Shared Services: More Than a Legal Play by Chris Trayhorn, Publisher of mThink Blue Book, November 15, 2000 Background Recent dramatic changes in the electric utility industry have systematically motivated traditionally integrated utilities to functionally or legally unbundle their business segments. While many utilities are actively separating their business units into a myriad of organizational structures, nearly all utilities are separating their generation business from their wires businesses (distribution and transmission) at a minimum. As these structural changes occur, the formation of multi-tiered holding companies to legally recognize operational reorganizations has become prevalent. Although most of the reorganized entities qualify for exception from the provisions of Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (’35 Act), they have frequently established “service” companies similar to mutual service companies as defined in the ’35 Act. In is important to understand that the formation of a service company is not, in any way, analogous to the adoption of a SSO. Unfortunately, because of the regulatory precedent including the ’35 Act, a pattern observed across most utilities is the attention focused on the legal and regulatory aspects of the SSO. This attention is not surprising or misplaced. Virtually every utility today must comply with state commission regulations, as well as SEC requirements. These regulations often require the utility to organize a separate legal entity for its SSO and follow specific guidelines regarding pricing services and invoicing customers. However, utilities often neglect to address many other organizational and management changes that are necessary to distinguish the SSO from its predecessor entity, the corporate overhead function. As a result, many utilities’ SSOs are not driving out costs or improving service as expected, and many are not providing the suite of cost-effective services that were promised to the business units. Watershed Events The launching (or re-launching) of a shared service function should include five critical events, including: Achieving organizational understanding Developing a new operating model Rationalizing the suite of services Improving the cost assignment methods Providing technology to support cost assignment and reporting Achieving Organizational Understanding Establishing a shared service organization should really represent a different way of providing improved support services to the utility and its affiliates. This message cannot be effectively conveyed with an email message – it must be hand-delivered by the right messenger. The first watershed event involves selecting a rising star in the utility as a sponsor, who will be responsible for getting the organization to understand the SSO concept and embrace this direction. The oft-repeated admonition to select a star to champion the initiative is particularly important because the utility is essentially launching a private enterprise within the organization. The SSO initiative should have a respected, visible and involved executive sponsor who has a stake in the success of the SSO. This sponsor must devote enough time “selling” the SSO to his or her peer group in one-on-one settings, as well as championing the SSO to the entire utility. Once the SSO sponsor “gets religion,” the managers of the SSO support groups must also be “converted.” Key to this conversion process is the recognition that the SSO exists to serve the customer and that a “provider/customer” relationship will be established. The second wave of understanding and buy-in must take place between the managers of the SSO support groups and the leaders of the business units. Although BU leaders usually do not request services directly from the SSO, they need to understand what services are being offered and how their business units will be charged. More important, these BU leaders must perceive that they are receiving value from the SSO. To accomplish this leap of faith, the newly-converted leaders of the SSO support groups should develop the habit of meeting regularly with the BU leaders to identify new services required, discuss progress meeting cost and service levels, and solicit feedback on the SSO’s performance. This type of behavior is foreign to most corporate support czars and requires SSO managers in many utilities to develop new skills. It is typically difficult to measure a utility’s success in getting these types of messages across. However, an indication that the SSO message has been understood by the organization is when BU leaders begin to look forward to the annual planning process and the promised ability to negotiate support service costs with the SSO. Developing a New Operating Model The second watershed event is the recognition that the utility is departing from the historical corporate overhead model and adopting a new operating model that is based on a “provider/customer” relationship. At the heart of many of these failed attempts is the lack of a formal operating model and a lot of misconceptions about shared services. Shared services must be viewed as more than a centralization of business practices currently existing in different business units. Progressive utilities take the time to formally document the new operating model in the form of guiding principles. These “rules of engagement” should be developed jointly by the CEO, the SSO executive sponsor, and key stakeholders. The guiding principles should address the following issues: The objectives of the SSO (i.e., reduce cost, improve service levels, leverage technology, standardize processes, allow the BUs to focus on their core business or meet regulatory requirements) The scope of services that the SSO will offer (e.g., human resources, etc.) The organizational units within the utility which represent the SSO’s customer base (the SSO’s market territory) The rules governing the ability (or inability) of business units to “shop around” for services which the SSO offers – today and long-term The rules governing the ability of the utility’s non-regulated subsidiaries to “shop around” to obtain services – today and long-term The accounting charge-back methods which will be used to assign costs to customers for services provided The basis for charging customers The SSO’s responsibility for managing the cost and quality of services provided The last item in the guiding principle is perhaps the most important one for the SSO to live with. In the SSO environment, the support group is accountable to the customer for delivering the agreed-upon services within cost and quality constraints. This mindset represents a radical departure from the traditional corporate overhead mentality. The SSO framework should also speak to an organizational issue that many utilities fail to address, namely, an examination of where each support process will be performed. Determining the optimum split of responsibilities among the corporate support group, the SSO, and the BU should be addressed by the following questions: Which portions of the support process should performed at the corporate level in order to achieve appropriate levels of oversight and governance? Which portions of the support process should be performed by the SSO in order to achieve cost savings, improve service levels, standardize processes, or leverage technology? Which portions of the support process should be performed by the BU for control or decision-making purposes? The resolution of these issues depends on the organizational model that the utility selects when the SSO is formed. One model frequently seen includes three tiers: a small corporate support function that houses selected strategic or governance services; the SSO that houses the transaction-oriented services; and the BU that performs other activities. Many utilities using this model refer to their corporate support area as the “Corporate Center” which typically houses legal, treasury, internal audit, investor relations, tax, strategic planning, HR policy, and supply chain policy. Figure 1 depicts this three-tier model for the procurement process. Figure 1 Distribution of procurement activities in a three-tier model See larger image Another model eliminates the corporate support function entirely and places all support services in the SSO. In both models, certain pieces of each support process remain the responsibility of the BU. Utilities that have elected to locate the governance activities in their SSOs may force more scrutiny on the cost and value of these services. This model also implies that the SSO and the BUs will negotiate the charges for these services. Leaving these strategic/governance services in a corporate support group may send a “hands off” message and allow obsolete overhead allocation methods to be continued in the future. The typical types of responsibilities assigned to each of these areas are: Corporate Support: Establish policies; provide strategic direction; manage risk; resolve issues; provide oversight; allocate capital; and monitor investments Shared Service Organization: Process transactions; provide services Business Unit: Operate the business; develop and implement strategy Developing the new operating model requires time to negotiate these guidelines and design new organization structures. More importantly, it requires the utility leaders to be receptive to the theory and reality of this new way of delivering support services. Finally, management must recognize that regulatory structural constraints (i.e., ’35 Act) should not inhibit the establishment of the appropriate management (as opposed to legal) structure. The management structure does not need to mirror the legal structure required for regulatory purposes. For instance, both the Corporate Support and Shared Services personnel may be employed by a Mutual Service Company, but for management purposes can be housed in different units with different goals and leadership. Rationalizing the Suite of Services The third watershed event in the evolution to a SSO is the evaluation of the existing products and services from the customer’s perspective. This exercise recognizes the fact that in this new model, the people who pay the invoices for services must be satisfied with the content, quality and cost of the services they receive. The trap that most utilities fall into when organizing a SSO is the failure to rationalize the suite of services. The services provided by the previous corporate support function are often just re-labeled as “shared service offerings.” When this route is chosen, the SSO leader can’t understand why internal customers are not thrilled with the new support organization. The progressive SSO leader recognizes that now is the time to consider the following opportunities: Eliminating services (and costs) that do not add value to the customer or the utility Adding services that the customer needs and the SSO is capable of delivering at the right price Unbundling or consolidating services so they better meet the customer’s needs and “buying patterns” Matching the quality and the level of service to the customer’s needs Outsourcing certain services to improve the cost and/or the quality of services Moving activities previously performed by the SSO to a BU An objective party is helpful for this exercise because it involves meeting with the people in the BUs who actually request and/or “consume” the SSO services and asking some hard questions. This exercise should also involve selected corporate oversight people to assure that regulatory, safety, and strategic issues are addressed as each service is evaluated. At the heart of the SSO model is the concept of standard processes. During this examination of the SSO offerings, individual customers often demonstrate the need for different levels of service and quality. The progressive SSO organization should strive for a “one-size-fits-all” approach to packaging its services to achieve standardization of processes and costs. Certain services that are unique to certain groups (e.g., nuclear safety inspection services) are probably best left with the BU and not relocated to the SSO. Up to now, the SSO journey has been relatively painless; the SSO has been announced, the organizational design has been developed, and the SSO has determined that the suite of services needs to be rationalized. Following through with the rationalization of services implies that the utility will deploy the right number of people who have the right skills to the appropriate location in the organization (i.e., the corporate support function, the SSO, or the BU.) Unfortunately, this is another trap that many utilities fall into: The services are rationalized (but the work force isn’t), and costs do not decline as anticipated or the quality of services does not increase as promised. The rationalization of the services should also include examining each SSO leader as a potential marketer, because the new SSO model requires this mindset. To mitigate the lack of marketing skills by the SSO management team, some utilities have established internal marketing managers to solicit business from internal customers and act as a single point of contact. A final caution on the suite of services relates to understanding. Most utilities overestimate the ability of the SSO employees and the BUs to fully understand the newly published suite of services. A conscious effort must be made to ensure that both the “seller” and the “buyer” understand the “new and improved” suite of services, including what is included in each service and how the customer is charged. Improving the Cost Assignment Methods The next watershed event that distinguishes the SSO from its predecessor organization is improving how services are charged to customers. Most corporate support groups have historically used one or two simple methods to allocate the cost of services to internal customers (percentage allocation being the most popular). The charge-back issue receives the most attention by the customer and represents an easy way to improve the emerging “provider/customer” relationship. This event must take place in connection with the rationalization of services described above. Once the proposed suite of services has been finalized, improved types of cost assignment methods should be developed. Experience has shown that three basic types of cost assignment and cost allocation are typically used, including: Percentage allocation Project-based allocation Transaction-based allocation For each of these methods, an inverse relationship exists between the ease of application and the accuracy of the cost assignment. For example, most utilities find it relatively easy to develop a percentage formula that is based on some BU measure (e.g., revenue) and allocate certain support costs according to these percentages. However, this method is typically the least precise with respect to matching the costs allocated and the benefits received. The last method (transaction-based) is the most accurate, but it requires the utility to measure the quantity of service used and requires the SSO support group to develop a unit price. Most utilities develop a standard rate at the beginning of the year for these types of charge-backs. When standard rates are used, the SSO must determine how to handle the inevitable residual (actual versus standard variance) from an accounting perspective. The next task is to select the most appropriate cost assignment method for each service. This decision should consider the following factors: Which BUs use the service? What are the cost drivers for each service? What information is available to support the cost assignment calculation? Once the cost assignment method has been defined for each service, a worthwhile exercise is to develop a pro forma cost assignment for all BUs and all services. This exercise is labor intensive, but is a good test of the fairness and accuracy of the proposed cost assignment model. Most utilities skip this exercise unless the CFO mandates it. This may be the appropriate time for the SSO to benchmark the utility’s cost of providing services. Benchmarking is a two-edged sword: If done properly, benchmarking takes a lot of time and effort in order to determine the cost of comparable services. If reliable data indicate the utility’s costs are out of line with the outside world, the progressive utility will either bring costs in line or allow BUs to buy these services elsewhere. Some utilities have gone as far as funding a SSO benchmarking activity to formalize this effort. Experience has shown that the relationship between the SSO and its customers improves when the customers know that the SSO is making a good faith effort at benchmarking and using the results. The last task in the cost assignment arena is the development of Service Level Agreements. Most utilities limit this exercise to transaction-based services. Progressive utilities tailor service level agreements for each category of service (percentage allocation, project and transaction-based) and require the SSO to negotiate all of these charge-backs with their customers. Many utilities fail to significantly improve the fairness and accuracy of cost assignments because insufficient resources are assigned to this task. The development of “new and improved” cost assignment methods should involve the finance and accounting, information technology, selected internal customers, as well as the support group itself. This exercise must be performed concurrently with the evaluation of enabling technology. Many utilities have designed elaborate charge-back methodologies only to discover that their enterprise systems cannot handle the newly designed cost assignment methods. Providing Technology to Support Cost Assignment and Reporting The next watershed event is typically the most complex and the most costly. Few of the benefits associated with charging services on a more equitable and accurate basis will be realized if the utility’s information systems cannot handle these new requirements. A desired outcome of the SSO initiative should be to improve the visibility of support charges to the BU. If the timing of the SSO initiative is not aligned with the timing of the configuration of the enterprise system, problems usually result. Handling the new ways of assigning costs for services used is the first issue. These calculations are usually handled by the financial and/or project modules in enterprise accounting systems. Virtually every enterprise system can handle percentage allocations, transaction-based cost assignments, and transfer of project-based costs. However, almost every system must be configured to handle transaction-based cost assignments and project-based cost assignments in the precise manner that has been designed for the SSO. Hence, configuration options are usually required to handle these calculations in the right manner. Reporting cost assignments at detailed and summary levels to internal customers often presents another dilemma. The reporting requirements for the SSO environment are typically different than the standard report formats provided by most enterprise systems. The next potential snag is time reporting. In order to support the build-up of costs for project-based services, SSO employees providing these services will need to maintain time records. This timekeeping requirement has both policy and technology implications. Many utilities do not require corporate support employees to maintain time records. Moreover, the timekeeping systems in place for field maintenance personnel usually do not have the flexibility to track time by customer, project, and service. In the ideal world, timekeeping requirements should be jointly developed by the SSO, the human resources function, and the information technology function to assure that a realistic framework is being designed and can be deployed. Many utilities have launched their SSO initiatives despite the obvious gap between the SSO system requirements and current system functionality. Here is the resulting scenario at the end of each month: SSO support staff or accounting personnel are relegated to handling the cost assignments and generating reports off-line using Excel spreadsheets and other point solutions. This effort usually generates another report that differs from the information that the BU received from the enterprise system. The existence of multiple reports with different cost information gives rise to the refrain frequently used by many utility BU managers: “Those aren’t my numbers.” The resulting chaos may have increased the visibility of the SSO charges, but the level of understanding has taken a step backward. A final word of caution regarding information systems deals with the utility’s budgeting system and its planning process. A good rule of thumb is “We budget the way we report actual costs.” Hence, the budgeting process should incorporate the “new and improved” cost assignment methods. Many utilities fail to recognize the effort associated with reconfiguring the budgeting tool when they launch their SSO and resort to handling the budgeted cost assignments off-line. Information systems represent a potential showstopper for the SSO. Unless the utility is prepared to make the investment to support new cost assignment and reporting requirements, the organization will be disappointed with the results and the image of the SSO will suffer. Summary Shared Service Organizations provide utilities significant opportunities to reduce cost and allow business units to focus on their core business practices. These opportunities have eluded many utilities because their approach has been limited to setting up the legal framework and selecting a new name for the shared service function. Getting the return on the shared service function requires focusing on organizational buy-in, the suite of services, cost assignment methods, and information systems. Filed under: White Papers Tagged under: Utilities About the Author Chris Trayhorn, Publisher of mThink Blue Book Chris Trayhorn is the Chairman of the Performance Marketing Industry Blue Ribbon Panel and the CEO of mThink.com, a leading online and content marketing agency. He has founded four successful marketing companies in London and San Francisco in the last 15 years, and is currently the founder and publisher of Revenue+Performance magazine, the magazine of the performance marketing industry since 2002.