Global enterprise saves $2M at Workday renewal

Workday's renewal proposal landed at nine point three million dollars annual recurring. The deployment record told a different story. Inside the renewal cycle the buyer side procedure recovered two million dollars.

Written by Fredrik Filipsson Co Founder & Group CEO · ex Oracle, IBM, SAP

PublishedMarch 10, 2024

Share

The renewal arrived with momentum

The customer is a global industrial services group with thirty four thousand employees across forty seven countries. Workday HCM was the system of record across all entities, with Workday Financial Management running in two regions and Workday Adaptive Planning bolted on for the corporate finance group. The renewal cycle started ten months out from the contract expiry. The Workday account team's opening proposal carried a fifteen percent uplift on the existing contract and a recommendation to consolidate three legacy Workday agreements into a single multi year master agreement.

The Redress engagement began at the same moment the proposal arrived. The customer's procurement and IT finance leadership had used Redress on a previous Oracle audit and decided to run the Workday renewal through the same buyer side procedure. The opening directive was straightforward: the customer was committed to Workday as the system of record, did not want to disrupt the operational footprint, but was not willing to absorb a fifteen percent uplift on a renewal cycle where the underlying business had grown by less than four percent.

The buyer side baseline

Every Redress engagement begins with a buyer side baseline before any number is shared with the vendor. The Workday baseline produced four observations.

• FSE miscount. Workday licensing is anchored in the FSE metric, a derived count that captures full time employees plus a weighted equivalent for part time and contingent workers. The customer's FSE record had been built four years earlier and not refreshed against the latest contractor mix. The corrected FSE count sat seven percent below the figure the Workday team had used to scale the renewal proposal.
• Module rationalization finding. The Workday Adaptive Planning license had been provisioned for the entire finance organization but was actively used by a much smaller cohort of corporate planners. The expansion provisions in the agreement allowed the customer to right size the module without surrendering future expansion rights.
• Price book benchmark. Redress runs continuous Workday pricing benchmarks across our active engagement portfolio, and the customer's price per FSE was sitting in the upper quartile relative to peer benchmarks of similar size and module mix. The benchmark gave the customer a defensible negotiation anchor that did not exist before the engagement.
• Multi term structure question. The Workday team had recommended a five year master agreement. The customer's commercial position favored a three plus two structure, with a contractual exit window between years three and four, that preserved flexibility around an open question of how the wider HR transformation program would land.

The negotiation choreography

The buyer side procedure ran across eleven weeks. The Redress team sequenced the four anchors deliberately, in a specific order, to maintain leverage through the renewal cycle.

1. Weeks one through four. FSE recount. The customer issued a written buyer side FSE filing, anchored in the corrected HR record, which moved the Workday baseline by seven percent. The Workday team contested the filing for two weeks, then accepted it after the customer presented the underlying data classification. That single move took roughly six hundred and fifty thousand dollars off the renewal proposal.
2. Weeks five through eight. Module rationalization. The customer formally requested a right sizing of Adaptive Planning to the active user cohort, with a written commitment to re expand the module if the wider planning program rolled out. The Workday team pushed back hard on this position, citing future expansion concerns. The Redress team produced the contractual reference that supported the right sizing without conceding the expansion right. The Workday team accepted the right sizing after the executive sponsor on the customer side made a single phone call to the Workday account vice president. That move took another eight hundred thousand off the renewal.
3. Weeks nine through eleven. Benchmark and term structure. The customer presented the peer benchmark in a formal written brief. The Workday team's response was a partial concession. The customer countered with a defensible mid quartile target. The closing negotiation produced a per FSE price that sat in the median of the peer benchmark, plus a three plus two term structure with a contractual exit window in year four. Both moves combined returned the remaining five hundred and fifty thousand dollars of the two million dollar reduction.

The commercial close

The signed renewal returned two million dollars to the customer relative to the opening Workday proposal, on a normalised annual recurring basis. The agreement preserved the customer's expansion rights, the contractual exit window, and the operational footprint. The buyer side baseline was carried forward into the agreement as an exhibit, which materially limited the Workday team's ability to re inflate the metric on the next renewal.

The customer enrolled into the Renewal Program after the engagement closed. The view from the customer's procurement leadership was that the buyer side procedure was now the standard operating model, not an episodic project. The next renewal would run on the same procedure, on a shorter cycle, with continuous monitoring of the deployment between cycles.

What this engagement shows

The Workday renewal motion typically produces one of three customer outcomes. A customer with no buyer side procedure absorbs the vendor's opening proposal at close to the headline number. A customer with internal procurement capability typically negotiates a five to ten percent reduction. A customer that runs the renewal on a buyer side procedure with peer benchmarks, FSE forensics, and module rationalization routinely lands at a fifteen to twenty five percent reduction relative to the opening proposal. The procedural difference is the entire engagement margin.

Read the wider Workday engagement library: Workday Advisory Services, Workday Benchmarking Service, and the Workday Knowledge Hub.