Benchmarking meaning

Introduction This checklist sits alongside the more detailed Practice Note: Negotiation guide—services agreements. It serves as a quick-look aide and concentrates on the principal, generic points that commonly surface across most forms of services agreement. It leaves out certain specialist matters addressed in Practice Note: Negotiation guide—services agreements that tend to arise only in particular categories of services arrangements or those of greater complexity (eg acceptance testing, audit rights, TUPE, step-in rights, benchmarking and exit assistance). It sets out the customer’s and the supplier’s optimal stances for each topic, then offers a proposed middle-ground position (which is not intended to be comprehensive). For deeper analysis and explanation of each point, refer to Practice Note: Negotiation guide—services agreements. For balanced precedent contracts, which implement much of what is explored here and in the negotiation guide, see Precedents: Services agreement—one-off supply—balanced, Services agreement (ongoing supply)—balanced and Framework services agreement—single contract with call-off orders—balanced. This checklist is relevant only to business-to-business dealings in commercial practice...

Introduction This checklist sits alongside the fuller Practice Note: Negotiation guide—IT contracts and serves as a quick-reference point, concentrating on the principal general matters that commonly surface in IT agreements. Its emphasis is on the key, general issues likely to arise in IT contracts. It deliberately excludes certain specialist topics covered in the Practice Note that arise only in particular IT arrangements or in higher-complexity engagements, such as: acceptance testing audit rights TUPE step-in rights benchmarking exit assistance For each issue, it sets out the customer’s and supplier’s optimal positions and then proposes a balanced middle ground, which is indicative rather than exhaustive. For a fuller discussion and explanation of each point, see Practice Note: Negotiation guide—IT contracts. To view balanced precedents that put much of what is discussed here, and in the negotiation guide, into practice, refer to: Precedents: Framework agreement for the provision of IT products and services—balanced, and IT services agreement—balanced. This checklist is relevant...

Checklist This checklist outlines the principal matters to consider when preparing or assessing an outsourcing agreement. It addresses central legal, regulatory and practical questions that arise in outsourcing arrangements, while excluding sectors that carry bespoke regulatory regimes, such as health or financial services. For overarching guidance on outsourcing, consult Practice Note: Outsourcing—key terms. For discussion of negotiation points you are likely to encounter, see Practice Notes: Negotiation guide—services agreements and Negotiation guide—IT contracts. As you progress through the checklist, the third column can be used to capture observations or comments as each point is considered... Further information Notes (if any) Initial considerations What is the customer’s main reason for outsourcing? Knowing the driver—e.g. cutting costs, enhancing service quality, or obtaining a function the customer lacks the capability to deliver internally—will help. Also think about the breadth of the outsourcing, whether a service improvement mechanism is desired, and if value for money will be tested by benchmarking (see below)... Confirm whether any existing...

In its press release, TPR urged trustees of smaller DC pension schemes with assets below £100m to assess if members’ interests are better served within larger schemes. Driving consolidation remains central to TPR’s three-year corporate plan, launched in May 2024. The regulator argues that smaller arrangements are more likely to exhibit weaker governance. “All savers deserve to be in schemes with strong governance,” said Gaucho Rasmussen, TPR’s executive director of regulatory compliance. “Where trustees cannot match the best in the market, on value or governance, they should consider whether moving to a better-value scheme is best for their savers.” Trustees were encouraged to prioritise value and governance when deciding...

The study published 27 June 2024 A report released on 27 June 2024 by risk analysis consortium ORIC International and consultancy Sicsic Advisory Ltd revealed that one in five firms were not testing whether their key business services could withstand disruption from cyberattacks and other events. Despite progress in aligning with regulators’ resilience expectations, many organisations remain ill-prepared for such shocks. The two risk specialists conducted a 12‑month annual benchmarking survey of 35 insurance and investment firms to reach these findings. Martin Jarman, operational resilience lead at Sicsic Advisory, noted that while it may not attract the same spotlight as newer measures such as the Consumer Duty initiative, operational resilience remains firmly on the FCA’s and PRA’s agendas. The FCA and the PRA set out operational resilience requirements in March 2021...

In this issue: Authorisation, approval and supervision Prudential requirements Risk management and controls Financial crime and sanctions Complaints, compensation and claims management Investigations, enforcement and discipline Regulation of capital markets Regulation of derivatives Banks and mutuals Consumer credit, mortgage and home finance Payment services and systems International—financial services and related sectors Fintech and cryptoassets LexTalk®Financial Services: a Lexis®Nexis community Financial Services Enforcement Database Daily and weekly news alerts Intraday news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Authorisation, approval and supervision HM Treasury issues a policy statement describing its intended approach to the regulation of Appointed Representatives within UK financial services. The paper suggests targeted adjustments to enhance oversight and bolster consumer protection, while preserving the regime’s function in fostering competition and innovation. See: LNB News 11/08/2025 28. The Financial Conduct Authority has updated its Conduct Rules webpage to clarify...

CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision dated 31 May 2012; it is no longer being maintained. See the timeline. Case facts Outline of a UK merger investigation into the completed acquisition of Cambridge Water Plc by South Staffordshire Plc. Latest developments On 31 May 2012, the CC granted unconditional clearance to the merger. Parties South Staffordshire Plc (SS): supplies drinking water from the edge of Ashborne in the north to Halesowen in the south, and from Burton on Trent in the east across to Kinver in the west. Cambridge Water Plc (CAM): provides drinking water to the City of Cambridge. Background The parties serve a wide customer base that includes a range of caterers, retailers such as convenience stores, and other businesses and traders. Their largest national competitors are Bestway and Costco...

This Practice Note outlines the EU remuneration framework contained in the Capital Requirements Directive 2013/36/EU (EU CRD IV) and Regulation (EU) 575/2013 (EU CRR), together with the remuneration provisions in the Investment Firms Directive (EU) 2019/2034 (IFD) and the Investment Firms Regulation (EU) 2019/2033 (IFR). These rules apply to pay awarded by credit institutions and investment firms to their staff... Background and introduction to EU CRD IV and EU CRR In the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) and a number of national regulators reviewed remuneration governance and structures across financial services. They concluded that: firms and supervisors underestimated how pay policies and practices could fuel excessive risk-taking remuneration design, notably cash-heavy, short-term incentives, promoted undue risk appetite bonus pool methodologies did not adequately reflect firms’ capital and liquidity costs or the risks borne performance management focused too narrowly on financial results and overlooked multi-year outcomes The FSB consolidated these conclusions into a...

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. Last updated April 2016 The Government Construction Strategy (‘the Strategy’) was introduced in May 2011 to overhaul public sector construction procurement by championing efficiency, fostering innovation and stimulating growth across the industry. Its core objective was to cut the cost of government construction by 15–20% before the close of the parliamentary term, aligning with Infrastructure UK’s three‑year Infrastructure Cost Review programme. The government’s One Year On update, issued in July 2012, showed that applying the Strategy’s principles had already delivered savings within the year and reduced whole‑life project costs. On 23 March 2016, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority released the Government Construction Strategy 2016–2020, presented as a continuation of the achievements of the Government Construction Strategy 2011–2015. It recorded £3 billion in efficiency savings between 2011 and 2015. For further details on the 2016–2020 Strategy, see Practice Note: Government Construction Strategy 2016-2020 [Archived]...

Gathering figures on a firm’s finances serves little purpose unless those insights are applied to drive improvement. Key measures of present performance include total fee income, overall fee‑earning capacity, and the fees generated per fee earner. This Precedent enables analysis of these metrics and supports a modelling exercise to gauge the likely financial consequences where any variable inputs are altered. To complete the analysis and modelling, follow this three–step process: step 1—calculate key variables step 2—evaluate and interrogate the firm’s current fee income, fee‑earning capacity, and fees per fee earner step 3—run a modelling exercise to assess the potential financial impact of changing any variables This Precedent supports steps 2 and 3 and should be read alongside Precedent: Variable calculations, which addresses step 1. Click to obtain an Excel version of this Precedent...

Raw data required Total number of full-time fee earners – [ Insert number ] Total number of part-time fee earners – [ Insert number ] Total number of days per week worked by part-time fee earners – [ Insert number ] Total chargeable hours – [ Insert number ] Hourly rates being charged – £[ Insert figures ] Value of WIP billed – £[ Insert figure ] Billings – £[ Insert figure ] Calculating the variables Please click for an Excel version of this variable calculation sheet and an illustrative worked example. Number of fee earners as FTEs — Formula: Full-time fee earners plus pro rata part-time fee earners; Calculation: [ Insert details ]; Result: [ Insert result ] Average annual chargeable hours per fee earner — Formula: Firm’s total chargeable hours ÷ number of fee earners; Calculation: [ Insert details ]; Result: [ Insert result ] Average hourly rate — Formula:...

Current ratio Date of calculations: [ insert date of calculations ] Formula: Current assets ÷ Current liabilities Calculation: Result: Result from previous month/year: % movement: If the ratio slips under 1.0, the firm lacks sufficient current assets to meet its current liabilities as they become due. Compare this outcome to the previous current ratio result. If the current ratio is declining and nearing 1.0, calculate the other ratios to gain a clearer view of why the firm is running out of money...