Compare capability by capability, not budget by budget
Benchmarking technology spend at the level where the differences mean something.
Sound familiar?
The benchmark says your technology spend, as a share of revenue, is above the peer group's, and nobody can do anything with that. A total hides a hundred decisions. You need to know which capabilities cost more than they should, by how much, and whether the reason is duplication, an expensive vendor, bespoke technology where a package would do, or simply a capability your strategy values more than your peers do.
What we do
We benchmark at the capability level. For banks, the BIAN model gives a common language, so your cost per capability can be compared with other institutions on the same basis. For utilities and government we build the comparison from published data and our own engagements. Each gap is traced to the systems and decisions behind it, and each is labelled: a problem to fix, a choice to keep, or a question for the strategy.
The benchmark is not the deliverable. The list of what to do about it is.
What it has produced
At a global bank, the capability model showed an average of six systems per capability and became the basis for $102M in savings. Technology cost optimisation at a large global bank →
The same comparison, applied application by application, found 1,000 candidates for elimination out of 3,000. Application rationalisation at a large global bank →
How we'd start
Benchmarking needs a capability cost model, so it begins with the audit or builds on one you already have. Allow six to ten weeks to the comparison and the recommendations.