November 2022
Benchmarking of infrastructure services
Estonian ICT Centre
Zangenberg participants:
Kasper Bay Poulsen - Partner
Background Projektformål
ICT Centre wants a price benchmark of their deliveries of IT services. Zangenberg Analytics will assist ICT Centre with an in-depth benchmark
analysis of the infrastructure services based on a comparable peer
group.
ICT Centre provides IT infrastructure operation for three ministries with a
total of ~9.000 employees. The plan for ICT Centre is to expand to all 11
ministries and ~30.000 employees. The purpose is to provide a benchmark analysis of the services provided by
ICT Centre for the services included in the Zangenberg Analytics framework:
Server, Storage, Network, Workstations, Servicedesk, Databases and
The ICT Centre currently has approximately 140 employees.
Applications operations so ICT Centre can assess to what extent the current
delivery prices are in line with market prices.
The ICT Centre wants to ensure that the IT costs for internal delivery and are
in line with the market and similar internal delivery organizations
The benchmark analysis will be based on a "bottom-up" approach, where
transparency is created behind the pricing within the various delivery areas,
For this purpose, ICT Centre has requested assistance from Zangenberg as well as highlighting the most important cost drivers and high-impact
Analytics to perform a benchmark of their infrastructure services and show if areas.
the current cost differs from the market prices.
The benchmark analysis will basically compare the service ICT Centre
delivers with similar services delivered in the market, with selected reference
groups within each of the delivery areas. The Zangenberg Analytics
database covers more than 50,000 price points across public and private
agreements in the Nordics. This includes, among other things, a large part of
the Danish C25 companies and a significant part of the public sector.
2 | Zangenberg Analytics
We are specialized in IT financial
consulting
Benchmarking and Benchmarking and optimizing IT-negotiation Cloud financial IT financial M&A
optimizing IT contracts large software contracts strategy assessment and strategy Assistance
› Bottom-up valuation of IT › Identification of data-driven › Development of negotiation › Design principles and cost- › Financial IT due diligence
infrastructure and platform savings levers strategy (BATNA) transparency for cloud
› Financial Risk valuation of IT
(server, storage, database, IaaS/PaaS services
› Valuation of terms and › Identification of key focus areas portfolio
network, mainframe, end-user,
conditions during negotiation › Optimization of capacity and
hardware etc.) › Synergy assessment of post-
total consumption
› Optimization and benchmark of › Continuous feedback during merger IT configuration and
› Cost-appraisal covering IT
cost-structures and on-going negotiations › Benchmarking cloud contract integration
operations, application
expenditures management services
maintenance and application › Education of negotiation team
development › Assisting cloud tender
Vendor examples processes
› Evaluation and assessment of
internal IT productivity (Service
desk, Azure DevOps etc.)
› Agile productivity benchmark
(application development and
maintenance)
3 | Zangenberg Analytics
What makes Zangenberg Analytics’
benchmarking unique?
We have more data and higher precision Our benchmark model has market-leading coverage
Largest database of active contracts in Scandinavia, covering contracts
across Northern Europe, with 72% coverage of Danish C25 Companies. Coverage of all Danish public- and majority of Danish
private sector
% of Danish C25 companies present in Benchmark- and
deals database (anonymized)
We calculate like the vendors do Example, Danish C25
Our benchmark model is similar to how the Service Providers calculate coverage
their prices: using bottom-up-approach, normalizing for size, service 72% Of Danish C25
scope, SLA’s and Terms & Conditions. 28%
present in Benchmark- and
deals database
(anonymized)
72%
Public sector Private sector
Our benchmark price is the competitive price
Our model gives the price you should expect in a competitive scenario. It
is neither the average price among a number of arbitrarily chosen Sourcing contracts covering IT services
contracts nor the 25 or 75 percentile. We believe customers should aim across the globe
• Majority of contracts covering global entities, with
for the competitive price in a competitive market. HQ in Northern Europe but vast global footprint
• IT sourcing services, rate-cards and technology
pricing across all regions
The benchmark model is continuously verified by
the market Contracts covering majority of Service
Every time we update a price-point in our database, the data is validated Providers – from Big Four to Niche players
by Service Providers. We do this to avoid “false” prices from contracts • We closely follow all the Service Providers – from
where the Service Provider went under cost on a specific item. the large global providers to the smaller niche
players
4 | Zangenberg Analytics
Benchmarking internal services requires a two step approach where current
cost baseline is compared to the benchmark results
Documentation in
Cost baseline Zangenberg Analytics
Output from the benchmarking analysis
cost sheet
Benchmark results
1 The benchmark results will answer the question on
FTE baseline how competitive the services are compared to
comparable services in the market
Current cost baseline
1
Recommendations
Services
2 The recommendations will point towards areas
Scope, terms and Benchmark where it is possible to initiate cost-savings initiatives
based on the benchmarking results
conditions
Observations
SLA 3 The observations will be directed towards
Service levels irregularities or areas where the services differ from
Documentation in market standards
Zangenberg Analytics
Datasheet
CMDB
Hardware inventory
5 | Zangenberg Analytics
Current Government Workstation being provided by Estonian ICT and which
elements are included in the Zangenberg Analytics benchmarking model
P&L Component Service component 1 Service component 2 Cost driver Included in the benchmark
COGS Hardware laptop User ✓
COGS Hardware monitor User ✓
COGS Software MS M365 E3 User ✓
COGS Software Antivirus User ✓
COGS Software Management tools (Lansweeper, PatchMyPC) User ✓
COGS Administrative resources Management software (ITSM, wiki, etc) User ✓
Information security (SIEM/SOAR, user training +
COGS Administrative resources platform, continuous testing of information security, User (✓)*
web filter)
Server resources (file, mail, Skype for Business, local
COGS Administrative resources User ✓
network, Wi-Fi in meeting rooms)
COGS Administrative resources Warehouse costs User ✓
Distribution costs Personell and management costs User ✓
Administrative and
Personell and management costs User ✓
general expenses
*Some elements could be out of scope, based on the different types of software and tools included
6 | Zangenberg Analytics
Current Government Cloud being provided by Estonian ICT and which
elements are included in the Zangenberg Analytics benchmarking model
P&L Component Service component 1 Service component 2 Cost driver Included in the benchmark
COGS RAM GB ✓
COGS vCPU pieces ✓
COGS Disk surface TB (✓)*
COGS Backup TB ✓
Monitoring license, uCMDB license, management
COGS Administrative resources fixed ✓
tools (forti manager, observium, infobloxs)
Distribution costs Personell and management costs Server Resources ✓
Administrative and
Personell and management costs Server Resources ✓
general expenses
*Some elements could be out of scope, based on the different types of software and tools included
7 | Zangenberg Analytics
Overview of the breakdown on FTE, to hightlight how the FTE part of the
services can be individually benchmarked
Total cost for
Government Workstation
Transparency into FTE shares
600
and totals Number of FTEs
The benchmarking model allows for 14
450 36%
transparency and granularity at a 12
level. Where it will be possible to
300 18% dissect how the FTE cost compares
against benchmarking levels.
150 36% The benchmarking model
considers, where the FTEs are
9% delivered from (Estonia, EU, off-
0
Government Workstation shore).
Hardware Estonian ICT Benchmark
Software
Administrative resources
Personell and management costs
8 | Zangenberg Analytics
Proposed timeline for completing benchmark by end of February
2022 2023
Dec Jan Feb Mar
Activity 48 49 50 51 52 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
Phase 1: Internal decision at Estonian ICT Centre
Estonian ICT Centre decision on project
Phase 2: Data collection Workshop understanding services from ICT
Data collection on CMDB and infrastructure services Workshop on understanding internal cost at ICT
Data collection on internal cost at ICT
Data collection on SLA and service catalogue from ICT
Normalization of ICT services to market standard services
Phase 3: Baselining and mapping Scope workshop
Complete mapping of scope of services to ZA framework Scope workshop Multiplier workshop
Complete technical mapping of baseline to ZA framework
Mapping of terms and conditions to ZA multiplier
Phase 4: Calculation of benchmark
Normalization of services to market standards
Calculating benchmark pricing for comparable services in the market Validation workshop
Adjusting for terms and conditions applicable to ICT
Ongoing validation with key stakeholders at ICT
Phase 5: Validation and presentation of results
Final validation of benchmarking results Final presentation
Presentation of benchmarking results to key stakeholders
9 | Zangenberg Analytics
Phase 2: Data collection
Purpose
The data collection phase will define the scope for the benchmarking analysis and initiate the data collection for all relevant data to be used in the
benchmark. The data collection phase is performed in cooperation between the ICT Centre and Zangenberg Analytics.
Main activities Main deliveries
1.1 CMDB and infrastructure data
The data collection is performed in cooperation with the ICT Centre, and will comprise a
technical baseline of the infrastructure components #servers, #GB storage, #workstations
etc.
1.2 Internal cost – data collection
The ICT Centre will provide data on the current cost baseline to be used in the
benchmarking analysis. The cost data will be provided in English and should be aligned 1.1 Overview of data,
to service towers. Zangenberg Analytics will align with key stakeholders to ensure all cost All the data collected will be
elements are included. gathered in a repository that
allows for full transparency on
the data sources used
1.3 SLA and service catalogue
The ICT Centre will provide data on current SLA levels and current service catalogue to
allow Zangenberg Analytics to gain insight into how the current service levels and scope
of services are described for the customers.
10 | Zangenberg Analytics
The Zangenberg IT-Cost model
Cross-sectoral management
Service categories
activities
Finance, controlling & HR
Application development
Application maintenance
Strategy, architecture &
including SaaS and PaaS
Cross-sectoral /
PPM, PMO governance
Servicedesk / Helpdesk
Mainframe operations
The service categories
Application operation
Storage operations /
Network (LAN/WAN)
Database operations
interdisciplinary
End-user computing
Vendor and partner
describe the services
Server operations
provided. management activities are
necessary in-company tasks,
Management
management
needed to be solved.
technology
Telephony
Security
backup
Total
IaaS
Cost categories
Hardware
Software (primary)
Software (secondary)
The cost Outsourcing
categories
describe the Consultants
type of it-cost.
Internal FTEs
Other cost
Total
The individual cell is filled
A column indicates the total calculated out with an amount, which A row indicates the
cost for a given service type or in- either is the accounting cost organisations’ total
company activity. The amount can be or FTEs converted into Euro expenditures within a cost
used for benchmarking, if the service category
type is well-defined
11 | Zangenberg Analytics
Phase 3: Baselining and mapping
Purpose
Using Zangenberg Analytics benchmarking model a full mapping of the technical services will be provided in the Zangenberg Analytics datasheet. The
datasheet maps both technical and scope of the services using a framework recognized as market standard.
Main activities Main deliveries
3.1 Complete mapping of scope of services to ZA framework
The scope of services provided by the ICT Centre will be mapped to ZA framework by
looking at service descriptions and workshops. The workshops are used to fully map the
3.1 Mapping of scope,
scope of services being delivered and are performed on Teams or equivalent.
Scope will be mapped
according to Zangenberg
3.2 Complete technical mapping of baseline to ZA framework Analytics framework
After the data collection has been performed, Zangenberg Analytics will map the
information to Zangenberg Analytics data models, that will allow for benchmarking of
the technical baseline. The baseline will be mapped in ZA datasheets that can be
reviewed and validated by the ICT Centre. Volume OS Scope
Cust. Mat. Desc.
Servers/Racks
management
management
Maintenance
GB RAM per
Ownership
Number of
(optional)
Server OS
Systems
Service
server
3.2 Technical mapping,
Tools
Service Component
- Choose from list -
3.3 Mapping of terms and conditions to ZA multiplier
IaaS - Linux server Extra vCPU Windows/Linux server - virtual - Additional vCPU 74 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
IaaS - Linux server Extra vRAM Windows/Linux server - virtual - Additional GB RAM 537 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Complete mapping of baseline Physical Linux server Extra RAM
Physical Linux server Cluster operation
Physical Linux server Hosting of SJ HW
Windows/Linux server - physical - Additional GB RAM
Clustering service
Housing - 1U incl. Power
5.256
14
2
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Terms and conditions that are part of the delivery for the ICT Centre will also be mapped in Zangenberg Analytics
IaaS - Linux server Large Windows/Linux server - virtual (4 vCPU) - (Intel/AMD HW) 1 16 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%
IaaS - Linux server Large Windows/Linux server - virtual (4 vCPU) - (Intel/AMD HW) 12 16 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%
IaaS - Linux server Large Windows/Linux server - virtual (4 vCPU) - (Intel/AMD HW) 13 16 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%
IaaS - Linux server Large - HA Windows/Linux server - virtual (4 vCPU) - (Intel/AMD HW) 37 16 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%
template. The multiplier will
IaaS - Linux server Medium Windows/Linux server - virtual (2 vCPU) - (Intel/AMD HW) 1 8 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%
in the ZA datasheet. These will be established in a workshop between ZA and ICT Centre IaaS - Linux server Medium
IaaS - Linux server Medium
IaaS - Linux server Medium - HA
Windows/Linux server - virtual (2 vCPU) - (Intel/AMD HW)
Windows/Linux server - virtual (2 vCPU) - (Intel/AMD HW)
Windows/Linux server - virtual (2 vCPU) - (Intel/AMD HW)
21
22
21
8
8
8
0% 0% 100% 100% 100%
0% 0% 100% 100% 100%
0% 0% 100% 100% 100%
also be mapped in the same
IaaS - Linux server Small Windows/Linux server - virtual (1 vCPU) - (Intel/AMD HW) 0 2 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%
over Teams. All significant cost drivers are mapped in the multiplier.
IaaS - Linux server Small Windows/Linux server - virtual (1 vCPU) - (Intel/AMD HW) 2 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%
IaaS - Linux server Small Windows/Linux server - virtual (1 vCPU) - (Intel/AMD HW) 2 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%
IaaS - Linux server Small - HA Windows/Linux server - virtual (1 vCPU) - (Intel/AMD HW) 4 2 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%
datasheet.
IaaS - Linux server Service Lvl - Basic Windows/Linux server - virtual - Server Operations 3 100% 100% 0% 100% 0%
IaaS - Linux server Service Lvl - Prem Windows/Linux server - virtual - Server Operations 64 100% 100% 0% 100% 0%
IaaS - Linux server Service Lvl - Std Windows/Linux server - virtual - Server Operations 67 100% 100% 0% 100% 0%
12 | Zangenberg Analytics
The operational delivery for a service component is divided into three general
categories: Volume, Scope and SLAs
3-step division and classification of each service:
1. Categorization of performance component, e.g. "Windows Server - physical (1 CPU)"
2. Mapping the scope of the service relative to market standard scope definitions
3. Service Level Agreement (SLA) Mapping
Cloud
Server Mainframe Storage Workstation Service desk Network Database Application Other
services
Source: http://quarterlyanalytics.dk/?page_id=2511
13 | Zangenberg Analytics
The Zangenberg Analytics multiplier represents the special commercial and risk
conditions that affect the delivery price
The value of the Zangenberg Analytics multiplier depends on the commercial and risk
conditions behind the operational delivery
Capacity-flexibility Cap at 80% of agreement Cap at 50% of agreement Unlimited downward flexibility
The price on special terms and conditions
The complexity of the price model Follows standard pricing parameters Follows non standard pricing
parameter
• The benchmark model considers various SLAs and terms
that affect the delivery price Design authority including refresh Supplier Select demands described in the Client
strategi contract
• The multiplier represents the risk assessment that the Complexity – integration No mainframe, integrations No mainframe, number of Mainframe plus midrange closely
compared to systems 2:1 (or no integrations compared to systems integrated (more than 2:1
vendor will add to the operating price and thus the description), max two database 4:1 or more than two database integration:systems)
additional price that any increased risk will entail platforms platforms
Governance – non standard setup Central agreement with central Decentral (national) governance
governance
Reporting Follows the supplier's setup on Special reporting which requires
standard SLA's extra measurement
Benchmarking Benchmarking with the ability to Automatic price adjustment as a
renegotiate/readjust consequence of benchmarking
Exit - commitment period 4 or more years binding 3 years binding Less than 3 years binding
Zangenberg Analytics multiplikator Penalty Punitive provision maximum 10% of Punitive provision between 10 and Punitive provision above 30% of
monthly fee 30% of monthly fee monthly fee
Location of data center Not specified EU Denmark
1,15 Location of personnel for oversight Not specified EU Denmark
Special security demands None Doubling of datacenters with hot Military/intelligence
switch etc
14 | Zangenberg Analytics
Phase 4: Calculation of benchmark
Purpose
In this phase Zangenberg Analytics will perform the benchmark of the services included in the mapping and compare the benchmarking results against the
internal cost at ICT Centre. This will result in a benchmarking report, that will be validated with ICT Centre.
Main activities Main deliveries
4.1 Normalization of services to market standards
ZA will perform normalization of the services to market standards, to allow for like for like
comparison against market prices.
4.2 Calculate benchmark,
4.2 Calculating benchmark pricing for comparable services in the market Benchmarking results on service
Once the internal services has been documented, both with regards to technical, scope towers to compare against market
and cost Zangenberg Analytics will perform a benchmarking against market prices. The levels
benchmarking will report on each individual service tower, and allow for insights into
where, if any, the difference from market prices are present.
4.3 Adjusting for terms and conditions applicable to ICT
As part of the benchmarking process, ZA will consider the special terms and conditions 4.2 Detailed breakdown,
in place for the ICT Centre and ensure normalization and uplift applicable for these Detailed breakdown on individual
terms and conditions. service towers if the need arises, to
allow for transparency on cost drivers
4.4 Ongoing validation with key stakeholders at ICT
In the benchmarking process, ZA will keep an ongoing validation process with ICT
Centre.
15 | Zangenberg Analytics
The benchmark results will compare internal cost against market prices
Overview:
• Table 1 shows the benchmark results
• The results are shown as million € per
year Table 1 – Benchmark results (million € per year)
• Client price is the input price from the
datasheet, the Benchmark is the
Client Benchmark Difference Percent
benchmark price, difference is the
Server 18,38 12,76 5,63 44%
absolute difference between the Client
Storage 12,72 10,21 2,51 25%
price and the Benchmark price and
Percent is the percentage difference Network 15,45 12,50 2,94 24%
between Client and the Benchmark
Database Operations 4,18 4,11 0,07 2%
Application Operations 5,70 4,86 0,84 17%
Observations:
• In total Client is 28% above the SAP Basis 2,50 1,36 1,14 84%
benchmark price, primarily driven by
Total per year 61,60 47,97 13,63 28%
server, storage and network
• The overall benchmark results hides large
differences in sub-services within the
towers
16 | Zangenberg Analytics
The benchmark results will compare internal cost against market prices
-31%
Million € / year
Overview:
19 18,38
• Figure 1 shows the benchmark results Benchmark
18
• The results are shown as million € per -19% Client
17
year 16 15,45
• Client price is the input price from the 15
-20%
datasheet, the Benchmark is the 14
13 12,76 12,72 12,50
benchmark price, difference is the
12
absolute difference between the Client
11
price and the Benchmark price and 10,21
10
Percent is the percentage difference
9
between Client and the Benchmark 8
-15%
7
-2% 5,70
Observations: 6
4,86
• In total Client is 28% above the 5
4,18 4,11 -46%
benchmark price, primarily driven by 4
3 2,50
server, storage and network
2 1,36
• The overall benchmark results hides large
1
differences in sub-services within the
0
towers Server Storage Network Database Application SAP Basis
Operations Operations
17 | Zangenberg Analytics
The Zangenberg Analytics benchmarking model allows for detailed breakdown
of services to find cost-optimizing initiatives for future roadmap
Overview:
• The figure shows the benchmark results DKK / month
• The results are shown as DKK per month 600
557 561 Client
• The figure shows the total server price
Benchmark
split into the separate services that 500
constitutes the full server service
400
Observations:
• Client is below market prices for 300
hardware, software and contingency 231 235
• Client is above the market prices for FTE 195 188
200 175
and Overhead 145
• Observations…
100
65
• Observations… 45
• Observations…
0
Hardware Software FTE Overhead Contingency
18 | Zangenberg Analytics
Phase 5: Validation and presentation of results
Purpose
In this phase Zangenberg Analytics will perform the benchmark of the services included in the mapping and compare the benchmarking results against the
internal cost at ICT Centre. This will result in a benchmarking report, that will be validated with ICT Centre.
Main activities Main deliveries
5.1 Validate benchmark report
As part of the final phase, ZA will validate the benchmarking report with relevant
stakeholders at ICT Centre, to ensure the validity of the benchmarking report.
5.2 Final benchmarking report,
calculation of scenarios to show
5.2 Presentation of final report comparison between the vendors
and expected pricing
After validation, the final report is presented to key stakeholders at ICT Centre. The final
presentation will be limited to one session with ICT Centre.
19 | Zangenberg Analytics
Investment and team
20 | Zangenberg Analytics
Investment associated with the analysis
Benchmarking analysis – 29.999 Euro
The project is billed monthly and after actual progress and completion.
Investment
(excl. VAT and travel expenses)
Prerequisite that all the material provided to ZA is in English
Timeframe 8-10 weeks
• Documentation on current scope of services and technical specifications including SLAs at ICT Centre
• Documentation of current internal cost of included services
Deliverables • Fully mapping of technical baseline in ZA framework
• Benchmarking report comparing current internal services against comparable market prices
• Observations on potential optimization areas for the ICT Centre based on the analysis
21 | Zangenberg Analytics
Core engagement team - I
Kasper Bay Poulsen Henrik Zangenberg
Title: Partner Title: Partner
Role: Responsible Role: SME and QA
Benchmarking expert with 10 Benchmarking expert with 25
years of experience on the years of experience on the
global IT outsourcing market global IT outsourcing market
Education: B.Sc. and M.Sc., Economics, University of Copenhagen Education: Datalog, Cand. Comm.
Core competencies Core competencies
• Benchmarking • It strategy
• Sourcing-strategic • Sourcing-strategic
• Cloud strategy • Benchmarking
Kasper has more than 10 years of experience working with C25 Henrik has over 25 years of experience as an IT strategic consultant
companies and large public entities as a trusted advisor within IT from Deloitte, IBM, Gartner and since 2008 as a partner and owner of
finance and strategy. Kasper has solved complex IT tasks for Zangenberg Analytics. Henrik has solved IT strategic tasks for a
organizations such as Ørsted, Vattenfall, SimCorp, Novo Nordisk, PFA, number of large private and public organizations such as Danske
PenSam, ATP and Nets among others. Bank, Nets, IKEA, TRYG, Vestas, Lego, FLS, Novo Nordisk, TetraPak,
the Ministry of Finance and Copenhagen Municipality.
Kasper has been one of the major forces behind building the market
leading Zangenberg Analytics benchmarking model and has also Over the past 25 years, he has helped many the country's largest
specialized as an expert advisor within cloud, advising large private and public companies as well as IT suppliers with sourcing
enterprises on cloud transformations, cloud optimization and cloud strategies and the implementation of major tenders. Henrik is one of
strategy. the country's most experienced negotiation advisers.
Core engagement team - II
Emma Haslund
Adrian Møller Melbye
Title: Junior Consultant Title: Junior Consultant
Role: Data analysis, Role: Data analysis,
baselining, project baselining, project
deliverables deliverables
Education: International Business & Politics,
Copenhagen Business School
Education: B.Sc., Economics, University of Copenhagen
Core competencies
Core competencies
• Benchmarking expert with experience from the
• Benchmarking expert with experience from the global IT
global IT outsourcing market
outsourcing market
• Specialized in IT Finance, with emphasis on
• Specialized in IT Finance, with emphasis on ITO, software
ITO, Service Desk and software
and cloud
• Experienced SAP negotiations and
• Experienced SAP negotiations and benchmarking
benchmarking
Selected references:
Selected references:
ATP, Rigspolitiet, Lægemiddelstyrelsen, Sundhedsstyrelsen,
Ørsted, Pandora, Norsk Hydro, Nets, EG, Danish
Sundhed.dk, UFST, Tryg, Codan, Intact, Trygg-Hansa,
Ministry of Defence, Beumer Group, Rockwool,
Codan NO, Moderna, Domstolsstyrelsen, Justitsministeriet,
Vattenfall, Copenhagen Municipality, CPH Airport,
Nets, Kyndryl/IBM, Finansministeriet,
NKT, Fujitsu, DSV, Novozymes, Frederikshavn
Digitaliseringsstyrelsen, Moderniseringsstyrelsen, Novo
Municipality, Tryg, Orifarm, PFA Pension, UFST,
Nordisk
Novo Nordisk, Yara
23
Appendix
24 | Zangenberg Analytics
APPENDIX
Selected services included in the ITO benchmarking model
Server Workstation Database operations
Windows/Linux server - virtual (1 vCPU) - (Intel/AMD HW) Desktop - High-end DB2 database instance
Windows/Linux server - virtual (2 vCPU) - (Intel/AMD HW) Desktop - OSX Ingress database instance
Windows/Linux server - virtual (4 vCPU) - (Intel/AMD HW) Desktop - Standard MS-SQL database instance
Windows/Linux server - virtual (6 vCPU) - (Intel/AMD HW) Docking Station MySQL database instance
Windows/Linux server - virtual (8 vCPU) - (Intel/AMD HW) Laptop - High-end Oracle database instance
Windows/Linux server - virtual (16 vCPU) - (Intel/AMD HW) Laptop - OSX Other database instance
Windows/Linux server - physical (1 CPU) - (Intel/AMD HW) Laptop - Standard Sybase database instance
Windows/Linux server - physical (2 CPU) - (Intel/AMD HW) Thin Client
Windows/Linux server - physical (4 CPU) - (Intel/AMD HW) VDI
Windows/Linux server - physical (8 CPU) - (Intel/AMD HW)
UNIX/Linux server - virtual (1 vCPU) - (UNIX HW)
UNIX/Linux server - virtual (2 vCPU) - (UNIX HW) Enterprise Mobility Management Application operations
UNIX/Linux server - virtual (4 vCPU) - (UNIX HW)
UNIX/Linux server - virtual (6 vCPU) - (UNIX HW) MDM Standard application
UNIX/Linux server - virtual (8 vCPU) - (UNIX HW) EMM Special application
UNIX/Linux server - virtual (16 vCPU) - (UNIX HW) Tablet Complex application
UNIX/Linux server - physical (1 CPU) - (UNIX HW) Smartphone Middleware application
UNIX/Linux server - physical (2 CPU) - (UNIX HW) Citrix server management (per server)
UNIX/Linux server - physical (4 CPU) - (UNIX HW) SAP Basis
Network
UNIX/Linux server - physical (8 CPU) - (UNIX HW)
Housing - Per Unit (incl. Power and Cooling) 2 Factor Authentication
Housing - Power Square Meters Access switch
Housing - Per Rack (42U) Distribution switch Private Cloud
Core switch
Netscaler Private Cloud Compute
Storage DC Lan Port 10Gbit (Dedicated) Private Cloud Storage
DC Lan Port 1Gbit (Dedicated)
Archive Load Balancer
Autotiering SAN (6% SSD) Firewall
Disk Backup (Backend) IP-Sec VPN Client Mainframe
Disk Backup (Frontend) Routers
Hosted NAS Secure DNS (per AD user) MIPS
Hosted SAN (SAS) Secure Homeworker Solution (per user) DASD
Hosted SAN (SATA) SIEM (per network device) TAPE
Hosted SAN (SSD) SSL VPN Client Batch
Remote Backup VPN Site 2 Site
Tape Backup Wireless Access Points
25 | Zangenberg Analytics
APPENDIX
The methodology
Key Elements of Agreement Decomposition
Contract
Zangenberg Analytics Multiplier
Contract 17SKAN-01
Zangenberg Analytics Datasheet Cap at 80% of agreement Capacity-flexibility Cap at 80% of agreement Cap at 50% of agreement Unlimited downward flexibility
Follows standard pricing parameters The complexity of the pricemodel Follows standard pricing parameters Follows non standard pricing parameters
Supplier Design authority including refresh strategi Supplier Select demands described in the contract Client
No mainframe, number of integrations
compared to systems 4:1 or more than
No mainframe, integrations compared No mainframe, integrations compared to Mainframe plus midrange closely
two database platforms
to systems 2:1 (or no description), max Complexity - integration systems 2:1 (or no description), max two integrated (more than 2:1
Service-categories Terms and conditions two database platforms database platforms Mainframe plus midrange with few
integrations
integration:systems)
Central agreement with central
Governance - non standard setup Central agreement with central governance Decentral (national) governance
governance
Follows the suppliers setup on standard Special repporting which requires extra
Server, Storage The terms and conditions that influences
Reporting Follows the suppliers setup on standard SLA's
SLA's measurement
No benchmarking
Benchmarking with the ability to Automatic price adjustment as a
Benchmarking
renegotiate/readjust Benchmarking with the ability to consequence of benchmarking
Etc. the price of the agreement
renegotiate/readjust
4 or more years binding Exit - commitment period 4 or more years binding 3 years binding Less than 3 years binding
Punitive provision above 30% of Punitive provision maximum 10% of monthly Punitive provision between 10 and 30% of Punitive provision above 30% of
Punitive provision
monthly fee fee monthly fee monthly fee
Sweden Location of datacenter Not specified EU Sweden
EU Location of personnel for oversight Not specified EU Sweden
Doubling of datacenters with hot Doubling of datacenters with hot switch
Special security demands None Military/intelligence
switch etc etc
M u lt iplie r 1 ,2 7 5
Service components
Virtual Wintel Server 1 vCPU
SQL Database Instance
Etc.
Scope Volume SLA
Systems Management # Servers Availability
Service Management # GBs Opening Hours
Ownership # Helpdesk Calls per month Latency
26 | Zangenberg Analytics
APPENDIX
Normalization consists of a detailed breakdown of services into main service
scope categories (i.e. Service Management)
3 step breakdown and classification of service:
1. Categorize service component i.e. ”Windows Server – physical (1 CPU)”
2. Map to client scope levels according to scope definitions
3. Map to client service level agreement (SLA)
Cloud
Server Mainframe Storage Workstation Service desk Network Database Application Other
services
27 | Zangenberg Analytics
APPENDIX
SLA has a great commercial risk depending on the service level chosen for each
given server unit or a group of servers
An availability of 99,5% has a higher commercial risk compared to ex. 95,0%
28 | Zangenberg Analytics
APPENDIX
Main scope areas comprise of sub-processes (i.e. Asset management) which
enable mapping of scope onto the detailed scope descriptions
Scope of services is mapped based on main processes and service
activities
1) Decomposition of contract to identify scope elements
2) Validate scope with client
29 | Zangenberg Analytics
APPENDIX
Last step of components normalization is adjusting the scope such that it
represent the configurations contractual terms
Cloud
Server Mainframe Storage Workstation Service desk Network Database Application Other
services
30 | Zangenberg Analytics
Contract for provision of services
No 5-3/22-0752-1
See the signature(s) for the date(s)
This contract is made between Republic of Estonia Information and Communication Technology
Centre (hereinafter RIT), represented by director Ergo Tars
and
Zangenberg Analytics (hereinafter the Service Provider).
1. Object of contract and due dates
2. The Service Provider shall provide the Benchmarking of infrastructure services to RIT. Detailed
overview of service and its works and timeline is provided in annex 1. The due date agreed for the
completion of the Tasks is 8th of March 2023.
3. The Service Provider shall follow instructions given by RIT. RIT may give instructions until the
Service Provider has fulfilled all its obligations under the contract. Instructions given by RIT are
mandatory to fulfil. If such instructions cause the volume of the Tasks to increase significantly, or an
increase of the fee is justified, the Service Provider may demand negotiations with RIT to amend the
contract respectively and in case the negotiations fail, refuse to follow the instruction.
4. The Works shall be produced and the Services provided in accordance with all applicable
normative documents relevant to such Works or Services and in accordance with all good practices
usually observed in the relevant field. The Works and Services must be of good quality, considering
common practices, the purpose and essence of such Works and Services and the expectations set out by
RIT.
5. RIT has at all times the right to receive from the Service Provider any information related to the
Tasks, the fulfilment thereof and the contract. Such information shall be provided in the format and in
the manner requested by RIT.
6. The Service Provider may use third persons (e.g. subcontractors; in case of a legal entity, any
persons outside its regular staff) in the process of fulfilment of the Tasks only if RIT has approved the
use of the particular third person beforehand.
2. Contract documents, authorized representatives
1. In case the conclusion of the contract was preceded by communication between the parties
regarding the Tasks, above all if any conditions were set out by RIT and if any promises were
made by the Service Provider (incl. if the contract was concluded as a result of public
procurement or any other such procedure or in any other case if conditions, requests or offers
were exchanged in any format enabling documented evidence) and such conditions or promises
do not contradict this contract, the relevant communication shall be considered contract
documents and the conditions agreed in such communication shall be mandatory for the parties.
2. RIT hereby appoints Pirgit Lohk (Head of Finance,
[email protected]; +372 56210731) as its
authorized representative for all matters relating to the fulfilment of this contract. The
representative does not have the right to terminate or amend this contract, or to sign any claims
of damages or other monetary claims related to violation of this contract. RIT has the right to
change the representative at any time. The Service Provider shall be notified of the change via
e-mail.
3. Delivery and acceptance of Works and Services
1. The Service Provider shall deliver all Works and Services in compliance with the due dates
agreed in article 2 above. If the manner and format of the delivery is not set out herein, or
otherwise specified, the delivery shall be made in the manner and format required by RIT. In
case the delivery is delayed, RIT has the right to demand a contractual penalty of up to 20% of
the total fee stipulated in article 4.1. RIT may determine that the contractual penalty accrues in
instalments on daily basis.
2. The Works and Services are subject to acceptance with a written instrument of acceptance
signed by RIT. RIT may refuse acceptance in case of non-conformity of the Works or Services
to the contract. In case the non-conformity to the contract occurs in a part of the Works or
Services, RIT may, at its sole discretion, accept Works or Services in their conforming part. In
such case, only the corresponding part of the fee becomes payable. If the parties have so agreed,
or RIT has so decided, the Works and Services may be delivered and accepted in instalments.
In such case, the corresponding number of instruments of acceptance shall be signed (whereas
the Works and Services included in each instrument may not overlap with those included in
previous instruments).
3. The title to the Works, and to all documentation and other materials pertaining thereto or to the
Services, transfers to RIT as of the acceptance of the relevant Works or Services.
4. In case of non-conformity of the Works or Services to the contract, RIT has the right to use any
relevant legal remedies also within a reasonable time after accepting such Works or Services,
regardless of having examined them.
4. Fee, reimbursement of costs
1. RIT shall pay the Service Provider a fee in the total amount of 29 999 Euros for the due and
proper fulfilment of all Tasks. VAT, if applicable, is not included in the aforementioned amount.
The Service Provider shall be responsible for all tax related obligations.
2. The right to receive the fee (the right to issue an invoice) is created upon the acceptance of the
Works and Services. The term of payment for any invoices may not be shorter than 21 days. If
possible, the invoices shall be issued as machine readable (XML) e-invoices.
3. The fee is final and no costs are reimbursed. However, on justified occasions RIT is entitled to
decide at its sole discretion to reimburse a particular necessary cost (this is not considered
amendment of the contract in the sense of article 2.2). In such case RIT shall notify the Service
Provider of the required process for evidencing the cost and receiving the reimbursement, as
well as of any applicable limits to reimbursable amounts.
4. RIT has the right to set off any monetary claims it has against the Service Provider against any
monetary claims the Service Provider has against RIT, regardless of whether such claims derive
from this contract.
5. Confidentiality, copyright and other information related rights
1. The Parties shall ensure compliance with the applicable data protection legislation in their
activities. The parties shall comply with all applicable personal data processing requirements,
data security and personal data protection legislation and other regulations.
2. The Service Provider shall keep confidential all data related to the contract, which RIT has a
legitimate interest in keeping confidential, above all the personal data of any third persons, and
all data legally marked as “for internal use”. The Service Provider shall inter alia not use the
confidential data in any manner inconsistent with the purpose of the contract. The Service
Provider is not required to maintain confidentiality if RIT has granted a permission to disclose
the relevant data or if the duty to disclose arises from law.
3. In case the Service Provider violates the obligation of confidentiality in respect of personal data
of any third persons or any data RIT has specifically indicated as confidential, RIT shall have
the right to demand a contractual penalty up to the amount of 2000 Euros, depending on the
gravity of the violation.
4. All information disclosed to the Service Provider or created by the Service Provider in the
course of fulfilling the contract is and remains the property of RIT. All possible documentation
obtained or created by the Service Provider in relation to Works or Services is considered part
thereof and is subject to delivery (excluding documentation that considering its purpose is
clearly and reasonably not subject to delivery – in case of disagreement, the Service Provider
bears the burden of proof).
5. In case the Works or Services, or any documentation or other materials pertaining thereto
include copyrighted works, all copyrights that are possible to transfer under the law shall in their
maximum possible amount automatically transfer to RIT, and in respect of all the rest of the
copyrights, the Service Provider hereby grants RIT a perpetual and exclusive license for their
use in the maximum amount possible under the applicable law. The moment of transfer of rights
or granting of license in such case is the signing of the relevant instrument of acceptance. The
remuneration for all possible copyright transfers or licenses is included in the fee stipulated in
article 4.1 above.
6. If the Service Provider retains possession of any information, documentation or copyrighted
works that RIT has the right to receive (either because the Service Provider is also entitled to
such possession or because RIT has not taken over the possession) the Service Provider shall
preserve such information, documentation or works during the validity of the contract and for
at least 3 years after its expiry, unless the law prescribes a longer period. If the law does not
require preservation of such information, documentation or works by the Service Provider and
the Service Provider has no legal right to demand preservation, RIT may request deletion or
destruction.
6. Term and termination of the contract
1. The contract enters into force upon signing by both parties. The contract is valid and applicable
during the period agreed for its fulfilment and after that, until all the obligations under the
contract are duly fulfilled by both parties.
2. RIT has the right to unilaterally terminate the contract at any time, provided that it is able to
indicate circumstances that reasonably justify its interest to terminate the contract. In such case,
RIT shall pay only for those Works and Services that have been duly delivered and accepted. If
the contract is reasonably divisible, RIT may, at its sole discretion, terminate the contract in
part. If RIT terminates the contract in whole or in part due to violation of the contract by the
Service Provider, the Service Provider shall compensate the damages caused thereby, including
the difference in price if RIT is forced to use the services of a third person and such third person
applies higher fees.
7. Miscellaneous provisions
1. In case the Service Provider violates the contract in any way, RIT has the right to demand cease,
remedy or elimination of the violation. RIT may, at its own discretion, grant a deadline for cease,
remedy or elimination of the violation. If the Service Provider does not comply with the
deadline, RIT may demand a contractual penalty of 0.5 % of the total fee stipulated in article
4.1 per each day of delay.
2. The contractual penalties in the contract are applicable upon each event of violation. Each
penalty claim must reach the violating party within 180 days as of the date the impaired party
learned or must have learned of the violation. The contractual penalties in the contract do not
exclude or restrict each other or the right to demand compensation of damages in full.
3. RIT is entitled to transfer the contract or any rights or obligations thereunder to any entity
existing under the public law (e.g. the state or a local government) or to any publicly owned
private legal entity (e.g. a foundation owned by the state) without the prior consent of the Service
Provider. In all other cases the parties may transfer the contract or any rights or obligations
thereunder only with the prior written consent of the other party.
4. If a party refuses to receive a notice sent in relation to this contract or to confirm its receipt and
the receipt cannot be proven, the notice shall nevertheless be considered received if it was (a)
sent via e-mail twice and no failure message was received; or (b) sent via registered mail and 5
working days have passed. Each party is responsible for notifying the other party in case of
change in contact information. If a notice is not received due to failure to notify of the change,
the notice is considered received if it reaches the previously known address.
5. All amendments to the contract are valid only if signed by both parties.
6. The contract is governed by Estonian law. All disputes not solved by negotiations, shall be
solved in the Harju County Court in Tallinn.
Attached: Annex 1.
The data and signatures of the parties:
RIT: The Service Provider:
Information and Communication Technology Zangenberg Analytics
Centre
Lõõtsa 8a Pilestræde 52a, 1112
11415 Tallinn
København K
Reg No 77001613 Reg No 34074100
E-mail:
[email protected] E-mail:
[email protected]
_____________________________
/RIT/
_
___________________________
/The Service Provider/