Evangelize Consulting

EPF in practice

See how EPF addresses the decisions holding performance back.

Unclear costs, disputed benefits and fragmented ownership prevent leadership teams from acting with confidence. These use cases show how Evangelize applies EPF to establish the evidence, test the economics and turn decisions into accountable delivery.

Private equity. Banking and insurance. Commercial real estate. AI governance across each.

Explore the use cases Discuss your decision

The examples below are illustrative applications of EPF, not reports of completed client engagements. Outcomes depend on the starting position, available evidence and execution. No savings or delivery timescales are implied.

Sector use cases

Start with the decision your business needs to make.

The investment horizon, service obligations and cost drivers differ by sector. EPF connects those constraints to the evidence, options and ownership required for a decision.

Private Equity

Turn the investment thesis into an owned value creation plan.

Establish which initiatives can improve cash generation, what they will cost to deliver and whether the management team has the capacity to execute. Separate genuine savings from reallocations and make the dependencies behind exit readiness explicit.

Decision focus

What should we fund, fix or stop to deliver the investment case?

EPF-Fusion · EPF-Core · EPF-Cost IQ

Explore the private equity use case

Banking & Insurance

Reduce cost while preserving controls and customer outcomes.

Connect technology expenditure to the services and activities it supports. Assess options against service continuity, applicable obligations and customer impact, with compliance specialists validating regulatory interpretations.

Decision focus

Where can expenditure fall, and what must remain protected?

EPF-Core · EPF-Cost IQ · EPF-Halo

Explore the banking and insurance use case

Commercial Real Estate

Make cost-to-serve and reporting performance explainable.

Trace operating expenditure to properties, funds and services. Identify where fragmented data, manual reconciliation and supplier arrangements create avoidable effort, then test which changes justify their implementation cost.

Decision focus

Which operational changes will improve reporting and service economics?

EPF-Cost IQ · EPF-Core

Explore the commercial real estate use case

EPF across sectors

From sector pressure to an owned decision.

Different operating realities. A shared process for evidence, economics and execution.

01 / The business pressure

01

Private equity

Investment thesis / delivery priorities

02

Banking & insurance

Cost pressure / service obligations

03

Commercial real estate

Fragmented data / reporting effort

02 / The EPF process

  1. Review

    Establish the baseline

  2. Assess

    Identify causes and constraints

  3. Design

    Compare costed options

  4. Engage

    Agree authority and ownership

  5. Integrate

    Deliver and verify the result

03 / Measures of success

01
Private equity

Cash impact & exit evidence

Net benefit, delivery cost and ownership.

02
Banking & insurance

Cost & control performance

Savings alongside continuity and controls.

03
Commercial real estate

Reporting & cost-to-serve

Cycle time, rework and comparable unit costs.

At every decision

Evidence quality · Net economics · Named authority · Verification criteria

Measures are agreed against the baseline. They are not guaranteed outcomes.

AI governance & control

Apply investment and operating discipline to AI.

AI initiatives need a defined purpose, accountable ownership and evidence that their benefits justify their operating costs and risks. EPF helps organisations establish that discipline while retaining specialist responsibility for technical validation, security and compliance.

Illustrative situations. The appropriate response depends on the evidence and operating context.

AI governance in operation

Keep AI within its approved case.

Approval establishes the conditions. Operating evidence determines what happens next.

  1. 01

    Test the case

    Fund, validate or stop

    Define the work, demand, whole-life cost and accountable benefit owner.

    Investment case + portfolio demand
  2. 02

    Authorise use

    Set release conditions

    Agree permitted use, acceptance evidence, limits and decision authority.

    Approval boundaries
  3. 03

    Operate within limits

    Track use and change

    Review consumption, service performance and changes to data or purpose.

    Demand + standing controls
  4. 04

    Verify the result

    Continue, correct or suspend

    Challenge performance and value claims using appropriate reviewers.

    Independent challenge + verification

Three distinct checks inform release and ongoing review

Technical validation

Model behaviour, limitations and test evidence.

Technical reviewers
Operational acceptance

Service impact, controls and readiness.

Operational owners
Benefit verification

Realised value, consumption and net cost.

Finance / benefit owners

EPF structures decisions, evidence and ownership. Specialist validation remains with the relevant qualified reviewers.

1

AI initiatives without an investable case

The situation

Pilots accumulate across business functions. Each has a sponsor and a demonstration, but the work being changed, recurring cost and accountable benefit owner remain unclear.

How EPF addresses it

EPF tests the purpose, alternatives, whole-life economics and delivery requirements of each initiative. Strategic, economic, commercial, financial and management considerations inform the funding decision, with evidence requirements proportionate to the commitment.

What changes

Leadership can distinguish initiatives ready for investment from those requiring validation, redesign or closure. Each approved initiative has an owner, a baseline and a defined measure of success.

2

AI teams certifying their own success

The situation

The delivery team reports improved model performance, but nobody independently checks whether the service works better, operating effort has fallen or the claimed benefit has materialised.

How EPF addresses it

EPF separates benefit verification from technical validation and operational acceptance. It defines the evidence required for each, assigns appropriate reviewers and makes conflicts of interest visible.

What changes

Delivery claims face proportionate independent challenge. Approval depends on demonstrated service performance, technical acceptance and credible economics, with limitations recorded.

3

AI spending that no longer reflects enterprise demand

The situation

Business units buy overlapping licences, select different model providers and build similar capabilities. Local decisions may be reasonable, but aggregate expenditure and dependencies are poorly understood.

How EPF addresses it

EPF maps demand, usage, supplier commitments and unit costs across the portfolio. Consolidation options are tested against capability, resilience, migration effort, contractual restrictions and total cost.

What changes

Leadership can decide what to standardise, retain, renegotiate or stop. Supplier reduction is pursued where the economics and service requirements support it.

4

AI operating beyond its approved boundaries

The situation

A deployment changes after approval. New data sources, users or functions are introduced without revisiting the original cost ceiling, risk acceptance or permitted use.

How EPF addresses it

EPF translates approval conditions into owned operating controls, review triggers and escalation requirements. Material changes prompt reassessment of the decision case, supported by the relevant technical and compliance specialists.

What changes

Owners know which changes require approval, what evidence must be retained and when use should be restricted or suspended pending review.

5

Verification assumed rather than demonstrated

The situation

A programme reports that an AI component has been validated, but the acceptance evidence, downstream impact and responsibility for ongoing review are unclear.

How EPF addresses it

EPF establishes acceptance criteria, evidence requirements and an agreed verification schedule. Technical reviewers assess model behaviour, operations tests service impact, and finance or benefit owners verify the economic claims.

What changes

The release decision rests on recorded evidence. Subsequent reviews test whether performance remains acceptable and identify who must act when thresholds are breached.

Understanding the approach

Each case leads to a decision, an owner and a way to verify the result.

EPF begins with the business question and follows it through assessment, option design and execution. The depth of analysis depends on the value at stake, the uncertainty and the consequences of getting the decision wrong.

A private equity sponsor may need to prioritise cash-releasing initiatives. A regulated firm may need to reduce expenditure while maintaining critical services. A property operator may need to resolve reporting delays and disputed allocations. The work is shaped around that decision.

Evidence

Distinguish documented facts, inferences and assumptions requiring validation.

Economics

Connect costs and benefits to demand, consumption, implementation effort and timing.

Authority

Name who recommends, approves, funds, delivers and accepts risk.

Verification

Agree the baseline, measures and evidence needed to confirm the result.

Core, Cost IQ, Halo and Fusion are product and capability overlays within EPF. Relevant Modes route the decision into shared EPF capability; they are not separate methodologies.

Portfolio value creation

Private Equity — Make the investment thesis executable.

Illustrative use case

A sponsor acquires a services business with a value creation plan based on cost reduction, operating model simplification and commercial improvement. Management cannot yet reconcile the proposed benefits to the cost baseline, delivery expenditure or the people expected to implement the changes.

Executive decision

Which initiatives should the sponsor fund, what net benefit is credible and who is accountable for delivery?

1. Review — Establish the baseline

Reconcile expenditure to finance records and connect material costs to services, consumption and business ownership. Examine supplier commitments, renewal dates, existing initiatives and the assumptions behind the investment thesis. Record where the evidence is incomplete.

Methods & analysis

  • •Cost and consumption analysis
  • •Contract and commitment review
  • •Evidence quality assessment

Key outputs

  • •Reconciled cost baseline
  • •Supplier and commitment inventory
  • •Initial benefit assumptions and evidence gaps

2. Assess — Isolate the causes of value leakage

Test whether excess expenditure comes from duplicated capability, unmanaged demand, unsuitable pricing, unclear service boundaries or delivery problems. Examine the buyer’s contract economics using available charges, consumption and service information. Any estimate of supplier profitability remains an explicit assumption unless supporting cost data is available.

Methods & analysis

  • •Service and demand assessment
  • •Contract unit economics
  • •Decision ownership review

Key outputs

  • •Prioritised cost and performance findings
  • •Commercial improvement opportunities
  • •Ownership and delivery constraints

3. Design — Build a net value case

Compare the available interventions using consistent assumptions. Include implementation expenditure, transition costs, benefit timing and delivery dependencies. Separate cash-releasing savings, avoided cost, capacity release and reallocations. Present downside and base scenarios without treating either as guaranteed.

Methods & analysis

  • •Economic scenario modelling
  • •Option comparison
  • •Delivery capacity assessment

Key outputs

  • •Net benefit model
  • •Prioritised value creation plan
  • •Investment requirements and approval conditions

4. Engage — Agree commitments and ownership

Give the sponsor the investment decision, expected economic effect and material downside. Give management the funded actions, sequencing and operating responsibilities. Agree which benefits can be committed, which require validation and what would trigger reconsideration.

Deliverables

  • •Sponsor decision pack
  • •Management execution plan
  • •Named initiative and benefit owners

Decision discipline

  • •Committed and conditional benefits separated
  • •Reconsideration triggers recorded

5. Integrate — Verify delivery and support exit readiness

Track actual expenditure and realised benefits against the approved baseline. Explain variances and prevent the same benefit being claimed by multiple initiatives. Maintain evidence linking operational changes to financial results so the exit narrative can withstand diligence.

Operating discipline

  • •Agreed benefit review cadence
  • •Current cost and consumption baseline
  • •Escalation and corrective action ownership

Verification

  • •Benefit evidence linked to delivery
  • •Variances assigned to accountable owners

What success is measured against

Cash impact

Realised savings net of delivery and transition costs.

Delivery accountability

Approved initiatives with named owners, dependencies and benefit measures.

Exit evidence

A traceable connection between the investment thesis, delivered changes and financial results.

Explore EPF for M&A

Regulated transformation

Banking & Insurance — Make cost decisions defensible.

Illustrative use case

A bank or insurer faces rising technology expenditure and duplicated services. Finance cannot fully explain product-level cost-to-serve, while operations and compliance need confidence that proposed changes will preserve service continuity, required controls and customer outcomes.

Executive decision

Which cost and service changes are justified, and under what operational and regulatory conditions?

1. Review — Connect expenditure, services and obligations

Reconcile the cost baseline and document allocation methods, consumption drivers and unallocated expenditure. Map the services, applications and supplier dependencies affected by potential changes. Establish applicable obligations with compliance specialists according to the entity, jurisdiction and activity.

Methods & analysis

  • •Technology Business Management cost analysis
  • •Service and dependency mapping
  • •Obligation and accountability review

Key outputs

  • •Reconciled cost model with allocation disclosures
  • •Service and application baseline
  • •Applicable obligations and ownership map

2. Assess — Separate inefficiency from necessary protection

Identify duplicated capability, avoidable consumption and commercial arrangements that no longer match demand. Assess operational dependencies and the consequences of changing or withdrawing a service. Protect required controls while testing whether their delivery can become more efficient.

Methods & analysis

  • •Cost-driver and demand analysis
  • •Operational dependency assessment
  • •Supplier and exit-readiness review

Key outputs

  • •Addressable improvement opportunities
  • •Service and control constraints
  • •Evidence gaps requiring specialist validation

3. Design — Compare options within validated constraints

Model savings alongside implementation costs, service risks and control requirements. Where customer pricing is affected, use cost-to-serve as one input to the appropriate fair-value assessment, alongside price, benefits and customer outcomes. Compliance specialists validate regulatory interpretations before reliance is placed on them.

Methods & analysis

  • •Economic scenarios and sensitivity analysis
  • •Service and control impact assessment
  • •Customer outcome assessment where applicable

Key outputs

  • •Costed options and trade-offs
  • •Required safeguards and validation conditions
  • •Board investment and decision case

4. Engage — Resolve authority and release conditions

Present the board with the recommendation, confidence limits and material risk decisions. Confirm the appropriate executive and operational ownership, including Senior Manager accountability where applicable. Give delivery teams explicit conditions for implementation and service acceptance.

Deliverables

  • •Board decision pack
  • •Compliance and assurance review actions
  • •Funded implementation plan with decision rights

Release conditions

  • •Specialist validation assigned
  • •Service acceptance authority named

5. Integrate — Maintain cost and service accountability

Refresh cost, consumption and service performance information on an agreed cadence. Show business owners what drives expenditure and which decisions they control. Verify savings alongside service performance and control effectiveness, escalating deterioration or changed assumptions.

Operating discipline

  • •Recurring cost and consumption reporting
  • •Service and control performance reviews
  • •Benefits verification and exception management

Verification

  • •Economics and service outcomes reviewed together
  • •Exceptions escalated to named owners

What success is measured against

Cost visibility

Explainable service costs supported by reconciled data and documented allocation methods.

Controlled improvement

Verified economic benefit assessed alongside service continuity and required controls.

Accountable decisions

Clear approval rights, risk ownership and evidence of specialist review.

Operational performance

Commercial Real Estate — Connect service cost to property performance.

Illustrative use case

A property operator manages assets across disconnected finance, lease administration and property management systems. Reporting requires substantial manual reconciliation, cost-to-serve is difficult to explain and supplier commitments have not kept pace with changes in the portfolio.

Executive decision

Which data, service and supplier changes will improve reporting performance and reduce avoidable operating cost?

1. Review — Map services, data and cost ownership

Trace the work required to manage properties, administer leases and produce reports. Establish the systems, people and suppliers supporting each activity. Build comparable unit measures while accounting for differences in asset complexity, service scope and reporting requirements.

Methods & analysis

  • •Service and data-flow mapping
  • •Cost and consumption analysis
  • •Supplier commitment review

Key outputs

  • •Cost-to-serve baseline
  • •System and data ownership map
  • •Supplier and service inventory

2. Assess — Quantify rework and commercial mismatch

Measure reconciliation effort, reporting delays and recurring data exceptions. Test supplier charges against service scope and actual demand. Identify where inconsistent definitions, duplicated systems or unclear ownership create avoidable work and disputed costs.

Methods & analysis

  • •Process and rework assessment
  • •Contract and unit-rate analysis
  • •Data and decision ownership review

Key outputs

  • •Evidence-based causes of reporting delay
  • •Service and supplier improvement opportunities
  • •Accountability and data-quality gaps

3. Design — Cost the operating changes

Compare options for data ownership, process simplification, system integration and supplier restructuring. Establish authoritative data sources and controlled hand-offs rather than assuming every system must be replaced. Assess implementation cost, adoption requirements and net benefit.

Methods & analysis

  • •Operating model and service design
  • •Economic option modelling
  • •Supplier renewal and transition planning

Key outputs

  • •Target operating model
  • •Costed improvement roadmap
  • •Commercial negotiation and transition positions

4. Engage — Agree the investment and service responsibilities

Give the board the investment choice and its dependencies. Agree with asset, fund and operational managers how costs will be attributed and services measured. Set supplier expectations using documented scope, demand and performance requirements.

Deliverables

  • •Board decision pack
  • •Cost ownership and allocation agreement
  • •Supplier negotiation and implementation briefs

Decision discipline

  • •Investment dependencies made explicit
  • •Service responsibilities agreed

5. Integrate — Verify reporting and service improvement

Track reporting cycle time, reconciliation effort, data exceptions and cost-to-serve against the baseline. Confirm whether released capacity becomes a cash saving, supports additional activity or improves service quality. Assign corrective action where adoption or data quality prevents the expected result.

Operating discipline

  • •Recurring unit-cost and service reporting
  • •Data quality and reporting performance review
  • •Benefits verification and supplier performance management

Verification

  • •Capacity and cash benefits distinguished
  • •Corrective actions assigned

What success is measured against

Reporting performance

Elapsed reporting time, manual effort and exception rates measured against the baseline.

Service economics

Comparable cost-to-serve with differences in asset complexity and service scope explained.

Verified benefit

Financial savings distinguished from capacity release and service improvement.

Start with the decision

Bring the decision your organisation cannot yet defend.

Start with a cost base you cannot explain, a value case you cannot verify or a delivery plan with unresolved ownership. We will discuss the decision, available evidence and constraints, then agree whether a focused EPF review is the right next step.

Discuss an EPF review Explore EPF