1. Standard & Poor’s
Jora Gill, CTO
Standard and Poor’s International Systems
June, 2010
Permission to reprint or distribute any content from this presentation requires the prior written approval of Standard & Poor’s.
Copyright (c) 2008 Standard & Poor’s, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

2. Standard & Poor’s: $2.6b Revenue (2008)
Standard & Poor's, a subsidiary of The McGraw-Hill Companies (NYSE:MHP),
is the world's foremost provider of financial market intelligence, including:
Independent Credit Ratings
• Has rated more than 3 trillion in new debt – more than 1 million new and revised ratings.
Fixed Income Risk Management Services
• Credit portal; pricing of 3 million fixed income securities representing $12 trillion in
assets; integrated tools and data library for linked global data assets; credit risk, market
rating and cash flow models; analytics and research services.
Equity Research
• S&P Equity Research Services was the leading independent provider in The Wall Street
Journal’s 2009 “Best on the Street”.
S&P Indices
• Over $3.5 trillion was benchmarked to the S&P 500, with indexed assets making up ~$915
billion of this total. $247 billion in assets in over 217 listed ETFs linked to S&P indices.
Capital IQ
• Comprehensive global coverage on 79,000 public companies, 1,000,000 private companies,
11,000 private equity firms and profiles on over 1.7 million investment professionals.
Permission to reprint or distribute any content from this presentation requires the prior written approval of Standard & Poor’s.
2.

3. S&P’s Strong Local Presence in Global Locations
S&P has 11,000 employees in 26 countries
North America
 Atlanta, GA
 Baltimore, MD
 Bethesda, MD Asia
 Boston, MA  Beijing, China
 Centennial, CO  Hong Kong, China
 Charlottesville, VA  Jakarta, Indonesia
 Chicago, IL  Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
 Dallas, TX  Seoul, Korea
 Greenwich, CT  Singapore
 Hightstown, NJ  Taipei, Taiwan
 Houston, TX  Tokyo, Japan
 El Segundo, CA
 Los Angeles, CA India
 New York, NY  Mumbai, Hyderabad,
 San Francisco, CA Gurgaon and multiple
 Toronto, Canada other locations
 Washington, D.C.
Australia
Europe & Middle East  Melbourne
 Dubai, UAE  Sydney
 Frankfurt, Germany
 London, U.K. Latin America
 Madrid, Spain  Buenos Aires, Argentina
 Milan, Italy  Santiago, Chile
 Moscow, Russia  São Paulo, Brazil
 Paris, France  Mexico City, Mexico
 Stockholm, Sweden
 Tel Aviv, Israel
 Offices  Affiliates
Africa
 Johannesburg, South Africa
Permission to reprint or distribute any content from this presentation requires the prior written approval of Standard & Poor’s.
3.

4. Standard & Poor’s Organization
Standard & Poor’s
Ratings Investment Services
Corporate &
Government Fixed Income
Ratings; Equity Research S&P
Risk Management Services Indices Capital IQ
Structured Services
Finance
Firewall
• Criteria • Credit Portal • MarketScope • ETFs • Capital IQ
Advisor Platform
• Quality • Pricing Services • Index Licensing
• Ratings • Global Equity • Xpressfeed
• Integrated Tools & Research • Listed Derivatives
Operations
Data Library • Compustat
– Quantitative • Fund • Custom Indices
Analytics • Proprietary Management • ClariFI
– Originations Models Library Ratings • Index Data
• SystematIQ
– Ratings Market
• Analytic & • S&P Investment
Development • Money Market
Research Advisory
– Ratings Services Solutions Directories
Editorial
– Ratings
Analytical
Education
Permission to reprint or distribute any content from this presentation requires the prior written approval of Standard & Poor’s.
4.

5. Connect the Application Integration Hubs Worldwide
London
New York
Tokyo
Mumbai
Melbourne
Permission to reprint or distribute any content from this presentation requires the prior written approval of Standard & Poor’s.
5.

6. Why Agile
• One team
• Embrace change
• Value first and quickly
• Have fun!
Permission to reprint or distribute any content from this presentation requires the prior written approval of Standard & Poor’s.
6.

7. Agile tick box
• Business buy in
• IT buy in
• Investment
• Continuous improvement
• Partners
• Start small
• Larger projects lacked case studies and literature
Permission to reprint or distribute any content from this presentation requires the prior written approval of Standard & Poor’s.
7.

8. S&P EngineeringTM
Permission to reprint or distribute any content from this presentation requires the prior written approval of Standard & Poor’s.
8.

9. Code Dashboard
Permission to reprint or distribute any content from this presentation requires the prior written approval of Standard & Poor’s.
9.

10. Vendor Project Structure
Fixed Price / Fixed Scope
• Structure: Agree on the deliverables, deliver it. Customers like fixed price
projects because it gives them security
• Scope changes: The change request game (correction: change request
process) is intended to limit scope changes. This process is costly, and the
changes are usually not preventable. Since the customer almost by definition
wants more scope, ending the project can be difficult. The supplier wants the
customer to be happy, so the supplier usually yields.
• Risk: Obvious risk is on the side of the supplier. If the estimates are wrong,
the project will lose money. Less obvious risks are the change request game,
through which the supplier negotiates additional revenue through scope
changes.
• Relationship: Competitive to indifferent. Customer generally wants to have
more and the supplier wants to do less.
Permission to reprint or distribute any content from this presentation requires the prior written approval of Standard & Poor’s.
10.

11. Vendor Project Structure
Time and Materials
• Structure: Work for a month, then send the customer an invoice.
Suppliers like it, because the customer carries the risk of changing
his mind.
• Scope: Not fixed. Sooner or later, the customer doesn't want to pay
any more, so the project comes to an end.
• Risks: carried 100% by the client. Supplier has little incentive to keep
costs down. Effort to ensure that only legitimate effort and expenses
are invoiced can be substantial.
• Relationship: Indifferent. The supplier is happy when more work
comes because more work means more money.
Permission to reprint or distribute any content from this presentation requires the prior written approval of Standard & Poor’s.
11.

12. Vendor Project Structure
Phased Development
• Structure: Fund quarterly releases and approve additional funds after
each successful release.
• Scope Changes: Not explicitly defined by the model. Releases are in
effect time boxed. The knowledge that there will be another release
next quarter makes it easier to accept postponing a feature to
achieve the time box.
• Risk: Customer’s risk is limited to one quarter’s worth of development
costs.
• Relationship: Cooperative. Both the customer and the supplier have
an incentive that each release be successful, so that additional
funding will be approved.
Permission to reprint or distribute any content from this presentation requires the prior written approval of Standard & Poor’s.
12.

13. Vendor Project Structure
Bonus / Penalty Clauses
• Structure: Supplier receives a bonus if the project completes early
and pays a penalty if it arrives late. The amount of bonus or penalty is
a function of the delay
• Scope Changes: difficult to accept because changes potentially
impact the delivery date, which is surely not allowed.
• Risk: Does the customer have an incentive for early completion? The
ROI arguments must be compelling and transparent. Otherwise the
customer gets a cheaper solution the longer it takes.
• Relationship: could be cooperative, but might degenerate into
indifferent if the customer does not truly need the software by the
date agreed.
Permission to reprint or distribute any content from this presentation requires the prior written approval of Standard & Poor’s.
13.

14. Vendor Project Structure
Mixed Model
• Structure: Initial sprints are T&M allowing the supplier to reach a
stable velocity then the project is fixed once the project velocity
levels off.
• Scope: can be changed. Planned but unimplemented features can be
replaced with other stories of the same size. Additional features cost
extra.
• Risk: Shared. Supplier has time to understand the complexity of the
project, customer can fix budget after a period of time whilst also
making changes.
Permission to reprint or distribute any content from this presentation requires the prior written approval of Standard & Poor’s.
14.

15. www.standardandpoors.com
Permission to reprint or distribute any content from this presentation requires the prior written approval of Standard & Poor’s.
15.