Mercury Program

1. Mercury Program Margin Management Tool (MMT) Recommended Approach 23-January-2014

2. Agenda What we need from Managing Sponsors • Sign Off on this approach • MMT Deck Overview • MMT Focus • Current –vs- Future State • MMT Benefits • Fit/Gap Requirement Analysis • Conceptual Future State Architecture • MMT Timeline • Delivery Model • Appendix • MMT Context Diagram • Key Issues & Risks • Iteration Schedule

3. The Margin Modeling Tool supports the emphasis on margin as a key metric • The ability to measure and manage margin at account and partner portfolio level is a key element of Vision 2020 • The MMT was developed as a single global margin modeling tool • The use of the MMT, with the proposed enhancements, combined with the new Mercury business processes will: Provide consistency with other tools Continue the focus on Margin Harmonize and standardize • Margin will be visible as a key metric throughout the life of the opportunity and engagement • The approvals in MMT for pricing and budgeting will be margin based and related to the Account (G360) or market segment (Core) • Enables partners to calculate impact of current opportunity on their portfolio • Ensures globally consistent reporting of margin on Opportunities to support Account level decision making • MyBusiness metrics will also be shown in MMT • MMT will support improved backlog reporting • Consistent way to calculate Margin with globally consistent approach to calculating direct cost rates for staff and partners • “What if” scenario modeling provides transparency about impact of resourcing choices on margin

4. Engagement pricing, budgeting & economics –Current State vs. Future State

5. Engagement pricing, budgeting & economics -— key benefits: Global • Globally consistent approach to modelling revenue and margin for pricing and budgeting • Globally consistent calculation of key metrics • Tools support set up and management of larger cross border engagements Streamlined • Integrated solution reduces manual rekeying and ensures consistency of data between solutions • Technical solution enables client server to move seamlessly between applications to support business process • Scaleable process: client handler is only required to add detail if necessary • Enables data to be used for multiple purposes eg update forecast metrics and resource bookings from one screen • Minimises effort required to update forecast metrics • Approvals and notifications minimised Strategic Focus • Supports focus on margin • Transparency and visibility of “sold at”, “planned at” and “delivered at” metrics encourages focus on management of engagement financials; early visibility of over runs supports corrective action

6. Fit/Gap Requirements Analysis Application Layer Reuse for future state MMT User Interface Reuse for future state MMT Total Requirements for the future state MMT 0% 10-20% 280 requirements • The current application is tightly bound to GFIS source data org and metrics for the calculations it performs. In consequence, a large proportion will need to be reworked to function in an SAP world. • The future platform will align with the Mercury and EY User Experience standards being developed • Four detailed requirements sessions were performed • No Functional Requirements to date have been written • UX requirements to be identified during design phase Data Layer Reuse for future state MMT Current MMT Interface will not be reused 10-20% 0% • The data layer is highly GFIS centric, therefore most objects would have to be re-worked to support SAP data structures • The only existing interface is with GFIS, which will be decommissioned The new MMT will align with Program Mercury and EY UX strategy by building it on EY Standard platforms like Microsoft SharePoint and  .NET frameworks. This will support our approach to streamlined maintenance and operability, thereby keeping costs in line.

7. Conceptual Architecture

8. MMT Timeline

9. Delivery Model A combined EY and IBM team that utilizes existing EY knowledge and aligns to Mercury Governance structure.

10. Delivery Model - Team A combined EY and IBM team that utilizes existing EY knowledge and aligns to Mercury Governance structure.

11. Dependencies and Immediate Next Steps Key Dependencies Fee Sharing design from Finance team Opportunity Management design from CRM team What we need from the Managing Sponsors Sign Off on this approach Permission to commercially engage IBM for resources

12. Appendix Context Diagram Risk / Issue List Iteration Schedule

13. High Level Architecture – mapped to KDD & SAP

14. Key Program Issues & Risks • Issue • Time to complete the Functional requirements • The SAP Interface work stream has started building transactions for MMT and the MMT team is not yet formed, data model not designed, and the knock on effect to the Maintenance Team is growing rapidly. • The User Experience Work stream, expected to generate additional requirements, has not started. • Risk • If EY is able to ramp up the team in one week, that only allows 8 weeks to complete design. Mitigation – accelerate the staffing of MMT. • Each time a current MMT system problem occurs, the MMT Subject Matter Resources will not be available to the MMT development teams resulting in schedule delays. Mitigation – Provide additional resources to production support and dedicate MMT Subject Matter Resources to the new development effort.

15. Iteration Schedule