[Work_Item] Support for recognising contractual commitment events as billing records (i.e. burn-up, negotiated rates)

[ahullah]

Problem Statement

Currently we support macro (contract negotiation) and micro (ad hoc / resource or product level) commitments for the micro commitments we provide all records required to fully account for the commitment (purchase, usage, wastage) however we do not provide the same capability for macro (contractual) commitments, where we typically only account for usage (and potentially wastage) the initial purchase is not well supported.

Objective

Define a mechanism for incorporation of contractual / negotiated commitment terms to be represented as billing records

Supporting Documentation

See 616

Proposed Solution / Approach

Incorporate changes to charge type, charge category (or others?) and an appendix for specific record types to provide a way for macro commitments to be represented as a 'purchase' type record to support longer term / contractual commitment mechanisms

Epic or Theme Association

616

Stakeholders

Chris, Irena, Riley, Larry

[ahullah]

this was raised off the back of TF-3 13/12/24 --- further investigation required on impact on existing CSPs as this is concept is not well supported today

[ahullah]

NOTE: USE CASE: this allows practitioners to track their 'performance' / usage against larger scale commitments that may span multiple years to avoid financial penalties / usage true-ups

[jpradocueva]

Action Items from the Maintainers' call on December 16:

• [#666] Irena @ijurica : Prepare a high-level overview document outlining the scope, potential impact, and examples of contractual commitments.

[ijurica]

A suggestion on how to provide Contractual Commitments related information is illustrated using sample records for a couple of use case scenarios. The sample data is available in the 24.10.23 Billing Model Provider Matrix spreadsheet (see the #666: CommitmentDetails sheet).

[ijurica]

I think this work item (#666) is quite similar to the FinOps feature/requirement described in Issue #674. I believe we can address both requirements in a similar way. (In fact, I still hope that, in the end, we will be able to reuse most of the columns and concepts for both Non-negotiated Commitment-Based Discounts and Negotiated Commitment-Based Discounts. 😃)

In any case, while analyzing this work item for SaaS, it would be beneficial to also consider the Non-Negotiated Commitment-related requirement, described in #674.