
manually in SAS directly.
Sends : Full GL Data, PCA & CCA
Org Structure (SAP ERP Data), 3. Subs and Associate data is included in
Subs & Associates PL/BS. Production Development data from TM1.
Receives : Product Costing Data
for Month
PPM Facility ACCC
Model (Prod 6/11/)
Source : CDW
Freq - Monthly Var. Anal. PBS (DEV)
Data – Statistical Data (SAS Team) (SAS Team)
SAS Models
Excel
Source : IMS ETL
Freq - Monthly
SBU Hierarchy
Data – TBA ?
SAS Environment
Activities(4k)
• 300 Direct
Source : Adhoc data • 3700
Freq - As required Indirect
Data – E.g. Facility Data sting Rules Data View
• CC/GL
• Activity
Source : SAP ERP (NOT LIVE) • Product
• SBU
Freq - Monthly
Data – Fixed Asset Data
SAS Central Team.
• Maintenance
• Support
Source : Reference Data Maintenance • Report Generation
Freq - Yearly Maintenance • Development.
Data – Factor & Allocation Data • Over all user base 40 - 50
Page 115
Process Complexity - Planning, Budgeting & Forecasting
STATE SERVERS
Includes unique modules
requirements by state Manual adjustments
SA
1. Corporate
HQ 2. Postal
Vic
3. MND (retail)
TM1 Calcs / Modelling

NSW
7 data
QLD dimension
PL Target includes CC,
(Forecast A/C, p/c,
monthly, yearly,
NT Cube) $, hours
XLS central repository
Tas
PL
WA Corporate
GL
Cube
Calcs /
Corporate cube is final – 3 yr Modelling
plan, FOP, Quarterly TM1*
PPM
SAS
SAP
Board Board
calculates by product view
Current year plan reports reports
Page 116 *Process of transformation between old to new divisional Hierarchy

Process Complexity – ACCC Requirements
1. ACCC Cost Allocation Requirements

• Demonstrate (prove) the allocation of all costs to the Product level
2. Declaration Schedules (hard & soft copies)

• 10 schedules
• Formal signoff by CFO and MD
• Annual presentation to ACCC
• Mapping of relationships between Resource, Activity, & Cost Object (underlying data)
3. Regulatory Audit occurs each year

• Audit (sample) of allocation relationships between Resource, Activity, & Cost Object
4. SAS Overview (ACCC specific)
SAS Models Record Keeping Rules ACCC Submission
ACCC
RKR x 10 Declaration
SAS
PPM
Model
Model Schedules
SAS Enterprise Data ACCC

PBS
Model Extract Extract Relationship
Data Extract
Page 117
Current Technology Architecture Challenges (1 of 2)
Application Software Challenges

• Multiple software packages used to support a single financial service / end to end process (e.g.
planning & budgeting services utilise SAP, TM1 and SAS applications, in addition to Excel. There are
overlaps and gaps in functionality deployed.
• Potential SAP ERP Treasury capability was not able to be evaluated prior to recent 5 year SunGard
AvantGard licence renewal; Currently limited AvantGard Integrity Treasury application capability is
utilised.
• B2B account customers currently have limited self service credit account enquiry and reporting
capability
Technology Infrastructure Challenges

• PowerTax II application is deployed on dedicated infrastructure which is at end of life (MS SQL Server
2000 database and MS Windows 2000 Server operating system) which will require upgrade in the FI&SS
planning horizon and include a process review.
• SAS ABM application is deployed on an aging operating system (Redhat Linux 4) which should be
opportunistically considered for upgrade in the FI&SS planning horizon. It also shares a dedicated
Terminal Server with TM1 which is deployed on an end of life operating system (Windows 2000) which
will require upgrade or decommissioning the FI&SS planning horizon.
• TM1 shares a dedicated Terminal Server with SAS ABM which is deployed on an end of life operating
system (Windows 2000) which will require upgrade or decommissioning the FI&SS planning horizon.
Simplification of state based data models and server infrastructure is under way, which will assist in
addressing current capacity constraints. Additional memory may be required to support existing
services.
Page 118
Current Technology Architecture Challenges (2 of 2)
Information Challenges
• Logical data models for financial data have yet to be developed; No consistently agreed and used
authoritative data sources for key financial data. For example, multiple versions of same
hierarchy in different systems; There is no single view of
» Product
» Customer
» Organisation
• Information is neither consistent, nor well integrated; significant time and effort is expended by
analysts manually integrating information for decision makers. Multiple data sources and tools
are used for operational and financial reporting, with disputes over data meaning and
interpretation
• Information availability is considered poor, reinforcing a decision-making approach favouring
instinct over fact and leading to a requirement for ongoing reconciliation. There is lack of
effective governance over master data management
• Existing information capability does not support comprehensive analysis of the organisation’s
financial situation, analysis of customer and/or product profitability
• Finance data flows are complex and batch oriented; Opportunity exists for simplification,
standardisation and greater agility.
Page 119
Hardware Status Review
A review of the Finance application portfolio confirmed that solutions are mostly deployed on
current technologies and infrastructure platforms
SAS ABM and

PowerTax II are
PowerTax II deployed on
(1 Server – HDOSDC196)
hardware that has
platform software
SAS ABM & TM1 components that are
(1 Terminal Server –
HDOSDC28 at or near end of life.
It is recommended
that an upgrade or
replacement be
SAS ABM
(2 Servers – HX475,
considered
HX483, HX683, )
PowerTax II
(NatProdDB on
HDOSDC196)
Page 120
Preliminary Gaps & Opportunity Analysis
Outcomes used to guide Business and Technology workshops
Issue Impact Potential Solution
1. Subs associates and Joint Ventures 1. Data consolidated manually into TM1 1. SAP/Consolidation tool
not in SAP
2. Management information 2. Utilise SAP for Management
2. SAP only used as transaction engine  Lack of cohesion Information
3. Integration required
3. Specialist systems not integrated  Support 3. Migrate or Outsource
 Reconciliation
4. Lack of agility due to complex 4. Simplification
 Interfacing
system landscape
4. Slow and costly to change 5. Establish consistent reporting
5. Multiple reporting tools environment
5. Inconsistent information is presented
 Reporting environment is unclear 6. Governance framework required
6. Evidence of silo/fragmented governance
6. Unclear finance systems and data roles and processes 7. Re-align processes and applications
governance and rationalise where ever possible
7. Duplication of capability and a lack of
7. Unsure if tools are being used for clarity 8. Clear leadership and direction to
the right function enable us to all move forward
8. Inability to agree on tools and direction
8. Divide on tools and culture within 9. Implement Finance Transformation
and across Finance & IT 9. Impairing decision making with some
inefficient and wasteful process 10. Ensure hierarchy views are
9. Lagging behind leading practice standardised and observed
10. Disconnection of Hierarchies causing
10. Translation complications with SAP data discrepancies and distrust
maintaining hierarchies but TM1
version not exactly the same
Page 121
Current Systems Costs - Summary
Cost $m SAP SAS TM1 CDW

10/11 11/12* 10/11 11/12* 10/11 11/12* 10/11 11/12*
Software Maintenance 6.9 12.5 ** 0.12 0.16 0.17 0.21 0 0
Depreciation 17.5 29.3 0 0 0.29 0.19 0 0.02
Infrastructure 7.5 7.8 0.14 0.15 0.12 0.13 2.2 2.4
Internal Support (IT) 6.7 7.8 0 0 0 0 0 $0
Total IT OPEX Costs 38.6 57.0 0.26 0.31 0.58 0.36 2.2 2.4
Internal Support (Finance) 0.53 0.32 0.06 0.06 0.5 0.64 0 $0
Total Spend by IT & Finance 39.1 57.3 0.32 0.37 1.1 0.99 2.2 2.4
External Consulting (CAPEX) 0 0 0.75 0 0.67 0 0
• Planned
** 12.5m represents total SAP cost, Finance recharge expected approximate 3.16m
Note: Cost is only for IT and Finance BU
Page 122
How were the Current Systems Costs derived?
> Costs for software maintenance, Depreciation, infrastructure, internal support (IT) and external
consulting (CAPEX) were provided by IT Finance division by the Cost Transparency project members. Most
of these figures are available in the EKB.
> Internal finance support costs were provided by the Finance FBU
> SAS internal support costs is ½ FTE a year assuming $120k, thus $60k each year
> External consulting costs as at YTD March 2011 - total vendor spends of Agility Consulting $748K and
Tridant Pty Ltd $663K
Calculation - internal Finance support 10/11 for SAP & TM1
> TM1: 5 ½ FTE @ average A6 = 5.5 x 90k = $495k
> SAP: 2 ½ FTE @ A6 = $225k + 1 x A8 @ $120k, 1 contractor 3 days a week @1300/day = $188k thus total =
$533k
Calculation - internal Finance support planned 11/12 for SAP & TM1
> 8 staff for SAP/TM1 budgeted for 11/12 at 1/3 costs to SAP, 2/3 TM1. The make is 2 x A8, 3x A6 and 3x
A7. Totalling $958k. Thus $638k to TM1, $319k to SAP
Page 123
Current Systems Costs - FAQs
Why did SAP cost less in 10/11 than the planned FY11/12 Year
From IT Finance Perspective:
> Projects will be fully capitalised next year to the value of $12m and when fully depreciated
will cost $3.3m
> Depreciation of capitalised applications will be $8.5m
> New maintenance including addition modules will incur $2.1m
> Increase in labour costs to support additional SAP modules in 11/12 will incur $1.2m
Page 124
Current Systems Costs - Definitions
Key Term Definition
Number of Licenses / Cost Centres (rolled up to Business Area) included in the

Software Enterprise Licensing Agreement (ELA) for Licenses. Charges for Vendor support
Maintenance cost for an IT Maintenance related a software product for an application
additional to software.
Depreciation An expense recorded to allocate a tangible asset's cost over its useful life
External Consulting Vendor/third Party consulting costs to the Finance business unit
Cost associated in running the data centres for example - servers, facilities etc
Infrastructure
on the current operating system
Internal Support Vendor/third Party internal support costs to the Finance business unit
Page 125
Cost Transparency Project
Background and Objectives
Cost Transparency – the problem…
• IT’s customers perceive that the services
provided are both expensive and lack value.
• When actions are taken to reduce costs, BU’s
do not experience any obvious reductions in
their IT Charge.
• BU’s are not aware how they can assist IT to
reduce costs or increase value.
• BU’s distrust IT’s charges and perceive that the
charges are unfair.
Post’s objective is for IT services:

To be competitive with the market place, and
For the business to understand the costs and ensure value is obtained
from the services

Cost Transparency is provided through the clear description of the
services provided against meaningful items.
• Post IT will use Cost Transparency to show the competitiveness of IT
services with the external market, both in terms of VALUE and UNIT
RATES.
• Post IT will differentiate fixed/variable costs, providing business units
with levers to direct variable spend towards greatest business value.
• Cost Transparency will assist business units to assess and respond
to the IT services provided against the business value they obtain.
Page 126
Cost Transparency Project
Move from transparent info to business control of all direct IT services
Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3

Cost Transparency and Increased Business Full Business
Business Engagement Choice Choice
• Business to manage controllable
• Introduce transparent costs • Deeper understanding of costs
• Introducing service charging levers
• More controllable services
• Based on categories that can be • Start Benchmarking • Continuous benchmarking
benchmarked
• Breakdown of total IT budget across • Consolidate all costs from across • IT services provided to BU’s
20 meaningful service components the business for each service within the Enterprise wide
• Agreement on the rules for charging component and provide effective strategy and standards covering:
and the likely BU allocations for management of total IT cost  Intellectual Property
Transparent 2011/2012 • IT accountable for matching  Infrastructure
revenue from charges with cost to  Supply Management
supply  Contract Management
• Service levels for IT defined and
implemented
• Provide variable levers for selected • Extend business control through • BU have total yes/no control of
service components that BU’s must management of variable levers for service provision
learn to use to manage significant all services provided directly to BU’s • BU control of budget for direct IT
Variable cost factors (approx. 20% of total (>75% of cost) services received
cost) • IT to identify potential savings for • IT assistance in planning and
• Cost relief provided to BU’s for BU’s through demand management business budget setting
application decommissioning
• Establish stable rates and consistent • Agreement on rates based on • Benchmark comparison of services
allocations for service components knowledge from benchmarking on cost and quality
• Verify service component
Competitive descriptions against industry standard
benchmarks
July 2011 July 2012 Jan 2014

Page 127
Current Other Initiatives – IT Perspective
Business Warehouse Data
 HR data
 Sales (CEPOS) data
 Event Management data
 Sales Pipeline data
 Mail Volumes and Delivery Financials (MDCS)
 Identity Services data
 Call Centre data
 User Provisioning (SAP Systems)
 MMM data (sales order from ERP data – franking)
 Injury Prevention Management Business Warehouse Data (Coming Soon)
 Performance Mgt data (HR)
 MDCS – Cost per article
Business Areas expressing interest in  Environmental Compliance
Predictive Analytics  Address Analysis (postmaster)
 Customer Management  Security Operating System
 eServices  Credit Mgt
 Strategy & Marketing (Manager Customer  CEPOS Phase 2A (Agency)
Insights)
 Retail
Page 128
Current Other Initiatives – Finance Perspective
TM1 Pipeline for 2011 TM1 Pipeline for 2011 (continued)
 Daily Customer Revenue Reporting  Property Models
 National RBV model  Transfer Pricing Model
 Treasury /Cash management Models
 SAS related output into new TM1 Models Current TM1 WIP
 Rewards and Recognition Models  National Movement Schedules
 Sales Pipeline Reporting  National Fleet Model
 Rolling Budget/Forecast models  Transfer Price Model
 Franchise Model Enhancement  National Payroll Analysis Model
 National Customer Reporting  Mail Volumes Model
 Initiative reporting
SAS Pipeline for 2011 SAS WIP for 2011

 Rebuild of PPM Model  Operational level ABC Models (Delivery)
 Operational level ABC Models (Transport)  Balance Sheet Model – Metrics for SBUs
 Community Service Obligations (further
refinement underway)
Page 129
Other Current Initiatives – EPMO Perspective
Registered Business Initiatives with CAPEX Allocation
Business Unit Project Capex $m
eServices Customer Data & Marketing 1.8
Whole of Business Customer Management .6
Whole of business Enhanced Performance Reporting .56
Finance Credit management 5.53
Finance Finance Program Integrated Planning 1.4
Finance Enhanced Financial Information Program 1.11
Finance SAP Org Structure Automation Tool .03
Page 130
Architectural View
Finance Architecture Guiding Principals

Finance Conceptual Architecture
Logical Application Architectures
Information Architectures
Page 131
BI Solutions– Architecture Guiding Principles
The following guiding principles for information architecture should be leveraged in the
formation of Finance Transformation Information & Systems Stream strategy for Business
Intelligence solutions.
# Principle
1 Transparent: A direct line of sight for summarised data to source of transactions including drill-down to the
transactional data where necessary. Source once and store information at the atomic level
2 Accessible: Information is easily and widely accessible. There are no performance, semantic or other
barriers to solution adoption and consumption of information. Integrated information is accessible from a
central point without assistance or intervention
Agile: The environment and delivery must be able to stay ahead of the demand curve. Provide governance
3
which prioritises subject areas
Integrated: Information is integrated where appropriate to provide a cohesive view of disparate data sources.
4
Provide conformed master data, business relationships and rules
Process aligned: Alignment of information with business processes, to provide most value and drive improved
5
data quality
Fit for Purpose: Support an information led business with the right balance of strategic and management
6
reporting and analytics focused on business value. Decouple strategic and management BI solutions from
transactional reporting
Timely: Information is provided in a timely manner that meets high value business needs
7
8 Private & Secure: The solution must support business data security classifications and adhere to privacy and
security requirements.
Page 132
MDM Solutions – Architecture Guiding Principles
The following guiding principles should be leveraged in the formation of Finance

Transformation Information & Systems Stream strategy for Master Data Management
solutions
# Principle
1 Decoupled: The MDM solution should provide the ability to decouple information from enterprise
applications and processes to make it available as a strategic asset for use by the enterprise. Information
should be delivered at the right time in the right context to the right applications or user
2 Authoritative Data Source: The MDM solution should provide the enterprise with an authoritative source
for master data that manages information integrity and controls the distribution of data across the enterprise
in a standardised way that enable reuse
Flexible: The MDM solution should provide the flexibility to accommodate changes to master data schema,
3
business requirements and regulations, and support the addition of new master data.
Integrity & Security: The MDM solution should preserve the ownership of core business data, ensuring the
4
integrity and security of data from the time it is entered into the system until retention of the data is no
longer required
Open and Reusable Services: The MDM solution should be based upon industry-accepted, open computing
5
standards, to support interoperability with both enterprise and external systems. It should provide reusable
services that can leverage existing technologies within the enterprise
Incrementally Delivered: The MDM solution should provide the ability to be incrementally implemented so
6
that it can demonstrate immediate value.
Page 133
Technology Selection – Guiding Principles
The following EA guiding principles for selection of technology components should be
leveraged in the formation of Finance Transformation Information & Systems Stream
strategy
# Principle
For strategic solutions, the guiding principles for technology selection are:
1 Maximise the “footprint” of strategic vendor solutions – to leverage ready-made components and reduce
integration between vendors, minimising the number of vendors overall (‘fewer, bigger things’)
Select vendors and product ranges that are mainstream and proven
2
Give preference to flexible products with sufficient breadth of capabilities to enable a shared infrastructure
3
approach and avoid technology “silos”. Avoid using multiple products for different environments or for the
same technology functions
Meet business reliability, scalability and performance requirements at a competitive industry price point
4
Fit-for-purpose, not necessarily best-of-breed – whilst strategic products must cater for current and future
5
requirements, the “best” product may not necessarily be best for [Client] when other considerations are taken
into account
Take into account the importance of SAP in the overall application strategy
6
For interim solutions, the guiding principles are:

The choice of technology will be driven by the specific needs and circumstances at the time (e.g. not enough
7
time to put in a strategic solution).
Typically, interim solutions will focus more on the upfront cost and speed-to-market instead of the total cost of
8
ownership or strategic alignment.
Page 134
Finance Conceptual Architectures
Overview
Page 135
A conceptual architecture has been developed, that outlines the core technology
capabilities required to enable the Finance Service Delivery Model
> The model identifies:

• Business applications which support core Finance operational, management,
analytical and strategic services
• Key presentation formats through which business users interact with and seek
information
• Access methods required for each type of interaction
• Business process and workflow orchestration to enable automation of business
processes
• Delivery technology required to enable the core capabilities
> The model provides a context for understanding:
• How well current technology supports the delivery of the required finance
capabilities
• What options are available for delivering an improved finance technology
capability
Page 136
Provides a view of what capability is required and how it should be accessed
VISUALISATION SERVICES
Cross Tab
Exception OLAP Graphical
Scorecards Dashboards Forecasting Reports Reporting & Alerts Analysis OLAP B2B
PRESENTATION
LAYER
Browser
Native Mobile Applications
Portal Office Suite eMail & Mobile Websites Web
Service
Financial Reporting
Planning, Budgeting
Predictive Analysis
Asset Management
Capital & Project
Risk Management
Ad Hoc Queries
General Ledger
Data Insights &

Management &
& Forecasting
Asset Register
Consolidation
Management
Optimisation
Management
Procurement
Management
Performance
Management
Modelling &
Receivable
Reporting
Reporting
Statutory
Treasury
Taxation
Accounts
Accounts
Analysis
Strategy
Payable
Credit
INTEGRATED FUNCTION & DATA
Business
Tax, Treasury & Governance Planning Visibility & Insight
Operational Finance Management Finance Analytical Finance Strategic Finance
Data Sources Data Staging / ETL Core Data Warehousing Capabilities Core Business Intelligence Capabilities Collaboration Services
OLAP Query &

Data Data Business Data Mining Workflow
Extract Reporting Business
Warehouse Warehouse Views Logical,
Transform Process
Management Physical & Activity
ERP Load Data Data Analytics Search Management
in memory) Monitoring /
Retail mart mart Engine
Alerting
POS
BACK END SERVICES
Lodge- Data Cleansing Enterprise Data Governance (integrated, trusted data)

ment & Quality
Common Hierarchies Hierarchy &
eComm (Profit Centre, Cost Data Quality Lifecycle MDM Event
Finance Data KPI Definitions Relationship MDM Logging
erce Centre, GL Account, Management Management Management
Model Customer, Bus. Unit) Mgmt
Data Delivery
Extraction CFL Metadata Repository Master Data Management Services
Services
Adapters
Other
Data
Metadata Master Data Change History
Security Management Enterprise Content Management

User Data Security & Records Document
User OCR & Imaging Content Knowledge
Financial Accreditation Privacy Management Management
Provisioning Services Management Management
Institutions & Entitlements Management Services
Page 137
Overlay showing current Finance Pain Points Data disputes over
report meaning &
interpretation
Cross Tab
Scorecards
Not balanced across Dashboards Forecasting Reports Reporting & Alerts Analysis OLAP B2B
quadrants of the Balance

Scorecard
PRESENTATION
Inaccurate
LAYER
Browser Point solutions for cost/revenue

Office Suite
customer / contract Native Mobile Applications
attribution Web
Portal eMail & Mobile Websites
profit calculations Numerous
Servicead hoc
Inaccurate, KPI assessments
Financial Reporting
Potential for misaligned /
Planning, Budgeting
Predictive Analysis
fragmented
Asset Management
Capital & Project
Risk Management
Ad Hoc Queries
General Ledger
Data Insights &

Management &
poor decision making
& Forecasting
Asset Register
Consolidation
views of profit
Management
Optimisation
Management
Procurement
Management
Performance
Management
Modelling &
Receivable
Reporting
Reporting
Statutory
Treasury
Taxation
Accounts
Accounts
Analysis
Strategy
Payable
Credit
Past Performance
focus
Business
Tax, Treasury & Governance Planning Potential for delayed Visibility & Insight
decision making
Operational Finance
No single view of Management Finance Disaggregated Analytical Finance Strategic Finance
• Product rollup / consolidation Duplication of PPM built to No consistency in
• Customer report creation support ACCC managing to KPIs
Data Sources Data• Staging
Organisation
/ ETL Core Data Warehousing Capabilities Inconsistent
Inconsistent Core Business Intelligence Capabilities considerations
and management Collaboration Services
reports Query &
Data Data Business OLAP Data Mining Workflow
Transform Process
Management Physical & Activity
ERP Load Data Data Analytics Search Management
in memory) Monitoring /
Retail mart mart Engine
POS
Focus is on product Alerting
not customer
BACK END SERVICES

ment & Quality
erce Management Management Management
Wrong data at each
Data Delivery
level Model Centre, GL Account,
Customer, Bus. Unit) Mgmt
Extraction inServices
the organisation CFL Metadata Repository Master Data Management Services
Adapters
Other
Data
Metadata Master Data Change History
Security Management Miscommunication over Enterprise Content Management

Multiple versions ofUser
same User commonly
Data Security & used financial
Records Document
OCR & Imaging Content Knowledge
Accreditation Privacy Management
Financial hierarchy in different
Provisioning
& Entitlements
terms
Management
Management
Services
Services Management Management
Institutions
systems Variations to hierarchies /
Large numbersincomplete / rollup
of hierarchies
Page 138
Overlay showing potential solutions for current Finance Pain Points
Cross Tab
Scorecards Dashboards Forecasting Reports Reporting & Alerts Analysis OLAP B2B
Balanced Existing reports Industrial

PRESENTATION
Scorecards remediated for strength profit Scenario modelling

LAYER
Browser
consistent usage engine Native Mobile Applicationscapability
Portal Office Suite eMail & Mobile Websites Web
Service
Terminology usage Accurate
aligned on new cost/revenue
Financial Reporting
Planning, Budgeting
Predictive Analysis
Asset Management
Capital & Project
Risk Management
Ad Hoc Queries
General Ledger
Data Insights &

Management &
& Forecasting
Asset Register
Consolidation
report production attribution
Management
Optimisation
Management
Procurement
Management
Performance
Management
Modelling &
Receivable
Reporting
Reporting
Statutory
Treasury
Taxation
Accounts
Accounts
Analysis
Strategy
Payable
Credit
Existing reports
• Standardised
• Simplified
• Rationalised Customer
Business profitability
Tax, Treasury & Governance Standard
Planning Visibility & Insight enabled
calculation
Data insight agility Drill down to Reporting Views
Operational Finance Management Finance Analytical
Supported by Finance Strategic Finance
balanced against data transactions
quantity & quality reporting layer
Data Sources Data Staging / ETL Core Data Warehousing Capabilities Core Business Intelligence Capabilities Collaboration Services
OLAP Query &

Data Data Business Data Mining Workflow
Transform Process
Physical & Activity
ERP Load Published and Data Data Management
in memory)
Analytics
Monitoring / Data Mining
Search Management
Retail mart mart Standardised Agility Engine
POS enforced use of Alerting
capability
algorithms enabled
revised hierarchies
BACK END SERVICES

ment & Quality
erce Centre, GL Account, Management Management Management
Model Customer, Bus. Unit) Mgmt
Data Delivery
Extraction CFL Metadata Repository Master Data Management Services
Services
Adapters
Other Common terms Ownership &
Data
Metadata defined Master Data Governance framework
Change History
Managed data Published centrally Security Management

Ownership & for MDM implemented
Enterprise Content Management
integrity and promoted widely
User
User Data Security & maintenance
Records Document
OCR & Imaging Content Knowledge
Accreditation Privacy Management
Financial
Institutions
Provisioning
& Entitlements Management approach established
Management
Services
Services Management Management
Page 139
Conceptual Application Layer: Current Position
> Reports are sourced from multiple applications, each leveraging their own data source
> Multiple applications support same function in the presentation layer across business units
Page 140
Conceptual Application Layer: Option 1 - Blended
> Multiple products used deliver visualisation layer, potential for rationalisation
> Breadth of available functionality provides confidence that future business requirements can
be supported by one of the vendors offerings
> Provides potential alternative solutions to support future business needs.
Page 141
Conceptual Application Layer: Option 2 - IBM
> Utilise breadth of functionality and integration of suite of products
> IBM offers broadest footprint from any one vendor.
Page 142
Conceptual Application Layer: Option 3 - SAS
> Utilise breadth of available functionality and supplement shortfalls with SAP offerings
> SAS focussed on providing a calculation engine
> Rationalises product set.
Page 143
Conceptual Application Layer: Option 4 - SAP
> Use breadth of available functionality and supplement shortfall with SAS offerings
> Single visualisation layer
> Rationalises product set.
Page 144
Logical Application Architectures
Overview
Page 145
FISS Technology Components Required
Page 146
Technology Components (1 of 5)
• The User Experience Platform provides a standardised and consolidated
information delivery portal that ties together disparate tools for the
creation of websites, portals, dashboards, mashups, mobile applications,
etc.
• The architecture needs to be able to
• Provide a unified interface for delivery of a personalised experience
for each user to access the pertinent information available through
the finance information systems
• Pull together content and services from a number of tools and
locations to present a consistent and engaging user experience.
• Provide easy integration between BI and analytics toolsets and office
desktop tools
• Identity and Access Management (IAM) services enable the right individuals to
access the right resources at the right times for the right reasons. IAM
processes and technologies manage the lifecycle (creation, maintenance,
removal) of digital identities for Post employees, contractors, customers and
partners; verify identity claims and control the level of access to [Client]
resources; and support the associated compliance and auditing requirements
• Authenticate users by determining that an entity is who or what it claims
to be
• Govern & manage the life cycle of identities (user creation and
maintenance)
• Grant access to information and services based on role and access rights
• Refer EA080179 - Identity & Access Management Strategy & Architecture .
Page 147
• Business Strategy Management solutions support the measurement of
strategy and performance goals and objectives; Planning and Forecasting
solutions support a variety of scenario-based planning and budgeting
activities as well as forecasting processes
• Provide scenario-based modelling and planning flexibility and
extensibility that can be configured by a business user, including plan
versioning and approval workflows
• Allow access to underlying details through drilling into the source
data
• Provide a selection of graphical looks to suit the information context
eg. Display strategy definition using features such as visual strategy
maps
• The Business Reporting & Analytics applications consume the Core BI

Services to enable enterprise information delivery.
• Enable self-service BI tools and technologies that can be accessed and
implemented by business users themselves
• Provide compelling graphics and user interface features, such as
scorecards and dashboards
• Provide a suite of analytical applications such as Cost and
Profitability analysis and Modelling and Optimization applications to
assist understanding which customers, products, & services drive
profitability or margin
• Allow drill down to root-cause detail.
Page 148
• The Core Business Intelligence Services provide query, data mining &
analytics, alerting and presentation tools available for users to conduct
reporting and analysis tasks
• Enable business-originated fixed or ad hoc reporting and analysis on
cross-subject or cross-functional data.
• Perform analysis on granular atomic data or summary information,
aggregated by time (e.g. month, quarter) or by some other
dimension or hierarchy (e.g. product groupings).
• Provide consistently fast reporting and analysis times.
• The Data Warehouse Services provide physical and logical views that
present historical and current information in an integrated granular, atomic
format or aggregated into varying levels of granularity to meet business
information needs.
• Provide physical and logical views, of information (as Cubes,
Conformed and Shared Enterprise Data)
• Leverage the Semantic Data Layer to delivers a common unified
business view of the data.
• Store data in ways that facilitate analysis and speed query
performance.
• Provide drill-down and/or drill through capability to expose the non-
aggregated data from aggregated views.
Page 149
• The Data and Application Integration Hub provides a landing zone for atomic
source data before merging and mapping data to the conformed information
model, which is then loaded into the Data Warehousing layer.
• Provide inbound data staging services to maintain raw data feeds of atomic
source data from source systems until loaded into the reporting data layer
• Support delivery of inbound data either in real-time or on a periodic basis
• Optionally provide data validation and cleansing services.
• Provide a data transformation services to merge and map data prior to
loading into the common reporting layer
• Retain metadata such as: “when and from what source system the data
was extracted from; when the data was loaded into the data warehouse;
from which physical table and field in the source system it was extracted,
etc.”
• The Enterprise Data Governance layer comprises the business applications,

methods, and tools that implement the policies and procedures required to
support the capture, integration, and subsequent shared use of accurate, timely,
consistent, and complete enterprise metadata and master data
• Provide an enterprise-wide Semantic Data layer to store and manage
agreed common, consistent and shared definitions of information
(”Common Financial Language”), such as financial data models, data
definitions and KPIs, Financial Golden Record and Common Message Models
• Enable the creation, maintenance and synchronisation of a consistent,
accurate and timely set of Master Data
Page 150
• The Backend Operational Systems and Data Sources provide the basic data
that feed the data warehouse with enterprise information. Information may
be sourced from internal and external sources and provided either in real-
time or on a periodic basis.
• The Process Orchestration defines the end to end execution and

management of business processes , coordinating activities and
information workflow s and task routing across multiple applications.
Enterprise Content Management solution manages unstructured or semi-
structured information . Within the Finance systems context this could
include industry research and benchmarks, images and logos for use in
report generation, digital assets e.g. images of contracts, etc.
• The Process Orchestration architecture needs to be able to
• Capture the business rules for decomposing the business process into
a series of steps or events, with associated routing to business users
or systems.
• Provide automated workflow notifications, enabling user to forward
their notifications to other resources and respond to incoming
notifications.
• The Enterprise Content Management architecture needs to
• Provide services to capture unstructured and semi-structured
information, to manage the information lifecycle , to store and
version control information and to deliver information securely to
users or systems.
Page 151
Future State Architecture – Master Data Management
The Future State Architecture vision for MDM is a technology-enabled Data Governance Framework in which business and IT
teams work together to ensure the uniformity, accuracy, stewardship, semantic consistency and accountability of Post’s
enterprise's official, shared master data assets. It supports an enterprise view of data for integrated operational and strategic
analytics and reporting, and enables implementation of the BI Roadmap according to business strategic needs and priorities
Lifecycle Management Services manage the Authoring Services provide

lifecycle of master data, provide CRUD (create, services to author, approve,
read, update, and delete) support for master data manage, customize, and
managed by the MDM System, and apply business extend the definition of
logic based upon the context of that data. master data.
Master Data Management Services

Event Management Services
are used to make information MDM Logging Services
actionable and trigger Lifecycle Management Services update history data to
operations based upon events record all changes to
detected within the data master data. .
Hierarchy & Master Data
Data Quality MDM
Relationship Event Authoring
Management Logging
Hierarchy and Relationship Management Management
Data Quality Management
Management Services manage
Services enforce data
master data hierarchies,
quality rules and perform
groupings, and relationships
that have been defined for MDM Base Services data cleansing,
standardization, and
master data.
reconciliation.
Master Data Repository

Base services support security
and privacy, search, audit
logging, and workflow.
Master Reference
Typically provided via Metadata Change History
integration with common Data Data
enterprise components.
The Master Data Repository consists of master data, both instance and definition master data,
metadata for the MDM System, and history data that records changes to master data. It can also
be used to govern reference data maintained at the global level for an organisation.
Page 152
Future State Architecture – Business Intelligence
The Future State Architecture BI architecture will provide a single source of truth and analytical depth
across all major information subjects. It must support business self service for insightful analysis and decision
making support via a user friendly presentation layer which intuitively guides navigation
Australia Post Landing Page (My Reports, All Reports, My Favourites & Bookmarks, My History, etc)
Portals (Corporate Network Portals et Postnet) Enterprise Dashboards (role based), Dynamic Dashboards (Strategic and Operational KPIs)
Access Channels Publ
Google like search for selections and reports, Widgets, Event Insights, Text Analytics, etc
Publishing Engine
Usage
Query Layer (presentation Power User Advanced Analytics

Standard Reporting
& Outbound Layer includes Higher Governance as required
Low Governance
E.g. BOXI environment with advanced anaysis, Webi, Crystal, Xcelcius, SAP
tools available for users for E.g. BOXI environment with advanced analysis, Webi, Crystal, Xcelcius, SAP WAD
WAD, Bex Query Designer
reporting and analytics
Semantic Reporting Layer Reporting &

provides a business view of the Financial Cost &
Analysis Strategic
Planning & Summary
Cost Ctr / Other
Profit
Multi-
Other
data. It includes Multiprovider Planning Profit Ctr TM1 Provider
views spanning physical and (Architected SAS
Forecasting KPIs
Analysis Models
Models
Views
Views
TM1 SAS
virtual sources Data Marts)
Central Load Schedule
Reporting Data Layer
SBU /
includes physical and logical Infocube FBU SBU /
(Cubes, Conformed , Shared Granular, Infocube Specific FBU
Enterprise Data, Master Data and Conformed, Specific
Data Store Objects) that
represent the information in an
Shared Master & Virtual
Providers
integrated , granular, atomic, Transaction Data Infocube Infocube
historic and current format
Transformation Data Quality

Layer is used to merge and map Management &
data prior to loading into the
common reporting data layer
Transformation
Inbound Data Layer Data

(Staging) maintains raw data Acquisition
feeds from source systems
SAP Extractors Data Services
Data Sources
The source systems reside outside Non-SAP Non-SAP Non-SAP Non-SAP
the BI domain SAP ERP SAP CRM SAP EM Data Source Data Source Data Source Data Source
Page 153
Information Architecture
Overview
Page 154
Current State Architecture – Indicative Finance Data
Page 155
Current Finance Master Data Relationships (Simplified)
Actuals
Actuals
ComOps
Actuals ComOps CDW
SAP BW Reports &
Actuals Analysis
TXN SAP BW Actuals
Other Op. Actuals

Actual
Systems CDW Sales

Actuals (CC,SD,MM,EM)
TM1 TM1 Actuals / Models /
Budgets /
Txn Actual GL, Forecasts
Scenarios
Financial Transactions (Actuals)
Actuals PC,CC, Org ABC Scenario Corporate
(Product
and Non-financial Data
GL
Cost )
Models Reporting /
Current YR Budget Actuals KPIs
Actuals KPIs
Actual
SAP ERP Sales
& Stats
SAS SAS Actuals
SAP Actual Costs Allocated Customer /
GL Charts of account ABC/M ABC/M Costs /
Cost Centre ERP Profitability
Product
Profit Centre Profitability
Hierarchies
Account Customers
Customer
Suppliers
Align Account and SAP SAP CRM
Contracts Customer
Plants & Sites non-Account Customers,
CRM Reports &
Assets Prospects, Contacts Supplier
Employees SAP Supplier Analysis
Etc. Suppliers, SAP SRM
Contracts SRM Reports &
Analysis
Page 156
Future State Conceptual Architecture – Finance and I&AM Master Data
Page 157
Future State BI Conceptual Architecture – Financial & Business
Performance Data
Master Data /
Hierarchy Examples
GL Account
Cost Centre
Profit Centre
Organisation Unit
Customer
Customer Account
Contract
Product/Service
Asset / Equipment
Facility / Plant
Network
Location
MDM SCOPE Address
FINANCE MASTER
Event
DATA & ADS
Activity
Supplier
Employee
Position
Claim
Incident
Competitor
Time
Unit of Measure
Value Type
Etc.
Page 158
Table of Contents

Industry Assessment
Investment Model

Architecture View

Page 159
Appendix
Detailed Workshop Outcomes

Page 160
Workshop Attendees (1 of 3)
Business Drivers Business Model Common Financial Finance Hierarchies
Definition “the difference” Language
Held: 2/5/2011 Held: 4/5/2011 Held: 6/5/2011 Held: 10/5/2011
FEM FEM FEM FEM
[Name] [Name] [Name] [Name]
[Name] [Name] [Name] Finance Teams
[Name] [Name] Finance Teams [Name]
Finance Transformation [Name] [Name] [Name]
[Name] - PwC [Name] [Name] [Name]
Bus. Representatives [Name] [Name] [Name]
[Name] Finance Teams [Name] [Name]
[Name] [Name] [Name]
[Name] Finance Transformation [Name]
[Name] [Name] Finance Transformation
Finance Transformation [Name] – PwC [Name]
[Name] IT [Name]
[Name] [Name] [Name] – PwC
[Name] IT
[Name] [Name]
[Name] - PwC
Daniel Bruce – PwC
Bus. Representatives
[Name]
[Name]
[Name]
IT
[Name]
[Name]
Page 161
Multi-dimensional Profitability Operational KPIs Planning and Forecasting
The Difference
Held: 12/5/2011 Held: 17/5/2011 Held: 19/5/2011
FEM FEM FEM Finance Transformation
[Name] Scott Cumbrae-Stewart [Name] [Name]
Finance Teams Finance Teams [Name] [Name]
[Name] [Name] [Name] [Name] - PwC
[Name] [Name] Finance Teams Vanessa Chapman - PwC
[Name] [Name] [Name] Daniel Bruce - PwC
[Name] [Name] [Name] Business representatives
[Name] Finance Transformation [Name] [Name]
[Name] [Name] [Name] IT
Finance Transformation [Name] [Name] [Name]
[Name] [Name] - PwC [Name] [Name]
[Name] - PwC Vanessa Chapman - PwC [Name] [Name]
Vanessa Chapman - PwC IT [Name]
IT [Name] [Name]
[Name]
[Name]
Page 162
Solution Assessment Master Data Management Solution Options Roadmap
Process and Criteria (Vendor Presentations)
Held: 18/5/2011 Held: 24/5/2011 Held: 26 & 27/5/2011 Held: 1/6/2011
Finance Teams Finance Teams FEM Project Control Group / FEM
Finance Transformation Finance Transformation [Name] Finance Transformation
[Name] [Name] Finance Teams [Name]
[Name] - PwC [Name] [Name] [Name] - PwC
Vanessa Chapman - PwC [Name] – PwC [Name] Vanessa Chapman - PwC
IT Vanessa Chapman – PwC Finance Transformation Daniel Bruce - PwC
[Name] Daniel Bruce – PwC [Name] IT
[Name] IT [Name] [Name]
[Name] [Name] [Name] - PwC [Name]
[Name] [Name] Vanessa Chapman - PwC [Name]
[Name] [Name] Daniel Bruce - PwC
[Name] [Name] IT
[Name] [Name]
[Name] [Name]
[Name]
[Name]
[Name]
[Name]
Page 163
Business Model “the difference” Workshop
Workshop 4 May 2011
Outcomes of the Group Work
Page 164
Page 165
Price
Product
DEMAND DRIVERS Service
Management
constraints and
opportunity (recipient)
Competition
market
and
channel
COST substitution
DRIVERS Customer and
Fixed/variable innovation
business
shared infrastructure/
interaction
interdependency
Page 166
n.b. Edits made in Difference workshop on 4/5/2011
Future Information Requirements
VALUE / BUSINESS • Customer returns
• Identified preferred
PROPOSITION
channel
• Competitor analysis 1 7
• Price elasticity 4 • Contract
• Insight on end user FINANCE
performance/compliance 2 • None
(customer’s • Customer churn / loyalty • Future value of customer
customer) • Segmentation 2 4 3Must have
- Internal and • Market pricing 1
external use • Insight on end user • Individual customer 5Of Strategic
(customer’s profitability 4 Importance
customer)
• Self management - Internal and • Credit history
• Profitability 17 4
of master data external use • Pricing / contract
• Privacy - Product
- Segment negotiation 2 3
compliance • [Client] product /
• Market analysis 8 3 - Channel
service data on • Fixed / variable cost to • Cross-sell
usage for 3 3
• Future customer 10 serve opportunities
customer (spend, 6 • Capacity utilisation
needs 7 • Churn 3
rebate, quality) • Share of wallet
• [Client] 1 2
relationship data
UNIQUE COMMON CORE COMMON UNIQUE
• Network and demand 3 10 • Satisfaction with channel • Growing customer
planning • Variable value - Market spend
• Quality and service proposition 7 • Customer 4 1 - Growth profile
reliability • Profitability profitability
• Customer review (pricing 2 • Cost to serve 1 (account) • Large dominant
and channel) • Interaction profile • Channel 5 customer
• Cost to serve 3
• Cost to serve (customer • Profitability by customer substitution - Profitability and
(cost of channel)
segment) 3 segment 1 price
• Channel and location • Price management
• [Client] preferred optimisation - Specific channel
channel channel usage
• None • Cost to serve 1 - Geographic
• Channel Productivity
(cost of • Channel Investment • Channel integration dispersal on
1 2
customer) • Cross-selling price
• Consumer
- Trends in media,
technology,
• Online performance
shopping, etc.
reporting to customer CUSTOMER
• Competitor analysis 2 - Reach and depth
of relationship CHANNELS
OPERATIONS - Trends
- Development
- Insight
informing
opportunities
Page 167 for other segments
Business Model - Interaction Models (1 of 2)
BUSINESS EFFICIENCY & SERVICE QUALITY
[Client diagrams]
MULTI-CHANNEL SERVICE
Page 168
Business Model - Interaction Models (2 of 2)
[Client diagrams]
DEFENDING THE BUSINESS
Page 169
Pattern Language (1 of 3)
[Client diagrams]
Page 170
[Client diagrams]
Page 171
[Client diagrams]
Page 172
Business Model - Priorities
As a team we looked at what the group as a whole had set as priorities. Identifying the two top priorities for Finance we ranked
them in terms of complexity and value.
> Fixed vs. Variable/Cost to Serve (13 votes) Finance
• 3 now + 10 strategic
Less Complex to Greater
• Top priority - need first Implement Complexity
> Profitability (21 votes) Finance Profitability • Channel Profitability • Customer
• 12 now + 9 strategic • Product Profitability Profitability
• (priority areas) • Full product driver
Driver understanding
• E-Parcel understanding
• Second priority
• International
> Future Customer Needs (16 votes) Sales and Marketing inbound
• 10 now + 6 strategic • understanding
drivers
> Market Analysis (11 votes) Sales and Marketing
Fixed vs • Identify and analyse • Cost structure
• 8 now + 3 strategic Variable/ sub-sets of cost to across Post (drivers
> Network Demand and Planning (13 votes) SBU Operations Cost to Serve serve and activities -
• • Create attributes in understand)
3 now + 10 strategic
SAS to identify and
Missing define agreed
definitions fixed vs
Tools variable
Process
Communication with customers/Finance Team
Our Recommendation
Mobilise a team of the right people and just get started
• Focus on communication and education
Prioritise against other activities
Page 173
Business Model - Priorities & Dependencies
1. Profitability 4. Capacity Utilisation

Input dependencies: Input dependencies:
Historic view vs. future view Understand capacity on daily basis to re-balance
Product work
Product volumes Foundation piece for network planning
Lost to serve 5. Competitor Analysis
Price Input dependencies:
Cost Required information but not in scope
Channel Is an interdependency
Customer 6. Fixed / Variable - Cost to Serve
2. Market Analysis 7. Master Data Management
Input dependencies:
Required information but not in scope
8. Clarity of Ownership of Information
Is an interdependency
3. Network Demand Planning
Input dependencies:
Cost profile
Capital requirements
Volumes
Capacity
Channel/New capacity
Ability to scale back
Page 174
Business Model - Capabilities/Gaps
What Don’t We Have?

> Do not have consistent definition for:
• Product
• Channel
• Customer
• Volumes
> Do not have consistent measure of volume
> Do not have strong relationships and supporting business processes
> Do not have one cost model universally accepted e.g. cost of delivery through PPM today
> Do not have an enterprise commitment to an integrated cost framework
> Ownership of systems
> Lack of knowledge of what systems/data provide
> Maintained cost driver trees of activity and resources within the business
> Uniformity on agreement on profitability measurement
> Do not have causality of costs e.g. fixed vs. variable
> Appetite to change view of profit variance, etc. (cultural change)
> Scenario planning analysis based on other information inputs from marketing, IT, etc.
Page 175
Business Model - Business Drivers (1 of 2)
Information requirements and business drivers for

a growth company.
> Solid understanding of network variable and
fixed costs
Stepped change approach and triggers
• Network demand planning
• Profitability
Utilisation and value of under utilisation • Capacity utilisation
Yield management – Price elasticity • Fixed/variable costs
Capacity and related investment
> By network type and Integration • GAP? What overhead ratios

(Letters network vs. Parcels network vs. Retail and future planning are
network) required?
> Current network return and longer term
investment return
> Full network impacts from letters decline
(PoB, BillPay, DEL etc)
> Retail and mail network option impact on • …Future customer needs?
profit and balance sheet
----------------------------------
CSO COST DRIVERS
Page 176
Business Model - Business Drivers (2 of 2)
> Need share and related information
What is the demand driver?
> Our understanding of revenue, customers and
metrics in a market understanding sense Market competitor and analysis
External driver: • Price elasticity
Market Change and impact • Segmentation
Opportunity analysis
• Future customer needs
Internal driver:
• Profitability
Marketing response
Product and service
Pricing Second tier
Placement (channels etc) • Network demand planning
Positioning/promotion
> Customer Opportunity Development
How we know needs and sell more?
> Campaign design and return/impact • Gap
> Regulatory requirements • Possible information gap
On Post
• Gaps? – Part by market analysis
As opportunities for Post
• Value of accessibility
> Does channel access =
Growth? – Demand Driver
• Trials
What are our stimulation actions?
Page 177
Common Financial Language
Workshop 6 May 2011
Page 178
Common Financial Language - Profit
Finance Definition: “Income less Expense”
Associated terms:
Revenue Sales minus GST minus Unearned Revenue (minus other rebates)
Trading Revenue or Expense from Trading activities
Non-Trading Income or Expense from Non-trading Activities
Sales Price multiplied by Volume minus Discount minus Revenue rebate
Price Amount the Customer is willing to pay
Sales Volume The number of priced units the customer has purchased/consumed
Discount A reduction to List Price to induce willingness to pay typically at the Point Of Sale
List Price Retail recommended Price
A Discount that is recovered via a supplier rebate or a deferred price adjusted to the customer
Revenue Rebate
based on conditions met
Unearned Revenue Sales value received from Customers for services yet to be delivered
Cost Financial representation of activities undertaken to deliver Products
A measure of Profit such as Marginal Return, Before Tax/After Tax, Operating, Trading,
Profitability
Economic and by Channel or Product
Margin Includes, Gross, Direct, Variable and Contribution
Page 179
Common Financial Language - Volume
Finance Definition:
“Quantity of Goods or Service produced by an activity or process”

Associated terms:
Process Series of events or activities designed to produce a particular output
Event Something that has occurred
Activity Predefined event or process designed to produce a particular outcome
Product Good and / or service sold to an end customer
Known issues:
No standard convention for displaying Volume data (eg. work day adjustments)
Require trusted processes and mechanisms for the Reconciliation of Volume data
Structural mismatch between Revenue and Operational Volumes (eg. Stamp Sales verses Usage)
Information gaps – difficult to obtain reliable data from non-mechanised sites
Page 180
Common Financial Language - Product
Finance Definition:
“Good and / or Service sold to an end customer”
Associated terms:
Good A good is a tangible physical object provided to our customers
Service Services are intangible value adding activities provided to our customers
Product Category Natural segment or grouping within the product offering
Product Hierarchy Roll-up categorisation of products into their natural groupings
Known issues:
Too many products in the various systems
Absence of Product Governance framework
Need to map products down the process chain (loss of information as it moves through the chain). Need a structure which
will allow volume, revenue, & cost to Product to determine profit.
Page 181
Common Financial Language - Market Segment
Finance Definition:
“A sub-set of a market made up of entities with one or more characteristics

that cause them to demand similar product and/or services based on qualities
of those products such as price or function”
Associated terms:
Customer An external entity who we transact with for the provision of a good or service
Service Recipient A person or entity that receives a services from [Client]
Competitor Alternative providers of choice to customers that divert economic value away from [Client]
Channel An avenue for interaction with a customer
Page 182
Common Financial Language - Customer
Finance Definition:
“An external entity who we transact with for the provision of a good or
service”
Associated terms:
Service Recipient A person or entity that receives a services from [Client]
Where the customer is the external entity we transact with for the provision of a good or
Direct
service
An entity that receives a product or service from [Client] that may not have requested it at the
Indirect
point of origin
Channel An avenue for interaction with a customer
Market Natural grouping of customers for the purpose of selling a product
Transaction An event that occurs that has an exchange of monetary value
Page 183
Common Financial Language - Channel
Finance Definition:
“Avenue for interaction with customers”

Associated terms:
Avenues through which goods and services are delivered to the end customer through means of
Distribution Channel
the internet, retail/parcel centres, call centres, delivery network, 3rd party network
Avenue for interaction with an external entity with a view to generate revenue/collect
Sales Channel
payment through means of sales force, call centre / telephone, internet, and retail outlets etc
Known issues:
Product Good and /or Service sold to an end customer
Customer An external entity who we transact with for the provision of a good or service
An external entity who we transact with for the purposes of supplying or refining a good or
Supplier
service for the consumption of the end customer
Page 184
Finance Hierarchies – Outcomes
Workshop 10 May 2011
Page 185
Customer Hierarchy - Finance View
Why do we need it? What reporting should it Support? Who will use it?
• Alternate view of business driver • Customer performance • Sales

information – churn / market view • Sales performance • Product management group
• Sales performance management • Marketing reporting • Finance
• Customer analytics • Product & Channel Reporting • Marketing
• Planning & Forecasting, Operational & • Strategy
Network planning (eg Hrs of Service)
• CRM data / Customer information
• Billing & Contract Management
Will it meet our future requirements? What Systems are used to create it? Who owns it and how is it managed?
• Will need rework • SAP, TM1 copy (extract) & create • GM Customer insights (Marketing)
• Clarity of requirements against alternates • Through State controllers
multiple purposes • ComOps version (to be confirmed) • No visible consistent process
• Clarity of ownership , scope & excluding mail-agent example
governance is required • Master Pack (also against org + Chart
• Definition of attributes and resulting of accounts)
hierarchy / relationship linkage
requirements
• Alignment to industry preferred
standards
Page 186
Product Hierarchy – Finance View
• Pricing & Legislative reporting • Regulatory Reporting • Product Managers, Sales Support &
• Product & Supply chain management • Inventory Management Marketing
• Inventory Management • Stock provisioning • Retail Supply Chain , Facility Managers
• Maintain a product & Services • Sales Reporting / Marketing • Sprintpak, Mail houses
Catalogue • Profit & Performance reporting • Business units – Postal, Retail,
• Revenue & Volume Reporting eServices & DES
• Customer & Complaint Reporting • ACCC, ATO, Shareholders, Board, MD
• Taxation + GST & EGMs
• Public Affairs, Legal – Contracts
• Single view probably an unrealistic . • SAP (CSP), CDW, TM1 SAP

Standardised views across Sales & • SAS (but not connected directly) • Various product groups owns/ govern
Distribution more likely • ComOps (to be confirmed) • Business maintains (Need to confirm)
• Customer Point of view on Products? SAS
• Not embedded within GL • Finance owns & maintains
• Stronger MI capability to capture • Centralised into PPM team
Revenue by channel / product etc
• Cumulative Roll ups for volumes –
Sales, Distribution – must equal
Page 187
ProdCost Hierarchy View
• Provide a function breakdown of costs Directly used for Activity Based Costing Directly used in P&PM and Finance Ops
and Profitability. Reports include; for SAS and TM1 reporting
• Contract pricing
• Network & Overhead analysis Indirectly used in reporting used by
• Regulatory Reporting / ACCC • Finance and their Business Partners
• Statutory reporting (segments) • Operations Managers
• Internal Management reporting • Product Managers
• Board, shareholder, external reporting • Facility Managers
• Planning & Forecasting • ACCC (for end analysis)
• Determining Product Revenue • Board, EC and EGMs
calculation
• Yes, but there are Business structure • SAP (attributes in SAP) • SAP owned and maintained by IT
complications • SAS (hierarchy) – not connected & • SAS owned and maintained by P&PM
• It currently has inappropriate levels of manually maintained • TM1 owned and maintained by Finance
detail, often too little or too much • TM1 (hierarchy) – also not connected Operations
• Old business model focussed rather & manually maintained
than the current SBU and FBU views
• Clearer definitions are required
Page 188
Activities Hierarchy
• To facilitate ABC analysis & business • Planning & forecasting • Finance (particularly GMFs for their
understanding & modelling to aid & • Production cost reports Business Partners)
influence business decision making • Product offers • Operations Managers
• Product supply chain analysis • Product Managers
• Optimisation / Operation efficiency • Facility Managers
analysis • ACCC (end analysis)
Complications relate to the following; • Hierarchy content is derived from SAS, • SAS – Finance P&PM maintains
• Original purpose was specifically for EPM, MDCS, DELMOS • Uncertain governance/ownership
ACCC costing analysis • FYI only: Volumes are extracted from model
• We seem to be always adding context SAP and other various source systems • Business Unit ownership of activities is
to the model without strategic proving quite challenging
consideration • Shared ownership model also creates
• ABC is not yet fully aligned to the complications
enterprise process model • As a consequence there is only an
• ABC is not extended into new Informal governance model
enterprises when they are introduced • Linkage to Process Excellence team is
• Governance in question also uncertain
Page 189
Chart of Accounts Hierarchy
• Manage and control various financial • Performance & Statutory Reporting • CEO – SBU/ FBU view
governance and planning requirements • Financial accounting requirements for • Operational Managers/Supervisors
for the organisation and it’s various Business units • Finance – Management accountants,
business units • ACCC reporting, Tax (payroll), etc Finance accountants
• Needs to expand/collapse as required • Budgeting / forecasting • HR, SSD, Procurement
• Needs to also collect and manage • Profitability analysis • Operations via WCIS
information by financial account for • Sales Reps
management & governance purposes • Support Groups
• Yes – Critical but improvement • SAP (includes alternatives for Cost • Key Stakeholder is Planning &
opportunities are available element & Financial statement item Performance Management
• Reflection required on information hierarchies) • Requesting process is managed
collection & usage requirements • Alternates loaded into TM1 are direct through a “remedy”
copy from SAP with some further • Fin Gov & Control (Approve)
translation • Finance Operations (creation &
• SAS also has further alternative views maintenance)
• Bcard (Corporate Card) & POS – Copy • Fin Gov & Control (Definitions &
Communications) - monthly COA
updates Requestor
Page 190
Organisation Hierarchy
• Manage and control various reporting • Performance Management indicators • CEO – SBU/ FBU view
requirements based on our • Financial accounting requirements for • Operational Managers/Supervisors
organisation structure segments • Finance – Management accountants,
• Needs to expand/collapse as required • ACCC reporting, Statutory Reporting, Finance accountants
• Needs to also collect information for Tax (payroll) • HR, SSD, Procurement
org structure management • Operational management • Operations via WCIS
• Integrity/ Info validation • Sales Reps
• Budgeting / forecasting • Support Groups
• Profitability analysis
• Critical to future integration • Performance Management indicators • Finance – PP&M

• Will need to be replaced with other • Financial accounting requirements for • Finance – SAP Controllers via Finance
structural management system, eg for segments Operations
Org Structure and HR Org Structure • ACCC reporting, Statutory Reporting, • Alternatives views managed via
• Must be able to quickly respond to Tax (payroll) Finance Operations
changes in business structure • Operational management • WCIS managed via SSD / Postal
• Integrity/ Info validation • Regulatory managed via P&PM
• Budgeting / forecasting • SAP (MPS) managed via HR
• Profitability analysis
Page 191
Multi-dimensional Profitability – Outcomes
Page 192
Customer
t
en
gm
Se
Market Segment – Profit Dimension

π
Profitability
Txn level
Channel
Product
What is the audience for profitability What information / data is required to What model is used to calculate
reporting? support this profit view? profit?
• Sales & Marketing Customer detail • Profitability of Customers grouped

• MD & EC, Strategy, EGMs •Market segment into market Segments
• Operational Managers •Unique Identification • Customer Profit (Revenue – Cost =
• Finance Managers Profit)
• ACCC (for Economics use) Product/Service usage detail • Market system share + profitability in
• Consumer Groups (for Market •Volume/disbursement arrangement comparison
Research) •Product sold/service consumed • Market segment per customer
Channel used • Revenue per transaction by customer
•Sales & distribution • Cost to serve customer
•Support Channel? • Make up of Product, channel, volume,
Frequency, ancillary costs, indirect
Repeat usage likelihood (Stickiness) costs
Does the model exist? Where? Does the data exist? Where? Other
Partial (Product & Channel) • Not entirely Known Issues:

• PPM/PCS (Product costing system) + • Revenue data ok • Greater Customer detail elements on
Customer Segmentation groups • Cost side – Cost sight of customer and Segment/hierarchy
• TM1 on transaction for some • Revenue is OK. Need more on expense
• Start (Sales transaction analysis report • Full detail not commonly on service channel & Service usage
tool) provide (Disbursements arrangements) • Market system data
• Customer Profitability model (still • Agree market segment elements and
measuring but not repeatedly) Top application to customers
200 only • Customer ID
• Market system data
Page 193
Customer
t
en
gm
Se
Product – Profit Dimension

π
Profitability
Txn level
Channel
Product
• Shareholders, ACCC/Govt • Product Performance Measurement Product Group
• Board (PPM) Model • Letters 
• Managing Director • Activity Based costing (ABC) Small
• Executive Committee • Resource (GL$) drives  Activities Large
• FBU (FIN, S&M, Strategy) / SBU Drives  Product (Originally built for Presort
Management (Product Management) ACCC requirements) Ordinary
• Operational Management • Operational Cost Models Product
• ABC – Mail Processing, - Cost only SKU
• Delivery (in Development) - Cost only • Second View 
• CSO Modelling Letters
• Pricing Models  Reserved
 Non-Reserved
• Revenue & Cost (from the GL) Opportunities • Nil

• RBV process translate ‘stamps’ GL • Sourcing operational data to feed
revenue to product, volume, unit improved drivers
revenue rate, source = Postal, • Multi-stage drivers eg: cost  product
assumption with revenue allocations • Align activities in operational models
• Direct Costs based on factors like to activities in profitability models
weight, size, volume. Standard Cost x (ie. build activity hierarchy)
Labour cost • Understand product hierarchies –
• Indirect costs: Sales, SBU Finance, Sales, stock, PPM
marketing. IT charge outs • Understand input costs
• Corporate sustaining eg: Corporate
costs like MD, HR etc
Page 194
Customer
t
en
gm
Se
Customer – Profit Dimension

π
Profitability
Txn level
Channel
Product
• Sales & Marketing • Customer detail, Market segment, • Profit grouped by customer
• MD& EC, Strategy, EGMs Unique Identification • As per Market Segment
• Operational Managers • Product/Service usage detail • Contract parameters may dictate
• Finance Managers • Volume/disbursement arrangement profit characteristics
• Credit Management • Channel used
• Customer relationship managers / • Customer identifiers per transactions
Sales • Customer contract detail per
• Corp / Public Affairs (ad hoc) transaction
• Standardised view of customer as
entities
• Single view of Customer project
• Partial (Product & Channel) Not entirely Gaps:

• PPM/PCS (Product costing system) + • Revenue data ok • Greater Customer detail elements on
Customer Segmentation groups • Cost side – Cost sight of customer and Segment/hierarchy
• TM1 on transaction for some • Revenue is OK. Need more on expense
• Start (Sales transaction analysis report • Full detail not commonly on service channel & Service usage
tool) provide (Disbursements arrangements) • Market system data
• Customer Profitability model (still • Agree market segment elements and
measuring but not repeatedly) Top application to customers
200 only • Customer ID
• Market system data
• Share of wallet
Page 195
Customer
t
en
gm
Se
Channel – Profit Dimension

π
Profitability
Txn level
Channel
Product
• CEO, EGMs, GMs (Channel Managers) Numerous approaches: Retail Performance Report (RPR)
(Retail, Postal, s-Services(NCC)) Revenue Distribution Model • Retail store profit, 4000 outlets only
• Operational Managers, Strategy, Sales • Model where revenue is distributed
& Marketing down to all channel nodes ion the PPM - Channel cost only
• Key stakeholder: Real-estate, IT supply chain • Multiple channels, including Retail,
• Unions (agreed reporting LPO, Call Centres, Distribution
methodologies), Government Charge Based Model ie. fee for service
• Note ; Channel profitability mostly National Contact Centre (Retail, Postal,
likely to be viewed in conjunction Issues : Should we apportion the profits e-Services(NCC only))
with another dimensions e.g. product or build the data up from the granular • Performance measures – direct sales
& channel, customer & channel level? (direct to NCC)
Franchise Model
• Does not currently exist • Does not currently exist Nil
Page 196
Operational Performance Metrics – Outcomes
Page 197
KPI Requirements by Strategy:
Restore Self Sustaining Letters Business (1 of 2)
Financial Strategy Financial KPIs

1. Earn Profit 1. Profit
2. Financially Sustainable 2. Revenue Growth (ROI, ROE, Variable cost ratio)
Customer Centric Strategy Customer Centric KPIs

1. Reliability / stability 1. Service performance
2. Access / Reach of service 2. Complaints, Customer satisfaction (retention, re-
3. Increased Value of Offer signing business)
3. CSO compliance (media, ACCC), Time to service
(Community Change), Price elasticity trends,
New Customer volumes, Service offer coverage
of market opportunities
Page 198
Restore Self Sustaining Letters Business (2 of 2)
Internal Process Strategy Internal Process KPIs
1. Process efficiency 1 & 2. Service performance, Productivity, Cost per
2. Asset/ capacity utilisation Article, Cost per Process, Cost per Acceptance
type (SPB)
3. Market effectiveness
3 & 4. Campaign response, Revenue growth, New
4. Sales Effectiveness product take up, Market share, Letter
5. Labour force effectiveness revenue/sales cost
6. Safety 5. % of labour on penalty and on variable
6. Unplanned leave, volume/FTE, LTIs and Severity
index
Learning & People Growth Strategy Learning & People Growth KPIs
1. Multi skilling 1. % staff with accreditation
2. Culture ( alignment, innovation, sustainability) 2. Staff Association Engagement, Rotation
3. Labour force flexibility compliance, Staff satisfaction, Disciplinary action
4. Research & Innovation 3. % of under-staffed shifts

4. # of Approved innovations, Research &
Development spend, Value from innovations, # of
innovations implemented
Page 199
Grow Parcels & win in eCommerce (1 of 2)
1. Cost Management 1 & 3. Profitability (including STE, AGE, PLA, PMC
2. Increase Market Share etc), Investment Return (ROI, ROE)
3. Increase Profit 2. Market Share $ value

3. Customer Profitability (including contract)
1. Competitive Pricing/ Value 1 & 2. Churn & Acquisition, Customer value to
2. Innovative in Products [Client], Customer segmentation (Propensity to
purchase/product development, sales growth &
3. Identify & meet customer needs increasing pipeline)
4. Understand market / competition 2 & 3. Customer satisfaction (complains, service
standards, DIFOT), Sales force effectiveness (new
business vs. Return business), No. of new product
innovations (and their value to Post)
4. Share of Customer Wallet, Price competiveness
Page 200
Grow Parcels & win in eCommerce (2 of 2)
1. Integration of single point of customer contact 1. DIFOT (also relates to point 3 under Customer
with Post Strategy)
2. Increase efficiency with methods marketing (& 2. Marketing expenditure + direct revenue
Sales) generation
3. Network / delivery process 3. SLAs (internal)
1 & 3. Carding as % of volume of delivery
1. Safety now 1. LTI (Lost, Time, Injury)
2. Build Skills within the business 2. % training per staff (product specific)
3. Cultural transformation accepting change 3. Staff attitude survey (staff satisfaction)
Page 201
Build Trusted Multi-channel Service (1 of 2)
1. Grow revenue 1. Increase sales turnover
2. Reduce cost across channels 2. Reduced expense / cost to serve
3. Resulting profit increase 3. Increase in profit (multi-dimensional)
4. Maximise return on investments across channels 4. Increase in ROI
1.Ability to up sell / cross selling across channels 1.Sales across channels (customer view) Sales
2.Improvements to customer experience fulfilment analysis
3.New products & services introduced 2.Customer satisfaction levels / Customer retention
4.Increasing Post’s share of customer wallet 3.Customer/ segment growth by channel
5.Increase Product awareness and accessibility 4.System growth / Basket mix

across all channels 5.Market research – trusted brand, market
6.Build and leverage customer trust size/growth, channel volumes/sales
7.Deliver CSO / USO 6.Refer 2 & 5

7.Cost to deliver CSO/USO
Page 202
Build Trusted Multi-channel Service (2 of 2)
1. Network optimisation (profit and or efficiency) 1. Mix of outlet (Channel throughput, stock returns,
2. Consistent & reliable service process fail rates, customer/sale drop out rates)
3. More efficient product planning & delivery 2. System down time/time to deliver/serve, Track
and Trace efficiency
4. Right product right channel
3. Time to market (product take-up rate, product
5. More efficient delivery of service to development pipeline, stock turnover)
stakeholders/suppliers
4. Channel vs. Channel volumes - substitution rates
5. Process cycle efficiency (quality assurance rates,
SLA compliance)
1.Right application of capability 1.Performance outcome metrics – staff engagements
2.Growth in right channels 2.Talent profiling – across channels, training profile
3.Safety Compliance 3.Loss time injury, sick leave rates, turnover
4.Channel Innovation 4.Adoption of new methods
5.Knowledge retention & Capability growth 5.Reduced single points of failure (training
6.Staff flexibility undertaken, quality assurance compliance across
new products, expansion of share point in use)
6.Capacity planning – FTE planning for flexibility
Page 203
Planning & Forecasting Workshop
Page 204
Current Planning & Forecasting Activity Cycle
BUSINESS DRIVERS
December
80:20 Rule
Measure what matters
1. Demand Drivers
• Market
STRATEGY • Competition
Reconfirm BUSINESS • Products and Price
1 Strategy PLANNING 2 (price elasticity)
2.Cost Drivers
• Cost Volume Elasticity
• Productivity
Business Drivers • Demand
Planning
September March
Assumptions
Bend
Scenarios ACTIONS
1. Agreed holistic process
map
2. Establish clear ownership
4
MONITORING & 3. Central co-ordination
REVISED 4. Level of detail and
FORECASTS CORPORATE PLANNER business segmentation
36, 24, 12, ? moths
OPEX 5. Create a model with
Investment business drivers, planning
P& L 3
Balance sheet assumptions and
Cash flow scenarios in the centre
6. Align planning model
with performance
LEGEND measurement system and
Inputs June process
Page 205
Our Desired Planning & Forecasting Process
Strategic
Investment
Planning
Planning
Planning
Assumption Scenario
Planning
Business Plan Initiatives

Forecasting
Business Benefit
Business Planning Tracking
Drivers
Budgeting
Performance
Activity Cycles
Management
Page 206
Pattern Language Definitions (1 of 3)
[Client diagrams]
Page 207
[Client diagrams]
Page 208
[Client diagrams]
Page 209
Planning and Forecasting Transformation Map
33 –– Cultural
Cultural change:
change: Future state
Managing
Managing stakeholder
stakeholder
4
4–– Clear
Clear
outcomes,
expectations;
expectations; high
planning;
high level
planning; advisory
level planning and
outcomes, advisory
deadlines
deadlines and
and role
role 11 –– Learning
Learning &&
capacity
capacity forecasting
clarity
clarity development:
development:
forecasting; 55 –– Identify
Identify
forecasting;
quantifying initiatives; ownership
ownership of of data
data
22 –– Customer
Customer ROE
ROE drivers
drivers 44 –– Deliver (right
(right reference
reference
education: Deliver data
data
education: Comms;
Comms; required data)
data) 88 –– Balanced
Balanced
Monthly
Monthly finance
finance required for
for scorecard
meetings; forecasting
forecasting & & scorecard
meetings; customer.
customer. reporting
endorsement budgeting
budgeting reporting
endorsement
66 –– Self-service
Self-service
reporting
reporting (access
(access to
to
planning
planning
assumptions,
assumptions,
55 –– Full
Full WDM
WDM drivers,
drivers, etc.)
etc.)
3
3–– Consider
Consider level
level 55 –– Formal
Formal
solution
solution
of
of detail
detail required
required mentorship
mentorship
2 4
4–– Full
Full integrated
77 –– Leverage
Leverage from
from
2–– Agreed
Agreed sources
sources integrated 44 –
– Align
Align planning
planning
of planning
planning & systems
systems
of truth
truth & model
model with
with
1
1–– Agree
Agree data
data forecasting
forecasting &
& implementation
implementation
performance performance
performance mgt
mgt
types
types required
required for
for performance mgtmgt
tool system
system 44 –– knowledge
knowledge
budgeting
budgeting and
and le tool
library
library //
ltip
Data
forecasting
forecasting Mu ps repository
repository
77 –– Tool
Tool dro
consolidation &
consolidation &
retire
retire legacy
legacy
s 3
3–– Create
Create aa model
model
e
ess with
with business
business 66 –– Co-ordination
Co-ordination
roc drivers, planning
drivers, planning of
of business
business
te dP assumptions
assumptions and
and planning/
planning/ finance/
finance/
33 –– Official
3
3–– Common
Common ra scenarios
scenarios in
in centre
centre Official strategy
strategy forums
teg standard forums
hierarchies
hierarchies &
& standard
other
other master
master data
data
In induction
induction process
process
governance
governance 5
5–– Determine
Determine level
level
of 44 –– Cross-BU
Cross-BU forum
of detail
detail and
and forum
business to
to identify
identify pain
pain
business
2
2–– Clearer
Clearer rules
rules segmentation points,
points, develop
develop review
review 55 –– Early
Early SBU
SBU 66 –– Clarify
Clarify use
use of
of
segmentation tools
&
& controls
controls over
over required tools & & efficiency
efficiency targets with
targets with clear
clear GL
GL vs.
vs. PPM
PPM for
for 22 –– Understand
Understand & &
required opportunities
opportunities assumptions planning communicate
versions
versions 2
2–– Establish
Establish rules
rules assumptions planning communicate roles
roles
& &
& responsibilities
responsibilities
& responsibilities
&
& central
central co-
co- (finance teams)
teams)
11 –
– Reduce
Reduce Excel
Excel 33 –– Design
Design central
central
ordination
ordination 22 –– Design
use
use –– better
better using
using Design future
future analytical
analytical
existing systems
existing systems process
process tools/view
tools/view 11 –– regular
regular
Systems
1 1
1 –– Clear
Clear
1–– Agree
Agree holistic
holistic forums
forums with
with set
set
process accountability
accountability for
for
process map
map objectives
objectives (1-2
(1-2
process
process
components per
per month)
month)
components

Page 210
Transformation Deliverables (1 of 6)
Integrated processes
[Client diagrams]
Page 211
[Client diagrams]
Page 212
Data
[Client diagrams]
Page 213
Systems
[Client diagrams]
Page 214
Process
[Client diagrams]
Page 215
Knowledge Sharing
[Client diagrams]
Page 216
Master Data Management
Outcomes of the Group Work and Background Material
Page 217
What is Master Data?
Supplier Master Data Product Master Data Transactional Data Reference Data
Customer Name Customer Address Product Name Asset Code Quantity Price Warehouse Code
ABC Pipe Fabricator Offic, Street, Country 10m Pipe 123456789 2 12272.00 00012
• Master Data is data about business entities, such as Products, Customers, Business Units and Suppliers,
that provides context for business transactions and is also hierarchical data used within an organisation to
record structure between those business entities
• In a broader sense the term is often used to refer to any data in an organisation which needs to be used
for multiple purposes but should be consistent across them
• Another use of Master Data Management is to manage the hierarchical relationships between
performance measurement metrics, their relationships to KPIs, whole of business metrics and the
business strategy. This can ensure that metrics are calculated and reported consistently across an
organisation
• It forms the foundation and structure to answer key business questions (e.g. what are my top selling
products), enable insight into customer behaviour (e.g. what are our customers buying) and drive
competitive advantage (e.g. what new products should we offer)
Page 218
Which data means the most?
> For every transactional record…
Transactional data
makes up 20% -25%
 In order to ensure data quality (accuracy,

completeness, timeliness and currency) across
transactional reporting, it is critical to focus on
ensuring that the underlying Master Data is
correct – The majority of a transaction’s data is
Master Data makes up based on Master Data
75% - 80% of the record’s
data
Page 219
What is Master Data Management?
Master Data Management is the efficient production and integration of the enterprise data using a set of
standards, procedures, good practices and technology solutions which are enforced by stakeholders,
managed by data stewards and practiced by everyone in the organization
Master Data Management is: Master Data Management is not:

 A practice incorporated into the daily  An independent function that dictates
activities and mindset of the organization standards and take sole responsibility for
data quality
 A cross-function/cross-system, process to
deliver data integrity  Purely a technology solution to address all
data issues
 Comprised of people, process, standards
and technology  Synonymous with data cleansing –this is a
supporting activity
 Continuous improvement process that has
to be advocated and adopted by the  A one time project initiative which can be
organization deployed and forgotten
Page 220
Page 221
Presentation Workshops held 26 & 27 May 2011
Page 222
IBM SWOT
Strengths Weaknesses
Functional Functional
• CFO Portal is seen as a strong fit with future requirements • Perceived lack of integration with Clarity remains
• Blueprint approach to fast track deployments • Activity Based Costing via SPSS not seen as strong as
• Flexibility in Planning & Forecasting with integrated SAS/ALG
workflow • SAP BW connectors will always be more current than IBM’s
• Strong on managing hierarchies, data mining and drill • Question on data source accessibility
down/through
• Access to the Cognos BI Semantic layer Non Functional
• Scalability seen as strong with accounts up to 90k users • Two licences required for connectors to function
• Direct connection to SAP BW via ODBC • Perceived complexity in the overall Product suite
• Proposed solution is toolkit based rather than fully
Non Functional integrated solution
• Good integration with SAP via connectors for ERP only
• High installed user base
• Accessibility of skilled resource
Opportunities Threats
• Use of blueprints will aid in the speed to market for rapid • Continuous cost/expenditure of an expanded toolset
deployment • Heavy reliance on Tridant as a resource provider with some
• Ability to use Cognos over SAP BW for Finance , Retail limited alternatives
Parcels etc
• Under utilised investment in TM1
Page 223
SAS SWOT
• Strong analytic capability as SAS’s core strength • MDM and Dataflux has only been in [Country] for the last 6
• Focussed “point” based solution directed at analytics and months
driver analysis • Will require multiple models to support differing
• Will enable profitability views for Customer, Product, governance and management information requirements
Channel and Organisation • Scenario modelling is a strength but will still require
• XL Based user interface will be familiar to Finance people development by Analysts
• Metric break-down maps based on business drivers
• Data Quality is managed within SAS. Data definitions are Non Functional
managed separately outside the core product • Partnership reliance on Agility and a few other independent
Non Functional providers/individuals
• Integrated solution linking back to MS Office & Exchange • Has a heavy reliance on power users
• Will also integrate and deliver via iPad/iPhone devices • Doesn’t have ‘out-of-the-box’ solution starters like IBM
• Is a business tool focussed on Business/Finance Users • Perceived complications associated with integration across
• Will integrate with SAP BW other solutions (ie SAP)
• Considered ‘Best of Breed’ in Activity Based Costing
• Mature product with 30 years of development with an
annual investment in Research & Development
• Considered to be able to bring thought leadership to the
table on Planning, Budgeting and performance Management
• There is potential for re-use of the tools elsewhere with the • Lacking level of local vendor support
organisation • Lease model for licensing may change at any time
• SAS may expand our thinking on Performance Management • Has a high cost to maintain
Page 224
SAP SWOT
• Suite integration between ERP and BW • SAP BI Suite has been stated as being harmonized for look and
• Mobile Concept application and Web solution well presented feel, with differences still apparent in the User Interface
and appears to be a good fit for the organisation between the modules
• Workflow process control s seen as quite strong in planning • SAP Toolset will require integration to be built between
cycle modules
• ALG is seen as a viable costing tool, but not as strong as SAS • Business Objects is seen as not being successfully deployed in
• SAP Business Objects Data Quality tools already in use at [Client]
[Client] • There are different data definitions between the different
tools
Non Functional
• Strong architectural alignment within the organisation Non Functional
• Strong Vendor Relationship • Uncertain direction from SAP on predictive analytics
• Strong Vendor understanding of [Client] business • Cost of continuous change within SAP is an uncertain impact
• Integration with MS Office products • Multiple products will require many skillsets to deliver/govern
• Availability of resource support via third party vendors • Licensing model is revenue based and not downwards scalable
• No specific pre-defined templates or blueprints for [Client]
• Absence of reference site for proposed solution
• Likely high cost of additional modules which is based on
number of [Client] employees
• Expansion opportunity with Current architecture and business • We may be potentially over exposed in our vendor relationship
scope • The Future of BWA is in question
• Hana as a tool for future development • Size of SAP footprint in terms of agility and speed to market
• Potential for a unified solution
Page 225
Page 226
Follow up
meetings
meetings
• Follow up meetings were held with each vendor, as required, mainly to discuss license costs
Additional
• Vendors were provided with a list of queries data request
data request
• Vendors presented their responses to the queries, accompanied by relevant documentation
• The PCG reviewed vendor SWOTs and scores to ensure balance and objectivity PCG
PCG
assessment
• An implied “order” (1-2-3) was compiled for in-scope finance services
• A roadmap was developed based on the enablers and work-streams provided by the project team
Group
Group
• A workshop was run to compare the SWOT analysis completed for each vendor assessment
• Individuals then compiled scores for each vendor, which were analysed by the project team
• IBM, SAS and SAP made presentations on their ability to support [Client]’s Finance Information management Vendor
presentation
presentation
requirements, which had been provided a week prior to the presentations
• Each presentation was followed by SWOT analysis by the group
Vendor selection process
Detailed Vendor Raw Assessment Scoring
Statistical Participant Scoring (scored out of 3)
Values IBM SAP SAS

Analysis & Advice 2.15 2.12 2.50
Planning and forecasting 2.44 2.24 2.18
Performance Reporting 2.53 2.33 2.21
Functional
Finance Systems and Data 2.07 1.28 2.18

Accounting, tax, Governance 1.35 2.00
Specialist Finance Services 1.25 1.50
Transactional Services 1.00 2.00
Credit Management 1.25 2.00 First rank
Second rank
Useability 2.23 1.76 1.93 Third rank
Agility & Flexibility 2.43 1.96 1.88 No Contest
Architectural Fit 1.91 2.47 1.83
Non-Functional
Speed to Market 2.07 1.65 1.60

Market Share 2.50 1.83 2.13
Vendor Relationship 2.07 2.53 1.77
Product Profile 2.27 1.94 2.50
Support Requirements 1.78 1.86 1.67
Upgradability 1.90 1.81 1.80
Page 227
Service and Delivery Model against IBM RFI Response

Taxation Strategic
Compliance Planning
Advisory & Advice
Financial Policies &
Procedures
Taxation Risk Corporate Project Analysis Financial
Management Development & Advice Planning
Direct Finance Service
Delivery Model
Accounting Analysis
Benchmarking &
Risk Mgmt & Advice
Research
Efficiency Manage
Forecasting
Support
Financial Manage Shared Services
ViewPoint
Master Data Interface
Governance
ViewPoint
Audit
Quality
Regulatory
Compliance Manage
Infrastructure

Reporting &
External Process
ReportingData
/ Collection Recharging Finance Staffing &
Execute Internal
Reports &
Reconciliations
SAP CATs
Reporting Execution
Stock
Advice
Area of Key Areas

Interest of Focus
Page 228
Service and Delivery Model against SAS RFI Response

Taxation Strategic
Compliance Planning
Advisory & Advice
Financial Procedures
Taxation Risk Corporate Project Analysis
Management Development & Advice Planning
Delivery Model
Accounting
Benchmarking & Analysis
Risk Mgmt
Research & Advice
Efficiency Manage
Forecasting
Support
Financial Manage Shared Services
Governance Master Data Interface

Audit
Quality
Regulatory
Compliance Manage
Infrastructure

Reporting &
External Process
Execute Internal
Reports &
SAP CATs
Reconciliations
Reporting Execution
Stock
Advice
Area of Key Areas

Interest of Focus
Page 229
Service and Delivery Model against SAP RFI Response

Taxation Strategic
Compliance Planning
Advisory & Advice
Financial Procedures
Taxation Risk Project Analysis
Management & Advice Planning
Delivery Model
Accounting Corporate
Benchmarking & Analysis
Risk Mgmt Development
Research & Advice
Efficiency Manage
Forecasting
Support
Manage
Financial Shared Services
Master Data
Governance Interface
Control Governance
Manage Data
Audit Quality
Regulatory
Manage
Compliance
Infrastructure

Reporting &
External Process
Execute Internal
Reports &
SAP CATs
Reconciliations
Reporting Execution
Stock
Advice
Area of Key Areas

Interest of Focus
Page 230
Industry View – Ease of Use
Industry analysis demonstrates no clear advantage for any one solution when considering
Useability
Business Intelligence industry trends

• Shift from measurement to analysis, forecasting and optimisation.
Industry increasing use of interactive visualisation, predictive analytics, SAP Business
dashboards and online analytical processing. Objects IBM Cognos 8
• Data discovery tools are offering highly interactive and graphical user
interfaces built on in-memory architectures to address business users’ SAS
unmet ease-of-use and rapid deployment needs. The data discovery
platform momentum accentuates the need for a portfolio approach (SAP
Business explorer, IBM Cognos Express) 3.
• Industry-perceived struggle between business users’ need for ease of
use and flexibility on the one hand, and IT’s need for standards and
control on the other. Ease of use now surpassing functionality as
dominant selection criteria3.
Perception of ease of use mapped against the complexity of analysis for the Chart represents customer perception and not Gartner's opinion. Adjusted for
SAS, IBM and SAP offerings is presented opposite. complexity of deployment (see Appendix 1). Ease of use score is a combined
measure of ease of use for end users and ease of use for developers, each scored
on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1-2 = poor, 3-5 = average, 6-7 = outstanding. The size
of the bubbles represents implementation costs per user. The orange bubbles
show vendors whose customers reported above-average business benefits on our
survey. N=718 Source: Gartner1
Business Intelligence maxims:

• Business Intelligence is of No Value if Users Ignore Tool2
• Spreadsheet culture typically evolves over time to bridge
the gap between the business need and what BI provides.4
Page 231
Business Performance Management Application Suites

BI Platforms
Data Warehousing Platforms
Master Data Management
Data Quality and Data Integration Tools
Page 232
Business Performance Mgmt Vendor Marketplace Assessment
Gartner Research and Forrester both position IBM and SAP as Leaders within the Business Performance
Management Suite marketplace. However Gartner place SAS in the Challengers quadrant, whereas
Forrester place SAS just within the Leaders segment. It is of note that the Forrester assessment dates from
4Q 2009 and that there have been significant products releases for all three vendors since then.
MQ for Corporate Performance Management Suites
Page 233
The Forrester Wave – Business Performance Management
SAS Institute: the thought leader in strategy, forecasting, and costing. With leading capabilities in cost and
profitability management and predictive analytics, SAS Institute is a smart choice for sophisticated companies.
The predictive technology supports complex planning and forecasting applications. SAS Institute also offers a
broad set of analytical applications, which include solutions for IT, human capital management (HCM), and several
other industries. While SAS Institute does not have as much market presence as the other BPS leaders, it has done
an excellent job in establishing thought leadership related to strategy management and activity-based
management.
SAP: scoring with a best-of-breed product portfolio. By combining its BPS assets with those of BusinessObjects
nearly two years ago, SAP has developed first-rate capabilities in each of the four BPS core components, as well as
an evolving set of analytical applications. Each of the four BPS components scored first or second in its respective
category within the current offering criteria. SAP continues to move the portfolio forward with a road map to
achieve user interface harmonization with a common process engine and metadata management.
IBM Cognos: shoring up its BPS foundation. A perennial top-tier BPS player with mature BPS solutions, IBM Cognos
is moving its solutions to an updated architecture featuring TM1 as the data engine. This architectural refresh,
along with improvements to the application user experience, configuration tooling, and data integration, should
help IBM Cognos reassert itself among the upper echelon of BPS. IBM Cognos has a broad portfolio of BPS products,
including analytical applications and many purpose-built planning blueprints, as well as strong competencies in BI
and reporting.
Clarity Systems: making its mark in planning and financial reporting. As a pure-play BPS vendor, Clarity Systems is
establishing a strong track record in planning and financial reporting. The software vendor’s focus on addressing
key issues for finance has led to the establishment of a top-tier planning solution, as well as a differentiated
offering for automating the entire financial reporting and regulatory filing process, including generation of XBRL
statements and regulatory documents.
November 19, 2009© 2010, Forrester Research, Inc
Page 234The Forrester Wave™: Business Performance Solutions, Q4 2009 For Business Process & Applications Professionals
Gartner MQ: IBM – Corporate Performance Suites
Strengths
• IBM offers a combination of CPM applications and BI platform capabilities for organizations of different types and sizes. IT competes
effectively in enterprise-level CPM deals, and IBM Cognos Express is gaining presence in the midmarket (with over 500 customers). One
of the initial BI vendors to venture into the CPM market, IBM has remained a leader, owing to its core strengths in BP&F (which still
drives most CPM deals) and strategy management, and has maintained a strong market presence. Its Controller product for financial
consolidation continues to be developed and to gain ground, and the underlying BI platform can be used to report on data from these
applications. With Cognos 10, IBM has introduced a unified work space for consuming all BI and PM capabilities, like scorecarding,
planning, reporting and scenario analysis, as well as adding built-in collaboration capabilities to enhance the decision-making process.
• IBM extended the core capability of its Cognos suite by increasing the performance and scalability of TM1 and delivering on its CPM road
map to become increasingly TM1- centric. For example, IBM Cognos TM1 can be extended with IBM SPSS Modeler to provide extended
statistical modeling. Furthermore, IBM Cognos Business Viewpoint provides dimension management of multiple hierarchies, current and
future views, and versions across the Cognos portfolio.
• IBM recently announced two acquisitions (OpenPages and Clarity Systems) that have strengthened its breadth of offerings for the CPM
market. OpenPages provides extended functionality for risk management and compliance activities related to the financial close. Clarity
provides more-direct expansion in CPM, and Clarity FSR, the most deployed and proven product for financial statement production,
further strengthens the suite. IBM announced that the Clarity CPM suite will continue to be developed and supported, but would only be
sold to new customers through channel partners. Clarity FSR expansion plans include supporting additional finance functions related to
close management, and other financial governance functionality.
• IBM extends its CPM functionality through horizontal and vertical "blueprints" that Cognos' licensed users can download free of charge to
reduce time to deployment and implementation costs; however, there is no application support for these blueprints and they may not
include all the desired functionality, requiring additional design and configuration. Blueprints are also used to give Cognos vertical
(including pharmaceuticals and life sciences, banking and financial services, manufacturing, public sector, retail, and oil and gas) and
functional capabilities (including risk-adjusted profitability, S&OP planning, IT cost to serve and specialized scorecards) outside core
CPM applications. Its relationship to IBM Business Analytics and Optimization (BAO) services capability extends the use of Cognos'
solutions and blueprints, and has started to deliver verticalizations of its CPM products beyond the current suite of vertical blueprints.
• BAO — which incorporates the IBM CPM suite capabilities — is one of four growth initiatives for IBM, and an area of large investment. In
2010, IBM invested another $6 billion to acquire 17 companies, including Clarity Systems, Coremetrics, OpenPages, Netezza and Unica,
supporting the Business Analytics growth area, and grew the number of Business Analytics solutions. IBM also added over 4,000
consultants in 2010, and now has more than 7,800 dedicated consultants in the BAO practice. IBM has demonstrated strong double-digit
growth in 2010 for its Business Analytics business.
Page Source:
235 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Corporate Performance Management Suites Publication Date: 8 March 2011/ID Number: G0021014
Gartner MQ: IBM – Corporate Performance Suites
Cautions
• IBM has started to leverage its acquisition of Cognos TM1 more effectively, and plans to utilize this as the analytic engine for
its financial PM portfolio in the future. Although customers can now have one contribution interface for end users, whether
they are deploying the analytic-planning-style applications of Cognos TM1 or distributed planning applications of Cognos
Planning, the fact remains that IBM still has two overlapping planning options, which continue to cause some confusion
among prospects and existing users.
• Controller's functionality and market presence is improving, but the need to push data to Cognos TM1 for management
reporting is seen as a weakness by some prospects, compared with some competitor solutions. IBM had embedded Cognos
TM1 technology into the consolidation system to provide an analytic data foundation that easily combines data from other
performance management processes and delivers reporting, dashboarding and analysis using Cognos BI. However,
competitors may attack the need to have some additional Cognos TM1 and BI licenses. Now, with the acquisition of Clarity
FSR, Cognos has expanded its reporting and disclosure functionality, but must incorporate the recent acquisitions into its
overall offering and clearly communicate the product road map. IBM's BAO initiative has the potential to drive more
business for the IBM Cognos CPM applications. Although the momentum is growing, it is still Gartner's opinion that IBM Global
Business Services is also focused on competitor products. While the vision of BAO is promising, its recent growth indicates
progress on execution and impact on revenue generation.
Page Source:
236 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Corporate Performance Management Suites Publication Date: 8 March 2011/ID Number: G0021014
Gartner MQ: SAP – Corporate Performance Suites
Strengths
• SAP has a broad portfolio of applications and continues to grow its CPM footprint through acquisitions, including the 2010
acquisition of a partner, Cundus, for disclosure management, and its overall vision is very strong. The key strategic
components of SAP BusinessObjects Strategy Management, SAP BusinessObjects Planning and Consolidation, SAP
BusinessObjects Profitability and Cost Management, and SAP BusinessObjects Financial Consolidation deliver a good breadth
and depth of functionality in all areas of CPM. Its recent acquisition of Cundus will provide integrated disclosure
management capabilities, an emerging area in CPM financial reporting. SAP's current CPM release, EPM 10.0, Phase 1,
started ramping up in December 2010.
• SAP has improved its sales effectiveness through a better focus on its customers and prospects. CPM applications are sold
through a mix of a direct sales force and indirect partners and channels. The CPM applications are directly supported by a
dedicated CPM sales team, which supports the core account executives who own key accounts. SAP's global routes to market
and strong relationships with service providers mean that it is well-positioned to continue growing its market share as
organizations deploy CPM more widely. SAP has a partnership with Microsoft to support SAP BusinessObjects Planning and
Consolidation as a preferred solution, and this is seen in the marketplace..
• SAP is executing well on an aggressive road map to deliver integration among the various acquired CPM applications in its
portfolio and integration with SAP NetWeaver BW and SAP BusinessObjects BI. SAP has delivered CPM integration with SAP
BusinessObjects BI, SAP NetWeaver BW and SAP ERP applications. It has introduced industry planning applications for the
public sector, healthcare and banking. SAP has released a number of line-of-business applications, including Capex Planning,
Liquidity Planning, Sales Volume Planning, and Sales and Operations Planning. In keeping with BusinessObjects' traditionally
heterogeneous strategy, the CPM products can be purchased and deployed without the need for the SAP NetWeaver/BI/BW
stack. SAP BusinessObjects Planning and Consolidation NetWeaver is now the product of choice for most SAP customers with
BP&F requirements, and it grew by 54% in 2010 as a result, where it now has more licensed NW customers than Microsoft.
• SAP's linkage of CPM with governance, risk and compliance (GRC) through its Strategy Management component is a visionary
move. Although this is initially relatively simple, it shows SAP's vision of linking PM with risk management, which is still early
in its evolution. In addition, we envision that SAP will bring more GRC/financial governance components to market in the
near future, including reconciliation management, disclosure management (integrating its acquisition of Cundus disclosure
management) and close management, as it has stated its vision of improving organizations' financial close. SAP also brought
a risk management and planning solution to market.
Page 237Gartner Magic Quadrant for Corporate Performance Management Suites

Source: Publication Date: 8 March 2011/ID Number: G0021014
Gartner MQ: SAP – Corporate Performance Suites
Cautions
• As with the last Magic Quadrant, there is still confusion in the user base about the role of the acquired products, and about
the impact of the EPM road map on existing SAP products. EPM 7.5 has addressed some of this, because the release has
broader integration across the EPM portfolio and more integration with NetWeaver BI; however, EPM 10.0 provides more
clarity. While SAP BusinessObjects Planning and Consolidation is its stated strategic solution for BP&F, based upon which it
recently introduced a specific industry public sector planning application, SAP has also unveiled a CPM planning product
dedicated to the public sector in North America based on BW Integrated Planning in early 2009. These two product
announcements cloud SAP's EPM message.
• Although SAP has committed to the support of strategic enterprise management (SEM) and related products to support CPM
(such as BW-Integrated Planning, which still has a significant user base) through 2017 and potentially beyond, some SAP
customers that have made major investments in these solutions are disappointed that these products are no longer viewed
as strategic CPM products by SAP. Although SAP is still supporting these products, users will have to purchase EPM
applications if they want leading-edge CPM functionality. Although many users are planning possible moves to the EPM
solution, some are looking at alternatives, instead of assuming that SAP is the only answer. Although we expect SAP to retain
most of these customers, it is an opportunity for competitors to target the SAP user base.
• SAP's user reference responses were below-average, consistent with the 2008 and 2009 CPM Magic Quadrants. This indicates
that there are still improvements to be made in service and support areas.

Gartner MQ: SAS – Corporate Performance Suites
Strengths
• SAS has moved this year from the Visionaries section of the Magic Quadrant to the Challengers section. It has formed an
important partnership with Accenture for implementation services that has given it an increased ability to execute. Most of
its sales of CPM modules are also not part of a CPM suite sale; rather, they're targeted solutions for industries and specific
disciplines.
• SAS still does well in evaluations that are focused on profitability modeling and strategy management, because these aspects
of its CPM suite are particularly strong. SAS Activity-Based Management is its most widely deployed CPM application,
followed by SAS Strategy Management. However, SAS does cross-sell its CPM applications, and users that start with these
application areas often deploy other aspects of CPM from SAS.
• SAS is strengthening its focus on PM as a broader solution. It has continued to develop its messaging around the combination
of its CPM applications with other aspects of PM (including risk management, sustainability management, human and IT
capital analysis, and other operationally focused solutions); however, it often sells these solutions separate from CPM suite
deals. This leverages Strategy Management as the centerpiece of an integrated solution, with strategy maps providing the
starting point for managing performance and the means of monitoring execution.
• SAS exhibited good growth in 2010, expanding its CPM base to nearly 1,100 customers and is increasingly leveraging its
forecasting and predictive capabilities in the context of CPM. These can be used to forecast the results of any metrics
displayed in a dashboard, scorecard or strategy map, and to adopt a statistical approach of confidence levels toward the
likely achievement of forecasts and objectives. SAS has good industry solutions for financial services, telecom,
manufacturing and the public sector. Organizations using SAS for industry-specific solutions often consider it over a more
general CPM implementation.
• SAS scored slightly below average in the customer survey, although its scores improved, compared with last year's survey,
showing that SAS improved in all categories, which is evidence of growing execution capability. This positively impacts its
ability to execute.

Gartner MQ: SAS – Corporate Performance Suites
Cautions
• SAS still suffers from a lack of visibility in the CPM suite market, compared with the other large vendors (Oracle, SAP and
IBM). Momentum within SAS customers for PM embedded into vertical solutions further compounds this challenge.
• As the CPM market is evolving to include financial governance components like disclosure management, SAS has not been
keeping up with these innovations.
• SAS's functional strength can also work against it, particularly sophisticated deployments; in some organizations, it is
perceived as a complex solution that requires both significant and specialized skills. This is not necessarily the case for its
PM solutions, but SAS needs to work harder to remove this perception.
• Although SAS remains strong in strategy management and profitability modeling, these are still not the focus of the majority
of CPM evaluations. We expect these areas of CPM to become increasingly important, especially as organizations increasingly
focus on cost optimization and growth; however, SAS's competitors are also making progress in these areas, notably SAP,
with BusinessObjects.
• SAS has relied on its internal professional-services organization for most implementations of its CPM solution; however, large
service providers (such as Accenture) are pushing for increased partnerships, although it will be challenged to drive those
relationships up to the global level.

BI Platform Vendor Marketplace Assessment
Gartner Research and Forrester both position all three candidate vendors (IBM, SAP and SAS) as Leaders
within the BI Platform marketplace.
Gartner Magic Quadrant for BI Platforms, 2011
Page 241
According to Forrester, all vendors have strong BI
Platform capabilities, with SAS scoring lower on
some key measures
Page 242
The Forrester Wave – BI platforms
SAS continues to amaze the market with uninterrupted 32-year growth. Even though the
integration of IBM SPSS and open source R into third-party BI applications pose some new
challenges to SAS, it does remain a leader in integrated BI and advanced analytics. While SAS is
a $2.3 billion company, it grew mostly organically, with much fewer acquisitions than other
large software vendors. As a result, its BI products are more seamlessly integrated, and SAS can
enjoy the freedom of almost fully concentrating on innovation rather than integration. SAS also
leads the market in the area of embedded analytics, where advanced analytics are embedded
and executed right in DBMS engines, leveraging their processing power and scalability and
eliminating the need to move data between analytical and relational data stores.12 And SAS
continues to address the innate complexity of its powerful BASE SAS programming language with
new products SAS Rapid Predictive Modeler (RPM). Rather than coding in BASE SAS, analysts can
now use RPM to automatically step through a behind-the-scenes workflow of data preparation,
variable selection, and transformation; fit a variety of algorithms; and perform model
assessment based on best practices developed by SAS to create predictive models.
But there’s no time to rest for SAS either. It can do a better job on prepackaged ERP BI
solutions — traditional strengths of its top large competitors IBM, Oracle, and SAP. And even
though its JMP product provides in-memory advanced data visualization capabilities, SAS does
need to offer a broader alternative to all of the latest in-memory analytics products. Even
though Forrester is still a big fan of seamlessly integrated BI platforms, perhaps SAS should
consider more acquisitions to accelerate the pace of closing all of the current gaps in its BI
portfolio.
October 20, 2010 © 2010, Forrester Research, Inc

Page 243The Forrester Wave™: Enterprise Business Intelligence Platforms, Q4 2010 For Business Process Professionals
SAP BusinessObjects believes in and delivers the “best BI tool for each job.” When you’re
looking for the top report writer, look no further than Crystal, which is probably OEMed and
embedded into more applications than any other commercial BI tool. SAP BusinessObjects
Explorer is an innovative product combining the power of OLAP on the back end with the
simplicity of search-like UI and the flexibility of faceted exploration and analysis (typically the
realm of search, not BI tools).9 Xcelsius remains popular with many executives because they
can take the self-contained Flash files, which combine dashboard application and data, on the
road and use it on laptops in a disconnected mode — even without SAP software installed on
that machine. BEx is still the most widely used and popular query and analysis tool for SAP BW
users. And last but not least, Business Warehouse Accelerator appliance combines the flexibility
of columnar and inverted index databases with the speed of in-memory database to provide a
unique and powerful DBMS optimized for BI. Additionally, SAP leads the large vendor pack in
self-service BI SaaS offerings.
Alas, all that power does not come without a price, and the price to be paid is product-to-
product integration and object reuse. Some SAP BusinessObjects products still require separate
development environments and have different user interfaces, and not all objects can be
reused from product to product. While SAP will close that gap somewhat in the next release
with a more common UI, a common prompting engine, and drill-through capabilities from some
products to others, full and seamless integration is probably still at least a couple of major
releases away.

IBM Cognos wants to be your one and only BI provider, from hardware to desktop. Indeed,
between hardware, software, and applications, including the office apps from the Lotus suite,
and more than $10 billion in BI-related investments, IBM is the only vendor that can provide
onestop shopping for BI platform and tools. Furthermore, IBM GBS, including the newly formed
BAO consulting organization, is uniquely positioned to supplement BI software and applications
with strategic and management consulting services. The biggest difference from the 2008
evaluation comes in the form of tighter integration with multiple IBM products, such as
Metadata
Workbench, Business Viewpoint, DB2 Cubing Services, and Lotus. Additionally, IBM Cognos leads
the market with metadata-generated BI applications (Adaptive Application Framework, or AAF),
where all components of a complete BI solution (including reports) are automatically generated
from a single metadata set — making BI architecture, design, implementation, and support
much more agile.8 And last, but not least, IBM Cognos now mounts a serious challenge to SAS
and Information Builders with a mainframe version of its BI applications.
IBM Cognos is by no means done with its portfolio of BI tools. There’s still plenty to work on.
Supplementing its in-memory TM1 OLAP offering with modeless exploration and analysis similar
to QlikTech, TIBCO Spotfire, and Microsoft PowerPivot is a necessity, not a luxury, these days —
it’s a gap that IBM still has to fill. And IBM Cognos still needs to catch up to superior self-service
BI SaaS offerings from its main competitor, SAP Business Objects.

Gartner MQ: IBM – BI Platforms
Strengths
• IBM continues to strengthen its BI vision leadership. During 2010, IBM unified its BI, analytics and performance management software
assets — made up of software from IBM Cognos, SPSS and Applix (a company acquired by Cognos in 2007) — under the moniker Business
Analytics. Bringing these capabilities together sent a strong message to the market that companies need to consider a wide range of
analytic capabilities in order to accomplish their business imperatives. Coupled with an 8,000-strong business analytics and optimization
(BAO) consulting service line as part of IBM's Global Business Services, IBM Business Analytics can offer both a tools-based and/or
solution driven offering, along with significant vertical expertise, to customers and prospects.
• IBM introduced a significant new release of its BI platform, IBM Cognos BI v10.1, in October 2010. The platform builds on the integrated
IBM Cognos 8 v4 platform and adds a unifying work space for all BI content called Business Insight. Performance improvement is a
hallmark of the new release, including significant query engine enhancements to address noted customer concerns. The in-memory
OLAP product, IBM Cognos TM1, and the in-memory real-time processing from the IBM Cognos Now product, are fully fledged data
sources for the IBM Cognos BI v10.1 architecture and are fully integrated in the end user interface, enabling interactive analysis and
driving the integrated planning model for which IBM Cognos has always been noted. Integration of statistics and predictive analytics into
the BI platform is also enhanced. Products supporting collaborative BI and decision management have also been introduced. Early v10.1
customers report a virtually seamless upgrade from Cognos 8 v4, forestalling a potential hurdle for adoption.
• IBM's 2009 acquisition of SPSS is advancing very nicely, readily allowing IBM to bid for predictive analytic and statistical use cases not
possible before. Coupled with research and client projects from IBM Research, it's not surprising that customers rate IBM's predictive
analytic capabilities well above the average of other vendors in this analysis. In Gartner's opinion, this addition is fueling significant
demand for services and solutions within the BAO service line because organizations typically lack the necessary skills to deploy these
solutions themselves.
• Launched in 2009, the mid-market product IBM Cognos Express, based on Cognos TM1 and Cognos BI products, offers integrated
reporting, analysis, and planning, and has been sold through IBM's massive partner sales channel to hundreds of customers worldwide.
The all-in-one package is modestly priced, and is available as on-premises software. Customer reviews of IBM Cognos Express for this
Magic Quadrant analysis are largely positive, albeit based on a small number of references.
• The company continues to show an ongoing strong vision in applying its business analytics platform to support BI applications and
performance management projects more widely. IBM has continued to expand its solution portfolio of packaged analytical applications
based on the IBM Cognos platform, with horizontal CRM, supply chain, finance and HR applications as well as several industry-specific
products for financial services and retail firms. In late 2010, the company also introduced IBM Cognos Consumer Insight, which
integrates text analytics, social media content and reporting/alerting capabilities to better understand customer sentiment. This
product leverages existing packaged IBM software assets with emerging technologies from IBM Research labs.
Page 246Gartner Magic Quadrant

Source: for Business Intelligence Publication Date: 27 January 2011/ID Number: G00210036
Gartner MQ: IBM – BI Platforms
Cautions
• Twenty-three percent of references indicate that performance continues to be problematic (as it was last year), nearly
double the average response for other vendors evaluated in this Magic Quadrant. Over 80% of those companies surveyed
indicated they are using the latest version of the software, which at the time of the survey was IBM Cognos 8 v4. IBM Cognos
BI v10.1, released just after the customer survey closed, has specific functionality (including significant query engine
enhancements) to address performance concerns. Initial feedback from v10.1 beta customers regarding improved query
performance has been positive, but more customer feedback is necessary to ensure that performance issues are under
control. An enhanced Cognos Lifecycle Manager has received positive reviews, ensuring consistency of results when
migrating to the new version. Adjustments to existing semantic models may be necessary to take full advantage of the new
performance enhancements.
• References consider the Cognos products more difficult to implement and use than competitors. These are cited as two
major reasons limiting expanded Cognos BI deployments. As such, improved system administration and end-user usability
were major development themes of the v10.1 release. References indicate that IBM BI software is used largely in a
consumer/casual user mode, reflecting deployment models at customer sites. Reporting is the most extensively deployed
component, followed by ad hoc query and OLAP analysis.
• License cost continues to be another source of customer angst. References for components of the IBM platform — TM1 and
SPSS customers specifically — report above average license fees per user. Cost was also noted as a blocking factor for
expanding BI platform deployment across the business.
• In Gartner's opinion, we see continuing signals (as part of ongoing customer inquiry) that limit IBM's ability to strategically
sell its BI platform to firms with application stack-centric sourcing policies, especially those customers that utilize Oracle
applications. For example, just over 20% of IBM Cognos customers indicate they plan or are considering discontinuing using
the software within five years, compared to a scant 3% for Oracle BI Enterprise Editions customers. Interestingly, IBM
customers also report that BI programs are more tactical than those of other megavendors' customers (even though 72%
consider IBM their BI standard), which could also indicate that influences from other parts of the organization may drive
future BI and analytics strategy and product decisions.
• IBM customers also continue to have less-than-optimal customer experiences, with support and sales interaction rated near
the bottom of all vendors reviewed in this report. The Cognos acquisition occurred nearly three years ago and ratings have
not recovered to anywhere near pre-IBM levels. So far, SPSS customers do not report diminished customer experience
ratings.

Gartner MQ: SAP – BI Platforms
Strengths
• The combination of SAP NetWeaver BW and SAP BusinessObjects revenue accounts for the largest share of the BI platform
market. The data and user volumes of the SAP customers' BI applications are among the largest (almost twice the average) in
the market, with more of its customers considering it an enterprise standard than most other vendors on the Magic Quadrant.
• SAP has one of the largest channel and services ecosystems: it is present in 127 countries with 5,250 channel partners, 1,350
value-added resellers globally and 850 OEMs. The combination of SAP and BusinessObjects represents the largest installed
base in the market. Gartner estimates this installed base to be more than 46,000 customers.
• Of the 13 BI platform capabilities evaluated during the Magic Quadrant research process, SAP BusinessObjects' reporting and
ad hoc query capabilities were defined by its customers to be its top strengths. While none of the SAP NetWeaver BW
capabilities were rated above the market average, OLAP analysis was rated highest, demonstrating that SAP BEx Analyzer is
still widely used over SAP NetWeaver BW. However, the OLAP tools of BusinessObjects XI were rated well below the market
average according to our survey. In order to address the OLAP needs of both SAP NetWeaver and SAP BusinessObjects
customers, new ad hoc multidimensional analysis products are being introduced: SAP BusinessObjects Analysis, Edition for
Microsoft Office, which became generally available in September 2010, and SAP BusinessObjects Analysis, Edition for OLAP,
which is expected to be available with the BI 4.0 release.
• SAP complements its BI platform with forward looking capabilities in the areas of: collaboration and decision support with its
StreamWork product, Text Analysis; search based data exploration with its Explorer product; and other enterprise information
management products with data integration, lineage and impact analysis, and data quality. Its vision for an in-memory
appliance, HANA, promises to solve many of the perennial performance issues of large complex BI deployments in general
(given its SQL and MDX access for third-party BI tools) and SAP BW in particular. SAP has also been one of the first of the
leading BI vendors to introduce a SaaS offering, BusinessObjects OnDemand BI. SAP has also made investments in mobile BI
with its Sybase acquisition and its SAP BusinessObjects Explorer iPhone/iPad application.
• The SAP Business Warehouse Accelerator and SAP BusinessObjects Explorer, Accelerated Version, provide options for
performance and implementation improvements for many in the installed base of SAP NetWeaver BW customers.

Gartner MQ: SAP – BI Platforms
Cautions
• Despite many new product announcements, such as HANA and the upcoming BusinessObjects 4.0 product release, SAP
BusinessObjects customers that have had inquiries with Gartner analysts have expressed increasing concern about the
BusinessObjects road map, given the product changes to support optimizations with the SAP Business Applications and
NetWeaver BW products, and the perceived higher cost of ownership. These customers have also told us that the migration,
implementation and integration choices can be confusing. These sentiments are supported by survey responses to the "view of
vendor's future" question, which indicated high levels of concern among SAP customers (twice as many of the SAP survey
respondents indicated "more concerned" about the vendor's future than the survey average). Many SAP NetWeaver BW
customers and SAP BusinessObjects customers are still determining what role these products will play in their future
architecture and BI strategy.
• Poor performance and implementation difficulty were cited as problems by more than 32% and 40% of the survey reference
customers, respectively (this is almost three times more often than the survey average). These survey results are consistent
with the many client conversations Gartner analysts have with clients about the performance and implementation challenges
of NetWeaver BW customers.
• Our market survey data shows that ratings for SAP's customer experience for its BI platform product, which includes ratings for
support, software quality and for sales experience are the lowest of any vendor in the survey. This is the fourth year in a row
for low scores. SAP has put in place programs to address customer issues with support and to address, more broadly, the
customer experience.
• The ability to achieve the business objectives driving the purchase of the BI platform (for example, make better decisions,
expand types of analysis, make information available to more users and so on) saw SAP ranked among the lowest in our BI
Magic Quadrant survey.
• New support and license terms, including customers being charged for upgrades which they had expected to be provided at
no/low cost, have led to poor experiences with SAP for some BusinessObjects customers.

Gartner MQ: SAS – BI Platforms
Strengths
• Unlike most other BI platform vendors, SAS focuses on advanced analytical techniques, such as data mining and predictive
modeling. As far as mind share and capabilities are concerned, SAS remains the "800-pound gorilla" in the analytics space,
with packaged applications enabling companies to analyze customers (for marketing, retention and risk assessments),
products (for product development, quality control and support) and corporate data, much in an industry context.
Reference customers do use traditional BI capabilities, but rate predictive capabilities the highest.
• SAS takes a solution-oriented analytic application approach to the market, which gives the company the advantage of having
the widest variety of cross-functional and vertically specific analytic applications out of the box. For example, the company
offers SAS Social Media Analytics, which integrates several products in its portfolio to better understand and act on
sentiment shifts in customer and/or influencer opinion. SAS is the market share leader for analytic applications in 2009 .
This enables the company to go to its customers with a content and solution-driven story instead of offering only technical
capabilities. Over 2,500 SAS customers are using more than 80 predefined BI applications today.
• The primary drivers for customers choosing SAS are functionality, data integration and company road map. The data
integration driver was rated No. 1 for all BI platforms reviewed, and references also rated SAS No. 1 for another type of
integration — with complementary BI capabilities. Functionality is most certainly a function of SAS's reputation in advanced
analytic techniques. Customers have an above average view of the vendor's future. Its customers also rate their sales
experience with SAS above average. Overall, SAS has a wide and loyal user base, many who've built careers around these
products.
• SAS has partnered with a number of database vendors (such as Teradata) to push the execution of the SAS models directly
into the database management system without moving the data. Not only does this reduce data duplication and movement,
it also allows SAS users to leverage power and scalability features of the database to run predictive models against very
large datasets with high performance.

Gartner MQ: SAS – BI Platforms
Cautions
• SAS's dominance in predictive analytics is being challenged on many fronts. In 2009, IBM's software group acquired SPSS,
SAS's biggest predictive analytics competitor, shortly after establishing a massive BAO consulting service line to lead its push
into the business analytics arena. Other competitors, including Information Builders, Tibco Software (Spotfire),
MicroStrategy, SAP and Microsoft, have either introduced or matured capabilities to make statistics, predictive analytic
models and forecasting algorithms more consumable in reports, dashboards and analytic applications. R, an open-source
predictive analytics software alternative to SAS, is making significant inroads, first into academic communities, and
increasingly into commercial and public sector organizations.
• SAS has a reputation of being an expensive system to license, implement and maintain. Customers surveyed for this report
rated it above average for BI platform ownership costs. SAS user volumes are lower than average of other vendors in this
report, resulting in higher than average costs. Not surprisingly, references indicate cost as one of the biggest barriers to
expansion within their firms. On a regular basis, Gartner hears from customers about ongoing costs of running SAS. They are
well aware of SAS's subscription-based policy for which contracts must be renewed each year, otherwise the software is
rendered inactive. So far, most users deem the opportunity cost of creating custom code for similar functionality or sourcing
from elsewhere as a nonstarter — only 5% report they are planning or considering discontinuing their use of the product. As
competition intensifies, SAS needs to continue providing value to justify customer costs.
• References strongly indicated that SAS is very difficult to implement — the No. 1 firm in this category. In fact, "difficult to
implement" was highlighted at three times the average of all vendors in this Magic Quadrant; inconsistent interfaces across
products in the suite was noted as a particular deficiency. In its defense, SAS has improved in terms of flash based interfaces
and dashboards, and it deserves credit for that. But that innovation has not trickled down to its customers. Although 60% of
references indicate they are running the current version of the software, many do not activate new functions, but rather
run SAS in a code-centric, traditional manner.
• Despite SAS's success and awareness as a leader in the predictive analytics space, the company continues to struggle to
make it onto BI platform shortlists because of historical perceptions of limitations in usability. While 62% of references
indicated SAS was their company's BI standard, functionality used in traditional BI areas (reporting, dashboards, OLAP and so
on) was lower than other BI leaders in this report. Ad hoc query was the one exception, with clients aggressively using SAS BI
for that component.

Enterprise Data Warehousing Vendor Marketplace Assessment
Gartner Research and Forrester both position IBM and SAP as Leaders within the Enterprise Data
Warehousing marketplace. SAS are not represented in this marketplace, choosing to be agnostic in their
choice of underlying data warehouse platform. However both Oracle and Teradata are the clear market
leaders overall.
Page 252
The Forrester Wave – Data Warehousing platforms
SAS are not represented in the data warehousing platform marketplace,
SAP is rapidly converging BW and BWA into a high-performance EDW platform. With a focus on massively
parallel scale-out through its HANA technology, SAP positions BW/BWA as an increasingly scalable
platform for heterogeneous data analytics environments of SAP and non-SAP solutions. Through its
acquisition of Sybase and rapid delivery of the promised next-generation HANA appliance, SAP distances
itself from the slow-moving competitor of yore and becomes a technology pacesetter in this segment.
Prior to the recent release of HANA, SAP’s key EDW differentiator with BW was its ability to persist data
to a choice of database management systems (DBMSes) . Additionally, SAP productizes its EDW solutions
as software (SAP NetWeaver BW), appliance (BWA only, front-end), and SaaS offerings (through SAP
Business ByDesign). Furthermore, SAP supports row-based storage (through third-party databases and,
now, through its own Sybase ASE) and, via HANA and BWA, columnar/cache persistence. These offerings
integrate deeply into the vendor’s service-oriented architecture (SOA), application platform,
middleware, BI, performance management, and desktop software. Another differentiator is its native
support for both relational and dimensional logical storage, including integration of in-memory/cache and
SSD option for physical data persistence.
However, SAP lacks native integration of MapReduce and Hadoop integration into BW, and its HANA
technology is a 1.0 release that has not converged into the BW and BWA platforms and does not address
the price-competitiveness issue that prevent SAP from competing head-on with Oracle Exadata and IBM
Netezza TwinFin for new accounts.
Nevertheless, SAP can claim a large installed base of EDW customers, concentrated in large enterprises,
across a wide range of verticals, and distributed globally across geographies, with deepening penetration
of the midmarket. It shows strong growth, a large installed base, vertical diversification, customer-size
segment momentum, and partnerships in the EDW market. Its differentiating go-to-market message for
EDW focuses on in-memory, real-time, columnar technologies.
February 10, 2011 | Updated: April 20, 2011© 2011, Forrester Research, Inc
Page 253The Forrester Wave™: Enterprise Data Warehousing Platforms, Q1 2011For Business Process Professionals
The Forrester Wave – Data Warehousing platforms
IBM has ramped up its EDW focus and sets the pace on petabyte-scale Hadoop integration.
With an increased focus on targeted solution-based EDW packaging, IBM positions its EDW
offerings as feature-complete quick-value analytic deployments with customer- and partner-
extensible
domain models.
IBM offers many EDW differentiators. Its (IBM Smart Analytics System) product family
incorporates a robust enterprise database and deploys an EDW as licensed software, as
preintegrated appliances, as cloud/SaaS services, and virtualized offerings. IBM’s Smart
Analytics System appliances can scale out in a cluster supporting hundreds of terabytes, in
diverse EDW and BI topologies, and in full integration with IBM’s InfoSphere, Cognos, SPSS,
WebSphere, FileNet, Rational, Optim, and other portfolios. Enterprises can deploy IBM
Smart Analytics System offerings on diverse hardware and software platforms, supporting
mixed workloads of reporting, ad hoc query, OLAP, in-database analytics, batch ETL, and
real-time decision support transactions. It provides strong extensibility and customization
through in-database analytics, logical domain models, user-defined functions, and stored
procedures.
However, IBM’s EDW solutions show a weakness in database integration by integrating with
only one proprietary DBMS: DB2 (increasingly, enterprise customers require a choice of
DBMS within their EDW infrastructure, and also the ability to extend and optimize their EDW
DBMS
to their specific requirements, a requirement that proprietary closed-source DBMS
architectures make difficult to address).
Gartner: Magic Quadrant for Data Warehouse
Database Management Systems
Magic Quadrant for Data Warehouse Database Management Systems
Market Overview
• The primary forces that we believe will have an impact on the data
warehouse DBMS market in 2011 are:
• Increased demand for optimization techniques and performance
enhancement.
• The need for data warehouse infrastructure to manage "extreme data"
(see Note 3).
• Increased demand for data warehouse appliances.
• Fierce marketing and increased resources for winning POCs.
• Continued demand for delivery and management of fully mixed workloads.
• Increased emphasis on supporting new applications with high business
value.
• More emphasis on, and appreciation of the value of, the column-store
DBMS model.
• Adoption and use of new storage technologies, from disk to solid-state,
especially for the management of "hot" and "cold" data.
• With the growing availability and use of storage-class memory, increasing
adoption of an in-memory DBMS model.
• More emphasis on, and greater adoption of, cloud-based data warehouse
Note; SAS Not represented capabilities, albeit for private clouds.

Gartner MQ: IBM – Data Warehousing Platforms
Product : IBM offers stand-alone DBMS solutions as well as data warehouse appliances,
currently marketed as the IBM Smart Analytics System family. IBM's data warehouse software,
InfoSphere Warehouse, is available on Unix, Linux, Windows and z/OS.
Strengths
• IBM caters for most approaches to data warehouse implementation, from custom-built (still the preference of some large IT
shops), to preloaded data warehouse appliances, to an appliance-like approach with a fully loaded and configured solution.
The wide availability of solutions is the result of IBM's ongoing investment in the data warehouse space. InfoSphere
Warehouse, a data warehouse offering based on IBM DB2, is a software-only solution. IBM's data warehouse appliance
solution, the IBM Smart Analytics System (formerly IBM InfoSphere Warehouse), is a combined server and storage hardware
solution (using the IBM Power Systems server with AIX, or the System x server with Linux or Windows and the IBM InfoSphere
Warehouse), complete with service and support. The acquisition of Netezza in late 2010 gives IBM a ready-made Linux-
capable data warehouse appliance, which competes directly with Oracle's Exadata.
• IBM's introduction of InfoSphere BigInsights reflects its strategy for adapting/adopting the open-source Hadoop project, and
includes offerings to aid the design, installation, integration and monitoring of the use of these open-source technologies
within an IBM-supported environment. By tying together relational data, data streams and Hadoop files, IBM's stack builds
confidence among managers of existing warehouse implementations that the product is evolving as new demands emerge.
• IBM is the only DBMS vendor that can offer an information architecture (the Information Agenda) across an entire
organization, covering information on all systems, including OLTP, data warehousing and retirement of data (with its Optim
products). In addition, Optim Database Administrator can propagate schema changes from test to production environments.
Another performance optimization feature is partitioned updates to cubes
• Publication Date: 28 January 2011/ID Number: G00209623 Page 16 of 37 © 2011 Gartner, Inc. and/or its Affiliates. All Rights
Reserved. for real-time analytics. This is very compelling for organizations in which IBM is the incumbent vendor, and IBM is
good at using the Information Agenda for data warehousing. IBM maintains strong support from its very large customer base.

Gartner MQ: IBM – Data Warehousing Platforms
Cautions
• From our Magic Quadrant survey for 2010, it was clear that IBM's customers still detect a shortage of skilled implementers
such as architects and DBAs. However, this growing concern of customers is also an encouragement for vendors in that, with
demand exceeding supply, it indicates that the market is succeeding. Clients also report that IBM's support appears
disconnected from its product strategy, in that support seems incident-focused, rather than focused on general solutions
and practices. Clients report that increases in their internal staff numbers are driven primarily by the need for skilled
architects, modelers and DBAs, which indicates that users are trying to solve support issues themselves. Gartner observes
that the complexity and volume of data under management increased dramatically in 2010, which is also driving up demand
for skills — and again indicates that market success is increasing demand for expertise.
• In 2010, Gartner clients reported that IBM was selected 85% of the time, when IBM was a candidate. Normally, a high win-
rate is a strength, but in this case there is a mixture of cautious optimism and valid concern. IBM has embarked on a mission
to qualify its prospects better for warehousing, and is therefore competing for fewer, better-qualified prospects — a solid
tactical decision that could nevertheless jeopardize its execution. However, even with enhanced qualification, 27% of
current IBM customers selected another vendor when choosing a warehouse platform. This means that at least 27% of IBM's
current DBMS customers are willing to deploy a different DBMS for the warehouse, and the percentage is probably at least
double that. This, in turn, means that IBM is at least passively refusing to compete for business from some of its existing
customers. On the positive side, such decisions indicate that IBM is aware of its product capabilities and delivery
capabilities, and is not trying to sell products or commit resources to poorly matched opportunities.
• In the last iteration of this Magic Quadrant, Gartner indicated that IBM needed to grow at least at the same rate as the
market. In 2009, the RDBMS market was flat, but IBM's market share declined by about 0.7 percentage points. This was,
however, better than Oracle's decline of 1.8 percentage points (see "Market Share: RDBMS Software by Operating System,
Worldwide, 2009"), and we believe that, as the market recovers from the economic crisis, IBM will return to growth at a rate
faster than the market average.

Gartner MQ: SAP – Data Warehousing Platforms
Sybase, an SAP Company, Product Sybase IQ.
Strengths
• During the past few years, Sybase has shown increased ability to move from offering an analytic data mart to offering an
enterprise data warehouse DBMS. It has added substantial mixed workload management, faster loading capabilities (to
address the biggest issue with column-store DBMSs), query parallelism across multiple processors, and now, with Sybase IQ
15.3, the ability to scale horizontally across a cluster of servers with MPP capabilities. Additionally, Sybase has added
features to IQ such as integrated text search and analysis, in-database data mining, and Web-enabled language drivers such
as Python, PHP and PERL — each targeted at a new generation of analytical applications. Recently, we have learnt from
users of our inquiry service that Sybase IQ is being considered and selected as a complete data warehouse solution. The
company's real-time analytics solution, Sybase RAP — The Trading Edition, which includes Sybase CEP for complex-event
processing (CEP) and a built-in package for time series analytics to support demand for CEP, has seen solid adoption in the
financial services sector since its introduction in 2009. RAP is also available as a general real-time analytics platform for
CEP. In January 2010, Sybase acquired the Aleri Streaming Platform to help it build CEP applications for RAP.
• Sybase IQ achieves data compression ranging from two to 10 times, depending on the data's structure. Because analytics
typically uses fewer columns but larger numbers of rows, Sybase IQ performs very well for analytic applications. The
company has consistently won POCs with analytic applications, sometimes with performance 100 times greater than its
competitors. This makes Sybase IQ an extremely desirable DBMS platform for an analytic data mart, to optimize and
enhance an organization's overall data warehouse architecture.
• With its acquisition by SAP, Sybase has gained a stronger position in the market. SAP brings a larger sales force, a strong
application platform, increased funds for R&D and general financial stability. With Sybase now certified as a DBMS platform
for SAP applications, we believe Sybase will achieve increased market share growth in 2011 and beyond. Judging from
Gartner inquiries, the main inhibitors of Sybase adoption in the
• past have been a low market share and the perception that Sybase is too small to remain viable — but following the
acquisition by SAP, these no longer apply.

Gartner MQ: SAP – Data Warehousing Platforms
Sybase, an SAP Company, Product Sybase IQ.
Cautions
• Although Sybase IQ has a large installed base, with over 2,000 customers, it faces competition from data warehouse DBMS
vendors, such as Aster Data and EMC/Greenplum, that have introduced column-store capabilities, and others, such as
Oracle, with column-based compression within row-vectored DBMSs. Note that these other column-store models are not yet
complete column-store integrated systems like those of Sybase and Vertica. However, we believe that during the next 12 to
24 months column-store DBMS features will become more pervasive in row-store DBMS engines as an alternative storage
model, and that this will pose a threat to all column-store-only DBMS engines.
• As Sybase continues to expand into the enterprise data warehouse space, it will face increased competition from incumbent
vendors, and POCs will become more difficult. Although Sybase IQ remains ahead of the column-based newcomers in
execution and has shown the ability to scale to data warehouse solutions, its challenge will be to continue to respond to new
market demands by offering a wider variety of data warehouse solutions and moving customers on to a full-scale data
warehouse solution.
• Sybase has enjoyed a strong relationship with IBM's Power Systems division, resulting in the Sybase Analytic Appliance, which
is sold and supported by third-party system integrators. With the acquisition by SAP, and IBM's acquisition of Netezza and
stronger efforts to sell IBM products, we believe that IBM's interest in the Sybase Analytic Appliance will diminish, which will
lead to it being discontinued. On the other hand, in 2010 Sybase began to work closely with other vendors, such as HP, with
certified configurations, which will mitigate the harm of any loss of interest by IBM.

Gartner MQ: Master Data Management
1. Magic Quadrant for Master Data Management of 2. Magic Quadrant for Master Data Management of
Customer Data Product Data
* SAS not represented * SAS not represented

SAP Master Data Management of Customer Data
Products: NetWeaver MDM v.7.1 SP5
Strengths
• Loyal user base: SAP has a large and loyal user base, particularly in the manufacturing, consumer packaged goods (CPG), retail,
high tech and energy industry verticals. Many of these organizations are looking for a single vendor to supply them with a set of
core integrated applications built on an application infrastructure that includes MDM capabilities. SAP estimates that it has
licensed NetWeaver MDM to over 1,100 customers (as of mid-2010), up from 900 at year-end 2008. SAP states that approximately
500 of those MDM customers are licensed to manage customer data, and that there are over 175 live implementations managing
customer data. We estimate that SAP had MDM-of-customer-data-related revenue of $40 million in 2009. This was a 7% growth
over 2008, and it contributed approximately 30% of the total NetWeaver MDM revenue.
• Strategic component of SAP's Enterprise Information Management portfolio: SAP has brought its NetWeaver and BusinessObjects
information management assets together under the Enterprise Information Management banner, and sees NetWeaver MDM as a key
part of that strategy. MDM is also one of the key Orchestration technologies that enable both the mainstream, on-premises
Business Suite applications and the newer, on-demand applications, such as Business ByDesign.
• Increasing leverage of other SAP and BusinessObjects technologies: Starting with NetWeaver MDM v.7.1 SP4, SAP can demonstrate
the fruit of leveraging other SAP and BusinessObjects technologies and standards. For example, NetWeaver BPM, which includes
the business rule engine, is leveraged to provide a sophisticated workflow capability for collaborative authoring and data
stewardship. Also, NetWeaver MDM can now generate Web-based data stewardship UIs for business users, based on WebDynpro and
not requiring the SAP Portal. Following the exposure of Web service interfaces, plus a set of low-level APIs in NetWeaver MDM,
there is the tight integration with BusinessObjects' Data Services matching engine. Also, SAP is starting to leverage
BusinessObjects' BI assets for dash-boarding and reporting, and data quality.
• Multi-domain capability: NetWeaver MDM has a flexible, domain-neutral data model, and an increasing number of references are
managing a combination of customer, product and supplier master data with NetWeaver MDM. For customer data, most of the
experience is with managing B2B business partner data in workflow-oriented, centralized-authoring situations, or in consolidation
and coexistence styles with distributed authoring. We are starting to see sites that are managing over one million B2C consumer
records, but they are restricted by NetWeaver MDM's architecture to consolidation or coexistence styles, and the product is not
currently capable of supporting transaction-oriented, centralized authoring or registry style.
Page 261
Strengths (continued)
• Better integration with Business Suite: NetWeaver MDM v.7.1 provides consistency and integration with Business Suite and
NetWeaver BPM at the Enterprise Services definition level. It is also able to support the strategic Business Partner data model, as
found in Business Suite, and also supports the older Customer data model from SAP ERP. However, NetWeaver MDM is not designed
to govern all attributes of these data models, as they are expressed in Business Suite and ERP.
Cautions
• Mainly appeals to SAP customers and restricted B2C support: NetWeaver MDM mainly appeals to SAP-centric organizations that
have bought into the company's application and application infrastructure vision. SAP makes few shortlists in non-SAP-centric
heterogeneous environments, where, so far, it hasn't been seen as competitive. Also, NetWeaver MDM isn't suitable for supporting
high-volume, transaction-oriented B2C use cases (with centralized authoring or registry style) in financial services,
communications and government, because it is optimized for read (as opposed to write) operations, due to its A2i and product
catalogue origins. In the banking and insurance industries, SAP offers a different customer master product, Business Partner, if an
organization wants to use SAP's banking applications.
• Multiproduct strategy is starting to create some confusion: In addition to NetWeaver MDM, SAP is starting to offer a separate
product called Master Data Governance (MDG). This is positioned as "embedded MDM," comprising out-of-the-box, domain-specific
master data governance applications to centrally create, change and distribute master data, with a focus on SAP Business Suite.
This is in contrast to NetWeaver MDM, which is now positioned for "enterprise MDM," providing a generic, multi-domain
infrastructure that complements MDG, and supporting all domains and use cases in the enterprise. MDG first appeared in late 2008
as MDG for Financials. MDG for Materials and MDG for Suppliers will enter ramp-up mode in the fourth quarter of 2010, and, within
the next two years, SAP will introduce MDG for Customers. MDG will appeal to a significant section of the SAP customer base,
although the majority will also need SAP NetWeaver MDM to integrate to non-SAP systems. SAP will need to ensure that the two
development road maps are consistent and synergistic (for example, in development of shared MDM services). SAP also needs to
reassure NetWeaver MDM customers that their investment remains strategic.
Page 262
Cautions (continued)
• Functionality is improving, but still not best in class: Historically, NetWeaver MDM has been well-behind the competition. During
the past two years, it has improved in a number of areas, but remains behind the best in class for B2C support, where it has long-
term plans to leverage in-memory database technology. SAP also needs to continue to improve the facilities for data stewards to
manage the life cycle of master data, including visualization and manipulation of hierarchies, reporting, and dash-boarding.
However, the forthcoming Information Steward product will help here in 2011. SAP is also behind in offering MDM applets that
organizations could use to embed MDM-based business logic in existing or new applications. SAP is starting to offer industry- and
initiative-specific packaged QuickStart packages, such as for Physician Spend Analysis, but it doesn't more generally provide
industry-oriented data models or templates. SAP is starting to work with partners to offer value-added industry or initiative
packages based on MDM, but it is behind the competition in building this kind of ecosystem.
• Still don't see a large number of live references: Although more organizations are using MDM to manage customer data, there's still
a major gap between the sales success that SAP has had (500 sites) and the number of live implementations (150). Many
companies bought the rights to NetWeaver MDM in enterprise license deals in 2007 and 2008, and often had higher priorities, such
as ERP instance consolidation. Or they waited for NetWeaver MDM to mature further, or implemented MDM for product or supplier
data first. Now, the number of live implementations is growing healthily, but the list of NetWeaver MDM references managing
customer data is not as full or impressive as would be expected.
• Feedback from references: SAP's ability to provide MDM of customer data references for NetWeaver MDM has improved, but is still
not as good as the best in class. Those references we talked to said positive things about the support they had from SAP, but they
were still on v.5.5 and looking forward to upgrading to v.7.1. In the online survey, references gave SAP and NetWeaver MDM
below-average marks in a wide range of areas, which is probably a reflection that they were mainly on v.5.5. SAP received lower-
than-average marks for understanding of the business application of MDM, understanding of the vertical industry, provision of a
stream of new technology, responsiveness to requests for new features and pricing. NetWeaver MDM received low marks for data
modeling; hierarchy management; data quality facilities; UI; workflow support for a data steward; integration and synchronization
with other systems; performance and scalability; the ability to monitor, measure and report on the data quality; and architectural
flexibility.
Page 263
IBM Master Data Management of Customer Data
Products: InfoSphere MDM Server v.9.0
Strengths
• Broad information management strategy and MDM capabilities: InfoSphere MDM Server is part of IBM's Information Management
portfolio that includes BI, performance management, information integration, warehousing and management, content
management, and data management. This is an attractive proposition for organizations looking for a wide range of information
functionality from a single, highly viable vendor. IBM leverages InfoSphere MDM Server in Information Agenda engagements and it
also plays a key role in IBM's Information Governance initiative. IBM now has multiple MDM assets (InfoSphere MDM Server,
InfoSphere MDM Server for Product Information Management [PIM] and Initiate MDS) giving relatively broad and deep coverage of
MDM needs. These MDM assets are positioned as Adaptive MDM (i.e., able to meet and adapt to evolving MDM needs).
• Very capable MDM product: InfoSphere MDM Server is a strong MDM solution for high-end, transaction-driven, centralized
implementation-style requirements in SOA environments. It has a comprehensive data model for parties, such as consumer and
business customers, and also supports simply defined product data and account data. The Master Information Hub (MIH) facility
supports the creation of custom data domains. InfoSphere MDM Server has good support for hierarchy management and has rich
prebuilt functionality in a multilevel business service library. It is tightly integrated with IBM's InfoSphere Information Server,
which includes the QualityStage and DataStage products, which support data quality and data integration capabilities. These
products are leaders in the data quality tool market (see "Magic Quadrant for Data Quality Tools") and the data integration tools
market (see "Magic Quadrant for Data Integration Tools"), respectively.
• Strong in financial services and retail: InfoSphere MDM Server continues to be the leading MDM of customer data product in retail
banking and is also strong in insurance, but it lost several insurance industry registry-style deals to Initiate Systems in 2009. It has
also done well in retail and distribution, and communications, and has made progress in large government deals and healthcare
insurance (but, again, faced strong competition from Initiate Systems). InfoSphere MDM Server has implementations across many
other industries and there are projects in an increasing number of countries. InfoSphere MDM Server has strong references,
including high-workload, transactional environments, and numerous strategic, multiphase and multidomain rollouts are under
way.
• Continuing momentum, but slower growth: IBM's MDM customer base continues to grow, benefiting from the vendor's large sales
and marketing organizations, and its large customer base. We estimate that the number of InfoSphere MDM Server customers was
190 at the end of the first half of 2010, and that IBM's MDM-of-customer-data-related revenue for InfoSphere MDM Server in 2009
was approximately $92 million, a 2% decline from the previous year. We believe that the first half of 2010 has been healthier,
relative to the first half of 2009, but not outstanding.
Page 264
• Improving data stewardship UI, flexibility and content integration: With InfoSphere MDM Server v. 9.0, IBM continued to improve
the product's facilities for data stewardship with new role-based UIs that have capabilities such as graphical data visualization and
hierarchy management. Customers can leverage the UI Generator to extend the existing UIs and to generate new ones. IBM can
also leverage the InfoSphere Discovery tool, based on the Exeros acquisition, to locate and map master data in heterogeneous
systems. As part of the v 9.0 release IBM also introduced MIH. This tackles the need for greater data model flexibility, by providing
a means for organizations to model additional data domains, as required. Also, with v 9.0, IBM introduced Master Content for
InfoSphere MDM Server, which provides an out-of-the-box ability to manage linkages between MDM records and unstructured
content, such as documents and images.
Cautions
• Overlapping products within the IBM MDM portfolio: IBM now has three products in the overall MDM market: Initiate MDS,
InfoSphere MDM Server and InfoSphere MDM Server for PIM. The products are strong in their own right in particular segments of
the MDM market, but having multiple products causes complexity and some confusion with prospects and customers. The first two
products are both targeted at the MDM of customer data market and IBM is giving them equal billing, but is positioning them as
complementary. It positions Initiate MDS as suitable for more "virtual" MDM requirements, where an organization requires a match-
and-link, registry-style approach. InfoSphere MDM Server is positioned for more "physical" MDM situations, where a physical golden
record is created either by matching and merging or by centralized authoring. While it makes sense to differentiate the products
in this way, the multiple products are likely to cause confusion with prospects and reduce the addressable market for InfoSphere
MDM Server. IBM has shared a road map with its customers to detail how and when it will integrate InfoSphere MDM Server and
Initiate MDS, starting in 2011.
• Some organizations want more flexibility and the registry style: InfoSphere MDM Server provides a wealth of out-of-the-box
functionality, as well as configuration and customization facilities; however, it has not always appealed to organizations that want
the flexibility of starting with more of an MDM platform approach and building up capabilities, such as the data model and Web
services, on a more flexible and selective basis.
Page 265
• Behind in some areas: During the past couple of years, IBM has invested heavily in improving its InfoSphere MDM Server's data
stewardship tools and it is far more competitive now, although it needs to go further in providing facilities for life cycle
governance. InfoSphere MDM Server particularly lacks workflow and task management for collaborative authorship, and it does not
directly support analytical MDM scenarios. InfoSphere MDM Server needs to do more in offering out-of-the-box, integrated data-
profiling, dashboarding and reporting facilities, although it is increasingly leveraging Cognos Reporting. Also, it does not offer MDM
applets, components of MDM-based business logic that can be embedded in existing applications, potentially in their own UI
format. Although IBM has made progress during the years with introducing accelerators, MIH and better UIs, we still hear feedback
that achieving time to value with InfoSphere MDM Server is slower than with best-in-class products, but it is important to compare
like with like in this area. Lastly, although InfoSphere MDM Server is behind the best in class in teaming with ESP partners on
industry verticalization, it is making progress (for example, it has partnerships with Cognizant and Kingland Systems).
• More work to do on creating an integrated MDM suite: IBM's MDM portfolio originated from three different acquisitions. Not
surprisingly, there are differences in the products. IBM is achieving relatively broad and deep multi-domain, multi-use-case and
multi-scenario coverage, but with the downside of having a fragmented product set. To overcome this and provide a consistent
user experience with seamless integration behind the scenes, IBM plans to provide a common UI and workflow environment at the
front end, and interoperability and common facilities at the back end, with specific MDM engines in the middle. This will provide
welcome consistency for organizations, but will consume development resources that otherwise could be dedicated to innovation.
IBM continues to add support for additional data domains to InfoSphere MDM Server; however, by itself, it is not going to support
all requirements (for example, it lacks the collaborative workflow of InfoSphere MDM Server for PIM, it is not positioned for
registry-style implementations now that IBM owns Initiate Systems and it is not suitable for analytical MDM, leaving that space to
Cognos 8 Business Viewpoint).
• Feedback from references: IBM provided a good set of references, but none were based on v.9.0. They were generally positive.
They gave high marks for business service facilities and support for an information architect, but gave below-average marks for
the UI and workflow facilities for data stewards, the internal workflow capabilities, the ability to predict future costs of usage,
and user on-boarding and training. There were also comments about the complexity of implementation and the need for deeper
integration with QualityStage.
Page 266
SAP Master Data Management of Product Data
Products: SAP NetWeaver MDM
Strengths
• Corporate strategy: SAP has a large and loyal user base, particularly in the manufacturing, consumer packaged goods, retail, high-
tech and energy industry verticals. Many of these organizations are looking for a single vendor to supply them with a set of core
integrated applications built on an application infrastructure that includes MDM capabilities. The company had a strong vision for
its Business Suite and NetWeaver, although during the past two years, this has shifted to a broad, multipronged strategy including
BusinessObjects solutions. SAP continues to find new opportunities to combine and leverage its NetWeaver and BusinessObjects
information management assets.
• Product road map: SAP's product portfolio to support an organization's need for MDM has expanded. First came SAP NetWeaver
MDM for all MDM requirements. In 2011, SAP will reposition SAP NetWeaver MDM as the primary solution for mastering product (and
all other) master data between any SAP business application and non-SAP business application. At the same time, for SAP-centric
environments that are running on a full suite of SAP business applications, SAP MDG will be the primary offering. SAP already
packages some SAP BusinessObjects Data Services with SAP NetWeaver MDM, and will add this to the SAP MDG offering in 2011, so
this provides some support for DQ and stewardship. Master Data Governance for Financials has been generally available since the
beginning of 2010. The next master data objects to be supported in SAP MDG will likely be supplier and product (material), with
SAP ECC Enhancement Pack 5 (which will have a restricted shipment in December 2010), then customer, with SAP ECC
Enhancement Pack 6 (with a restricted shipment likely by December 2011).
• Product functionality: SAP meets a wide range of MDM requirements for mastering product data in SAP NetWeaver MDM, which has
a great deal of data model flexibility. The vendor has bypassed previous concerns with the rich client interface of SAP NetWeaver
MDM Data Manager with its SAP Portal UI that most customers use, and other customers also now use SAP NetWeaver BPM to
orchestrate MDM processes across their businesses. SAP has a reasonable understanding of MDM of product data requirements in
B2B scenarios, supporting global data synchronization (common in consumer goods/retail). SAP provides native integration with
NetWeaver Process Integration and some of the BusinessObjects Data Services XI technology, to address cleansing and matching
(but mainly for customer data, and not yet for product data), and improves the integration with third-party DQ tools and
reference data sources. SAP has also integrated some of its BPM capability to strengthen how SAP NetWeaver MDM can
interoperate across an SAP-centric SOA stack. Some users are already taking advantage of some of this early work (e.g., with SAP
BPM and SAP MDM for certain process scenarios, such as product introduction and on-boarding).
Page 267
• Customer base: SAP claims that it has licensed NetWeaver MDM to 1,100 customers (as of 1Q10). Approximately 600 to 700 of
those MDM customers are licensed to manage product data (as of 1Q10), according to Gartner estimates, which equates to
approximately $66 million in software revenue, up 10%, compared with 2008. Gartner estimates 50% of the license count is active
or live, or has the explicit desire to implement the technology; therefore, Gartner estimates that approximately 300 to 350 users
are live or implementing SAP NetWeaver MDM to manage product data.
• References: SAP excelled with its reference list this year, far in excess of its weak response to last year's research. SAP provided
18 contacts, and 13 responded to the survey. All were users of SAP NetWeaver MDM. The product ratings were generally average or
better. One or two users reported less rosy scores for hierarchy management and product DQ. More users than not said that SAP
NetWeaver MDM helped them achieve an enterprisewide view of MDM, rather than a departmental-only view. Support for industry-
specific functionality was also scored positively, and TCO was reportedly good.
Cautions
• Evolving product strategy: 2011 could prove to be a difficult year for SAP users looking to SAP to master product data. Where
previously SAP would have positioned SAP NetWeaver MDM, the vendor will increasingly lead new customers to a different
product, although established users of SAP NetWeaver MDM may continue to try to master SAP-to-SAP data without SAP MDG. This
"choice" will lead to customers with different combinations of SAP technology to achieve MDM. For the few organizations that run
their entire businesses on SAP business applications (itself a somewhat heterogeneous environment), SAP will position SAP MDG,
which will handle all the integration maps among the SAP applications. Thus, SAP will offer a new product to users for mastering
product data in SAP-centric environments. The good news is that SAP MDG shares the same data model as SAP ECC, so it can be
deployed in the same data model/data base. This promises to simplify the SAP landscape for SAP-centric data. SAP NetWeaver
MDM will continue as a product, but will be more narrowly positioned for new users, when master data needs to be managed
across SAP to non- SAP business applications. It is worth noting that the vast majority of SAP users fall into the latter group; so, in
all likelihood, this evolved strategy will lead to additional implementations, and a repositioning of where and when to use SAP
NetWeaver MDM. For enterprises centred on an SAP application portfolio, SAP MDG will increasingly be the logical solution to
consider in your evaluation of MDM of product data. However, SAP NetWeaver MDM will likely still be required, and the new
information steward capabilities will increasingly be needed, to complete your MDM program.
Page 268
• Support for product data stewards and governance: In 2011, SAP will likely bundle with both MDM offerings a limited license of SAP
BusinessObjects Information Steward. This new product will also become generally available in 2011 as a stand-alone product. The
limited license (limited to working only with SAP master data) will bring together functionality and capability that already exists
in SAP BusinessObjects and SAP NetWeaver MDM, and that data stewards need to do their jobs every day. However, this is a new
product and it remains to be seen if SAP's first release is complete or effective.
• Designing ERP for MDM: Too many client inquiries from users that have gone live with their SAP "ERP" systems a year before are
regarding how to get their product master data back under control. The analysis shows that basic ERP road maps, promoted by
SAP and its partners, do not do a good job of explaining the importance of the discipline of MDM. At best, MDM work streams
would be an additional cost that ERP budgets won't stretch for; therefore, MDM "never gets done," and product master DQ and
consistency thus erodes once the ERP implementation is complete. Worse, consulting companies are brought back in and charge
more money to do what they should have done in the first place. This observation is very much centred on SAP more than any
other "ERP" vendor. SAP does understand this issue, and can offer a separate MDM work stream, but it does not itself offer this as
part of ERP, and worse, the ESPs do not do a good job of selling the importance, or result, of not doing this important work.
• Partnering Strategy: SAP's partner strategy with respect to MDM has evolved also. BackOffice Associates was a key partner for SAP
data migration and emerging needs for product data governance. However, this partnership has withered, and SAP now partners
with other vendors such as Utopia. These partnerships are so important to SAP users, because it is often these partners that
provide the knowledge and capability to configure the SAP Portal that interacts with SAP NetWeaver MDM and the SAP business
applications. On the product side, SAP partners with vendors such as NRX, which is focused on the energy and oil and gas sectors.
However, some users report confusion over exactly what is being offered by SAP and NRX: Is it one solution? Is it an NRX product
based or built on SAP NetWeaver MDM? What happens when SAP MDG is released? SAP needs to present its strategy in a more
consistent manner and communicate to the market more effectively.
• References very good, but more work to do: References were, on the whole, very good. However, there were a few data points
that SAP can learn from. Most vendors attracted "average" scores for post-sales on-boarding, training and support, but SAP
attracted a few negative scores. Additionally, a few users reported lack of "local support." SAP clearly has hundreds of customers
around the globe; for such a large customer base, SAP has to remain fixated on superior customer results and must rely on
partners. SAP needs to improve its focus here to remove these anomalies from next year's survey.
Page 269
• Data quality: SAP MDM remains behind some of the competition in DQ, data profiling and associated reporting facilities, which are
important in complex product data environments that are heterogeneous in nature. Some customers report dissatisfaction with
native DQ support provided by SAP; some refer to other tools in this area as part of their implementations, such as Silver Creek
(now Oracle PDQ), Datactics and others. The acquisition of BusinessObjects has provided for some leverage (embedding data
services), but the focus has been on customer data, not product data, and mostly batch-oriented profiling, rather than in-line,
process-based DQ between SAP and non-SAP applications. SAP is aware of the requirements, and continues to make progress in
this area with its SAP BusinessObjects Universal Data Cleanse product.
Page 270
IBM Master Data Management of Product Data
Products: IBM InfoSphere MDM Server for PIM, version 9.0
Strengths
• Long-term information management strategy: IBM sports a broad information management portfolio that includes BI, performance
management, information integration, warehousing and management, content management, and data management. This is an
attractive proposition for organizations looking for a wide range of information functionality from a single, highly viable vendor.
IBM meets the needs of organizations that seek to master product data with a strategy that relies on two of its three MDM assets.
The primary offering is IBM InfoSphere MDM Server for PIM. IBM may also license IBM InfoSphere MDM Server, its original MDM of
customer data
• offering, when user requirements for MDM of product data are less complex (less-complex workflow, simpler product data
models), and/or when user requirements drive needs for more real-time, messaging-based integration (which IBM InfoSphere MDM
Server for PIM lacks). There is a third MDM asset, IBM Initiate Master Data Service (MDS), which is not positioned for mastering
product data. IBM plans to align aspects of the technologies across all three MDM assets, starting with a common UI workbench and
services, and followed by application/data services. There is no plan to unify to a single data model, although IBM will provide
shared "keys" across the data models to facilitate integration.
• Strength in numbers: Growth slowed for IBM in 2009; however, due to its size and global reach, IBM remains very competitive in
this market. By the end of 1Q10, according to Gartner estimates, IBM had signed approximately 250 customers mastering product
data — 235 or so using IBM InfoSphere MDM Server for PIM, and the rest using IBM InfoSphere MDM Server. Gartner's estimates for
software revenue are in the range of $50 million, which is slightly down on last year's software numbers, mainly due to slightly
slower growth rates in this market, especially for financial services in 2009, and also in retail until 2010.
• References: IBM provided eight references, but all were "phone" references, not survey references. As such, there is no factual
feedback to review. Dialogue with some of these users, and others during the past 12 to 18 months, suggest a few items of
interest. IBM references are generally good or average, with a few exceptions. Some users report issues with very high volume,
such as messaging/integration throughput, but this would be at very intense levels, such as retail. Other users suggest that, while
the workflow and UI part of the solution is powerful, its flexibility comes at a higher cost to IT — the need to make changes more
often than business users would with simple configuration options. IBM's references are also global, which helps in reference
selling.
Page 271
Cautions
• Complex sales approach: Earlier in 2010, IBM acquired Initiate Systems, an MDM solution with a historical focus on healthcare
(Enterprise Master Patient Index, a form of the party model) focused on a registry-based implementation style. This expanded
IBM's MDM portfolio and is now positioned as a horizontal, non-industry-specific solution. It made the product portfolio more
complex. IBM's go-to-market message for the three MDM products, and its broader Information Server solutions, remain reasonably
clear, but success will only be assured if regular sales resources — and more importantly, prospects — can understand it. IBM plans
to "keep it simple" by selling three products to three specific scenarios; complexity will set in when requirements cross over.
Specific to MDM of product data, IBM is effectively offering three deployment options, comprising two separate products, each by
itself or together:
• If the customer requirements are focused on the centralization of product data in a highly heterogeneous environment with
a need for high-volume and/or real-time transactional (i.e., SOA-based) support, less-complex product data modeling
requirements or DQ, and less of a requirement for comprehensive workflow, then the implementation may only require IBM
InfoSphere MDM Server.
• If the customer requirements are focused on authorship of product data in the MDM hub; complex, people-based workflow
(what IBM calls "collaborative authoring") processes; and more-complex data model management, DQ and management, then
IBM InfoSphere MDM for PIM will be required.
• If a customer needs support for complex requirements and SOA implementations (increasingly, MDM of product data does),
then both systems are required.
• IBM's product strategy exposes a clear link to its acquisition strategy, which provides pros and cons to its customers. Current
market needs are addressed with specifically packaged solutions; forward-looking solutions emerge slowly in response to (as
opposed to preceding) newer requirements. The Initiate acquisition brings a strong registry-based solution that has rarely been
used to master product data. IBM will be challenged to bring these three MDM products together, once it sees the requirement in
the market. IBM can and has been successful selling what it has (three separate products that can operate together in different
ways), although it promises "multidomain" support.
• MDM product strategy: IBM will continue to sell its MDM offerings stand-alone, and when needed by specific users, in an integrated
fashion. There is an overall road map that, over time, provides increasingly common technology, services and components across
the three main operational MDM products, but this will not result in a single MDM platform, or single MDM product. The common UI
generator, part of the MDM Workbench, is a good example of this road map working well.
Page 272
• Areas where improvements are required are in business process management (BPM) and workflow, analytics and metadata
management (particularly for master data stewards), and business rules, which is common when trying to replicate application-
specific rules pertaining to product options and relationships. Other offerings help round out a strong overall footprint, but not as
a unified or single application. IBM Cognos Business Viewpoint overlaps with IBM InfoSphere MDM Server for PIM functionality, in
that hierarchy data could be mastered in either system. Visionary and early adopter organizations, and now those implementing a
second master data hub from IBM, continue to ask Gartner when and if IBM will align functional overlaps across the products. Over
time, IBM is doing this, but is not leading the market (yet) in this area.
• Product data quality: IBM has still not packaged the integration of its Information Server's InfoSphere QualityStage with IBM
InfoSphere MDM Server for PIM because, the vendor believes, implementations are so varied that their uniqueness undermines any
value from preconfiguration. Some vendors are securing best-of-breed DQ tools for product data, but IBM addresses this need with
services, rather than a specific solution.
• Focus and priorities: IBM's MDM strategy in 2010 and beyond hinges on making the Initiate acquisition successful. This means that
more money and time will be spent focused on this side of the MDM business. Its second priority continues to be a focus on
growing the sales of IBM InfoSphere MDM Server as the primary MDM offering for non-registry-oriented MDM. IBM InfoSphere MDM
Server for PIM, therefore, looks to be, in Gartner's view, a third priority. IBM appears dedicated to this market, but recent moves
continue to demonstrate an evolutionary approach to how IBM packages different solutions over time to meet market needs. Users
will need to keep a careful eye on exactly which product is positioned, and which product will get the lion's share of investment.
Long term, IBM's position in this market looks good; short term, it just looks complicated.
• Improving data stewardship and governance: Despite IBM's strong capabilities in the consulting side of governance and
stewardship, it has been slow to formalize a specific solution to support such processes inside an end-user organization. Because
IBM has growing experience in multiple domains (each with a different technology), it is surprising that IBM did not do something
about this before. The acquisition of Initiate brought with it several product offerings, including Initiate Inspector and Initiate
Composer, which offer some intriguing opportunities for IBM to assemble a strong stewardship console/application. Today, the
focus has been on IBM InfoSphere MDM Server, and less so on IBM InfoSphere MDM Server for PIM. Gartner expects IBM to take
action in this area during 2011, with perhaps a specific solution that may be repositioned for active governance of product master
data across a heterogeneous landscape.
Page 273
Gartner MQ: Data Quality and Data Integration Tools
1. Magic Quadrant for Data Quality Tools 2. Magic Quadrant for Data Integration Tools
* SAS not represented

SAP – Data Quality Tools
Products: Data Quality Management, Data Insight, Data Services
Customer base: 5,000 (estimated)
Strengths
• SAP BusinessObjects provides good breadth of functional data quality capabilities, including data profiling and common data
cleansing operations, which can be applied in diverse environments. The core data quality functionality in Data Quality
Management enables the delivery of data quality services in an SOA context, and is used in the Data Services product (which
combines data integration and the Data Quality Management functionality). Consistent with growing market demand for
tightly integrated data integration and data quality functionality, Data Services is seeing increased adoption by SAP
BusinessObjects customers. A majority of recent customer references reported they are using the data quality functionality
via an implementation of Data Services. The vendor's product road map reflects a vision for expanding its data quality
capabilities toward a broader data governance positioning, enabling data stewards and other non-IT roles to participate in
the development of policies and rules.
• SAP BusinessObjects has a substantial BI platform market presence and a large base of data quality tools customers. This
creates significant cross-sell opportunities for the vendor to increase its data quality tools business. As a part of SAP, the
vendor's growth prospects are further expanded via access to the global SAP applications customer base, where data quality
challenges are prevalent. In particular, SAP BusinessObjects' data quality tools complement SAP's MDM offerings, which have
been lacking rich data quality functionality. Customers perceive tight integration with SAP business applications and
performance of the tools as strengths.
• SAP BusinessObjects' strength in this market remains in applications of customer/party data quality, specifically in
matching/linking, de-duplication and name and address standardization and validation. The technology is proven for
applications of this type and such implementations represent the vast majority (over 90% based on surveys of reference
customers) of the installed base. In recent interactions with SAP BusinessObjects customers, more examples of use in non-
party domains (for example, products and materials) are present, though these uses still represent a small minority of the
overall customer activity.
Page 275
SAP – Data Quality Tools
Products: Data Quality Management, Data Insight, Data Services
Cautions
• Customer deployments continue to reflect relatively few cases where the technology is being applied in data domains
beyond customer data (and similar "party"-oriented subject areas such as suppliers or employees), and customers rate the
support for other domains as weaker than that provided by many other competitors. This is in contrast to adoption trends
across the market as a whole, and something that SAP BusinessObjects must continue to improve in order to support the
needs of SAP applications and MDM customers. To address these challenges, the vendor states that it will deliver "next
generation" non-party functionality during the first half of 2011.
• Data profiling remains an area of weakness for SAP BusinessObjects. The Data Insight product continues to show slow market
adoption and customer references report limited use and significantly lower levels of satisfaction with the functionality,
compared with the profiling offerings of most competitive vendors. SAP BusinessObjects' product road map calls for delivery
of "next-generation" capabilities by YE10, continuing for the near term to leave a substantial gap in an area that is seen as a
high priority by most buyers.
• Customer references continue to raise concerns regarding the quality and timeliness of product support, pricing approach,
the price-value ratio of SAP BusinessObjects' data quality offerings, and their overall experience in their relationship with
the vendor. Many customers report challenges with product support, which often leads to degraded perceptions about the
tools and other aspects of the vendor relationship. Because these perceptions are not unique to SAP in the data quality tools
market, the vendor is attempting to address these issues by allocating dedicated resources to focus initially on the overall
customer experience, starting by correcting product support challenges.
Page 276
IBM – Data Quality Tools
Products: Information Analyzer, QualityStage
Strengths
• IBM has successfully embedded its data quality products portfolio into its broader Information On Demand message. By
promoting IBM's platform vision, ubiquitous data quality functionality becomes a key component of the information
management portfolio. Backed by one of the world's best-known brands and strong sales, consulting, service and support
functions, IBM approaches the data quality space in a very holistic manner.
• Information Analyzer (discovery, profiling and analysis) and QualityStage (parsing, standardization and sophisticated
matching) continue to be positioned as enterprisewide data quality standards, and are being used in multiple projects in
customer organizations. IBM's customers have started to use its data quality products in multiple data domains, beyond
customer data, and the company is showing among the greatest diversity of data domains in this roundup. It has started to
leverage the adjacent product sets (for example, from Cognos and Exeros) for its Infosphere portfolio, in particular in the
data governance area.
• Reference customers report high satisfaction with the scalability and performance of the solution. Also, customers praised
the intuitive user interface of the data quality products and the integrated nature of the solution across the various
modules, including profiling, matching, cleansing and metadata management.
Cautions
• IBM's Information On Demand message, and the newer "information agenda" and "smarter planet" themes have not
demonstrated a direct relevance and have the potential to dilute the focus on data quality. While data quality is part of the
overall message and IBM initiated a data quality community with its Data Governance Council, mind share in the market
grows relatively slowly. In particular, for organizations that want to focus on data quality as a separate initiative to solve a
specific problem, the
• grand Information On Demand theme is likely to be seen as overkill. Still, in large enterprise deals, particularly those led by
the IBM consulting and services organization, IBM's data quality products are always a contender.
• The high price points of IBM's products relative to its competition represent a challenge for IBM. Customer references
reported fairly low satisfaction with the pricing model and relative value of the products. Some customers expressed
dissatisfaction with the pricing of individual modules, and with the lack of availability of qualified resources for
implementation and support.
Page 277
SAS – Data Quality Tools
Products: dfPower Studio, DataFlux Integration Server, DataFlux Accelerators
Strengths
• DataFlux continues to drive broad data quality initiatives, from BI and data warehousing to MDM and migration, and is showing
impressive growth. DataFlux has added a significant number of net new customers, and its growth also benefits from Project
Unity, through which the vendor inherits data integration customers from SAS, the parent company. DataFlux has one of the
highest ratios of reinvesting revenue in R&D and enjoys a maintenance renewal rate of over 95%. Project Unity is consistent
with the ongoing market trend of the convergence of data quality, data integration and master data management.
• DataFlux's capabilities include profiling, matching, cleansing, monitoring and metadata management in a single platform. The
ability to run SAS code within a DataFlux data flow is a unique strength of the DataFlux platform. New platform developments
with version 2.1 of the DataFlux Data Management Platform include the integration of the DataFlux Federation server, a new
collaboration environment for data stewards, and new data quality assessment and visualization capabilities. The vendor is
continuously pushing the boundaries of its data quality platform and the market in general, leading to its favourable position
again this year.
• The vendor continues to build out "accelerators," such as Customer Data Analysis or Materials Data Classification, and is praised
by its customer references for the usability of its tools (particularly for non-technical staff), their easy installation and the
integration of the toolset. Technical support and professional services continue to be ranked among the highest in the customer
survey.
Cautions
• While Project Unity is slowly getting recognized in the market, DataFlux still doesn't have the brand recognition of a data
management infrastructure provider beyond data quality. DataFlux will need to expand its marketing scope to gain recognition
beyond the area of data quality, and to compete with much larger infrastructure opponents, such as IBM, SAP or Informatica.
• While DataFlux tools are reported to be easy to use, due to the breadth of functionality, some customers report that the
learning curve is fairly steep and skilled personnel are difficult to find. Customers would, in particular, like to see more usage
examples and "how to" documentation with tips and tricks. DataFlux customers continue to struggle with the overall high price
of the software.
• The majority (88%) of recent customer references work in customer data (for example, name and address cleansing and
matching), while other domains represent a substantial minority. However, examples of multi-domain use are common across
the DataFlux customer base.
Page 278
IBM – Data Integration Tools
Products: IBM InfoSphere Information Server (includes components: InfoSphere DataStage, InfoSphere
QualityStage, InfoSphere Change Data Capture, InfoSphere Federation Server, InfoSphere Foundation Tools),
InfoSphere Data Event Publisher, InfoSphere Replication Server
Strengths
• IBM's customers often address data integration problems of substantial scale and complexity, to meet sophisticated data
integration demands. IBM continues to demonstrate strong vision in the market for extensive data integration capabilities,
while also executing well in increasing the adoption of the various components within existing IBM customers and beyond.
Organizations adopting InfoSphere data integration tools tend to consider it the enterprise standard for data integration
tooling, so IBM's customer references reflect more multi-project use and larger average numbers of data integration developers
per customer than most of its competitors. A growing base of customers apply the tools against MDM, migration/conversion and
operational data interface problems.
• IBM continues to increase the level of integration between and consistency across the range of InfoSphere Information Server
components. Significant deliverables in late 2008 and during 2009 included integrating the CDC technology (obtained in the
• DataMirror acquisition of 2006) with DataStage, the release of various Foundation Tools (for metadata management of various
types, data profiling and industry models), and integrating DataStage with the InfoSphere MDM Server offering. Looking ahead,
the product road map includes additional synergies with other IBM technologies, such as Optim for enabling data privacy rules
in data integration processes. The 8.5 Information Server release late in 2010 addresses many of the previous configuration
support complaints from 2009 and before.
• Real-time data integration across the a breadth of data management environments benefited from enhanced change data
capture capabilities in 2010. Distributed data, synchronization issues, business intelligence/data warehouse and master data
management publication/subscription management all benefit from the CDC capability. Communication with message brokers,
Web/Apps portals and direct from most commonly deployed relational databases is supported. While similar functionality is
offered by some competitors, most competing offerings are limited to bulk/batch needs.
Page 279
IBM – Data Integration Tools
Products: IBM InfoSphere Information Server (includes components: InfoSphere DataStage, InfoSphere
QualityStage, InfoSphere Change Data Capture, InfoSphere Federation Server, InfoSphere Foundation Tools),
InfoSphere Data Event Publisher, InfoSphere Replication Server
Cautions
• In 2010, fewer references reported issues with aligning the various components, but still report the vast number of "moving
parts" makes it difficult to implement the solution. Clients also report the solution "hardens" well, indicating their
implementation runs with high throughput, a low number of outages and solid job flow orchestration. The 8.5 Information
Server release was notable in addressing many of these issues with a new installer, better patch handling and improved
configuration support. The IBM long-standing reputation for complexity manifests in customer references which often report a
greater effort than expected for initial installation. As a result, references report their overall experience is "challenging."
Despite these challenges a majority of customers indicate that they plan to procure additional products or licenses for deployed
products from the InfoSphere portfolio in the next twelve months.
• The same situation existed in 2009. During 2010, IBM focused less on new functionality and more on enhancing the quality in
the existing product set even further.
• Most customer references use the toolset for bulk/batch data delivery, granular CDC and propagation, and data replication. IBM
states that the adoption of Federation Server is substantial (approximately 500 customers), although federation deployments
appear infrequently in Gartner client interactions and within IBM-provided customer references. While IBM provides various
integration points between the InfoSphere technologies and the WebSphere portfolio of process- and application-integration
capabilities, customer references reflect a use of these two brands in separate projects — albeit they report separate successes
as well.
• Pricing continues to be a major concern for IBM customers. The use of CPU speed as the main pricing parameter (adds
complexity for customers auditing and modifying their implementation) and the relatively high cost of a typical implementation
(compared with many of IBM's competitors) cause some prospects to consider alternative providers or limit their investment to
a small number of components (DataStage only, for example). For some midsize enterprises and those seeking a focused subset
of the portfolio, the pricing approach may offer some advantages. Fewer customers and prospects in 2010 reported challenges
in locating resources in their local geographies.
Page 280
SAP – Data Integration Tools
Products: Data Integrator, Data Federator, Data Services, NetWeaver Process Integration and
Replication Server
Strengths
• The breadth of functionality available across the portfolio (a wide range of data delivery styles, plus options to integrate with
data quality capabilities and SAP's MDM offering) continues to be attractive to SAP's customers and prospects. Functionality
includes: bulk batch, federation, message queues as sources and targets, master data management, metadata management,
auditing features and collaborative development. More importantly, Sybase PowerDesigner and Replication Server were added
to SAP's arsenal — a modeling tool and changed data capture support which provide for a integrated stack to enhance the
metadata capabilities and change detection for SAP's offering. Feedback from customer references indicates that the most
significant strengths of SAP's offering are the ease of implementation and ongoing ease of use of Data Integrator, and
straightforward version upgrades (this is important as the complexity of some of the tools in the Leaders' quadrant are
specifically cited as creating upgrade issues).
• In 2010, SAP finally started to flex its broader market muscle to enhance its data management position overall, and this is being
reflected in market growth for its Data Integration offering. The Data Integration tool offers capable support for data
marts/warehouses, operational application integration, including services deployment and orchestration for data
integration/data quality combined, and complex events support. Gartner's own data indicates that SAP's growth in this market
exceeds the market rate (see "Market Share: Data Integration Tools and Data Quality Tools, Worldwide, 2009"). SAP has
established a vision for how the former Business Objects tools (Data Integrator, Data Federator and Metadata Management will
be integrated and rationalized with SAP's own data integration capabilities (the extractors for SAP NetWeaver Business
Warehouse and NetWeaver Process Integration).
• SAP's Data Services, continues to gain traction in the market. The presence of a single runtime platform which combines data
quality with data integration services is reported by customers as one key to the ease of implementation. This combination of
data integration and data quality capabilities is consistent with market demand trends. Future indications include a focus on
data governance and information life cycle management with plans for data steward and other information "governors" support.
Additionally, most of the product development efforts for the next major release has been to integrate with the semantic layer
to enable BI workflows. This is part of a larger strategy to create a complete modeling experience which encompasses data
integration.
Page 281
SAP – Data Integration Tools
Products: Data Integrator, Data Federator, Data Services, NetWeaver Process Integration and
Replication Server
Cautions
• References report frustration that the product does not have better integration with the remainder of the SAP stack.
Difficulties supporting various types of complex sources (e.g., XML issues) are reported. Security and sign-on issues are reported
as frustrating which creates some difficulties in team-based development. Finally, lagging development for Linux platform
support is reported. On the positive side, SAP customers also report a lower instance of support frustration — support is not yet
a strength and issues remain, but the number of reported support and performance issues are lower than in previous years. SAP
needs to do a better job of communicating the resolution to some of these issues as many have been addressed and additional
enhancements are expected in the Data Services 4.0 release.
• Once again, 2010 references report concerns regarding the degree to which Data Integrator, Data Federator and Data Services
will remain "environment-agnostic" (providing equal support for both SAP and non-SAP data structures and applications). SAP's
stated road map is to pursue data integration as an agnostic solution, but this differs from customers' past experience with SAP
products. The fear of the offerings becoming too tightly attuned to SAP applications has caused some customers and prospects
to limit their investments. Pricing and licensing complexity have also complicated SAP's penetration into the market and
confused efforts to grow the "footprint" in existing accounts.
• Implementations of SAP data integration tools continue to reflect a bias toward bulk/batch-oriented data delivery (such as ETL
architectures). The customer base shows relatively limited adoption of Data Federator, and extremely limited use of real-time
and granular data delivery capabilities even though Replication Server and NetWeaver enable additional delivery styles and
data bus capabilities. However, more customers report efforts to utilize MDM capabilities in the stack. While MDM is not the
focus of this report, the presence of integrated or consolidated data management within a data integration toolset indicates a
combined solution to improve overall data governance. The vendor must continue to develop competency and proof points
regarding the full range of data delivery styles (for example, via bringing the Data Federator capabilities into the Data Services
offering) in order to better align with evolving market demand.
Page 282
SAS – Data Integration Tools
Products: Enterprise Data Integration Server, Data Integration Server, SAS for Data Migration,
SAS/ACCESS, DataFlux Integration Server
Strengths
• Through late 2009 and 2010, SAS introduced product enhancements for collaborative development and workflow support as well
as metadata tools for analyzing and managing integrated/transformed data. Federation was also introduced in 2010. Best
practices and methodology were introduced including prebuilt auditing modules and data management architecture guidelines.
In the high-performance computing arena, SAS introduced "cloud" computing support via management of processing in a shared
pool environment as well as services deployment for data selection and evaluation tasks to source databases and file systems.
These constitute solid product improvements which meet the technical requirements and exemplary vision relative to the
needs of the market.
• SAS's size, global presence and long experience supporting data integration activities give it a solid position. Users report strong
visual workflow management tools and a high quality of SAS professional services. The resulting product delivery model includes
positive reviews of its product support and service experiences worldwide. In 2010, SAS re-organized its data management
delivery under the DataFlux brand and combined data integration, data quality and MDM capabilities to launch the DataFlux
Data Management Platform. The strong indication to focus on quality and governance places SAS in a strong position to pursue
data management services offerings.
• The Enterprise Data Integration Server has connectivity to virtually every data source, including packaged applications, data
warehouse appliances and many data sources on the mainframe. SAS can run on every major operating system, including
various Unix and Linux flavors and z/OS, and it can connect to SaaS data as well as to various data warehouse appliances.
Additionally, SAS has multiple data integration approaches and tools supporting ELT/ETL, SOA and many other architectural
forms.
Page 283
SAS – Data Integration Tools
Products: Enterprise Data Integration Server, Data Integration Server, SAS for Data Migration,
SAS/ACCESS, DataFlux Integration Server
Cautions
• SAS's customer references reflect a wide diversity of use cases, industries and implementation styles, but also varied
experiences. Customer references provide inconsistent feedback on the ease of deployment/implementation. Reference
customers utilizing professional services report more consistent and efficient delivery. This indicates that customer experiences
are highly individualized, so success depends greatly on the customer's skills and the vendor's support capability. In addition,
SAS customers are completing significantly complex data integration tasks which increase the difficulty of implementations.
• SAS's user experiences complain of complex licensing and pricing. Many feel this complexity increases the cost over all, with
individual purchases required for multiple components. This component pricing approach increases the complexity of delivery
and frequently, SAS's own professional services staff encounter deployment delays because of confusion regarding what clients
actually own. Overall, this detracts from SAS's ability to market and execute in new sales — even given SAS's very large
customer base. Some customers report that the price is high and that obtaining value for the price paid is difficult, while other
customers indicate good value.
• As before, in 2010 the reference customers report inconsistent performance when completing upgrades. Similar issues are
reported when moving from test to production. Many implementations require work-around solutions and this is the genesis of
many of these issues as clients report that the integration of the various components is problematic. Source-level control is also
reportedly weak. Importantly, the majority of client/reference feedback is relative to older versions prior to the release of the
DataFlux Data Management Platform.
Page 284
The Forrester Wave : Enterprise Data Quality
Platforms, Q4 2010
High level Vendor Profile Classification

 Leaders Feature A Clear, Dedicated Focus On Data Quality Software Innovation (SAS DataFlux)
 Strong Performers Provide Compelling Alternatives For Targeted Business Environments (SAP BO & IBM)
Page 285
DataFlux delivers a positive user experience for data quality, with sights set higher. When SAS
Institute acquired DataFlux more than 10 years ago, it made a very smart and effective
decision: It retained the DataFlux brand and kept it as a wholly owned, but separately
managed, subsidiary.6 This allowed DataFlux to leverage the significant upsell and cross-sell
opportunities into the huge and loyal SAS business intelligence and analytics install base, but it
did not require DataFlux to lose its laser-like focus on solving its customers’ unique data
quality management problems. DataFlux has been very successful in delivering value to its data
quality customers, as indicated by the strong customer reference feedback within this
Forrester Wave evaluation.
Most recently, DataFlux took over management of the SAS data integration product portfolio,
and earlier this year, the vendor released its DataFlux Data Management Platform, which
combines its data quality, data integration, and master data management products into a
single platform. This platform was released too late to be considered in this Forrester Wave
evaluation, and it’s too early to tell if the market is ready to embrace DataFlux for its
complete data management stack beyond data quality.
SAP BusinessObjects extends data quality usage scenarios to enterprise apps environments.
Business Objects’ acquisition of Firstlogic in 2006 effectively erased the data quality market’s
awareness of this solution from all but the Business Objects BI customers, who saw DQ as a
cross-sell option. But SAP’s acquisition of Business Objects in 2008 reopened this door to
address a number of unmet data quality needs for SAP customers. These include filling in
significant functional gaps in SAP MDM, introducing data quality into application migrations and
upgrades, and offering prepackaged app-specific DQ modules — in addition to traditional data
warehousing and BI use cases. While SAP boasts a very large install base for its data quality
products, it has not provided sufficient business data stewardship functionality for its DQ
products. Instead, the vendor promotes SAP MDM as the option when customers require
collaborative, workflow-enabled stewardship across business and IT roles. In addition, the
results of SAP’s customer reference survey, while expressing satisfaction in some functional
areas such as performance, matching, and postal address support, indicated some significant
concerns around the product’s ease of use, the complexity of its pricing, and the effectiveness
of the SAP account management teams.
IBM embeds data quality as a part of a comprehensive information management

strategy.
IBM offers the broadest portfolio and vision for how data quality plays in a
comprehensive information management strategy and architecture that spans
structured data, unstructured content, advanced analytics, and collaboration tools.
This robust, single-vendor platform attracts CIOs and enterprise architects looking for
a one-stop-shop strategic IT partner to scale a large global organization.
Unfortunately, IBM may overlook the frontline data quality professional with a very
real set of business problems that must be mitigated through a targeted data quality
investment. IBM’s QualityStage offers a well-balanced set of data quality features and
functionality including strong performance, real-time data quality services, broad
connectivity, and very good data profiling, but — like SAP — it is less successful in
delivering a stellar end user experience. Forrester’s March 2010 Global Data Quality
Forrester Wave Customer Reference Online Survey and August 2010 Global Data
Quality Online Survey indicate that IBM customers are pleased with how well the
product delivers technical capabilities, but they’re critical of IBM’s product ease of
use, the complexity of IBM’s pricing, and the ability of IBM’s professional services,
help desk, and support organizations to assist them.

Finance Information &amp; Systems Strategy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Finance Information &amp; Systems Strategy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Finance Information & Systems Strategy

Blueprint & Roadmap for the Future

Project Working Group Member Signature Date

> The Table of Contents (and various images) contain

> The primary objective of the overall strategy was to

> This blueprint has not been completed in isolation. There

Approach Project Background

Supporting Evidence Voice of the Customer

Appendices Workshop Outcomes

Remove duplication and

wasted effort by ensuring

that data is understood and

Improve decision making by

ensuring that data is truly

p reflective of the meaning

> It is important to understand the impact of [Client]’s

> The current Business strategy focuses on substantial

> Performance metrics will also be key in

Firms planning modeling /

Customer level data

SAP BW will become the authoritative source of truth for financial

SAP ERP is the enterprise transaction engine.

Multiple versions Inconsistently used

Finance & Business Financial Strategy

Taxation Risk Financial Financial Policies &

Accounting Corporate Benchmarking & Analysis Finance Service

Financial Shared Services

Taxation Capital Credit Financial Provide Special Projects &

SAS Modules IBM Modules SAP Modules

Typical Project Life Cycle

Business Monitor and

Educate & Innovate & Sustain &

Change Management Approach

Net Incremental Investment: $9.1m

BIC Mobilise Data

Profit Modelling Mobilise Build Data Warehouse Investment: $3.1m

4.0 > Planning & Forecasting has already commenced and is

meet multidimensional profit views. Controlled expected

cost of this development could be limited to $2.9m or

flexed –up if required

Benefits are expected from the Planning & Forecasting stream

where there will be some form of capacity release. Potential

Approach Project Background

Supporting Evidence Voice of the Customer

Appendices Workshop Outcomes

Approach the Project used to build the Strategy

The Scope of the Project includes the following;

 Review of the existing finance systems and business architecture

Current State View Current Costs

Project Control Group, Stakeholder Engagement & Communication

Key : Deliverable Interim Deliverable Meeting / Communications

Week 1 Weeks 2 & 3 Week 4

View of Finance Systems Architecture

Finance & Business Financial Strategy

Direct Accounting Corporate Analysis Finance Service

Financial Manage Master Shared Services

Control Governance Manage Data

Taxation Capital Credit Financial Provide Special Projects &

SAS Modules IBM Modules SAP Modules

Area of Key Areas

> The model identifies:

Overview of the Vendor Solution Approach

Presentation Dashboard & Performance Reporting

IBM – High level Analytics & Modeling layer

Finance Information & Systems Strategy

Finance Information & Systems Strategy