The document presents a framework for optimizing client expectations in project delivery. It discusses quantifying client expectations using a Client Expectation Ratio (CE-Ratio) that is calculated based on the Client Outlook Score (COS), Provider Role Ratio (PRR), and Execution Quality (EQ). The COS reflects the client's outlook, the PRR reflects the provider's positioning, and the EQ reflects the provider's performance. Together these provide a quantitative measure of client expectations that can be used to manage expectations throughout project delivery.

1. 1
Optimizing Client Expectations
in Delivering Certainty
Avinash Kumar
28 September, 2013

2. 2Optimizing Client Expectation in Delivering Certainty
Agenda
 Introduction
 Expectation, Performance and Outcome
 Client Expectation Framework
 Client Outlook
 Provider’s Positioning
 Execution Quality
 Applying the Framework
Sample Case Study

3. 3
Introduction
• Client expectations are a critical component of project delivery
• Industry has ad-hoc and inconsistent practices to manage client
expectations
• Expectations are driven by the client’s need, opportunity costs,
choice of technology and provider’s posturing relative to their
ability
This paper presents a framework to measure and manage
client expectations
Optimizing Client Expectation in Delivering Certainty

4. 4
Client Expectation, Performance and Outcome
Optimizing Client Expectation in Delivering Certainty
Scenario Expectation Key Metrics
Implementation of
COTS product
Seek Minimal user
interaction
 Customization Effort
 No of change requests
 Time to Implement
Proven Track
record of the
Provider
Bring Industry
Best Practices and
Lessons Learnt
 On-boarding time
 Team Size
Compliance
Project
Zero Variance in
outcome
 Time to Market
Most Project Management KPIs only measure Performance, Outcome and
Client Satisfaction.
Client Satisfaction = Client Expectation
 No of supporters in Client Organization
 Degree of Convergence on requirements –
across Users
 No of Re-Usable Components and Solution
Accelerators being leveraged
 Marginal Cost of Change Requests
 No of High Impact components on account of
the Regulation
Most Project KPIs are Post Delivery Metrics.
Client Expectation Metrics are designed prior to Delivery

5. 5
Expectation and Tolerance
1. Client Expectation is a factor of Provider’s Perceived Capability and its Past Performance
2. The actual performance further defines the “Perceived Capability” as also the Zone of Tolerance
(Difference between Desirable and Acceptable Service Level - Parasuraman)
Optimizing Client Expectation in Delivering Certainty
Client Need
Minimum
Nice to Have
Delightful
Best of Breed
Current
Requirement
A
B
C
D
Perceived Capability
of Provider
Client Expectation
Minimum Outcome
Desirable Outcome
A
C D
B
Zone of Tolerance
Over Performance*
Under Performance*
*: Performance may be in Qualification stage, as
endorsed by a Reference or in prior experience
A has maximum resilience
D has the highest perceived capability
B could be the Provider of Choice

6. 6
Quantifying Client Expectation
Managing Client Expectation requires managing control and tolerance
around variance in performance .(Poiesz and Bloemer)
These can be quantified by developing a Client Expectation Ratio (CE-Ratio)
as a measure of:
 Client Perception – measured by Client Outlook Score (COS)
 Provider Posturing – measured by Provider Role Ratio (PRR)
 Provider Performance – measured by Execution Quality Score (EQ)
That is to say,
CE-Ratio = (COS, PRR, EQ)
Optimizing Client Expectation in Delivering Certainty

7. 7
Client Expectation Framework
The suggested framework uses a combination of Quantitative as well as
Qualitative Analysis, while developing the Client Expectation ratio (CE-Ratio)
A guidancescore thatmeasures
the expectationof a client on key
dimensionslike
 ClientOutlookScore (COS)
 ProviderRole ratio (PRR)
 Execution Quality (EQ)
Listof EnvironmentalAttributes
thatfine tune the findings from
the Quantitative analysis suchas
 Competitivelandscape
 Regulatory Requirements
 Opportunity Costs
 Industry benchmarks
 Communication
Qualitative AnalysisQuantitative Analysis
The Quantitative Analysis willprovide a good guidance towardsthe ClientExpectation
while the Qualitative Analysis will discoverits relevance for the client
Optimizing Client Expectation in Delivering Certainty

8. 8
Client Outlook Score (COS)
COS reflects the client’s ability to delegate control to the provider and vest a larger
degree of tolerance to variance in outcome.
Drivers Risks Impact
•Compliance
•Competition
•Efficiency
•Excellence
•Reputation
•Legal
•Financial
•Operational
•User
•End-client
•Public at large
•Regulator
Fig 3: Determinants of Client’s Outlook
Involvement
•Early
•Frequent
•Need Based
•Tardy
Choices
•Technology
• Solution
•Provider
•Deployment
Example
1. The expectation for a project driven by regulation is quite different from the one driven by
efficiency or profitability.
2. Projects that impact the client’s client or public at large influence client expectations altogether
differently than those that impact only internal users.
Optimizing Client Expectation in Delivering Certainty
A Higher COS implies a higher acceptance by the client
for the diversity in project execution

9. 9
Provider Role Ratio (PRR)
Appropriate Provider Positioning
• Instills trust in the client
• Helps in calibrating client
expectation
• Maps the role undertaken by the
provider relative to the current
problem statement and the
provider’s perceived
competence.
• Demonstrates a provider in
control and increases the client’s
acceptance to diversity of
outcome
Provider Capability
(relative to Industry)
Client’sNeed
BAU
Niche
Complex
NextGen
Low Average Strong ThoughtLeader
Own
and
Drive the Solution
Lead the Solution with
Industry Collaboration
Forge Alliance with
Industry Leaders
Invest for future growth
Augment
Resources
/ Fill the
gapCourse
Correct
Co-Invest
with the
client
Fig 2: Provider Role Ratio (PRR) Matrix
Optimizing Client Expectation in Delivering Certainty
A Higher PRR implies minimal calibration of Client Expectation
prior to receiving the service
PRR reflects the Provider’s Posturing relative to the current need of the client

10. 10
Execution Quality (EQ)
• Actual Performance can
reset client expectations
• The consistency of delivery
can significantly influence
client expectation and can
be measured by the
Execution Quality
Ramp up SteadyState Delivery
Expected Execution
Provider A
Provider B
Project Phases
EaseofExecution
Optimizing Client Expectation in Delivering Certainty
EQ reflects the ability of the Provider to influence Client Expectation – while the
project is in-flight and for successive opportunities
A Higher EQ implies least variance of the actual performance
with the expected execution

11. 11
Environmental Factors
Client Expectations are significantly impacted by environmental factors
such as:
• Competitive Landscape of the Solution
• Awareness about the provider
• Regulatory Requirements
• Information asymmetry
• Opportunity Costs
• Operational Risks associated with the solution
• Industry benchmarks
• Communication with the stakeholders – frequency and channels
Optimizing Client Expectation in Delivering Certainty

12. 12
Sample Determinants of Client Expectation
Optimizing Client Expectation in Delivering Certainty
10% Tardy 3
Choices (20%) 20% Technology 9
30% Solution 7
10% Provider 7
40% Deployment 5
Provider Role Ratio (PRR) 30% 1.14
Client Need (25%) 10% Next Gen 7
20% Niche 5
30% Complex 4
40% BAU 5
Provider Capability (15%) 20% Low 4
30% Average 4
30% Strong 5
20% Thought Leader 7
Provider Role (60%) 30% Own 5
15% Lead 3
10% Augment 5
10% Collaborate 5
20% Invest 5
15% Course Correct 8
Execution Quality (EQ) 10% 0.58
Expected (50%) 10% Ramp Up 6
70% Steady State 5
20% Delivery 6
Actual (50%) 10% Ramp Up 4
70% Steady State 6
20% Delivery 5
20% Frequent 4
20% Need Based 2
10% Tardy 3
Choices (20%) 20% Technology 9
30% Solution 7
10% Provider 7
40% Deployment 5
Provider Role Ratio (PRR) 30% 1.14
Client Need (25%) 10% Next Gen 7
20% Niche 5
30% Complex 4
40% BAU 5
Provider Capability (15%) 20% Low 4
30% Average 4
30% Strong 5
20% Thought Leader 7
Provider Role (60%) 30% Own 5
15% Lead 3
10% Augment 5
10% Collaborate 5
20% Invest 5
15% Course Correct 8
Execution Quality (EQ) 10% 0.58
Expected (50%) 10% Ramp Up 6
70% Steady State 5
20% Delivery 6
Actual (50%) 10% Ramp Up 4
70% Steady State 6
20% Delivery 5
Weight Determinant Client
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
CE-Ratio 4.37 6.46 5.12 4.23 4.78 4.93
Client Outlook Score (COS) 60% 2.65 3.07 2.25 2.68 2.63 2.88
Drivers (40%) 20% Compliance 4 2 5 3 4 8
30% Competition 3 6 1 2 1 2
40% Efficiency 6 2 6 4 3 2
10% Excellence 4 2 5 5 4 4
Risks (20%) 40% Reputation 5 1 5 5 4 4
15% Legal 7 2 6 5 5 5
20% Financial 5 2 5 5 5 2
25% Operational 4 4 5 5 5 5
Impact (15%) 10% User 5 5 1 5 5 5
30% End-client 6 8 6 5 5 5
35% Public at large 6 6 6 6 5 5
25% Regulator 6 5 6 6 6 5
Involvement (5%) 50% Early 5 4 5 5 5 5
20% Frequent 4 1 4 7 7 6
20% Need Based 2 2 1 3 9 2
10% Tardy 3 7 6 6 10 1
Choices (20%) 20% Technology 9 8 7 2 8 1
30% Solution 7 4 9 3 2 6
10% Provider 7 7 8 9 9 5
40% Deployment 5 3 1 8 8 9
Provider Role Ratio (PRR) 30% 1.14 1.50 1.40 1.52 1.72 1.04
Client Need (25%) 10% Next Gen 7 4 6 6 7 1
20% Niche 5 4 6 6 6 7
30% Complex 4 3 5 5 6 2
40% BAU 5 5 5 5 5 3
Provider Capability (15%) 20% Low 4 2 1 5 5 5
30% Average 4 4 1 4 6 5
30% Strong 5 7 1 5 7 5
20% Thought Leader 7 9 6 5 2 5
Provider Role (60%) 30% Own 5 2 5 5 3 3
A score between 1 to 10 may be awarded to each determinant
to arrive at the weighted CE Ratio

13. 13
Developing the CE ratio across Clients
Weight Determinant Client
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
CE-Ratio 4.37 6.46 5.12 4.23 4.78 4.93 4.28 5.35 5.61 5.92
Client Outlook Score (COS) 60% 2.65 3.07 2.25 2.68 2.63 2.88 3.23 3.45 3.68 3.94
Drivers (40%) 20% Compliance 4 2 5 3 4 8 2 9 5 6
30% Competition 3 6 1 2 1 2 4 4 8 9
40% Efficiency 6 2 6 4 3 2 5 4 6 8
10% Excellence 4 2 5 5 4 4 5 4 5 6
Risks (20%) 40% Reputation 5 1 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 6
15% Legal 7 2 6 5 5 5 4 4 5 5
20% Financial 5 2 5 5 5 2 5 5 5 5
25% Operational 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Impact (15%) 10% User 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
30% End-client 6 8 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
35% Public at large 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5
25% Regulator 6 5 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5
Involvement (5%) 50% Early 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
20% Frequent 4 1 4 7 7 6 6 6 5 5
20% Need Based 2 2 1 3 9 2 7 6 6 5
10% Tardy 3 7 6 6 10 1 8 7 6 6
Choices (20%) 20% Technology 9 8 7 2 8 1 9 8 7 6
30% Solution 7 4 9 3 2 6 9 9 8 7
10% Provider 7 7 8 9 9 5 10 9 8 8
40% Deployment 5 3 1 8 8 9 9 9 9 8
Provider Role Ratio (PRR) 30% 1.14 1.50 1.40 1.52 1.72 1.04 1.56 1.61 1.86 1.90
Client Need (25%) 10% Next Gen 7 4 6 6 7 1 8 9 9 9
20% Niche 5 4 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 9
30% Complex 4 3 5 5 6 2 7 7 8 8
40% BAU 5 5 5 5 5 3 6 7 7 8
Provider Capability (15%) 20% Low 4 2 1 5 5 5 6 6 7 7
30% Average 4 4 1 4 6 5 5 6 6 7
30% Strong 5 7 1 5 7 5 5 6 6 6
20% Thought Leader 7 9 6 5 2 5 5 5 6 6
Provider Role (60%) 30% Own 5 2 5 5 3 3 5 6 5 6
15% Lead 3 2 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 5
10% Augment 5 7 5 5 8 5 2 5 7 7
10% Collaborate 5 4 1 5 9 2 7 2 8 5
20% Invest 5 6 1 5 10 3 1 2 5 2
15% Course Correct 8 10 1 6 4 5 8 5 4 9
Execution Quality (EQ) 10% 0.58 0.55 0.59 0.57 0.58 0.37 0.56 0.55 0.38 0.62
Expected (50%) 10% Ramp Up 6 4 6 6 6 6 3 3 2 6
70% Steady State 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 5 1 8
20% Delivery 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 3
Actual (50%) 10% Ramp Up 4 2 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 5
70% Steady State 6 8 1 5 6 6 6 6 6 6
20% Delivery 5 4 1 5 5 6 6 6 6 6
Optimizing Client Expectation in Delivering Certainty

14. 14
Sample CE-Ratios
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
C10 C8 C7 C5 C9 C4 C2 C1 C6 C3
Execution Quality (EQ)
Provider Role Ratio (PRR)
ClientOutlook Score (COS)
CE-Ratio
Clients
Optimizing Client Expectation in Delivering Certainty
Client with maximum
delegation and trust
Client with least
tolerance for variance
Client with best
Provider Positioning
Similar analysis
can also be done
across Projects /
SBUs for the
same client

15. 15
Decoding Client Expectations
0
2
4
6
8
10
Compliance
Competition
Efficiency
Excellence
Reputation
Financial
Operational
End-client
Publicat large
Technology
Solution
NextGen
ThoughtLeader
Lead
Augment
Collaborate
Invest
RampUp
Steady State
Delivery
High
Medium
Low
Fig 8: Sample Determinants of Client Expectation
Client Outlook
Score
Provider
Positioning Ratio
Execution
Quality
Optimizing Client Expectation in Delivering Certainty

16. 16
Applying the Framework
Fig 9: Correlation between Project Types and Success Factors
End–User
commitment
Adequate
funds /
Resources
Communication Clear
Organization
Job
Description
Client Sub-Contractor
Company/Organization size
Project Size
Project Density (no of cross
stakeholder activities /
interfaces)
Organization Type - Matrix or
functional
Project Management Experience
Positive
Correlation
Weak
Correlation
Negative
Correlation
KPIs for Managing Client Expectations
Project
Diversity
The framework could also be applied across projects for the same client
Strong correlation can be discovered between expectations for projects of varying type
Optimizing Client Expectation in Delivering Certainty

17. 17
Case Study – Leading European Airline
The framework helps address diverse Client Segments and the Solutions, by mapping client expectations to
perceived delivery levels – instead of a single CSAT at the Enterprise level, in managing client expectations
Optimizing Client Expectation in Delivering Certainty
Expectation
Perception
ofdelivery
HiLo
Hi
Expectation
Perception
ofdelivery
HiLo
Hi
Tangible Dimensions
(Kiosks, Baggage, Cabin)
In-Tangible Dimensions
(Safety, Punctuality, Reliability)
Expectation
Perception
ofdelivery
HiLo
Hi
Expectation
Perception
ofdelivery
HiLo
Hi
Seniors / Business TravellersTourists / Family Travellers
ClientsSolution

18. 18
Benefits from the Framework
The quantification of Client Expectation helps to
Optimizing Client Expectation in Delivering Certainty
Categorize Clients Course Correct
Project Execution
Position the
RIGHT Solution
Manage Risk Expand Client’s
Zone of Tolerance
Improve
Profitability

19. 19
Key References:
Optimizing Client Expectation in Delivering Certainty

20. 20
Thank you..
for further details contact
avinash.kum@tcs.com
Optimizing Client Expectation in Delivering Certainty