Upload
shankar-ganapathiraman
View
236
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/30/2019 Best Fit Pricing Model White Paper.pdf
1/21
Best t IT pricingmodels with mutualbene ts for service
providers and customers.
WHITE PAPER
7/30/2019 Best Fit Pricing Model White Paper.pdf
2/21
White paper
ex cu v summ y info m on t c nology (it) s s own d g ow n l s wo d c d s, o n ng u n dfo obus c ng mod l o m c ng ng x c ons. inc s ngly, cus om s look ng fobene ts beyond cost savings and service improvements. This has led to the emergence of pricingmodels beyond traditional ones such as time and material (T&M) and xed price (FP).
t s w d scuss s v ous c ng mod ls w c c s cs, sk com o s, osand cons and best t customer engagement. It covers some examples of the pricing models tried outin Mindtree. It also covers the due diligence required to decide the best t pricing model for a givensituation, with mutual bene ts for both customer and service provider.
Con n sA background on pricing models
The best t pricing model
Mutually bene cial pricing models
Linear pricing models
. D d c d m
b. t m nd m l (t&M)
c. Fixed price (FP)Non-linear pricing models
. hyb d mod l
b. M n g d s v c s mod l
c. Ou com b s d mod l
d. t ns c on b s d mod l
Which pricing model suits a given engagement?
Examples of tried and tested Mindtree pricing models
Due diligence to identify best t pricing model
Conclusion
03
03
03
03
03
03
04
04
04
05
05
08
08
08
14
21
02
ex cu v summ yinfo m on t c nology (it) s s own d g ow n l s wo d c d s, o n ng u n d foa robust pricing model to meet changing expectat ions. Increasingly, customers are looking for bene ts beyond costs v ngs nd s v c m ov m n s. t s s l d o m g nc of c ng mod ls b yond d on l on s suc sTime and Material (T&M) and Fixed Price (FP).
t s w d scuss s v ous c ng mod ls w c c s cs, sk com o s, os nd cons nd t customer engagement. It covers some examples of the pricing models tried out in Mindtree. It also covers the due
diligence required to decide the best t pricing model for a given situation, with mutual bene ts for both customer ands v c ov d .
7/30/2019 Best Fit Pricing Model White Paper.pdf
3/21
White paper
a b ckg ound on c ng mod lsa c ng mod l fo n it s v c f s o con c u l
g m n b w n s v c ov d nd s v c g n .t g m n s fo m d b s d on y of s v c
s ng g n. tod y, c ng mod ls n it ndus yhave matured from the traditional T&M and FP models to
mod s m n g d s v c s / ou com b s d mod ls. ann v bl og ss on s it ndus y w n f om s m ly
und s nd ng cus om n ds nd s v c s, o s bl s nginnovative, non-linear and agile pricing models. In an e ort
o bu ld mo sus n ng l ons s nd g ng o next level of a mutually bene cial partnership.
The best t pricing modelFor a pricing model to be successful, it should strike the
g b l nc b w n cus om s x c ons of qu l y, m l n ss nd c , nd s v c ov d s cosand operational e ciency. Customer engagements may notb succ ssful w on y of c ng mod l v y m . i sa journey for both the parties to go agile based on best tfo sco d s v c s nd ng g m n mod ls.
Mutually bene cial pricing modelsM ny c ng mod ls cu n ly c c d by itindustry. From the traditional T&M and FP, to more talented
on s l k m n g d s v c / ou com -b s d mod ls. a g l v l, c ng mod ls c n b d v d d n o l n nd
non-l n c go s.
L n c ng mod lsL n c ng mod ls b s d u ly on l onsbetween time and material (e ort and rate). The service
ov d s d b s d on sou c ov d d o e ort spent for the required duration of agreed time.
Som l n c ng mod ls d sc b d b low:a) Dedicated team: t d d c d m mod l wo ks s
d d c d s v c ov d fo od of m . t sm c s s v u l x ns on of cl n s n- ous
d v lo m n m. t cus om k s onus of g ngwork done e ectively from the team. Advantages of thismodel include knowledge retention and the exibility of utilizing the team for di erent requirements. Monthly bills
s d b s d on numb of sou c s d d c dv y mon .
Figure 01 shows the pros and cons of using the dedicatedm c ng mod l.
b) Time and Material (T&M): t t&M mod l wo ks b s focustomers who want a exible and agile project execution.h y l y g ol n d v lo m n of so ware product or solution. This model works best when
qu m n s c ng f qu n ly nd s g n lly us d fooduc d v lo m n oj c s. in s mod l cus om
c s v u lly ll l d sks of sco , qu l y of d l v bl s nd oj c m n g m n . t fo m g ns fo t&M l y s low s . t no sks
nd no nv s m n s by s v c ov d s.
t s v c ov d ss gns m o cus om nd c u l m s n by m on oj c s b ll d.Mon ly nvo c ng s o- , b s d on o l ou ss n on oj c nd s fo sk ll s s nvolv d.
t d on lly, s v c ov d s d b s s numb ofson ou s s n on w ng cod . So, o m x m z
v nu , s v c ov d s y o m x m z ou s s nnd numb of o l us d o w cod . Cus om s
p os Cons
S m l o und s nd nd m l m n L ck of own s f om s v c ov d s
Can be e ectively used to compare prices acrosss v c ov d s
Low l v l of m mo v on du o l ck of cm n o ng
Knowl dg n onNo time / e ort commitment from the customer in theu l z on of sou c s f om s v c ov d s
Flexibility to utilize the team for di erent requirements
s n d d
No clos ly l d o cus om s bus n ss n d
o ou com
Low sk mod l fo bo s v c ov d nd cus om No incentive for service providers to be e cient
Fig. 01. Pros and cons of using the dedicated team pricing model.
03
7/30/2019 Best Fit Pricing Model White Paper.pdf
4/21
White paper
on o nd, w n o duc o l cos of d v lo m n nd fo w n o m n m z b ll d ou s.t s c s m s l gn d nc n v s b w n cus om s nds v c ov d s.
Figure 02 shows the pros and cons of using the Time andM l (t&M) c ng mod l.
c) Fixed Price (FP): The xed price model is ideal for smalland medium level projects with clear and well-de ned
qu m n s. in s mod l, s v c ov d nd cus om bo c y som sco - l d sk. Bu , s g d con c , ny c ng n sco would
result in a change in the price. Fixed price models allowcustomers to pay a xed price for a project that is agreedupon by both the parties. The xed price could be split
nd d on m l s on s. t s mod l wo ks w scoand speci cations of the project are crystal clear from
v y b g nn ng nd sys m qu m n s v b nde ned clearly. In this model, it is very important to discuss
v y ng nd m k n s m on of o cosof oj c v y b g nn ng.
It is certainly a low-risk option for the customer, as the FPmod l nsu s oj c s don nd d l v d w n
a speci c time and budget. The FP project plan speci escos s, m l n s nd d l v bl s n un mb guous msnd s d l fo cus om s w s go ls, d l d oj c
speci cations and a limited budget.
The pros and cons of using the FP model is shown ingure .03.
Non-l n c ng mod lsNon-l n c ng mod ls d cou l l onsbetween time and material (e ort and rate). NormallyT&M and FP do not o er much scope for modi cation
nd c ng s. S v c ov d s v l z d n dto be exible to satisfy their customers. This has led to
nnov ons n c ng mod ls su v y ng n ds.Som non-l n c ng mod ls m n on d b low:
a) Hybrid model: t yb d mod l us s t&M c n qu so s m cos s fo oj c s do no v cl -cu
go ls o d l d nd com l qu m n s n lly. ithen allows customers to pay a xed price based on the
s m on. t s yb d c ng mod l s b s f u sof both the models T&M and FP, as mentioned above. It
llows s v c ov d s o d loy sou c s s n t&Mmod l, bu mos of oj c s x cu d cco d ng o FP model. Hence, the project has a smooth work ow andw ll- l gn d oc ss s.
hyb d s b s c ng mod l fo b gg , long ndongo ng oj c s w uncl obj c v s s . h
n u nd f db ck s n d d n b g nn ng, bu d l v yc n b f c d ov m o nsu ll cus om
qu m n s succ ssfully m . t s mod l s g
m ddl g ound fo of ss on ls w o l k ou ly ym n snd cus om s w o f o m k on - m ym n
fo oj c . t yb d c ng mod l l s cus om so m z budg s w ou com om s ng on qu l y of
oduc o l c on. i lso g v s s v c ov d con oll d nv onm n w s d sks n o ons.
p os Cons
S m l o und s nd nd m l m n L ck of own s f om s v c ov d s
Can be e ectively used to compare price acrosss v c ov d s
Low l v l of m mo v on du o l ck of c m n o ng
Knowl dg n on Through scaled estimated e orts, service providers cany fo nc s d b ll ng
Flexibility to utilize the team for di erent requirementss n d d
No clos ly l d o cus om s bus n ss n do ou com
Low sk mod l fo s v c ov d nd mod skmod l fo cl n
No incentive for service providers to be e cient
Fig. 02: Pros and cons of using the Time and Material (T&M) pricing model.
04
7/30/2019 Best Fit Pricing Model White Paper.pdf
5/21
White paper
Figure 04 shows the pros and cons of the hybridc ng mod l.
b) Managed services model: t m n g d s v c s
model o ers de ned service deliverables at a xed cost.t d on lly, v lu w s l z d cco d ng o ow w ll w s m n g d by s v c ov d , nd ow w ll w s
c v d by cus om . t s w s mo qu l v nn u . in m n g d s v c s mod l on o nd,
v lu - dd s qu n v ly m su d n ms of gS v c L v l ag m n s (SLas). t s s b s d on cl lyde ned parameters in project performance and quality.
Customers are billed at a xed monthly cost plus unitcost per additional unit delivered. For customers, themodel helps them arrive at a predictable budget. Forservice providers, it assures continuous xed revenue, plus
dd on l v nu oug sc l b l y nd b m g nsoug on. Mu u lly g d SLas w ll b m ,
unl ss s v c ov d w s s o y n l y. if s v c ov d m s / xc ds ll g d SLas y mon ly w d d, s con c .
Som k y f u s of m n g d s v c s mod l: t s v c ov d k s nd- o- nd s ons b l y of
s s v c l n s nd d l v bl s t s v c ov d m k s d c s ons nd k s s ons b l y o ov d g d s of d l v bl s
Budgets are mostly xed for the entire piece of work,making it more like a xed price managed services
ng g m n . in s c s , s v c ov d s f nd n d c d ng ow, w nd w ow m ny
sonn l oj c c n b d l v d. t sk
ssoc d w suc n o c s s v cov d m y d c d o lloc s d sou c s, w c
could sul n d l v y ssu sThis model is o en adopted when work can be clearly
sco d ou , w cl ly m k d d l v bl sFor this model to work, the service provider should have
n xc ll n und s nd ng of cus om s sys ms.The customer in turn should be con dent enough to
nd ov wo k o s v c ov dt cus om s ol s of v w w
dd on l s ons b l y of con c s m n g m n ndbudg ck ngt s v c ov d w ll b s ons bl fo s l c on of
sou c s s w ll s m n g ng s k old x c onst w ll b cl ly m k d SLas fo c d l v bl ,w n l s l c bl fo non-d l v y
D l v y of s v c c n b fo m d ons o client location, o shore or a combination of both
A managed services model is o en adopted byenterprises as a continuation of an existing sta
ugm n on. ado ng m n g d s v c s mod lfrom day one comes with lots of risks (ref. g. 05).
c) Outcome-based pricing model: Ou com -d v nsolu ons n- o n d nd os on d s d l v ng
speci c value to the business. Outcome-based projectsm o d l v m su bl m c on cus om s ov llbus n ss sul s. t b s c loso y s o l gn
n s s of s v c ov d nd cus om so bo wo k ow ds s m go l. in s mod l, scois the business outcome itself. Clearly de ned and xedou com s w c c n b m su d nd d l v d fo g v n
oj c s c c l o s succ ss. in n ou com -b s d
05
p os Cons
Cl ly sco d sm ll / m d um s z d ng g m n s Cus om s v no con ol n sou c u l z on sm x mum own s s w s v c ov d
Clos ly l d o cus om s bus n ss n ds w cl lyde ned objectives and milestones
Knowl dg n on s sk s d v lo m n mmight get dispersed a er project completion
Low sk mod l fo cus om s h g sk mod l fo s v c ov d
h g ssu nc of oj c com l on w n s m dbudg nd m l n s
Di cult to compare prices across service providers as nalcos d v n by oduc v y nd sk ss ssm n
Highly motivating for service providers to be e cient andoduc v
Quality can su er as end-to-end development is managedby s v c ov d
Fig. 03: Pros and cons of using the FP model.
7/30/2019 Best Fit Pricing Model White Paper.pdf
6/21
White paper
mod l, sou c lo d ng, cos ng nd c ng s com l c d x c s .
t m c n sm fo y ng s v c ov d v s. Bu
g n lly ym n s m d n m d n on lum sumw n sul s c v d o ov s o m l s on s, so
s v c ov d cou s s nv s m n n m .
t k y l m n s of n ou com s-d v noj c :
t s v c ov d c nno n d c v nu f om cus om unl ss wo k ou com d l v s v lu o cus om
t sco of wo k m c s l g c unk of oc ssthat in uences a business outcome, and service providerc n djus / w k som l m n s of oc ss o
m c bus n ss ou com S v c ov d s n d o d v lo com nc s o
tightly de ne the scope of an outcome-based project tob succ ssful
t m y d v of ou com -b s d c ng s oc ss c c s cs, nd sco of ng g m n w
cus om . as ul of umb, f oc ss d c ly m c s
m su bl bus n ss ou com l k v nu o cos , s v c ov d s ould x lo bus n ss ou com -b s dc ng. Mo so f noug o o un s o m c bus n ss ou com . how v , ng o m mb s
w sco of wo k cov s m jo y of l m n s d v cul ou com .
in ou com -b s d oj c s, s v c ov d s con ol signi cant portion of the value chain a ect ing outcomes,
v n w n y no d c ly und s v cov d s con ol. h nc , b ng ng n o you s of
in uence things not under your in uence is a critical par t of x cu on mod l. t s s w n s w o
s v c ov d s, v n com o s, w ll b c c l f c oin success (ref. g. 05). in s mod l, cus om g s w d d by conv ng
xed cost into a truly variable cost model that scales with bus n ss. i f s u cl n x cu v s f om wo y ng
bou ssu s l k c nology, oc ss nd o l , ndllows m o focus on bus n ss ou com s ngs
lly m o bus n ss. t cus om c s no sks nc y y only w n y g d s d ou com . Byhaving a standardized de nition of input and output in anou com s-d v n mod l, s v c s b com mol k oduc s.
in n ou com -b s d mod l, s v c ov d s b on cus om nd v c v s , o m k succ ss n. r sk
nsf s f om cus om o s v c ov d , mod log ss s f om t&M o ou com -b s d. t s v cov d s ould ccoun fo nsf nc of sk nd cov
by nclud ng sk m um n c . t sk m umnc s s s you og ss oug s mod ls nd sul sn nc s ng m g ns fo s v c ov d . t b l y
m su sk nd c g o sk m um s critical factor in the service providers success (ref. g. 06).
Fig 04: Pros and cons of using the hybrid model.
06
p os Cons
Utilizes the best features of both the T&M and FPc ng mod ls
Cus om s no con ol n sou c u l z on ndm x mum own s s w s v c ov d s
M ddl g ound fo cus om s mongs ou ly ym nnd on - m ym n
S d sks b w n s v c ov dnd cus om
h l s cus om o o m z budg w oucom om s ng on qu l y of d l v bl s
Low sk mod l fo bo s v c ov d nd cus om
Knowl dg n on
7/30/2019 Best Fit Pricing Model White Paper.pdf
7/21
White paper
p os Cons
S nc d l v y nd s k old x c ons s v c ov d s s ons b l y, cus om c n focusfully on co s g c n v s
S v c ov d s som m s luc n o ssum mom n g m n s ons b l s
S v c ov d s mo nd nd n nd v l v ly n f nc -f m n g m n of oj c
Cul u m sm c b w n cus om nd s v cov d c n sul n l ck of und s nd ng, w c
may a ect deliverables
en bl s s v c ov d s o m k long- m s g cinvestments that should indirectly bene t the customer
Som m s, s v c ov d s don v v w of sco of oj c o m y no und s nd ll
of cus om s n o n s, w c could sul nm jo s b cks
S v c ov d s b ng b s c c s n o oj c , by m k ng k y oc ss m ov m n s
in mul -s v c ov d sc n o, w fo ns ncon ov d m n g s l c ons nd o ,
nf s uc u , bl m g m s common, w no-onw ll ng o ssum s ons b l y
SLa d v n o c sul s n k y oc ss m ov m n sdelivering signi cant, measurable bene ts to the customer
r - lloc on of con c , n c s of fo m ncssu s o non-confo m nc of SLas, m g b c ll ng ,
g v n x s ng s v c ov d w ll b l sscoo v
Knowl dg n on b com s mo s ml n dnd sus n bl
p os Cons
D c ly l gn d o cus om s bus n ss ou com L ck of ns ncy n ow wo k s fo m d
po n l fo g v n u l s v ngs s l bo b g sl c d by oduc v y nd syn g s b w n sks
L l ns g n o cos of s v c s
ab l y o nc n mo nnov v b v o f oms v c ov d
Cul u l s s nc f om bo cus om nds v c ov d
D c on of cus om s bus n ss mod l,o ons nd ndus y nu nc s
Cus om n s s som m s oo mm u oc c ng m n g m n oc ss
Fig .05: Pros and cons of using a managed service model.
Fig. 06: Pros and cons of using outcome-based pricing model.
07
7/30/2019 Best Fit Pricing Model White Paper.pdf
8/21
White paper
d) Transaction pricing model: a ns c on s s qu ncof steps with de ned input and output, which achieves abus n ss u os . ex m l s of ns c ons nclud nvo co y oll oc ss ng. a ns c on un s un of m su
w w c ns c on c n b m su d. ex m l sof ns c on un s y sl o nvo c ,
c. a ns c on c s y c lly quo d s c ns c on un . i s g n lly m n on d s l c bl fo
a speci ed transact ion volume range.
t ns c on-b s d c ng mod l s b s d on numb of ns c ons oc ss d. ty c lly b s cis provided for a speci ed volume band, with a negotiatedincrease or decrease in price as usage uctuates aroundthe speci ed band. In this model, the scope becomesvery important. The scope is also slightly di erent fromconventional projects and should be de ned more tightly.t volum of ns c ons nd v ons n volum
n d y, w k, mon o mon s m k ug m c onpricing and e ort. Another important scope element is
fo m of n u . W n u s l c on c, fo m, n g d n o xml, m o bl o l dy m o dc n v ug m c on cos . any c ng n
ssum on of o o on of wo fo ms of l c onscould make a huge e ort and cost di erence for the
s v c ov d .
in s mod l, s v c ov d s k on g sk.t y k on sks l d o volum of bus n ss, s
c ng s b s d on c n volum ssum ons. C ngo v on n volum c n v c n v d m c
m c on cos .
Figure 07 shows the pros and cons of using ans c on-b s d c ng mod l.
W c c ng mod l su s g v n ng g m n ?t c ng mod l n d no b n ll g n noug
o dd ss cus om s budg obj c v s, bus o su s c v cus om ng g m n . it
engagements spread from discovery and de nition typeso m l m n on, m n n nc nd su o . t c ng
mod l wo k d fo on y of ng g m n m y o m yno wo k fo no . i s lso oss bl c ngmod l su s on cl n m y no su no . N u lly,
ss ss ng b s oss bl c ng mod l fo cus om oan engagement sometimes requires a trial ( g. 08).
ex m l s of M nd d nd s dc ng mod ls
M nd s d ou v ous c ng mod ls l kdedicated team, T&M, FP, managed services, outcome-b s d mod ls, c. t v ous c ll ng s, os ndcons of c of s mod ls n v ous ng g m n s ndcus om sc n os. e c of m s l n ngs w c c nb l v g d w n M nd nd c oss it ndus y.t s f c cov s som c ng mod ls w di erentiating factors, best suited customer scenarios,bene ts to customer / service providers, and value-add
c v d by cus om .
t m ny cus om ng g m n s w l n c ngmodels such as dedicated team, T&M and FP. Since we have
l dy d scuss d os nd cons of s c ng mod lsl n s w , w w ll no m n on ny ng
speci c. Here, we will focus more on non-linear pricingmod ls s y do no v s nd d c ng c oss it
ndus y nd y v y w cus om d m nd nd m u y,nd l ons w s v c ov d .
08
p os Cons
Clos ly d o cus om s bus n ss cycl M y no b d c ly d o cus om s bus n ss ou com
en nc s cus om v s b l y n o consum on n L ck of ns ncy on ow wo k s fo m d
Encourages productivity and e ciency
Fig. 07: Pros and cons of using a transaction-based pricing model.
7/30/2019 Best Fit Pricing Model White Paper.pdf
9/21
White paper
D d c d m mod l
First time engagement with the particular customerp oj c s of ll s z s nd sc l s w ongo ng long m m l s on s
Scope is unknown and exibility in scope change is expected
t m nd M l (t&M) mod l
p oj c s of ll s z s nd sc l s w ongo ng long m m l s on s Scope is unknown and exibility in scope change is expected First time engagement with the customer Uncertainty on estimated e ort for completion of scoped work
Fixed Price (FP) model
Customer has a clearly de ned scope, aligned to short term goals / objectives of the enterprise Cus om do s no w n o own sks of d l v y, o l nd qu l y, bu w ll b dy o own sks l d o sco
oug c ng qu s s
hyb d mod l
B s c ng mod l fo b gg , long nd ongo ng oj c s, w c m y n d n u s n b g nn ng bu c n bf c d ov m
Service provider is engaging with the customer for the rst time Both service provider and customer want to mitigate the risks of T&M and FP pricing models
M n g d s v c s mod l
Wo k cl ly sco d ou , w cl ly m k d ou d l v bl s Service provider has an excellent understanding of the customers systems. The customer in turn is con dent enough to
nd ov wo k o m
Ou com -b s d c ng mod l
Clearly de ned output Output aligning to business process or where direct impact can be de ned For customers who want to align the service providers goals with their business goals
t ns c on-b s d c ng mod l
t ns c on volum s known nd d c bl From the customes perspective, this model is used for business process which can be clearly de ned, measured ind sc un s
t ns c on volum d o s v c ov d s cos d v s For the service providers perspective, this model is used in business process that are standardized, transaction
n ns v nd d m nd-d v n
Fig. 08: Which pricing model suits a given engagement?
09
7/30/2019 Best Fit Pricing Model White Paper.pdf
10/21
White paper
Managed services pricing model Business Intelligence (BI) factoryM n g d s v c s c ng mod ls qu o ougund s nd ng of cus om s it oc ss s, s nd ds
nd d nd nc s o x cu s v c s. t s mod llso n ds v y good v s b l y on l n wo k n
cus om n s o nsu cons n wo k un s ndgu n d v nu . M nd comm nds m l m n ng
s mod l fo cus om s w s wo k d fo mo ns x mon s o m g ng g m n sks.
h s c s s udy of on of ou b nk ng cl n s ww us d m n g d s v c s mod l, known s Bus n ssin ll g nc (Bi) f c o y fo nd- o- nd Bi l d
m l m n on. t d g m b low s ows Bi f c o ymodel at high level ( g. 09).
Figure 10 is a sample list of service categories applied ons mod l w c ng m od.
The BI factory model has de ned various service
categories with oor units to be served per month.t cus om ys M nd mon ly f of USD XXX oserve the agreed monthly oor value of service units. On
m l m n ng dd on l un s of s v c , cus om w lly n dd on l moun , b s d on g d un c
fo s v c un com l x y w s , s d c d n table below ( g. 11).
t s l n f u s of s c ng mod l b low: t co m s comb n on of n ons m w
key technical resources o shore t ons m ndl s cus om n c on,
qu m n g ng, oj c m n g m n , Uatcoo d n on nd oduc on d loym n
10
end o nd Bi c fo SVB 24x7 on c ll nc d n su o fo Bi o Report de nitions, blue print and rationalization r o d v lo m n / n nc m n s
ad- oc nd c m l o qu s s r o sc dul ng, mon o ng nd dm n s on
r o ng l fo m m g on / u g d s
Periodic knowledge Excessive costof administration& operation
Isolated BIapplication &support terms
High turn-aroundtimes forad-hoc request
Latency in project -mode execution
Reportfactory
Fig. 09: BI factory model at high level.
r o f c o yw s v c l n s
S v c l n w mon ly volum
Con nuous m ov m n oj c m n g m n gov n nc v w
p oduc on nc d n s
en nc m n
N w o qu s - no un v s c ng
N w o qu s_ w un v s c ng
X X
X X
X X
X X
Fig. 10: L s of s v c c go s l d on s mod l w c ng m od.
7/30/2019 Best Fit Pricing Model White Paper.pdf
11/21
White paper
The larger o shore teams service o erings included s gn, cod ng nd s ng fo ll s v c c go sThe o shore team can be ramped-up or ramped-downb s s l n of wo k. i s c c l o ck fu u
wo k l n fo M nd o l n b su o fok wo klo ds.
SLA driven model with risk and reward bene ts
t k y g l g s of s ng g m n oug ouexperience so far are shown at g. 12.
Hybrid pricing model Microso o shore development trackAt Mindtree, we o en recommend a hybrid pricing modelthrough a combination of T&M and FP in situations where
cus om s long m ongo ng oj c s. es c llyw n s sk of sco c n n l s g of
oj c s, o un l sco nd qu m n s f oz n.The diagram at g. 13 shows a case study of a Mindtreeb nk ng cus om w w v us d yb d c ngmodel for their Microso -based project implementations.
t s l n f u s of s c ng mod l b low: Comb n on of co m ons b ll d on t&M, nd
a shared team o shore billed on FP pricing, for eachestimated xed price project
t ons m ndl s cus om n c on,qu m n s g ng, oj c m n g m n nds m s fo oj c s w f oz n qu m n s
The larger o shore teams service o erings includeoj c d s gn, cod ng nd s ng nd s s d c oss
11
Com l x y Un cos (USD)
p oduc on nc d n USD XXX
en nc m n s
S m l USD XXX
M d um USD XXX
Com l x USD XXX
N w o qu s (no un v s c ng )
S m l USD XXX
M d um USD XXX
Com l x USD XXX
Fig. 11.
mul l oj c m l m n ons b s d onc n g lloc on
h k y g l g s of s ng g m n oug
our experience so far (Fig 14):
Outcome-based pricing model data analytics solutionsM nd comm nds ou com -b s d c ng mod lswhere the customer has xed and clearly de ned outcomes,with a standardized de nition of input and output. Thesco of wo k would cov mos of l m n s d v
cul ou com . M nd would wo k on oc ssw d c m c on m su bl bus n ss ou com s l k
v nu o cos nd would v noug o o un s om c ou com .
Fig. 15 is a case study of a banking customer where wev us d ou com -b s d c ng mod l fo
409a v lu on C Mx ou u s. in s c s cus om sc g d on v ous s g s of ou com , w un cos
nd mon ly b ll ng.
t s g s of ou com n oj c 409 v lu onsare shown at g.15. Each of the outcomes goes through as s of s g s (m nd o y / o on l). Com l x y of
particular stage for a de ned outcome varies based on then n f c o s of cul ou com .
t k y g l g s of s ng g m n oug ouexperience so far are given in g. 16.
t k y g l g s of s ng g m n oug ou
experience so far are shown at g. 14.
Hybrid pricing model Microso o shore development track
7/30/2019 Best Fit Pricing Model White Paper.pdf
12/21
White paper
C c l succ ssf c o s
a f c s f om M nd ng g m n
p c ng Fixed monthly contract value for agreed service units; charge unit price to every additional unit of s v c d l v d
B ll ng Mon ly
Sco Scope / requirements assessment and clari cation within the agreed SLA based on complexity of un of wo k
Best t customerng g m n s
Cus om n s s v s b l y of con nuous g ow nd n nc m n s o s itapplications, assuring a minimum monthly oor value
Sc l nd s z of ng g m n s
L g sc l nd ongo ng
eng g m nm u y
S v c ov d o und s nd cus om s bus n ss nd it oc ss s, nu nc s ndd nd nc s
Mutual bene ts For the customer, the model is highly cost e ective, cost predictive and has reduced overheadsof management; the customer can focus on strategic decisions and leave the operational work tothe service provider; for the service provider, the model is highly opportunistic on innovations,optimized productivity, exibility on shared resources and has guaranteed annuity business
r sk High risk for service provider; low risk for customer
Fig.12: The key highlights of our management service engagement model through our experience so far.
Fig.13: The hybrid pricing model at a high level.
12
Formulation of functional speci cation Architectural design coding, testing
O shore
Business requirements Analysis & technology assessment
Ons
Maintenance & support
O site
7/30/2019 Best Fit Pricing Model White Paper.pdf
13/21
White paper
Transaction-based pricing model _
Managed Test Functions (MTF)in ns c on c ng mod l, sco b com s v y
m o n . in s mod l, s v c ov d k s on
g sk. i k s on sks l d o volumof bus n ss, s c ng s b s d on c n volum
ssum ons. any c ng n volum o v on nvolum c n v d m c m c on cos . M nd
comm nds go ng w ns c on-b s d c ng mod l f volum of ns c ons g nd d c bl n d y,
w k o mon m f m .
The diagram at g. 17 shows a case study of one of ourb nk ng cl n s n w c w v us d ou ns c on-b s dpricing model, Managed Test Function (MTF), for
nd- o- nd s ng- l d s v c s.
The MTF engagement is a hybrid combination of T&M and ns c on-b s d mod l b c us s ng s v c
s low cl y on som n l s ng c v s w c n do b c d on t&M mod l. Onc sco nd s
scenarios are clearly de ned, the scope of execution of thes c s s s f ly known.
Some of the salient features of MTF model are: Su o s nsfo m on of cus om s
s ng mod ls Focus on transaction-based pricing
In initial stages, customer directs the testing e orts andbene ts are based purely on resource arbitrage; there is
com l focus on sou c s d l v ng s v cDe nable, repeatable and predictable unit price for
s wo k c n b u n l c fo s v c s SLas d v s v c ov d s focus o s v c
delivered; ensures reduced time to product availability.t s v c ov d sc l s u o d m nd, g qu l ytest services and pre-de ned and predictable costs
The MTF cost model can be shown in the format at g. 18.
The MTF model has experimented with the combinationof T&M and unit priced model for the bene t of both thecus om nd s v c ov d .
Som s m l un -b s d c v s nd t&M c v s depicted in the tables at gures 19 and 20.
13
C c l succ ss f c o s a f c s f om h M nd ng g m n
p c ng T&M for initial scope de nition by core team; FP for project implementation with clearlyde ned scope
B ll ng Mon hly
Sco Started with unclear scope and requirements of project de nition, later clari ed and frozenfor the estimation of the xed price project
Best t customer
ng g m n s
Cus om n s h s h v s b l y of con nuous g ow h nd nh nc m n s o s it
applications; customer does not have clarity on the scope and aims to clarify it during theinitial de nition phase of the project
Sc l nd s z of ng g m n s
L g sc l nd ongo ng
eng g m n m u y S v c ov d o und s nd cus om s bus n ss oc ss s nd nu nc s
Mutual bene ts For the customer, this model is highly cost e ective, cost predictive and has reducedoverheads of management; for the service provider, the model is highly opportunistic oninnovations, optimized productivity, exibility on shared resources and has guaranteed
nnu y bus n ss
r sk in l h s : Low sk fo s v c ov d nd h gh sk fo cus omSubs qu n h s s: Low sk fo cus om nd h gh sk fo s v c ov d
Fig.14: The key highlights of the hybrid pricing model through our experience so far.
7/30/2019 Best Fit Pricing Model White Paper.pdf
14/21
White paper
t k y g l g s of s ng g m n oug ouexperience so far are shown at g. 21.
Due diligence to identify best t pricing model
Mos m s, c ng mod ls d c d d by cus om s,b s d on x nc w o s v c ov d s, oin uenced by their capabilities, and sometimes them u y l v ls of bo s. t s o b d c s onf m wo k, o l bo s v c ov d nd customer, to assess and nally decide on the best suitable
c ng mod l. t s s b s d on v ous m s, l kng g m n / s v c y s, wo k ng x nc , n s
m u y l v l, du on / l ons of ng g m n ,mutual bene t and objectives / goals of the engagement
nd. t s f c g l g s k y m s ndd c s on m k ng f m wo k / gu d l n s o b ss ss d
g f om s w n n w cus om , ng g m n oproject is worked upon at the RFI or RFP stage.
Due diligence for cost / bene t ratio between T&M and bus n ss ou com mod l s d c d ng f c o fo
cus om nd s v c ov d o d c d on mod lo m l m n . t sk m um s ould b g nougo jus fy sk k n, v s- -v s t&M mod l. ano
c ll ng s o c u b nd b s d on m k
d m nd ( . . w cus om s w ll ng o y fo nsf of sk) nd d c d w c c n jus fy sk k n by s v c ov d n ou com mod l.
W l som c ll ng s l, o s mo m of c on. how v , bo c n b dd ss d by nsu ng
collaborative e ort from the service provider as well as cus om .
Som sugg s ons n s d c on : Do du d l g nc on ng g m n m u y w bo
cus om nd s v c ov d , nd ss ss d s s cso m su sks
C oos g c ng mod l on l gns boparties interests. For example, in case of insurance, if
ns c on un s no. of ol c s ssu d, n n s of s v c ov d nd cl n l gn d by
c oos ng ns c on-b s d mod l. as g ns s,f ns c on un s no. of l ds, n n s
of cl n nd s v c ov d no n c ss lyaligned as more number of leads would de nitely
nsl n o mo ym n fo s v c ov d bum y no nsl n o mo ol c s ssu d nd by,
m um, fo cl n . es bl s mu u lly g blmechanism to address volume uctuations.Agree on de ning and measuring SLAs during the initial
s s of ng g m n nd us s d fo b sl n ng m fo m n ng m of ng g m nB s d on ou x nc on v ous c ng mod ls
x cu d n M nd , s bl v d b loww c could b us d fo n l du d l g nc odecide on the best t pricing model.
B s d on ou x nc on v ous c ng mod ls
executed in Mindtree, there is a table arrived at at g. 22w c could b us d fo n l du d l g nc o d c don the best t pricing model.
14
S g S s p c
info m on c ckl s Na USD XX
p -m n g m n c ll a & B USD XX
Full valuation and dra opinion a & B USD XX
p -m n g m n c ll C & bov USD XX
Full valuation and dra opinion C & bov USD XX
aud s ons s Na USD XX
Fast track projects Na USD XX + 20% x
Fig 15. Stages of outcome in project 409 valuations.
7/30/2019 Best Fit Pricing Model White Paper.pdf
15/21
White paper
C c l succ ss f c o s a f c s f om M nd ng g m n
p c ng Outcome-based, stage-wise price per outcome; unit price varies based on complexityof s g fo ou com
B ll ng Mon ly
Sco Clearly de ned outcome elements with standardization of tasks; granulars gm n on of sks o b cl nd c s
Best t customer engagements Customer with xed and clearly de ned outcome and scope of work for serviceprovider; covers majority of elements of that outcome
Sc l nd s z of ng g m n s S v c ov d o und s nd cl n s bus n ss oc ss s nd nu nc s
Mutual bene ts For the customer, the model is highly cost e ect ive, cost predict ive and has reducedmanagement overheads; for service provider, the model is highly opportunistic on
nnov ons, o m z d oduc v y nd s gu n d nnu y bus n ss
r sk For customer moderate; for service provider high
Sta argumentation (T&M)
Cost bene t to customer
t s C n of exc ll nc (tCoe) Transaction based (MTF) model
Cus om Cus om
p ov d
Co m
Work owun s
Flex teamsou c
u l s onr sou c lloc on
p oj c a : B : C : ongo ng
C g ng b s d on t / M Charging based on xed price C g ng b s d on ou com nd us g
r sou c ov s on
p ov d ap oj c a
p ov d Bp oj c B
S v c ov s on
On d m nd s v c ov s ont s t s
t s
t s t s f c o y
innov ontools
an x ns on of tCoe mod l Focus on outcome based pricing De nable, repeatable and
d c bl un c fo swo k c n b u n l c fo s v c
SLas d v ov d s focus o s v c d l v d
Very e ective in delivering high qu l y s s v c
Su o s nsfo m on of cus om s s ng mod l
Cus om d c s s nge orts and bene ts are based
u ly on s u c b g Focus on the resources delivering
s v c
Fig. 17: Case study of one of our banking clients in which we have used our transaction-based pricing model.
Fig. 16: The key highlights of this engagement through our experience so far.
15
7/30/2019 Best Fit Pricing Model White Paper.pdf
16/21
White paper 16
Fig. 18: The MTF cost model can be shown in the format below.
Mod lS.N
t s ngs v c
c go y
Qu l y( x m l s)
r( x m l s)
amounr m ks
M n g s s v c s(MTF outcomeb s d)
1 Cat-a:Un b s d
c v y
X un s Sa / un s Xa Pre-de ned list of activitieswhich has a xed unit andcos ssoc d w .
This xed componentof nal test estimation(Bus n ss r qu m n sDocument sign o ) will notb c ng d un l s
gg fo Cr
t&M 2 Cat-B:t&M(Nod d c d_
actual e ortus g b s d)
Y son-ou s
$ B / p - ou s YB any c v y w c sno of un b s d
c v s, bu qu s dnd - ov d by
pM
t s s v blcomponent of nal test
s m on, w c w llc ng s nd w n pMs
qu s nd - ovdd on l c v s
3 Cat-C:t&M(D d c d -ODC mod lb s dsta ng)
Z ons l ds $ C/ ons -l d / mou
ZC D d c d sou c s qu s d nd- ov d by pM
L d m of fou og w ks fo n onssou c s d nd ng on
w n w onsson s f om n x s ngm w dy v s o
f om n ou s d m
S.NS.N
7/30/2019 Best Fit Pricing Model White Paper.pdf
17/21
White paper 17
S.N S v c /c v s
D sc on es m Un s No s
U-1 Test e or ts m on
p ov d s ns m of
testing e ort forn ov d wo k
e ort (per projecto Cr)
4 bus n ss d ys 75 t s s m on would b b s d onsigned o BRD
es m would nclud o l numb of un s, cos nd ssum ons
U-2 t s l nc on
C sl n fo wo k
e ort (per projectCr)
3 o 7 bus n ssd ys
150 Test plan creation, new modi cation
U-3 t s sc n od v lo m n
De ne the testbl sc n os
as g dsc dul
3 e c s sc n o w ll v nv g s c s s
U-4 t s c sd s gn ndcons uc on
D s gn s c sb s d on s blsc n os
as g dsc dul
1
U-5 t s c s
Modi cation
Mod fy s c s s as g d
sc dul
0.5
U-6 t s c sx cu on
ex cu s c s s as g dsc dul
0.625
U-7 au om onscc on
au om on scc on
as g dsc dul
3
U-8 au om onscmodi cation
au om on scmodi cation
as g dsc dul
1.5
U-9 au om onsc
x cu on
au om on scx cu on
as g dsc dul
0.1
U-10 p fo m ncs ng
C nd unfo m nc s
c s s nd pOC
as g dsc dul
c s byc s
Fig. 19. Some sample unit-based activities and T&M activities are depicted in the tables below.
Unit based activities
S.N
7/30/2019 Best Fit Pricing Model White Paper.pdf
18/21
White paper
S.NS v c /
c v sD sc on es m Cos s No s
T-1 t sin on /
ss ssm ns
su o
Su o x nd d du ngss ssm n s s
as g d
sc dul
Cost = e orts n .$ moun s
MSa
t su o would b x nd don oj c m n g s qu s .This e ort and cost estimate willb commun c d u f on ndn ds o b ov d by
oj c m n g
t-2 Uat su o Su o x nd ddu ng Uat
as g d
sc dul
Cost = e orts n .$ moun s
MSa
t su o would b x nd don oj c m n g s qu s .This e ort and cost estimatew ll b commun c d u f on
nd n d o b ov d by oj c m n g
t-3 p oducgo l vd loym nsu o
i no m lly nclud s s of co s s of
b s c GUi func on llyo d mons
conn c v y o d b s , l c ons v s nd n s
as g d
sc dul
Cost = e orts n .$ moun s
MSa
t su o would b x nd don oj c m n g s qu s
t-4 MQC ool
u g d
MQC ool u g d
l d ll sub c v s
as
g dsc dul
Cost = e ort
s n .$ moun s
MSa
t su o would b x nd d
on SVB SQa m n g s qu s .This e ort and cost estimate willb commun c d u f on ndn ds o b ov d by SVB SQa
T-5 pOC fo ools any qu s wov l f om oj c
m n g o v lu
as g d
sc dul
Cost = e orts n .$ moun s
MSa
t su o would b x nd don SVB SQa ov l
18
Fig. 20: Some sample unit-based activities and T&M activities are depicted in the tables below.
T & M activities
U-9 scx cu on
u om on scx cu on
s gsc dul
0.1
U-10p fo m nc
s ng
C nd unfo m nc s
c s s nd pOC
s g dsc dul
c s byc s
U-11 t ssumm y
o
t s summ yo oj c
o Cr
1.5 businessd ys
21
U-12 aud s ss on FED and KPMGs c s ud
s g dsc dul
0
S.N
7/30/2019 Best Fit Pricing Model White Paper.pdf
19/21
White paper
C c l succ ss f c o s a f c s f om M nd ng g m n
p c ng T&M based pricing for initial test scenario scoping activities; transaction-based unitc ng fo x cu on of s c s s
B ll ng Mon ly
Sco Unclear initial test scope and requirements; post assessment phase, clearly de ned test
sc n os nd s c s s
Best t customerng g m n s
Cl n w g volum of ns c ons of s m l n
Sc l nd s z of ng g m n s
S v c ov d o und s nd cus om s bus n ss oc ss snd nu nc s
Mutual bene ts For the customer, the model is highly cost e ective, cost predictive and has reducedmanagement overheads; for the service provider, the model is highly opportunistic on
nnov ons, o m z d oduc v y nd s gu n d nnu y bus n ss
r sk For client moderate; for service provider high
K y g l g s of s ng g m n oug ou x nc so f
19
T-6 S cu ys ng
p fo m ng l c onvuln b l y sc nn ng
as g dsc dul
Cost = e orts n .$ moun s
MSa
t su o would b x nd don oj c m n g s ov l
t-7 SOa s p fo m ng SOa s ngus ng SOa s ng ool
as g dsc dul
Cost = e orts n .$ moun s
MSa
t su o would b x nd don oj c m n g s ov l
T-8 Kt n w Only Kt fo n w wo ke orts involving clients
l c on nd sys m v no v ously
as g dsc dul
Cost = e orts n .$ moun s
MSa
Kt - x s ng c oss n ng c ossportfolios will not be billed by MTF
t-9 M nd o yoj c
m ngs- sl ds ndons og mm n g
Status meeting on MTF(if e ort extends beyond1hr per test lead perw k), scum oj c s usm ngs, d f c g
as g dsc dul
Cost = e orts n .$ moun s
MSa
MTF test lead will communicateu f on nd su o wouldb x nd d on oj c m n g s
ov l
T-10 t s don
C of s d w n s d s no
ov d d ( x m l - mocktest data of FAS91)
as g dsc dul
c s by c s t su o would b x nd don oj c m n g s ov l
Fig .21. Transaction-based pricing model _ Managed Test Functions (MTF), key highlights.
7/30/2019 Best Fit Pricing Model White Paper.pdf
20/21
White paper 20
p c ngmod l
p oj c sco p oj cC sc l
p oj cdu on
r sk Cl nbudg ng
S v cov d
b ll ng
S v cov d
m g ns
eng g m nm u y
D d c dm
Flexibility o c ng
all Ongo nglong mm l -s on s
Low skfo s v c
ov d Low sk focl n
Fixedmon lybudg
r sou c -b s d
Low in lng g m n
t m &M l(t&M)
Flexibilityo c ng
all Ongo nglong mm l -s on s
Low skfo s v c
ov d Mod
sk fo
cl n
Floatingbudg
E ort-based Mod in lng g m n
Fixed Price(FP)
Cl lycul d
sco Less exibilityn d d fosco c ng s
Sm llnd
m d um
S om
Low sk focl n h g skfo s v c
ov d
Speci c /l m dbudg w
d c dn ds fof w y s
M l s onb s d p oj c
h g Signi cantm s n o
und s nd
cus om s itoc ss s
hyb d(t&M foFP)
Uncl g sn n l s
in l s
de nes scopefo subs qu n
s s
L g Ongo ngs o
m
m l s on
1st phase:Low skfo s v c
ov d h g skfo cl n
2nd s : Low sk focl n h g skfo s v c
ov d
1st phase:Floatingbudg
2nd s :Speci c/ l m dbudg
1st phase:r sou c -b s d
E ort-b s d
2nd s : M l s onb s d p oj c
Mod in llyt&M FP, post
cl y oncus om it
oc ss snd sco
t ns on- b s dmod l
Cl y onvolum of
ns c onng
L g Ongo ng h g skfo s v c
ov d
Budg foa speci c
ns c onvolumb nd
g ddu on
B ll ngb s d on
ns c onvolum
x cu dn g d
du on
Mod S v cov d o
und s ndcus om
ns c ons
com l onb s d
com l onb s d
Fig. 22: The initial due diligence to decide on the best t pricing model.
7/30/2019 Best Fit Pricing Model White Paper.pdf
21/21
- b s dmod l
volum of ns c on
ng
fo s v cov d
a speci cns c on
volumb nd
g ddu on
b s d onns c on
volumx cu dn g d
du on
ov d ound s ndcus om
ns c ons
M n g ds v c smod l
end o nds v c s wd l v bl s
L g Ongo ng h g skfo s v c
ov d Mod
sk focl n
Budg fomon ly
xed costnd x% of
v nccos
Mon lyb s d ond l v dun s
Mod S v cov d o
und s ndcus om it
nd bus n ssw ll
Ou com -b s dmod l
Clearly de nedand xedou com
Sm ll Ongo ng h g skfo s v c
ov d Mod
sk focl n
Budg fos m d
ou comvolum
On lumsum os
sul sc v d
Mod S v cov d o
und s ndcl n sbus n ss
oc ss snd nu nc s
Conclus onCus om s w ll lw ys look fo c l nv s m n
vo d nc , m n mum sk, nd g qu l y of s v c a low price. All this with maximum price exibility and
ns ncy. On o nd, s v c ov d swill look for minimum operational and nancialrisk, consistent and predictable pro t and revenueg ow , long s con c m oss bl nd
comm c l v b l y.
An e ective pricing model is one that helps in aligning n s s of cus om nd s v c ov d .
i s ould l n v ng c s com v ypro table, exible, simple and easy to apply. It should be
s n v of bus n ss l s nd m x m zbene ts for both the parties.
in summ y, s ss n l o do du d l g nc of ccus om ng g m n , long w sk ss ssm n ,
before deciding on the best t pricing model for them.This due diligence should be based on scienti c methodsw known m s c oss it ndus y. t bov
bl s good gu d l n fo suc n o c .
About the author:Shubha Krishnamurthy is currently employed in Mindtree as Program Director and has more than 14 years of IT
x nc n m n g ng l g sc l D W ous nd Bus n ss in ll g nc oj c s. S s cu n ly m n g ngdelivery for all the Data Warehouse and Business Intelligence projects under banking and nancial services andinsurance industry group. Prior to Mindtree she worked in Wipro Technologies and Patni Computers as so ware engineerd v lo ng d w ous nd bus n ss n ll g nc l c ons. S olds B.e w s c l z on n el c on cs Com u Sc nc f om S.D.M eng n ng Coll g of t c nology, D w d.