Eloi Verdisant

A fixed-fee implementation was still reported against its original EUR2.14 million delivery-cost estimate on EUR2.8 million of contracted fees. The project team had identified additional effort, but the commercial discussion was waiting for a proposed scope agreement. If finance had left the original estimate in place until that negotiation ended, the account would have implied that an unagreed recovery already covered the work.

I asked delivery leadership to state the expected cost independently of the desired commercial answer. The revised estimate was EUR2.59 million, reducing forecast direct contribution from EUR660,000 to EUR210,000 before central overhead. The team then separated work within the existing commitment from additional scope to discuss with the customer. Contract interpretation and negotiation involved the appropriate commercial and legal colleagues; finance supplied the economics and timing.

The sales lead objected that recognising the lower forecast could make the negotiation seem unsuccessful before it had concluded. I argued that the two questions needed different dates. We could pursue a justified scope change without reporting its benefit as though agreement already existed. The executive review accepted the revised delivery view and gave the project the resources needed to maintain its obligations while the discussion continued.

The eventual agreement added EUR380,000 in fees and EUR100,000 of associated delivery cost. Forecast fees became EUR3.18 million and cost EUR2.69 million, leaving EUR490,000 of direct contribution. This was still an estimate of the completed project's economics, not cash collected, recognised profit for that month or group net profit. We kept the remaining work and customer dependencies under review.

I would introduce the commercial discussion earlier next time, before the cost change has accumulated into a difficult single revision. The lasting improvement was that a project manager no longer had to wait for a successful negotiation before admitting that the expected effort had changed. That made the account more useful at the point when management could still influence the outcome.

A capacity review showed high demand for engineers already working on familiar platforms and a growing requirement for capabilities needed in later assignments. The immediate commercial response was to keep utilisation high and arrange learning around available gaps. Delivery leaders warned that those gaps were too irregular to prepare people reliably. The choice was between a visible near-term cost and a less visible future capability constraint.

I supported protecting 12,400 paid training hours for 155 engineers. At the internal labour rate used in the plan, the cost was EUR620,000. We identified the affected assignment schedules and the billable capacity temporarily given up. This was a real allocation of paid time, rather than a programme described as free because it used existing employees.

Some account leaders argued that the company should hire ready-made expertise only when a contract was secured. People and delivery colleagues challenged the availability and integration assumptions behind that approach. We retained a mix of recruitment and internal development, with the training programme tied to specific capability needs. I asked for the learning objectives and later deployment to be reviewed without assigning a fictional revenue return to every hour spent.

Within six months of completing the programme, 118 of the 155 engineers had used the relevant skills on customer work. That was a deployment count, not proof of proficiency in every setting or of incremental revenue caused by the training. Thirty-seven had not yet used the skills in that way. We retained those numbers and examined whether assignment timing, programme fit or manager support explained the difference.

The decision reduced short-term billable availability and made the cost visible in the period. It also gave the organisation a clearer account of how it intended to prepare for later work. I would strengthen the follow-up by agreeing deployment opportunities earlier, since useful learning can lose value when a colleague returns to an assignment with no opportunity to practise it. Finance's role was to fund and assess the choice with its limits intact.

Our managed-service review combined retained contracts and expansion into a headline measure that looked encouraging. The total was arithmetically useful, but it gave the executive team too little visibility into reductions within the original service base. A growing customer could add work while another reduced its commitment, leaving management with a favourable aggregate and an incomplete explanation of the customer experience.

I asked finance and commercial operations to follow a fixed opening cohort of EUR12 million in annualised contract value. At the next comparable review, EUR10.86 million remained before expansion. That gave a gross retention measure of 90.5%. Expansion within the same customers added EUR2.4 million, producing EUR13.26 million and a net measure of 110.5%. Entirely new customers were excluded from both calculations.

Commercial leaders were concerned that putting the lower percentage first would understate successful account development. I kept the expansion result prominent and asked for the two measures together. The purpose was to understand where the original service had reduced, not to deny the value of additional work. We examined contract changes, customer reasons and support economics rather than treating every reduction as the same kind of loss.

The revised review led to specific service and account actions, but I did not claim that presenting two percentages itself improved retention. The initial outcome was a more informative decision process. Annualised contract value was also kept distinct from invoiced cash and recognised annual revenue, since timing and service periods differed. Finance reconciled the measures to their source contracts without implying that they could replace the statutory account.

I would establish the definitions before the next planning cycle so that performance discussions do not become disputes about a changed denominator. A stable cohort and a clear expansion boundary let commercial teams explain success and weakness in the same meeting. The board could then ask what supported growth instead of accepting a single percentage as a complete judgement on the quality of recurring relationships.

A group of annual managed-service contracts brought EUR8.4 million of advance cash into the company. The receipt improved the immediate cash position and prompted proposals for faster hiring and an increased owner distribution. Delivery colleagues still had a year of service commitments to meet. The decision required an account of what the cash would support, rather than a comparison with the previous month's bank balance alone.

I asked finance and delivery managers to identify the direct spending associated with the covered service periods. The resulting forecast was EUR2.1 million, including hosting, support and allocated delivery labour under the defined management view. It was not the full group cost base and not a statutory reserve. The money was not legally segregated; the analysis was a planning discipline to keep accepted work visible when cash appeared abundant.

The founders wanted a larger distribution because collections had been strong. I supported their interest in cash returns but recommended a lower immediate amount until the service-cost and wider working-capital views had been considered together. We postponed EUR900,000 of the proposed distribution for a later board review. That was retained cash, not an expense or a permanent cancellation of the owners' interest.

The executive team adopted a monthly view connecting advance receipts with the remaining service period and expected delivery spending. Revenue recognition continued to follow the appropriate contract and service assessment rather than the collection date. The management forecast did not establish a margin by subtracting only EUR2.1 million from EUR8.4 million and ignoring other costs. Its purpose was to inform the cash commitment under discussion.

I would make this analysis part of the initial contract-planning cycle rather than assemble it after a large receipt. Earlier preparation would give commercial leaders and owners a shared understanding of the spending sequence before cash arrives. The decision demonstrated that good collections and a cautious distribution can be consistent: one improves the resources available, while the other considers the work those resources still need to fund.

A review of third-party service licences and reserved hosting capacity found contracts that no longer matched the customer work being delivered. The proposed saving looked straightforward, but delivery managers warned that some apparently unused capacity provided recovery or testing capability. Cancelling everything without examining its purpose could reduce a bill while creating a new operating exposure elsewhere.

I commissioned a joint finance and service-operations review of a defined EUR3.4 million annual spending category. Each proposed removal needed an owner to confirm the customer dependency, operational purpose and contract notice period. The team distinguished genuinely redundant subscriptions from capacity intentionally retained for continuity or testing. Finance checked the achievable timing and any exit fees instead of treating a full-year run rate as an immediate cash benefit.

Procurement wanted the largest reduction available at the next renewal, while service leaders preferred to retain a wider buffer. We agreed to remove selected redundant items and preserve documented operational capacity. The result was EUR410,000 lower annualised contracted spending after the reviewed renewals, with EUR74,000 in one-time exit and migration costs. The first year's realised spending reduction before the exit and migration costs was EUR268,000 because the changes began at different dates. After those EUR74,000 costs, the first-year net reduction was EUR194,000. These measures were reported separately.

No support roles were removed as part of this case. The saving came from the defined external-spending category, not from a general claim that people could absorb more work. Service leadership monitored the changed arrangements, and the review did not establish that all future resilience needs had been anticipated. We kept a route for restoring capacity if actual demand or operating requirements changed.

I would improve the record of why a subscription was originally retained. Several decisions took longer because the current manager could not find the earlier rationale. A recurring review should preserve enough context for the next owner to distinguish waste from a deliberately funded option. That gives finance a firmer basis for reducing expense without relying on the assumption that an unused resource is automatically an unnecessary one.