Radovan Igliar, CESNET

Report
Cesnet cost attribution and
charging models
Radovan Igliar
Agile Portfolio Management and Cost Attribution
CESNET
• Association of Legal Entities
– Universities
– Academy of Science
Customers
• Members
– 27 universities
– Academy of science + departments
• Non-members
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
12
106
10
25
40
39
23
26
elementary schools
high schools
private universities
research
public administration
health
libraries
other
Income
• 60% Members
– Annual fee based upon size of the organization
– All services on best-effort basis
• 30% Non-members
– Connectivity – price list
– No models for extra services
• 10% Research
• Funding
Members
Non-members
Reseach
But …
Can I talk about charging model and cost-attribution …
.. if we are not certain in our product portfolio?
I can talk, where we are now.
Attributing costs to products
and services
• The solution was
– full-cost (cost – sharing)
– CRM
• Problem is – that we still don’t have the DATA
Let’s talk a little about problem-solving
perspective
We identify a problem.
... and we feel stg. has to be done.
But we are engineers.
„Reasonably smart people can rationalize anything,
but ‘engineers’ are especially gifted at this.”
Ash Maurya
We have (yet) sufficiency of resource…
„Reasonably smart people can rationalize anything,
but ‘engineers’ are especially gifted at this.”
Ash Maurya
… so we start building solutions.
„Reasonably smart people can rationalize anything,
but ‘engineers’ are especially gifted at this.”
Ash Maurya
Problem identification
OUR PERSPECTIVE
• „We don’t know our users and how to
communicate with them.“
• „We offer right services for the users, but ...“
• „We don’t know how does our services cost.“
• “We should present us in a better way.”
Looking for Solutions
IN REAL
• “We don’t know our users and how to
communicate with them.”
Let’s implement CRM. Huray!
• “We offer right services for the users, but...”
We should focus on marketing. That will save us.
• “We don’t know how does our services cost.”
Let’s implement full-cost model. That’s the solution.
• “We should present us in a better way.”
Let’s make new website.
Looking for Solutions
IN REAL
• “We don’t know our users and how to
communicate with them.”
CRM
TOOL
• “We offer right services for the users, but...”
marketing
PR
• “We don’t know how does our services cost.”
full-cost
TOOL
• “We should present us in a better way.”
website
ONE-WAY
Looking for Solutions
IN REAL
• “We don’t know our users and how to
communicate with them.”
For whom?
CRM
Processes?
Do we have data?
• “We offer right services for the users, but...”
marketing
Events
Website
• “We don’t know how does our services cost.”
full-cost
Identifiers
Again -Data?
• “We should present us in a better way.”
website
CMS
Structure
Looking for Solutions
IN REAL
• “We don’t know our users and how to
communicate with them.”
CRM
½ year
• “We offer right services for the users, but...”
marketing
2 years
• “We don’t know how does our services cost.”
full-cost
1+ year
• “We should present us in a better way.”
website
1 ½ year
Looking for Solutions
IN REAL
• … and establish a working group to solve it, and
• appoint people which identified the problem,
• but not those that should participate.
Looking for Solutions
IN REAL
• .. which leads to communication problems.
Looking for Solutions
SHOULD DO
• communicate
Get out of the building. ~ Steve Blank
• right services
Know our segment, products, and added value.
• cost
Know our market and products.
• present us
Start building customer channels. ~Eric Ries
Back to the
… cost attribution and charging models.
Attributing costs to products
and services
• The solution was full-cost and CRM.
• So working-groups were established.
• Accounting / Booking costs:
– 1. by project
(due to fund policy)
– 2. by department (due to internal budgeting)
– 3. not by products
• CRM
– Public procurement on the SaaS software
• Problem is – that we still don’t have the DATA
Attributing costs to products
and services
• Booking costs:
– 1. by project
(due to fund policy)
– 2. by department (due to internal budgeting)
– 3. not by products (yet)
• 1+2 works with most extra service, if we don’t
include share of the price for core services
(network, monitoring, NIC, DNS, etc.)
– metrics:
fix rate, percentage, usage?
• so we still have to do (3), and to know our
product portfolio
Attributing costs to products
and services
• Nov. 2012
– Before only one service charged and offered
(connectivity to non-members)
– Other services offered to member on best-effort
– Product manager
• Dec. 2012
– Stg. Like „Service Board“ established
– Product portfolio
• Jan. 2013
– Business development dept. established
• Feb. 2013
– Proof-of-concepts projects
Attributing costs to products
and services
• Product portfolio
– Lean Canvas
– Interviews with product owners
• Our approach
– Think big, start small, move fast
– Proof of concept projects
Challenges
• Strategy
– EU/National level: Unclear and changing
– Internal:
not just words, mean them
– Self-sustainability and not-competing
– Research
vs.
Service-delivery
– Revenue
vs.
Profit
• Legal
– Members
vs.
non-members
– Legal form (Association of Legal Entities)
– Access policy to commercial R&D
– Opportunity to Public procurement
Challenges
• Products and services
–
–
–
–
Diversification
Improving user experience
Best effort
vs.
Guarantee of quality
Outsourcing
vs.
In-house
• Marketing
–
–
–
–
–
–
Marketing strategy
Identifying customer segments
Building customer channels
Communicating the added value
Utilize unfair advantage
Campaigns
Challenges
• Finance
– Cost structure and cost sharing
– New business models
• Transformation of Culture
–
–
–
–
History
Sufficiency of resources
Certainty
Professional blindness
Product portfolio
eduroam
storage
security
mobile
connectivity
Proof of concept
• eduroam
Organizations want eduroam, but do not have all the
resources.
We have the knowledge, but not personal resources.
– New business model
– Focus on revenue
– Outsourcing of the technical installation
– User support (24/7 support desk)
– Cost structure and cost sharing
– Quality of service
Proof of concept
• double-house connection
Commercial R&D companies
– New business models
– Access-policy
– Framework for state aid for R&D&I
– Marketing
Proof of concept
• Data storage
– Diversification
• Basic service – in membership fees
• Extra service - pricing
– Cost-sharing
– Focus on profit
– Marketing
Proof of concept
• Antispam mail gateway
– New business models
– Customer need evaluation
– Product life-cycle and planning
– Focus on profit
N: Radovan Igliar
E: [email protected]
W: https://www.cesnet.cz/
L: http://cz.linkedin.com/in/proteo/

similar documents