Anonymized engagement summary: Power BI governance strategy, delivery model and security standards for a global insurer (2020)
Contracted — countersigned, with client purchase order (EPC-reported; documents private)First-pass editionA global insurer (client not named) · 2020 · Project ID EPC-2020-ANON-INS-PBIGOV
Last updated by Errin O'Connor, Founder & Chief AI Architect, EPC Group
Opening answer. In November 2020 a global insurer's SVP of Global Data Analytics executed a statement of services with EPC Group to develop a Power BI governance strategy. It was executed under a professional services agreement signed the month before and backed by a purchase order. The insurer had already adopted Power BI company-wide. The engagement covered:
- discovery across user groups and the existing tenant
- a findings report that recommends a delivery model (business-led, IT-managed or blended self-service)
- data-access security standards, ownership of business content and the features to enable
- a governance model for people, process and technology
- train-the-trainer sessions for the insurer's Power BI champions
The term ran from early November to the end of December 2020.
Disclosure. This is an EPC-reported anonymized engagement summary. The client is not named. The executed statement of services (with EPC Group's statement of work as its exhibit), the professional services agreement and the purchase order are retained privately and are not published in the Evidence Center, so this account is outside the Evidence Center's documented-engagement counts. Every engagement fact below is taken from those documents.
Verification class
Contracted — countersigned, with client purchase order (EPC-reported; documents private). The insurer's SVP of Global Data Analytics signed the statement of services electronically in November 2020; EPC Group's scope is attached as its exhibit. A purchase order and a professional services agreement dated October 2020 are on file. No acceptance record or outcome measurement is cited or claimed.
Buyer problem and scope
| Item | What the documents state |
|---|---|
| Buyer | A global insurer (client not named); its global data analytics function |
| Situation | Power BI already implemented as the company-wide analytics and BI platform; governance needed for adoption and long-term sustainability |
| Objective | A Power BI governance plan fitted to the insurer, covering people, processes and technology; a governed architecture centred on user requirements and business goals; the right services configured; customizations and integrations identified |
| Discovery | Requirements from user groups and stakeholders; an as-is review of the Office 365 and Power BI tenant and licensing; data discovery of source systems; a gap and fit analysis; a training-needs assessment of key super users; envisioning workshops on components and architecture options |
| Findings and recommendations | Conflicting stakeholder expectations that risk adoption; a recommended delivery model (business-led self-service, IT-managed self-service, or blended); use cases mapped to features; which features to enable and how; prerequisite and remedial steps; ownership of business information; organizational KPIs; security standards for data sources and report content; skill gaps; existing practices to build on; publishing options across Pro, Premium and Embedded |
| Enablement | On-the-job knowledge transfer; train-the-trainer sessions for identified Power BI champions and super users; post-delivery support |
| Term | Early November to December 31, 2020 |
Unknowns, not stated in the documents cited: user counts, the delivery model chosen, and any measured change in adoption.
Approach and artifacts
Decide who builds before deciding what to build. The findings report puts the delivery model on the table explicitly: business-led self-service, IT-managed self-service or a blend. It names the stakeholder conflicts that would undermine whichever is chosen.
Make ownership and security explicit. Ownership of business information is clarified alongside security standards for data sources and report content.
Build on what already works. Existing governance practices and successes are identified as part of the findings.
Documents (dated, held privately):
| Document | Date |
|---|---|
| Professional services agreement | October 2020 |
| Statement of services with EPC Group's statement of work as its exhibit (executed by the SVP of Global Data Analytics) | November 2020 |
| Client purchase order | On file |
Results and limitations
| Claim | Basis | Status |
|---|---|---|
| The insurer contracted EPC Group for a Power BI governance strategy | Executed statement of services (November 2020) and purchase order | Contracted (EPC-reported; documents private) |
| A governance plan delivered and adopted, or measured results | No document cited | Not claimed |
Provenance
- Sources: the professional services agreement (October 2020), the executed statement of services and its exhibit (November 2020) and the purchase order, held privately. Engagement ID: EPC-2020-ANON-INS-PBIGOV, an alias unrelated to the client's name.
- Anonymization: industry and organization scope only, under EPC Group's anonymized-case rule; the insurer's name, location, staff names and commercial terms are not published.
- Not claimed: client endorsement, delivery, or any measured result.
- Author: Errin O'Connor, Founder & Chief AI Architect, EPC Group, who signed the statement of services for EPC Group.
Revision history
- 2026-10-25: anonymized engagement summary published from the engagement's executed statement of services.
Related service
Power BI governance and centre of excellence · Power BI consulting · Talk to a senior architect
Author: Errin O'Connor, Founder & Chief AI Architect, EPC Group · Published: 2026-10-25.