Network Connectivity Benchmarking & Optimisation

Scope of the Engagement

Approach & Methodology

The benchmarking engagement encompassed all major aspects of the Client's global network services, with a focus on identifying gaps or inefficiencies in each area:

Network Footprint: Global WAN connectivity across ~70 sites was reviewed, including regional hubs and remote locations. This included analysis of the primary MPLS network linking data centers in three continents and the overlay of any existing SD-WAN or internet-based links.

Contracts: The master services agreement (MSA) with the incumbent network provider and its associated schedules/addendums were examined. We reviewed all relevant contractual provisions – from termination rights and fees to benchmarking clauses, service withdrawal terms, SLA commitments, and renewal conditions – to assess alignment with industry norms and to pinpoint clauses that contributed to vendor lock-in.

Costs and Pricing: The commercial terms and billing records for connectivity services were analysed. This covered recurring network charges (e.g. MPLS circuit costs, internet bandwidth fees), unit pricing per bandwidth (cost per Mbps), regional cost variations, and any ancillary fees (equipment, support, etc.). We gathered data on the Client's spend by region and service type to compare against market benchmarks.

Technical & Performance Data: The technical design and performance metrics of the network were within scope. We assessed network topology (redundancy, link counts per site), capacity utilisation levels, and key performance indicators such as availability uptime, latency, and incident rates. Existing service performance reports and SLA statistics were reviewed to gauge how well the network was performing versus both contract targets and typical industry performance levels.

This holistic scope ensured that our benchmark would not only highlight pricing or cost outliers, but also consider whether the technical setup and contract framework were appropriate and competitive. The engagement was structured to produce a set of targeted findings in each domain (legal, commercial, technical, and performance) and an integrated set of recommendations for improvement.

Our team followed a structured benchmarking methodology from initial planning through to final recommendations. Key elements of our approach included:

Planning and Data Collection

We began with a thorough planning phase, working with the Client to define objectives and gather all necessary data. This involved interviews with the Client's network engineers and procurement managers to understand the current environment, as well as collection of documents and information – including the master contract and amendments, detailed inventory of network services at each site, current invoices and cost breakdowns, and recent performance reports from the vendor. Where available, we obtained market reference data (pricing benchmarks, typical contract terms, performance statistics) to serve as a comparison baseline. Any limitations in data (for example, partial performance monitoring information) were noted so that our analysis would account for those gaps.

Multi-Dimensional Benchmarking Analysis

Our consulting team was deliberately cross-functional, enabling parallel analysis across legal, commercial, technical, and performance workstreams:

Legal & Contractual Benchmarking: Experienced IT legal advisors reviewed the contract terms against preferred industry positions. We compared clauses such as termination for convenience, penalty fees, service scope flexibility, liability caps, and benchmarking rights to what is commonly seen in similar large network service deals. This analysis identified where the Client's agreement deviated from market standards – pinpointing terms that excessively favored the vendor or limited the Client's flexibility.

Commercial Benchmarking: Procurement and financial analysts examined the cost competitiveness of the network. Leveraging our database of telecom cost benchmarks and current market pricing, we evaluated whether the rates the Client was paying (per bandwidth unit, per site, etc.) were above or below market. We also looked at cost structures (e.g. fixed vs. variable costs, currency and tax terms) and the distribution of spend across regions. The team calculated key ratios (like bandwidth per employee and cost per site) and compared them to industry averages to reveal inefficiencies such as overcapacity or unusually high unit costs.

Technical Assessment: Network architects on our team conducted a technical review of the WAN design and infrastructure. We mapped out the network architecture — including all MPLS links, internet links, and firewall deployments at each location — and assessed it against current best practices. This included evaluating the degree of redundancy, use of modern technologies (such as SD-WAN or cloud connectivity), and right-sizing equipment. The technical team identified where the network was over-engineered or outdated, and considered alternative architectures that could deliver similar performance at lower cost.

Performance Analysis: We analysed service performance data and SLAs. This involved reviewing the vendor's reported uptime statistics, latency measures, and incident reports for the network. We benchmarked the Client's service levels (e.g. ~99.8% availability achieved) against typical service provider offerings. When direct comparison data was limited, we relied on our industry experience to judge whether the network performance was in line with what the Client was paying for, and whether there were any red flags (for instance, any region consistently underperforming or SLA penalties incurred).

Synthesis and Recommendation Development

After completing the domain-specific analyses, we brought the findings together to form a coherent picture. The team identified interdependencies (for example, how contract terms might be affecting cost or flexibility, or how technical design choices were driving cost and performance outcomes). We held working sessions with the Client's stakeholders to validate findings and ensure our recommendations were practical. Finally, we formulated a set of recommendations across all four areas, prioritised by impact and ease of implementation. These recommendations were reviewed internally for quality and then presented to the Client in a detailed report and executive presentation. Throughout, we maintained a fact-based, impartial stance – the benchmarking was grounded in data and market evidence, providing the Client confidence in the objectivity of the conclusions.