Pricing improvement
Where the evidence shows the rate is out of line with the market for comparable scope, and the agreement gives you room to do something about it.
Technology costs usually climb for unremarkable reasons: services nobody canceled, agreements that renewed on their own terms, and the same requirement bought twice by people who could not see each other. Finding out which of those apply to you is evidence work, and it has to come before anyone puts a number on it.
Most cost exercises start by estimating the prize and work backwards. That gets the order wrong and it is why so many of them end in a deck. Here the sequence is fixed: establish what is true, compare it to the market, then decide whether anything is worth doing.
Only then does anything here become the right answer, and sometimes the answer is that nothing needs to change.
A benchmark can show you are paying more than the market appears to pay. That is a question, not a result. Whether it converts into money depends on how long the term has left, what exit costs, what the switch would disrupt, and whether the higher rate is buying something you actually need.
So we do not present variance as savings, and we do not put a figure on an opportunity before the work that would justify it. Anyone willing to quote you a percentage before reading your contracts is quoting you their average, not your estate.
The same discipline applies afterwards. A change that has not been confirmed against a later invoice is a projection, and it stays described as one until the evidence catches up. How we grade what we know.
If the number has to survive a board pack rather than a status update, that is thefinance view of the same work. Where the evidence supports going to market, sourcing runs as the execution of the decision rather than as the way of discovering one.
Which of these applies is a conclusion, not a starting position. It depends on what the record says, what the comparison shows, and what your agreements actually allow.
Where the evidence shows the rate is out of line with the market for comparable scope, and the agreement gives you room to do something about it.
Same provider, different commercial shape. Term, commitment, escalators and the conditions attached often carry more cost than the headline rate.
Where the same requirement is being met more than once, usually because it was bought more than once by people who could not see each other.
Services still billing for sites that closed, capacity nobody uses, or a product that was replaced and never canceled.
Charges that do not match the agreement governing them. This is the least glamorous finding and often the fastest to resolve.
Sometimes the cost is a symptom and the architecture is the cause. A cheaper version of the wrong thing is still the wrong thing.
A real outcome and a common one. If the evidence does not support a change, the finding is that your position is sound, which is worth knowing.
Establish a defensible view of your environment and spend, and find out whether there is an opportunity worth acting on.