1. Professional Service Automation (PSA) Tool Business Case prepared by XXXXX January 2014

2. 2 Table of Contents Statement of Need Business Problem Solution Strategy Strategic Alignment & Benefits Alternatives – Build v. Buy v. Do Nothing Impact of PSA Use Investment in PSA Cost Reductions from Implementing PSA Anticipated Productivity Gain on PS Revenue Investment & Return Summary Intangible Benefits Implementation Options – Optional Project Resource Requirements – Optional Questions & Answers Appendix A – Process Used to Select PSA Vendor Appendix B – Selected Vendor Information Appendix C – Professional Services Industry Research on PSA Adoption

3. 3 Statement of Business Need There are x global Professional Service (PS) departments within the company which use several different tools and processes to manage and deliver client engagements. Having many incoherent tools to manage delivery of professional service engagements leads to several problems such as: X different processes and methods to deliver services to clients Lack of visibility into future work pipeline, project status and resource availability Utilization of existing resources is difficult to evaluate due to lack of visibility into how resources spend their time High associate/temp costs due to poor visibility into the future work pipeline and difficultly in resource scheduling Service operation cost and headcount grows faster than sales All of these factors foster inefficiency, drives cost up while reducing effectiveness leading to lower customer service and satisfaction. Based on research and industry benchmarks the best solution would be to invest in a Professional Services Automation (PSA) tool to better manage, control and standardize delivery methodology for more efficient and cost effective delivery services.

4. 4 Business Problem As of XX, global PS delivery utilization is 46% X PS teams = X different delivery methodologies Minimal data is available and tracked at most senior level (e.g. associate costs, timesheet completion, delivery model utilization) Management metrics across PS teams are inconsistent and/or non-existent Multiple tools are required for PS teams to manage and service member engagements Use of multiple tools cannot form an overall view of pipeline Multiple tools used by PS teams are not integrated requiring multiple duplicate manual data entry resulting in productivity inefficiency

5. 5 Solution Strategy Based on research and industry benchmarks the best solution would be to invest in a Professional Services Automation (PSA) tool to better manage, control and standardize delivery methodology for more efficient and cost effective delivery services. Recommend based upon RFP selection process, to implement the PSA tool from XYZ Vendor within XYZ Company instance of Salesforce.

6. 6 Strategic Alignment & Benefits Operational Excellence People and Processes Productivity Drive Growth Utilizing a PSA Tool would: Provide a standardized delivery methodology Leverage a single workflow, reporting, and other platform tools across the entire business Provide true real-time visibility across all parts of the business Eliminate integration, data silo and process inefficiencies Better communication end-to-end Optimize resource pools and manage employee costs Maximize billable utilization and minimize non-billable activities

7. 7 Alternatives - Build v. Buy v. Do Nothing CriteriaBuildBuyDo Nothing Quick to Deploy  Exact Feature Set Required  SFDC Integration  Technical Core Competency  Complete Product Support  Consistent Product Upgrades  Flexible Implementation Options  On-going Licensing  Key:  Does Not Meet |  Partially Meets | Meets or Exceeds

8. 8 Impact of PSA Use According to Service Performance Insights (SPI) 2014 Professional Services Maturity Benchmark: 73% of PS organizations have adopted a PSA Organizations using a PSA see a 24% increase in net profit Organizations using a PSA see a 7% increase in employee billable utilization Conservatively, if PS Revenue of $XXM experienced a 4.4% increase in billable utilization it would equate to $X.XXM in additional PS revenue

9. 9 Investment in PSA Implement – Y0 (FY’14-’15) Y1 † (FY’15-’16) Y2 (FY’16-’17) Technology $XXX,XXX SaaS License* xxx,xxx Premium Support xx,xxx Sandbox xx,xxx Technology Resource $XXX,XXXN/A Offshore Developers xx,xxxN/A Business Analyst – Contract xx,xxxN/A Total Investment $XXX,XXX *SaaS list price which has not yet been negotiated further for discounts by Procurement. † Assumes a big bang approach as described on slide 13. Full assumptions can be found in note section of this slide.

10. 10 Cost Reductions from Implementing PSA † Implement – Y0 (FY’14-’15) Y1 (FY’15-’16) Y2 (FY’16-’17) Assumptions FTE Reduction Costs$xx,xxx Operations Analyst – 4 FTE _xx,xxx_ Technology Cost Reductions$xx,xxx MUC Replacementxx,xxx__Y0 – would not need to move forward with project XYZ Licensesx,xxx Y0 – 6 mths of license cost XYZ Support Feex,xxx Y0 – 6 mths of support cost Total Cost Reductions $XXX,XXX OpEx$xx,xxx Assumes CEB OpEx guidelines CapEx$xx,xxx † Assumes a big bang approach as described on slide 13. Full assumptions can be found in note section of this slide.

11. 11 Anticipated Productivity Gain on PS Revenue 2013Implement – Y0 † (FY’14-’15) Y1 (FY’15-’16) Y2 (FY’16-’17) Productivity Gain1%2%4.4% Incremental Revenue $xxx,xxx $x,xxx,xxx PS Revenue Impact$xx.xxM Conservative Assumptions Y0: Uplift due to one system less duplication of data entry As users migrate from existing systems to new system there will be a learning curve Y1: More users on the system and any workflow kinks are being worked out Y2: System is more efficient, users have settled into how the system works † Assumes a big bang approach as described on slide 13. Full assumptions can be found in note section of this slide.

12. 12 Investment & Return Summary Implement – Y0 (FY’14-’15) Y1 (FY’15-’16) Y2 (FY’16-’17) Total Investment $xxx,xxx Total Cost Reduction $xx,xxx $xxx,xxx$xx,xxx Est. Incremental PS Rev $xxx,xxx $x,xxx,xxx Net Cash Contribution/(Loss) $xxx,xxx $x,xxx,xxx † Assumes a big bang approach as described on slide 13. Full assumptions can be found in note section of this slide.

13. 13 Intangible Benefits BenefitPrimary ConcernValue Proposition Senior LeadershipTop down reporting of all aspects of the business Revenue, margin, profitability Cost management Employee management Top down insight in to project profitability, employee utilization, P&L FinanceAutomation of revenue recognition Invoicing based on terms of contract Recognizing revenue when properly earned Billing rates and resource utilization Increased invoice accuracy and decreased invoice delays Increased turnaround time to recognize revenue SalesInsight into the firms ability to deliver Reputation Ability to deliver Closing more business Shortened sales cycles Insight into delivery via Salesforce Increased confidence in ability to deliver CustomerBetter time to value Ease, speed and quality of service Easy to Do Business With

14. 14 Implementation Options DescriptionProsCons Option 1 – Three Phased Rollout Phase 1 - Pilot – includes off the shelf product with extremely limited customization (e.g. CPS) Phase 2 - Larger Regions – use learnings from phase 1, implement more customization and rollout to regions like AMS and UK&I Phase 3 - Smaller Regions – Rollout to APMEA and EU Lower and staggered investment costs Reduced exposure to the full services business Stage gates at the beginning of each phases would aid in determining if implementation/investment should continue based on learnings Prolonged timeframe to realize full cost reductions and incremental PS revenue uplift Option 2 - Hybrid Phase 1 - Pilot – includes off the shelf product with extremely limited customization (e.g. CPS) Phase 2 - ROW – use learnings from phase 1, implement more customization and rollout to all territories Lower and staggered investment costs Stage gates at the beginning of each phases could aid in determining if implementation/investment should continue Prolonged timeframe to realize full cost reductions and incremental PS revenue uplift Option 3 – Big Bang Implement a customized solution to suit TMS delivery methodology System would be customized to TMS Cost reductions and incremental PS revenue uplift recognized sooner No stage gates to de-risk investment Longer to implement due to rationalization of all delivery methodologies

15. 15 Project Resources FTEImplement – Y0 (FY’14-’15) Y1 (FY’15-’16) Y2 (FY’16-’17) Implementation Resources Business Systems2xX - 1x -.5 Additional Administrative Resources Program Manager1xxx -.5 IT Project Manager1x Process Manager1xx -.5x -.3 Procurement.3x Marketing/Communications Coordinator.3x Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) Resources Consultants.5xx -.3 Project Managers.5xx -.3 Operations.5xx -.3 Technical Consultants.5xx -.3 QA.5xx -.3 Finance.5xx -.3

16. 16 Questions & Answers

17. 17 Appendix A – Process Used to Select PSA Vendor

18. 18 Purpose Sponsor:XXX Statement of Business Need: Currently internal Professional Services teams use several different tools to project manage client engagements. Below is a partial list: Excel MS Project SharePoint Having many different tools leads to several problems such as: Lack of visibility into project status and revenue forecasts Poor visibility into the future work pipeline Difficulty in the management and scheduling of resources Low project profitability and reuse of intellectual property (e.g. templates) XXX PS is the only team in the organization to have invested in a PSA tool called XXX. XXX has been used by this team since 20xx however it is not the latest version which would require contract renegotiation and potential cost impact. XYZ and ZXY teams need a tool which provides a set of enhanced, automated and integrated capabilities to set-up, manage, control and report on client engagements.

19. 19 Original Scope Statement Scope Statement The goal of this project is to investigate, review and select a PSA tool for use by the XYZ and ZXY PS teams. Other territories may participate in the selection of the PSA tool. Assumptions:Exclusions: The project assumes the following to be true: Representatives from Central XYZ and ZXY PS teams will be made available to participate in the RFP process. Recommendation and selection of a vendor will be complete by XXX 20xx The following is not within the project’s scope: Implementation of the PSA for respective groups as it will be handled in a separate phase. Anything else not specifically listed as within scope.

20. 20 What is a PSA Tool? A Professional Service Automation (PSA) tool is software designed to assist in the initiation, planning, execution, close and control of projects and service delivery. It helps manage key service execution processes including resource management and staffing, project management and collaboration, along with time and expense capture and billing. This is accomplished by developing metrics to quantify and qualify basic business processes that can then be used to streamline and improve those processes.

21. 21 Must Have Requirements The project must meet the following high-level capabilities to satisfy its purpose and the needs and expectations of stakeholders. Detailed functional and technical requirements will be defined by the team’s progressive elaboration. Evaluate available PSA tools in the market Requirements will be categorized under following categories: User Experience Project Management Portfolio Management Resource Management Proposal Management Time Management Budget Management Reporting & Analytics SFDC Integration Administration Capabilities (e.g. browser based, user privileges, e-mail notifications, mobile access, etc.) Decide whether or not to buy a new tool

22. 22 Vendors Asked to Participate Vendors selected to participate based on Business Software PSA Top 10 Professional Service Automation Software Vendors Revealed 2013 Edition report, SaaS functionality, and ability to integrate with Salesforce 1.Vendor 1 2.Vendor 2 3.Vendor 3 4.Vendor 4

23. 23 To date, the project team has: Gathered requirements (interviews, industry research, review of previous RFPs Identified ten potential vendors Submitted RFP to the top 4 vendors Analyzed RFP responses and identified top 3 vendors Attended webinar demo’s of the top 3 vendors Vendor 1 Vendor 2 Vendor 3 Analyzed Demo responses Proposed top vendor for Sandbox testing

24. 24 Overview – Vendor 1 10 responses to the demo Majority of responses were for “meets most requirements” but there were quite a few that only “met some requirements” 3 respondents thought it met no resourcing requirements

25. 25 Overview – Vendor 2 7 responses to the demo Majority of responses were “meets most requirements” and “meets all requirements” 0 respondents thought it “meets no requirements”

26. 26 Overview – Vendor 3 9 responses to the demo Majority of responses were for “meets most requirements” but there were also quite a few for “meets all requirements” and “meets some requirements” 1 respondent thought it “meets no requirements” for Project Management

27. 27 Vendor 1 - Comments

28. 28 Vendor 2 - Comments

29. 29 Vendor 3 - Comments

30. 30 Recommendation Vendor 1 had responses regarding Resourcing of “meets no requirements” from Resource Managers attending the Demo’s and as this is a key aspect of the PSA tool it must be discounted at this stage. Vendor 3 has a lot of ratings of “meets most requirements” but also has a “meets no requirements” on resourcing and has less “meets all requirements” than Vendor 2 so although it came second in the ratings it should also be discounted. Based on scoring in all priority categories and overall scores, Vendor 2 came in as the top choice.  Decision: Does everyone agree?

31. 31 High-Level Schedule DateMilestone 06/14/2013  Final Requirements – Complete 06/25/2013  RFP Issued – Complete Week of 08/19, 8/26  Proposed Vendor Demonstrations - Complete 10/20/2013  Recommendation of Tool - Complete Nov 2013  Present business case for 20xx IT Prioritization – Complete Nov 2013  Sandbox Testing of preferred supplier – On Hold TBD  Contract negotiated TBD  Deployment/Trainings

32. 32 Appendix B – Vendor 2

33. 33 Reference(s): SPI Research, “2014 Professional Services Maturity Benchmark Report,” February 2014SPI Research, “2014 Professional Services Maturity Benchmark Report,” February 2014 PS Village & Hinge, “2014 Professional Services Industry Benchmark Report,” March 2014PS Village & Hinge, “2014 Professional Services Industry Benchmark Report,” March 2014 Appendix C – Professional Services Industry Research on PSA Adoption

34. 34 Profile of the Best of the Best PS Organizations Invest in people, processes and integrated systems. Focus on alignment from strategy to execution and have complete real- time visibility into all facets of their operations. Hire the best and keep them motivated with leveraged compensation plans tied to measurable results. The “secret sauce” is a laser focus on execution and reliance on integrated applications to provide real-time visibility. Service Performance Insight, LLC (March 2014) 2014 Professional Services Maturity™ Benchmark Best-of the-Best, pg. 13.

35. 35 PS Departments and Information Needs PS Departments require Core ReqsCore Apps Operations, planning, forecasting, budgeting, T&E capture, billing SFDC, SharePoint, Excel External service procurementSFDC Estimating, project management, resource management & staffing, knowledge management, QA management, Web 2.0 social collaboration, web/video conferencing SFDC*, SharePoint, Excel, Outlook, file servers, Chatter, Lync, WebEx, SoundPath For PS Departments with more than 30 employees

36. 36 Build v. Buy v. No Solution Commercial adoption of a PSA tool: 2011 - 76.4%, 2012 – 73.5%, 2013 – 73.4% Approximately 8% Build own solution 20% No solution Adoption of a PSA is at 83.3% for BoB organizations 45.5% of BoB orgs integrate their CRM and PSA