Creating the Innovation Platform

© 2013 Information Services Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. No part of this document may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means,

including information storage and retrieval devices or systems, without prior written permission from Information Services Group, Inc.

Creating the Innovation Platform – RFS and Other Techniques

Dave Tienstra – Partner – Retail, CPG, Travel & Transportation, Hospitality Clay Calhoun – Partner – Banking, Financial Services, Insurance Paul Schmidt – Partner – Retail, CPG, Travel & Transportation, Hospitality

September 10, 2013

2013 Sourcing Industry Conference

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

A Market View


The CIO Heat Map has never been more complex. Many players in the eco-system are opining from north, south, east and west.

Issues that are on the Desk of our Clients

Big Data

IT Consumerization Green

Talent Management Security

Business Unit Alignment

Business Enabler Vs.

Business Inhibitor Self-Funding Models

Unified Communications

& Analytics


In today’s market, change is everywhere and is accelerating exponentially…

Pace of Change

Change

Time

This suggests that if we adjust our pace of learning, that we will remain aligned.

What if the Pace of Change is Non-Linear?

What-if?


Pace of Learning < Pace of Change

In today’s market, the pace of change exceeds our pace of learning. The divide is noticeable and increasing at an alarming rate.

Business Alignment

Technology & Services

Business Practices

We are here

Growing Misalignment


Evolution of procuring a managed service is becoming a revolution

Single supplier / multiple functions

Very large contracts Long duration (~7-10 ) Often lift and shift –

custom requirements Often with asset transfer 9 – 12 month project

RFP is best vehicle for going to market due to custom requirements.

Often two providers – Infrastructure and ADM split

Large deals Long duration (~5 – 7) Leverages best practices Still leveraging custom

requirements 6 -9 month project

RFP is a good fit but now includes some industry standard requirements – CMMI, ITIL

True multi-sourcing – best provider for the Service and SIAM

Medium size deals Shorter duration (~5

years) More use of standard

solutions Usually no asset transfer 4 – 6 month project

RFP is an adequate fit and now includes cross-vendor integration (SIAM) requirements

Multi-sourcing with new technology, commercial models & new provider entrants

Small size Short Duration ( 3 – 5

years) Often includes

innovation 3 -4 month project

RFP can be too time-consuming and may stifle innovation – what are the alternatives?

2013… 1990 2000 2010

Pluralistic Bipartisan Monolithic Dynamic


Where have we been and where are we going?

In 2012 ISG suggested that the “RFP is dead” (or should be) in today’s market. In 2013 it is time to explore a framework of Evolutionary Contracting

Classic Contracting is decreasing

► RFP is too prescriptive.

► RFP limits innovation.

► RFP’s are too formal and they do not foster trust or transparency

► Need something more flexible in the market RFS process.

► RFS can yield more innovative solutions for the base contract.

► RFS with Collaborative Contracting, done well, can foster trust and transparency.

Evolutionary Contracting is increasing ► Contracts need to evolve over time.

► Static operating models for multi-year durations do not make sense.

► Base Contract is just the beginning of the business relationship – it must grow/evolve or run the risk of becoming outdated and irrelevant.

► Buyers and Sellers need to engage in Mutual Consent Commerce. True win/win with easy on easy off terms. Think handshake with 100 pages vs. classical 1000

page contract. Think dating vs. marriage


ISG’s award winning innovation in sourcing process

Request for Solution


IACCM 2013 Innovation Award - RFS

RFS is already short-listed – final award presented in October at the IACCM Americas Forum 2013 in Arizona.

IACCM Innovation Awards Recognizing outstanding leadership & innovation in commercial contracting Award for outstanding service providers - For consultants, service or application service providers who have led or enabled high value initiatives at client organizations.


Client Innovation Challenges

Dialogue ISG has “behind closed doors”…


Clients want to source a service, but want innovation too . . .

► Describing innovation in an RFP can be very difficult or impossible The marketplace for services is changing rapidly – in some cases, so quickly that

service provider’s own marketing can’t keep up Every day there are announcements of new technologies; new and emerging

standards; and changing delivery and commercial models

► You could consider a less structured, more collaborative approach to the provider marketplace, and ask for a solution to your problem from providers most suited to know your business, and their best ideas, using their latest offerings!

Leverage knowledge to power results – and achieve objectives – and more.

The Request for Solution process allows you and your potential providers the best chance to find the right answer for you, and lets the expert provider architect that answer with the very latest technology and business process solutions.


RFS allows the Provider to show their best

Less prescription, more collaboration, better result. RFS allows the Provider to show their best approach and solution to the problem.

How do you leverage the best

knowledge to power your

results?

The RFP: The Buyer’s Solution

► Focus: getting to “perfect” base contract

► Process is client-led ► Solution approach

requires transparency ► Buyer is prescriptive;

Seller is restricted to solution buyer requests

► Slow and expensive

The RFS: The Seller’s Solution

► Focus: evolutionary contract

► Process is supplier-led ► Commercially available

solutions-utility model ► Buyer does not constrain;

Seller is encouraged to be innovative & creative

► Faster, less costly


When and why should RFS be considered

The RFS best suits clients who have sourcing experience, a sourcing strategy, service integration and governance processes in place.

In-scope areas are subject to major innovation or transformation

A high degree of competition and solution diversity is needed from bidders

Speed to an agreement is paramount and the transaction is solution focused

For completely new businesses where there is almost complete flexibility in technology solution choices

If one of the following situations applies, then RFS is most likely the best process to follow:

The RFS delivers a Case for Change within the client team when they have multiple factions trying to drive in different directions


What’s different about RFS?

Using RFS, with expert advice from ISG, ensures clients ask the right questions to the right providers to get the right solution, in the most time efficient way.

RFI Query the Market

RFS Engage the Market

Question Provider’s Answer

Unstructured Unstructured

Structured Unstructured

RFP Instruct & Test the Market

Structured Structured

The RFS process and ISG consultants helps you: ► Ask the right questions –

based on our expertise ► Ask the right service

providers – based on our deal database

► Ask the questions in the right context – based on ISG knowledge of the market and the business domain

► Interpret the response based on ISG expertise in transactions


RFS has many benefits

Solution-driven approach allows service providers to offer their innovative, thought-leading solutions – or identifies if there are no solutions in the market.

Right providers ►Engaging appropriate providers allows focus, saves time ►Reduces the churn of too many providers with marginal solution ►Dramatically increases probability of finding right solution ►Lowers cost of transaction – for both parties!

Right questions ►Stating the problem clearly allows providers to innovate ►Allows adaptation to market conditions – real time ►Facilitates collaborative process that refines problem statement ►Recognises that there maybe more than one answer

Right experience ►Recent market experience with the provider participants ►Domain experience and data to help evaluate solutions ►Focused on the key questions so the process is no longer that it

needs to be while managing risk!


The RFS Process

The RFS Process to start – then back to Strategy if no success

Check- point

A

B

Possible RFS outcomes and service design

RFS may not lead exactly where you think it will go . . . If the RFS yields strong and innovative solutions, it makes sense to continue – otherwise, re-evaluate.

* or solutions!

If no acceptable solutions emerge, the project must re-evaluate the Design using the new information gained from the RFS process – and perhaps issue an RFP

If a strong solution emerges in Phase 1 and 2, the Client can leverage Collaborative Contracting to move through the Transaction.

Prepare Solution

Due Diligence Contract

Transition and Transformation

Review: ► Sourcing Strategy ► Target Operating Model ► Service Design


Once the Client finds the right solution, the detailed solution and proposed value are further scrutinized and captured in a market typical sourcing agreement

Time

Primary Activities

Perform pre-agreement activities

Assign the team members

Prepare project plan

Conduct kickoff

Develop engagement package and base case

Determine and contact participating providers

Assist the service providers during proposal development

Conduct solution and indicative pricing evaluation

Downselect

Release key contract documents and pricing forms

Conduct due diligence and submit updated proposals

Perform the service provider walk-through

Evaluate provider solution, pricing and legal response

Downselect

Develop contract documents and plan negotiations

Conduct negotiations

Develop final employee retention and transfer plan

Prepare to kickoff transition/transformation

Sign the contract

Prepare ~ 2 weeks

Solution ~ 6 weeks

Due Diligence ~ 6 weeks

Contract ~ 4 weeks

RFS

Prototypical Schedule


The RFS Methodology


RFS Approach

High level visual depicting the major phases, activities and deliverables from the ISG RFS sourcing transaction process

Walk-through EAS Sessions MVD Sessions

Prepare

1 – 2 weeks

Solution

6 – 8 weeks

Engagement scope Project plan Project kickoff Deck

Engagement package and base case Provider capabilities and

recomendations Evaluation results and

downselect

Key contract documents Due diligence approach Updated evaluation model Downselect recommendation

Contract documents Negotiations preparation Signed contracts

Time

Primary Activities

Deliverables

6 – 8 weeks

Due Diligence

5 – 6 weeks

Contract

E M W M

E M W

Release key contract documents and pricing forms




Develop future-state SIAM operating model

Downselect

Develop contract documents and plan negotiations

Conduct negotiations

Develop final employee retention and transfer plan

Develop final future-state SIAM operating model

Prepare to kickoff transition/transformation

Sign the contract




Develop first pass future-state SIAMM design work plan

Downselect


Perform pre-agreement activities

Assign the team members

Prepare project plan

Conduct kickoff


RFS Phase 1: Prepare

Focuses on finalizing the project set-up, preparing the ISG and COMPANY XYZ project teams for their project role and responsibilities

* Initial interviews with key stakeholders to validate sourcing objectives and prepare kickoff materials.

Prepare Solution Due Diligence Contract

Prepare engagement plan Define engagement plan tasks, responsibilities, timelines and milestones. Validate PSA, SOW and PO in place.

Identify engagement resources Define project organisation. Communicate resources and responsibilities.

Confirm engagement scope Engagement lead validates defined scope of services with client.

Stakeholder interviews* Conduct interviews to help ISG understand business priorities, obtain contextual information including project objectives and determine project deliverables expectations.

Develop the kickoff presentation materials

Develop the deck including the project approach; project plan and milestones; team structure; assigned resources and their roles and responsibilities.

Conduct the project team kickoff

Hold a workshop to deliver the kickoff presentation including a Q&A session with the team. Secure agreement with team on roles, responsibilities and deliverables – begin assignments.

Deliverables

Engagement plan

Engagement scope Kickoff deck

1

2

3

1 2 3


RFS Phase 2: Solution

Focuses on articulating the objectives and collaborating with a group of bidders to develop the best solutions to meet the objectives



Develop an engagement package to describe the clients sourcing and project objectives, background and current environment description. Develop base case.


Provide client with ISG provider capabilities materials. Provide ISG recommendation if requested. Develop provider facing communications and conduct kickoff.


Initiate and facilitate a Q&A process to provide clarification. Hold Q&A meetings to discuss topics as needed. Conduct MVD sessions to provide solution feedback.


Develop an evaluation model and business case. Review the providers proposals and conduct MVD sessions to clarify solutions. Evaluate the solutions and indicative pricing.

Develop first pass future-state SIAM design work plan

Review current service management and governance structures, tools and processes. Develop future state vision and gap analysis.

Downselect Facilitate scenario, risk and SWAT analysis to help the team develop a recommendation. Finalize the financial evaluation. Develop and present a steering committee presentation.

Deliverables

Engagement package and base case

Provider capabilities and recomendations

Evaluation results and downselect

1

2

3

1 2 3

$$


RFS Phase 3: Due Diligence

Focuses on conducting in-bound and out-bound Due Diligence (DD), beginning the contracting workstream and helping the Providers fine-tune their proposals Prepare Solution Due Diligence Contract

Release key contract documents

Develop and release MSA, Exhibits 1,2 , 3 and 4 (to the extent necessary) along with a detailed Attachment 4-A with resource unit baselines.


Conduct outbound and inbound due diligence. Conduct workshops as needed to clarify and document Technical Solution Document, Transition and Transformation Plans. Provider submits updated proposal with detailed pricing.


Conduct MVD or "Walkthrough" of Provider updated proposals. Review the solution, key contract document responses and detailed pricing response.


After Provider submits post MVD final bid, conduct evaluation using the valuation model developed in phase 2.

Develop future-state SIAM operating model

Develop any revised roles and responsibilities, staff new or changed positions, develop processes and prepare to stand-up revised organization and processes.

Downselect Facilitate scenario, risk and SWOT analysis to help the team develop a recommendation. Finalize the financial evaluation. Develop and present a steering committee presentation.

Deliverables

Key contract documents

Due diligence approach

Evaluation model Downselect

1

3

1

2

4

4

2 3

4


RFS Phase 4: Contract

Focuses on final negotiations and getting to contract.


Develop contract documents Develop remaining contract documents not provided in Phase 3. Convert Phase responses to final documents for negotiations.

Prepare for negotiations Fine tune negotiations strategies and tactics, assign and assemble the negotiations team; prepare negotiation logistics; document remaining open issues and negotiations objectives; and prepare and deliver negotiations training.

Conduct negotiations Conduct negotiations; update contract documents and open issues lists as issues are closed; prepare and conduct follow-on sessions. Track and complete action items.

Develop final future-state SIAM operating model

Deploy the updated SIAM operating model and processes for "day 1"; continue development of remaining processes and begin to collaborate with Provider on Service Management Manual.

Prepare to kickoff transition/transformation (T&T)

Help the client constitute an internal T&T project team; develop project governance; and prepare to kickoff the workstream with the Provider after signature.

Sign the contract Signature ready contract documents are developed and processed through COMPANY XYZ and Provider approval processes and both Parties sign the agreement.

Deliverables

Contract documents

Negotiations preparation Signed contracts

1

2

3

1 2 3

RFX


Creating Service Innovation with Your Clients


It’s a cliché – but it still causes heartburn in outsourcing

► “Innovation” used 33,528 times in quarterly & annual reports in 2011

► 255 books published in the first quarter of 2012 with the word Innovation in the title

► 43% of surveyed execs state they have a Chief Innovation Officer or similar role

► 28% of business schools use the word in their mission statement

► So. . . What does it mean for our industry?

The Wall Street Journal provided depressing statistics last year. . .

WSJ Marketplace 23 May 2012


The Holy Grail

► Contract may contain an innovation clause, and governance for innovation

► Clients expect innovation without understanding the context and are disappointed when they don’t get it (usually in top 3 things most disappointing in services relationships)

► ISG observes that innovation is generally hindered by client behaviors

► We thought it made sense to look at this subject from the provider perspective

► A while back . . . we tried to do something about it: TPI research on Innovation – 2008 Business drivers, investment, organizational

alignment and disciplined execution must all exist for innovation to occur.

Every client wants innovation from their provider – for free, right now, and to make huge improvement and/or savings in their work. . .

Need to Innovate Ability to Innovate

Managing the Innovation Model

Business Innovation

Process Innovation

Technical Innovation


What we missed. . .

► We created language for a Terms sheet, a governance meeting name for Innovation meetings, and processes for how to do it . . . We were sure we had the answer…

► Clients and providers did this, and much beautiful shelfware ensued.

► And nothing has happened; Clients are as unhappy as they have ever been about innovation – to the extent that we have started to advise clients to not bother with extensive innovation language in their contracts . . .

We believed that by identifying the requirements, building the processes, and priming the documents, we could help solve the problem.

Why? Because innovation is a human-based activity, which needs humans to engage with each other and to do it together.


What gets in the way of clients and providers working together?

► Episodic and/or infrequent discussions about innovation, allowing it to slip from top-of-mind

► Failure to identify a meaningful problem that needs to be solved

► Failure to understand (and take on board) required conditions for innovation

► Inability to create an environment of mutual trust

► Perception of motivation of provider (the paradox of outsourcing)

► Reluctance to engage in change – no burning platform

You are the only party in the relationship with the capacity to step back and evaluate – clients seldom can stop long enough to question.

* Setting corporate culture aside

Often budget is named as the inhibitor, but if the matter is probed, it becomes much more complex and human factors emerge as the real reason.


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


Define innovation together

► Clients have many different perceptions of innovation

► The lack of a common definition between client and service provider can create unrealistic expectations or preconceived ideas on the part of the client, which creates frustration that is directed at you, the provider

Getting a client to come to the table to jointly create a definition can address false expectations on the client’s side, and open ideas and awareness for you.

How might this work in practice?

► What level of the organization would you engage for maximum impact?

► Who would come from your side? ► How might such a discussion be framed

up? Facilitated or freewheeling?

► How would your client’s culture affect how you structured such a meeting?

► What output would you expect? Is a Mission Statement enough to get you going? Mission and Actions?

1


Integrate innovation throughout the business

► Not all client companies have a culture of innovation in the back office services

► Many companies see strategic planning and innovation only on the product side of the business. Finding a way to bring together the business strategy and planning with the business operations will allow the provider to deliver innovation that matters to the client’s business.

As a provider delivering common services to multiple clients, you have deep and unique insight on opportunities for innovation – but clients don’t think about that.


► How might you work with your client to discover the problem that is most on their mind, for which an innovative solution might be applicable?

► How can a service provider “live” the message of innovation in business operations so a client sees it?

► What would be done differently day-to-day?

2


Invest in innovation.

► Technology and back office services are usually seen as cost centers; even though clients insist on contractual obligations for the provider to deliver innovation, they are generally not interested in innovation if it costs more

► In addition, pressures on the provider to continuously provide cost savings to the client means less margin that could incent or pay for innovation

You are spending money continuously to improve your delivery efficiency; how are your thoughts about your own innovation filtering to your engagement teams?


► Are there resources, visionary individuals, or think tanks that create ideas in your organization that can help educate your client on the need for investment in innovation?

► How do you change the way you manage your on-site teams to keep this door of ideas and innovation open?

► Question?

3


Recognize the difference between “Big I” innovation and continuous improvement

► Client business executives expect business innovation, but operations executives expect technical and process innovation; it can be difficult to bridge the gap and create meaningful solutions that support both areas

► Some forms of continuous improvement can be very valuable to a client both from an efficiency and a cost savings perspective but do not get the recognition as “Big I” innovation.

Operations teams often don’t see innovation as their objective – but every dollar saved through innovation in operations goes straight to the bottom line.


► How would you change your overall reporting to your client to emphasize the “little i” or continuous improvement activities, and link that back to Innovation?

► Could you bring your own innovation teams to meet with your client’s operations people to create awareness and open eyes?

► Question?

4


Bring more minds to the table.

► You, the provider, can bring leadership to this kind of multiple player situation, but you need to help your client recognize their role to be the driver.

Multi-service provider environments, which are the norm today, require a number of providers to be engaged in a complex services situation.


► How would you look at the complex services of your client, to help bring them to awareness of the value of collaboration between providers?

► How would you overcome your own reluctance to collaborate with a competitor?

5


How to keep innovation top of mind. . .

► Talk about it – all the time

► Create a program about it

► Make your own people listen through programs to measure apprehension; measure their frequency to discuss with their customers

► Make metrics that are achievable around young innovation programs

► Understand that innovation may not be earth-shattering to be important, valuable, and worth the time and effort

We suspect this is as difficult in provider’s client teams as it is in the client themselves. . . So a program is required.


Continued Evolution


Foundation – Trust & Transparency

Outcome Based

Stage 3

Evolutionary Contracting

Base* Contract

2.0

The primary focus of most sourcing initiatives is to get to the base contract. However, the value of a relationship is to be derived in the evolutionary contracting phase.

Evolutionary Contracting: Key to Continuous Value

► * - Base Contract 2.0: Solutions may be different, but regardless of the approach (top down or bottoms up), a well run process will end up with similar T’s & C’s and market pricing.

Input Based

Stage 1

Transaction Based

Stage 2

Contract Pricing & Terms

Faster Less Costly Buyer Unconstrained Seller Innovative & Creative Approach Requires Transparency Process Builds Foundation of Trust Focus on Evolutionary Contract Phase

Focus on Getting to “Perfect” Base Contract Process is Formal – Trust is Thin Approach is Closed Book Seller is Restricted in Solution Buyer is Prescriptive Slow/Expensive Innovation

Seller Solution

Buyer Solution

Mutual Consent Commerce


What Needs to Change?

The focus of commerce needs to shift from the “deal” or event of signing, to the framework and evolution of the deal as we move through a dynamic market.

► Base Contract 2.0 Looks more like 100 pages than 1000

pages Ease of expansion AND exit for both

parties Focus on bi-lateral transparency Rely on trust not legal terms

► Evolutionary Contracting Mindset that the contract is an

understanding not a document Focus on change and evolving structure

Input Transaction Outcome Mutual Consent Commerce

Both parties need to ensure that the other party is succeeding.

Base Contract

Base Contract

2.0

Contract Term Evolutionary Contracting

Typical Base Contract & Governance Framework

New Framework that recognizes that the world is changing

faster than we are


The suggested change from RFP to RFS and Evolutionary Contracting is radical and drives lots of dialog and disagreement. But all revolutions are radical and our industry needs a revolution.

Typical Client Questions

► Where should I try this? Has anyone done this?

► We have strict rules for buying services, how can I change that?

► What level of transparency is required? What about confidentiality?

► How do I know if I am getting value? Am I leaving something “on the table”?

► Who can help my company explore this?

► My procurement department requires me to compete all new business? How will that work?

► Trust is personal, how can you develop trust between corporations?


Current Market Perspective and Contracting

The market evolved in terms of maturity, standardization, and modularization. This should also be reflected in the contract architecture, i.e., the “big contracts” of the past must be modularized and can often be simplified.

LOW MATURITY AND STANDARDIZATION HIGH(ER)

LOW

HIGH

MODULARIZATION

Past ►Large, complex deals Full scope, long term Asset and HR transfer Dedicated resources Customized services/solutions High transaction cost

acceptable ►Low degree of flexibility Exclusivity Inflexible pricing Minimum commitments Termination next-to-

impossible ►Single-sourcing Single provider No Service Integration

Today ►Smaller, less complex deals Smaller scope, shorter term No asset or HR transfer Shared resources (e.g., cloud) More standardized

services/solutions Need for lower transaction cost

►Higher degree of flexibility Non-exclusive Flexible utility pricing Fewer minimum commitments Termination less expensive/risky

►Multi-sourcing Multiple providers Service Integration


Scope-Specific Contract

Relationship-Level Contract

Transaction-Specific Contract

SDC Exhibit

MSA Schedule

Contract Architecture

Provides a scope-agnostic Master Services Agreement (MSA) defining terms on the relationship, and a Service Delivery Contract with terms specific to a particular outsourcing transaction and the in-scope services.

Source: ISG, K&L Gates

…

…

Service Delivery Contract (SDC)

Master Services Agreement (MSA)

Supplemental Provision X

Supplemental Provision Y

Menu of Supplemental Provisions

MSA SCHEDULE CONTENTS Relationship-level details, e.g., ► Governance ► Customer Policies and

Procedures

SDC EXHIBIT CONTENTS Service-specific content, e.g., ► Statement of Work ► Service Levels ► Pricing ► Reports ► Transition/Transformation Plan

SDC CONTENTS “Wrapper” document containing those terms that are specific to a particular outsourcing transaction

MSA Scope-agnostic MSA containing only those terms commonly and consistently present in most ITO and BPO deals

WORK IN PROGRESS


Exhibit 4 Pricing

Exhibit 3 SLA

Exhibit 2 SoW

Service Catalog and Contract

The modularization of a contract enables the establishment of a clear link between a Technical Service Catalog and the corresponding Service Delivery Contract.

Component 1.1

Component 1.2 Tower 1

Tower 2 Component 2.1

Component 2.2

Module 1.1

Module 1.2 Module Group 1

Module Group 2

Module 2.1

Module 2.2

Business Product 1.1

Business Product 1.2 Product Group 1

Product Group 2



Technical Product/ Service Catalog

Business Product/ Service Catalog

a b

Product/Service Catalogs Product/Service Structure

ILLUSTRATIVE

Service Delivery Contracts

Tasks SLs RUs

Tasks SLs RUs

Tasks SLs RUs

Tasks SLs RUs

Service Catalog


A change in perspectives on a Service Contract

Contract Management Perspective

► Exhibit 2 – Statement of Work Service A

• Task A.1 • Task A.2

Service B • Task B.1 • Task B.2

► Exhibit 3 – Service Levels Service A

• SLA A.1 • SLA A.2

Service B • SLA B.1 • SLA B.2

Service-Oriented Perspective

► Service A Exhibit 2 – Statement of Work

• Task A.1 • Task A.2

Exhibit 3 – Service Levels • SLA A.1 • SLA A.2

► Service B Exhibit 2 – Statement of Work

• Task B.1 • Task B.2

Exhibit 3 – Service Levels • SLA B.1 • SLA B.2

Modularization enables content (e.g., tasks, SLAs) to be aligned in a Service-Oriented Perspective rather than a Contract Management Perspective.


Automation - DecisionDirector – Online RFX Platform

DecisionDirector is ISG’s strategic tool for managing the modularized, authoritative content and for running RFP processes in the future. The platform provides the ability to tag and filter content as required.

NOTE Will use tags to markup content, e.g., by iSRA service, ISG product (e.g., “RFP Lite”), and applicability (e.g., for geography, industry).

www.isg-one.com