Business

The Cost-Consolidation Pattern — What Honan and Archers Have in Common | blueAPACHE

Two published blueAPACHE outcomes — Honan's 65% telecommunications cost reduction and Archers' bandwidth uplift under fixed-price IT-as-a-Service — share a starting condition. This page names it, so you can tell whether your own estate fits the pattern.

Two of blueAPACHE's published client outcomes look like cost stories: Honan reduced telecommunications cost by 65%, and Archers moved from 20/20Mbps to 400/400Mbps connectivity under a fixed-price IT-as-a-Service arrangement. Both are real. Neither transfers automatically, and this page exists to explain the starting condition they share — so you can work out whether your own estate is a candidate before anyone quotes you a percentage.

The two outcomes

Honan — an insurance and financial services business — achieved a 65% reduction in telecommunications cost across voice, unified communications and connectivity. This is the largest published cost outcome in blueAPACHE's portfolio.

Archers The Strata Professionals moved from 20/20Mbps to 400/400Mbps — a twentyfold bandwidth increase — while converting capital purchases into a predictable fixed-price operating cost.

→ Read the Honan case study → Read the Archers case study

The shared starting condition

Neither outcome came from clever negotiation. Both came from the same underlying situation: an estate carrying accumulated per-site arrangements that had not been market-tested in years.

That situation has a recognisable shape:

  • Contracts signed at different times, by different people, for different sites
  • Services still being billed that nobody uses — lines to closed offices, redundant circuits, legacy features
  • Pricing set when the technology was more expensive, never revisited
  • No single view of what is being paid across the estate
  • Renewals that rolled over automatically because nobody owned the review

When that is the starting position, consolidation releases substantial cost — not because the new provider is cheap, but because the old arrangement had drifted a long way from current market pricing and current requirements.

Archers shows the second half of the pattern: once consolidated, the same or lower spend often buys dramatically more capability. A twentyfold bandwidth increase was available because the original arrangement was priced against a market that had moved on.

The counterexample that makes the pattern honest

In the same service line, Lovisa's global telephony deployment across 42 countries was cost-neutral.

Same provider, same capability, opposite financial result. The difference was the starting position: Lovisa's problem was reliability and reach across a fast-growing international footprint, not price. There was no accumulated inefficiency to release, so there was no saving to report — and the project was still a success, because cost was not the objective.

→ Read the Lovisa case study

This is the point of reading outcomes as patterns rather than benchmarks. A provider quoting Honan's 65% without first asking what you pay today, per site, and when those agreements were last tested is guessing.

Does your estate fit the pattern?

Five diagnostic questions. Three or more yes answers suggests consolidation would release material cost.

  1. Can you produce a single list of every telecommunications and connectivity service you pay for, by site, with monthly cost — within a day?
  2. When was each of those agreements last market-tested?
  3. Are you still paying for any service at a site you have closed, downsized or relocated?
  4. Do different sites pay different rates for the same service?
  5. Has anyone reconciled your carrier bills against your actual service inventory in the last two years?

If you cannot answer question 1, that is itself the finding. Most organisations in this position discover the size of the opportunity during discovery rather than before it.

What consolidation does not fix

Worth being direct, because the cost story is the easiest one to oversell.

Consolidation addresses commercial inefficiency. It does not address architectural problems — a badly designed network stays badly designed on cheaper circuits. It does not address application performance caused by the application. And it does not repeat: once an estate has been consolidated and market-tested, the next review will not find another 65%, because the accumulated slack has already been released.

That last point matters for business cases. A large first-year saving is a one-off structural correction, not an annual run rate. Budget accordingly.

→ Case Study Index — client, sector, services and outcome → Opex vs Capex — Consumption Models vs Capital Purchase → emPOWER Network and Connectivity — Managed MPLS, SD-WAN and Internet

↑ Back to top