Publisher Sample - MarketResearch.com: Market Research ... › product › sample-8947922.pdf ·...

Timetric

http://www.marketresearch.com/Timetric-v3917/

Publisher Sample

Phone: 800.298.5699 (US) or +1.240.747.3093 or +1.240.747.3093 (Int'l) Hours: Monday - Thursday: 5:30am - 6:30pm EST

Fridays: 5:30am - 5:30pm EST

Email: [email protected] MarketResearch.com

http://www.marketresearch.com/Timetric-v3917/

An analysis of responses from a survey of purchasing preferences and intentions of 100 mine managers, general managers, maintenance managers, procurement managers and other mine-

site and corporate decision makers

April 2015

Winning and Retaining Business in the Mining Equipment Sector in Europe and the former Soviet

Union, 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Winning and Retaining Business in the Mining Equipment Sector in Europe and the former Soviet Union, 2015 Page 2

© Timetric. This product is licensed and is not to be photocopied Published: April 2015

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Europe and the former Soviet Union have long histories in mining and a great variety in the scale of and opportunity in, the mining sectors in each country. This report incorporates survey responses from decision-makers across 23 countries, which have been grouped into five different regions: Western Europe; Southern Europe; Eastern Europe; Scandinavia and the former Soviet Union.

The largest region is the former Soviet Union, which is dominated by Russia, ahead of the Ukraine and Kazakhstan. Russia is a global leader in several products including diamonds, nickel, copper, coal, gold, tin and bauxite. Ukraine is rich in ferrous minerals with iron ore and manganese dominating mineral production and is also a large producer of coal and ilmenite. In Kazakhstan the main commodities include coal, copper, gold, iron ore, silver, uranium and zinc. Armenia is the only other country included in our survey from this region.

Within Western Europe we cover the UK, Germany, France and Spain, which collectively have 142 operating mines, according to the Mining Intelligence Center, with the largest share of these in the UK (78), followed by Spain (42), then Germany (25).

Within Scandinavia we include responses from companies in Sweden, Finland and Norway. Sweden has Europe’s largest mining industry, rich with base metals, gold and iron ore, and very large operating copper mines and zinc mines. Finland is one of Europe’s largest producers in gold, nickel, chromite, copper and zinc, with a number of mining projects in the development phase. Norway has a significant industrial minerals industry with stone, graphite, olivine and calcite, and also produces substantial levels of coal.

In Southern Europe, Turkey is best known for being a strong producer of coal and base metals. The majority of Turkey’s operating mines produce iron ore, coal, copper, gold and zinc. Greece has a number of operational mines, which mainly produce coal. Other operations in the region produces gold, lead, nickel, silver and zinc. Other countries covered in our survey were Cyprus and Macedonia.

Lastly, Eastern Europe contains some mineral rich nations represented in the survey by Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Albania and Bosnia & Herzegovina. Poland is one of Europe’s top coal and copper producers, with the majority of its operating mines producing coal. Other projects in the region cover silver, zinc, lead and nickel. Romania and Slovakia are large producers of coal, with the majority of the operating mines producing the commodity. There are a large number of exploration projects currently underway, looking at deposits of gold, lead, copper, uranium and zinc.

Between November 2014 and January 2015, Timetric surveyed general managers, mine managers, procurement managers and other decision makers involved in European mining operations, including those in the former Soviet Union. The survey primarily assessed heavy mobile equipment, although respondents were also asked about their practices and preferences in areas such as mining software, technology and maintenance.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



Overall patterns in the data revealed:

Customer priorities in supplier selection are product quality and availability of parts

Results from the survey conducted found that respondents rated ‘product quality/reliability’ as the most important factor, followed by ‘availability of replacement parts’. The third-most-important factor for respondents was ‘on-time delivery and installation of equipment’.

‘Lowest price’ and ‘breadth of supplier’s range’ were the lowest-rated factors in terms of importance.

Figure 1: Average Ratings for Key Factors When Choosing an Equipment Supplier – Highest- and Lowest-Rated Criteria, 2014/15

Source: Timetric Mining Equipment, Technology and Services Survey, H2 2014 and H1 2015 © Timetric

Suppliers perform well, but customers have lower levels of satisfaction in key areas

Respondents were asked to rate the performance of their current largest supplier for each factor: from one for very dissatisfied to 10 for very satisfied. Suppliers rated relatively well overall, particularly in terms of ‘product quality and reliability’, ‘complete service solution (lifecycle management)’ and ‘operator's feedback on operating comforts’.

Comparing the key factors in choosing a supplier (importance) against the actual performance (satisfaction) – based on the respondent’s current main supplier – the survey showed that the areas where supplier performance exceeded their importance rating were areas that they considered of lesser importance. When looking at the top four factors, performance ratings were lower than importance ratings, although were still relatively high.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Lowest price Breadth of supplier's product range

On-time delivery & installation of equipment

Availability of replacement parts

Product quality/ reliability

Ave

rage

Rat

ing

(1 V

ery

Min

or, 1

0 C

ritic

al)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



Figure 2: Average Importance Ratings vs Average Performance Rating for Main Supplier, 2014/15

Performance rating from 1 = very dissatisfied to 10 = very satisfied

Importance rating from 1 = very minor to 10 = critical Source: Timetric Mining Equipment, Technology and Services Survey, H2 2014 and H1 2015 © Timetric

Caterpillar received the highest average satisfaction ratings, followed by Atlas Copco and Sandvik

Caterpillar edged out the other manufacturers and received the highest satisfaction ratings in 9 of the 16 factors, including over half of those within the supplier attributes and capabilities, and product attributes sections. Atlas Copco received the highest average ratings in 5 factors, including factors such as ‘lowest total life costs’ and ‘product quality/reliability’. Sandvik received the highest ratings for ‘lowest price’ and for their ability to develop ‘long-term partnerships’.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Opportunity to develop a long-term partnership with the OEM

Complete service solution (e.g. life cycle management)

Lowest total life costs (i.e. Overall cost of ownership including, fuel, …

Depth of data and reporting available on the equipment's operation

Product matching to needs and level of customisation available

Energy efficiency

Lead time / speed to deliver and install equipment

Product training available

Maintenance and service costs including cost of parts

Average total operating hours of equipment

Local/on-site service & repair capabilities of the OEM

Operator's feedback on operating comforts

Company reputation and past experience




Performance Importance

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



Table 1: Highest Average Rated Supplier for Each Criterion, 2014/15

Factor Group Factor Supplier with highest average performance rating

Cost Lowest Price Sandvik

Lowest total life costs Atlas Copco

Maintenance & service costs Caterpillar

Product Attributes

Product matching to needs Caterpillar

Energy efficiency Atlas Copco

Availability of replacement parts Caterpillar

Average total operating hours Caterpillar

Depth of data available Caterpillar

Product quality/reliability Atlas Copco

Supplier Attributes and Capabilities

Breadth of supplier's product range Atlas Copco

Complete service solutions Atlas Copco

Lead time/speed to deliver equipment Caterpillar

On-time delivery of equipment Caterpillar

Product training available Caterpillar

Local/on-site service & repair Caterpillar

Long-term partnership Sandvik


Respondents were also asked to nominate leading suppliers according to equipment type. Within the heavy mobile equipment market, Caterpillar and Komatsu dominated opinion. Sandvik and Atlas Copco were the leading suppliers in the drilling market. For crushing, grinding and processing equipment requirements, Metso rated the highest amongst the respondents followed by Sandvik.

On-time delivery and a company’s account managers have a significant impact on the selection process

Respondents were asked about how their current supplier differentiated themselves from their competitors during the selection process. The most frequent differentiating factors were in relation to a company’s logistical reputation and knowledge of the company representatives, with ‘better track record/expectations of delivery on time’ being cited by 82% of respondents. It indicates the importance respondents have placed on reputation and the ability to deliver goods/services on time.

This was followed by ‘demonstrated their product was superior’, ‘better understanding of your needs’ (81% for both) and ‘better timing of contact’ (80%). This indicates the importance that company representatives can have in the generation of new business and in maintaining successful relationships with clients.

The least frequent differentiating factor was ‘better price’ with only 57% voting ‘yes’. The second- and third-least differentiating factors were ‘better payment terms’ and ‘gave more benefits for same/lower price’. While costs are a constant issue for many mining companies, results from the survey show that initial costs for equipment are not major differentiating factors.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



Figure 3: Areas Where Main Suppliers Differentiated Themselves from Their Competitors (%), 2014/15


Customers are happy with their current supplier but are open to change

In trying to understand the potential for switching manufacturers, respondents were asked if they would choose a different supplier, given the choice again, and whether they intend to switch suppliers in the next five years. It was noted that there is a strong belief amongst respondents that their choice of supplier was the correct one, with 84% of respondents agreeing they would choose the same supplier if they had the choice again. However, when asked if they would switch to a different supplier within five years, 31% expect to change.

Figure 4: If You Had the Choice Again, Would You Choose the Same Manufacturer? (%), 2014/15


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Better price

Better payment terms

Gave more benefits for same/lower price

More fuel efficient products

Better ability to build a long-term relationship

Better tendering skills

Better use of latest technologies

Better maintenance and service provision

Better timing of contact

Better understanding of your needs

Demonstrated their product was superior

Better track record/ expectations of delivery on time

yes no

Definitely yes, 41%

Probably yes, 43%

Not sure, 10%

Probably not, 6%

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



Figure 5: Do You Anticipate Switching to a Different Supplier Within the Next Five Years? (%), 2014/15


Product quality/reliability is the most identified area for improvement

The top three areas identified for improvement by respondents are ‘product quality/reliability’, ‘ability to support cost reduction/minimization’ and ‘after sales service’. These factors can be attributed to the downturn in the mining industry. Focus has shifted to reducing operating costs and improving equipment utilization. Supporting cost reduction is an area in which most companies are underperforming.

Figure 6: Areas of Improvement for Equipment Suppliers, 2014/15


Definitely yes, 4%

Probably yes, 27%

Not sure, 29%

Probably not, 26%

Definitely not, 14%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Local/on-site service/repair capabilities

Product training

Punctuality/ On time delivery

Speed of delivery/ Lead times in product availability

Ability to provide full service/ lilfe cycle management

Knowledge and capability of the local sales representatives

Availability of parts

After sales service

Ability to support cost reduction/minimisation


1st 2nd 3rd

TABLE OF CONTENTS



TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 2

2 Customer Priorities in Supplier Selection ................................................................ 12

2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 12 2.2 Key Factors when Choosing a Supplier................................................................................................. 12 2.3 Key Factors when Choosing a Supplier – By Mine Type ....................................................................... 13 2.4 Key Factors when Choosing a Supplier – By Region ............................................................................ 14 2.5 Key Factors when Choosing a Supplier – By Commodity ...................................................................... 16 2.6 Key Factors when Choosing a Supplier – By Company Size ................................................................. 17 2.7 Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 18

3 Supplier Performance and Key Success Factors .................................................... 19

3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 19 3.2 Overall Supplier Performance ............................................................................................................... 19 3.3 Satisfaction Ratings by Region ............................................................................................................. 20 3.4 Leading Suppliers by Category ............................................................................................................. 21 3.5 Benchmarking Key Suppliers ................................................................................................................ 22

3.5.1 Caterpillar ...................................................................................................................................................23 3.5.2 Atlas Copco ................................................................................................................................................25 3.5.3 Sandvik .......................................................................................................................................................27 3.5.4 Comparison of leading suppliers .................................................................................................................29 3.5.5 Overview of the remaining suppliers ............................................................................................................29

3.6 Leading Manufacturers by Equipment Type .......................................................................................... 30 3.7 How Suppliers Differentiated Themselves ............................................................................................. 32

3.7.1 Comparison of leading suppliers .................................................................................................................33

4 Customer Retention and Key Areas of Improvement .............................................. 34

4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 34 4.2 Post-Sales Satisfaction with Suppliers .................................................................................................. 34 4.3 Customer Ratings of Main Supplier Relative to Peer Group .................................................................. 36 4.4 Anticipated Switching Within the Next Five Years ................................................................................. 36 4.5 Key Areas for Product and Service Improvement .................................................................................. 38

5 Action Points and Recommendations ...................................................................... 41

6 Appendix I ................................................................................................................ 42

6.1 Selected Data Tables ............................................................................................................................ 42

7 Appendix II ............................................................................................................... 48

7.1 Survey Background ............................................................................................................................... 48 7.2 Analysis of the Survey Sample .............................................................................................................. 48 7.3 Equipment Sourced from Main Supplier ................................................................................................ 50

8 Appendix III .............................................................................................................. 51

8.1 What is This Report About? .................................................................................................................. 51 8.2 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 51

TABLE OF CONTENTS



8.3 Contact Timetric .................................................................................................................................... 51 8.4 About Timetric ....................................................................................................................................... 51 8.5 Disclaimer ............................................................................................................................................. 52

LIST OF FIGURES



LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Average Ratings for Key Factors When Choosing an Equipment Supplier – Highest- and Lowest-Rated Criteria, 2014/15 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2: Average Importance Ratings vs Average Performance Rating for Main Supplier, 2014/15 ................................. 4 Figure 3: Areas Where Main Suppliers Differentiated Themselves from Their Competitors (%), 2014/15 .......................... 6 Figure 4: If You Had the Choice Again, Would You Choose the Same Manufacturer? (%), 2014/15 ................................. 6 Figure 5: Do You Anticipate Switching to a Different Supplier Within the Next Five Years? (%), 2014/15 .......................... 7 Figure 6: Areas of Improvement for Equipment Suppliers, 2014/15 .................................................................................. 7 Figure 7: Average Ratings for Key Factors When Choosing an Equipment Supplier, 2014/15 ......................................... 13 Figure 8: Average Ratings for Key Factors When Choosing an Equipment Supplier by Mine Type, 2014/15 ................... 14 Figure 9: Average Ratings of Key Factors When Choosing an Equipment Supplier by Region, 2014/15 ......................... 15 Figure 10: Average Ratings of Key Factors When Choosing an Equipment Supplier for Precious and Base Metals, 2014/15 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 11: Average Ratings of Key Factors When Choosing an Equipment Supplier for Coal and Iron Ore, 2014/15 ...... 17 Figure 12: Ratings of Six Key Factors When Choosing an Equipment Supplier by Company Size, 2014/15 .................... 18 Figure 13: Average Importance Ratings vs. Average Performance Rating for Main Supplier, 2014/15 ............................ 20 Figure 14: Satisfaction Ratings by Region, 2014/15 ....................................................................................................... 21 Figure 15: Main Heavy Mobile Equipment Suppliers by Share of Respondents (%), 2014/15.......................................... 22 Figure 16: Caterpillar – Breakdown of Respondents by Mine Type and Mineral (%), 2014/15 ......................................... 23 Figure 17: Caterpillar – Customer Satisfaction Ratings and Average Importance Ratings, 2014/15................................. 24 Figure 18: Atlas Copco – Breakdown of Respondents by Mine Type and Mineral (%), 2014/15 ...................................... 25 Figure 19: Atlas Copco – Customer Satisfaction Ratings and Average Importance Ratings, 2014/15 .............................. 26 Figure 20: Sandvik – Breakdown of Respondents by Mine Type and Mineral (%), 2014/15 ............................................ 27 Figure 21: Sandvik – Customer Satisfaction Ratings and Average Importance Ratings, 2014/15 .................................... 28 Figure 22: Customer Satisfaction Ratings for Sandvik, Atlas Copco and Caterpillar, 2014/15 ......................................... 29 Figure 23: Leading Suppliers by Share of Respondents – Underground Equipment (%), 2014/15 ................................... 30 Figure 24: Leading Suppliers by Share of Respondents – Surface Equipment (%), 2014/15 ........................................... 31 Figure 25: Leading Suppliers by Share of Respondents – Software (%), 2014/15 ........................................................... 32 Figure 26: Areas Where Main Suppliers Differentiated Themselves from their Competitors (%), 2014/15........................ 33 Figure 27: When Choosing this Supplier, Where do you Feel They Differentiated Themselves from the Competition? (%), 2014/15 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 28: If you had the Choice Again would you Choose the Same Manufacturer? (%), 2014/15 ................................. 34 Figure 29: ‘Would you Choose the Same Manufacturer Again?’ by Region (%), 2014/15 ................................................ 35 Figure 30: ‘Would you Choose the Same Manufacturer Again?’ by Main Supplier (%), 2014/15...................................... 35 Figure 31: View of Main Mobile Mining Equipment Supplier vs Peers in the Market (%), 2014/15 ................................... 36 Figure 32: Do you Anticipate Switching to a Different Supplier within the Next Five Years? (%), 2014/15 ....................... 37 Figure 33: ‘Do you Anticipate Switching to a Different Supplier within the Next Five Years?’ by Region (%), 2014/15 ..... 37 Figure 34: Areas for Improvement for Equipment Suppliers, 2014/15 ............................................................................. 38 Figure 35: Areas for Improvement for Equipment Suppliers by Region, 2014/15 ............................................................. 39 Figure 36: Areas for Improvement for Equipment Suppliers by Commodity, 2014/15 ...................................................... 40 Figure 37: Respondent Countries, 2014/2015 ................................................................................................................ 48 Figure 38: Survey Respondents by Region (%), 2014/15 ............................................................................................... 49 Figure 39: Survey Respondents by Mine Type (%), 2014/15 .......................................................................................... 49 Figure 40: Survey Respondents by Commodity (%), 2014/15 ......................................................................................... 50 Figure 41: Equipment Supplied by Respondents’ Major Equipment Supplier by Type (%), 2014/15 ................................ 50

LIST OF TABLES



LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Highest Average Rated Supplier for Each Criterion, 2014/15 .............................................................................. 5 Table 2: Respondent Countries and Regions, 2014/15 ................................................................................................... 14 Table 3: Average Ratings for Key Factors When Choosing an Equipment Supplier, 2014/15 .......................................... 22 Table 4: Average Ratings for Key Factors When Choosing an Equipment Supplier, 2014/15 .......................................... 42 Table 5: Average Ratings for Key Factors when Choosing an Equipment Supplier by Mine Type, 2014/15 ..................... 42 Table 6: Average Importance Ratings vs. Average Performance Ratings for Main Supplier, 2014/15 .............................. 43 Table 7: Main Heavy Mobile Equipment Suppliers by Share of Respondents (%), 2014/15 ............................................. 43 Table 8: Caterpillar – Customer Satisfaction Ratings and Average Importance Ratings, 2014/15 .................................... 44 Table 9: Atlas Copco – Customer Satisfaction Ratings and Average Importance Ratings, 2014/15 ................................. 44 Table 10: Sandvik – Customer Satisfaction Ratings and Average Importance Ratings, 2014/15 ..................................... 45 Table 11: When Choosing this Supplier, Where do you Feel They Differentiated Themselves from the Competition? (%), 2014/15 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 45 Table 12: If You Had The Choice Again, Would You Choose The Same Manufacturer? (%), 2014/15 ............................ 45 Table 13: View of Main Mobile Mining Equipment Supplier vs. Peers in the Market (%), 2014/15 ................................... 46 Table 14: Do You Anticipate Switching to a Different Supplier Within the next Five Years? (%), 2014/15 ........................ 46 Table 15: Customer Satisfaction Ratings for Sandvik, Atlas Copco and Caterpillar, 2014/15........................................... 46 Table 16: Satisfaction Ratings by Region, 2014/15......................................................................................................... 47 Table 17: ‘Do you Anticipate Switching to a Different Supplier within the Next Five Years?’ by Region (%), 2014/15....... 47 Table 18: ‘Would you Choose the Same Manufacturer Again?’ by Region (%), 2014/15 ................................................ 47

CUSTOMER PRIORITIES IN SUPPLIER SELECTION



2 CUSTOMER PRIORITIES IN SUPPLIER SELECTION

2.1 Introduction

This section identifies the priorities of buyers and decision-makers when purchasing heavy mobile mining equipment, by comparing 16 different factors covering pricing, products, company and services. In covering a range of respondents from different mine types, regions, commodities and roles – including procurement and mine management – variations across the market have been identified.

2.2 Key Factors when Choosing a Supplier

Respondents were asked to rate the importance of key criteria when choosing an equipment supplier on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 was of very minor importance and 10 was critical. The key findings were:

• ‘Product quality and reliability’ was clearly the highest-rated factor, followed by the ‘availability of replacement parts’ and ‘on-time delivery and installation’. These factors have consistently been rated highly in Timetric surveys by miners in other regions, such as Australia, Asia and Africa.

• ‘Company reputation and past experience’ also rated very highly amongst respondents. Together with ‘operator’s feedback on operating comforts’, these rounded out the top five factors.

• ‘Lowest price’ was rated least important, a few places below ‘lowest total life costs’. This shows that the complete lifetime cost of a machine is considered more important than the initial outlay required. Utilization rates of equipment are critical, so producers prefer to pay a premium for reliable equipment than risk that reliability for a lower price.

• ‘Breadth of supplier’s product range’ was rated as having a low importance (second to ‘lowest price’), due to specific requirements in mining equipment. Whilst suppliers such as Komatsu and Caterpillar can provide the majority of equipment as they have a sufficient product range to satisfy specific equipment requirements, customers generally do not place a significant emphasis on this.




Figure 7: Average Ratings for Key Factors When Choosing an Equipment Supplier, 2014/15


2.3 Key Factors when Choosing a Supplier – By Mine Type

Variations were discerned based on different respondent characteristics, such as the commodity mined, the type of mining and its location. When comparing respondents from underground and surface mining operations many factors had similar ratings across surface and underground respondents. The main differences occurred where underground respondents gave higher ratings than their surface counterparts for ‘breadth of supplier’s product range’, ‘product matching to needs and level of customization available’ and ‘product training available’. These factors are in line with the specialized mining equipment required in underground operations.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Lowest priceBreadth of supplier's product range

Develop a long-term partnership with the OEMComplete service solution

Lowest total life costsDepth of data and reportingProduct matching to needs

Energy efficiencyLead time/speed to deliver and install equipment

Product training availableMaintenance and service costs

Average total operating hours of equipmentLocal/on-site service & repair capabilities

Operator's feedback on operating comfortsCompany reputation and past experience

On-time delivery & installation of equipmentAvailability of replacement parts


Average Rating (1 Very Minor, 10 Critical)




Figure 8: Average Ratings for Key Factors When Choosing an Equipment Supplier by Mine Type, 2014/15


2.4 Key Factors when Choosing a Supplier – By Region

This section breaks down the respondents into five regions in Europe and the former Soviet Union (see Table 2 below).

Table 2: Respondent Countries and Regions, 2014/15


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Develop a long-term partnership with the OEMComplete service solution

Lowest total life costsDepth of data and reportingProduct matching to needs

Energy efficiencyLead time/speed to deliver and install equipment

Product training availableMaintenance and service costs

Average total operating hours of equipmentLocal/on-site service & repair capabilities

Operator's feedback on operating comfortsCompany reputation and past experience

On-time delivery & installation of equipmentAvailability of replacement parts


Average Rating (1 Very Minor, 10 Critical)

Underground Surface

Belgium Cyprus

France Greece

Germany Macedonia

Ireland Turkey

Portugal Finland

Spain Norw ay

The UK Sw eden

Albania Armenia

Bosnia and Herzegovina Kazakhstan

Poland Russia

Romania Ukraine

Slovakia

Eastern Europe

Western Europe

Southern Europe

Scandinavia

Former Soviet Union




Figure 9 outlines average ratings for all key factors when choosing an equipment supplier by region. Product quality/reliability’ scored the highest rating factor overall and the highest factor for four of the five regions. The exception was Eastern Europe where the equal highest rating factors were ‘operator’s feedback on operator comforts’ and ‘on-time delivery and installation of equipment’.

‘Product matching to needs’ had a much higher importance rating for respondents within Eastern Europe, in comparison to those respondents in Scandinavia which gave a rating more than 1.5 points lower than those from Eastern Europe. Eastern European respondents also placed a much higher importance on the ‘opportunity to develop long-term partnerships’.

Scandinavian respondents, whilst least concerned with price, rated total life costs relatively high, with this factor also relatively high amongst respondents from the former Soviet Union.

Figure 9: Average Ratings of Key Factors When Choosing an Equipment Supplier by Region, 2014/15


5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0

Lowest price

Breadth of supplier's product range

Develop a long-term partnership

Complete service solution

Lowest total life costs

Depth of data and reporting available

Product matching to needs

Energy efficiency

Lead time / speed to deliver and install equipment


Maintenance and service costs

Average total operating hours

Local/on-site service & repair capabilities






Former Soviet Union Scandinavia Southern Europe Eastern Europe Western Europe




2.5 Key Factors when Choosing a Supplier – By Commodity

This section analyses variations in responses by commodity groups, according to the following four groups:

• Base Metals • Precious Metals • Coal • Iron Ore

Figure 10 and Figure 11 below outlines the key factors for each of the four commodity groups in the survey. Whilst there are some factors that are important across all four commodities, some are specific to a single commodity.

Three of the four highest-rated factors for coal respondents are supported by the nature of extracting coal. For example, ‘average total operating hours of equipment’ is an important factor for coal respondents, and this is due to the use of continuous mining machinery deployed in coal mines. ‘Company reputation and past experiences’ was rated the same as total operating equipment hours. ‘Product matching to needs and level of customization’ was also rated highly due to the nature of the equipment required to extract coal. Equipment will need to be tailored to suit the mining specific technique used on site and for certain underground environments.

Both iron ore and coal respondents placed high importance on ‘average total operating hours of equipment’ which also connects with the other important factors nominated, ‘local/on-site service and repair capabilities of the OEM’ and ‘complete service solution (lifecycle management)’. This outlines the importance these respondents placed on maximizing equipment utilization by focusing on the supplier’s capabilities to service and repair equipment on site.

Figure 10: Average Ratings of Key Factors When Choosing an Equipment Supplier for Precious and Base Metals, 2014/15


5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0






Precious Metals Base Metals




Figure 11: Average Ratings of Key Factors When Choosing an Equipment Supplier for Coal and Iron Ore, 2014/15


2.6 Key Factors when Choosing a Supplier – By Company Size

There are four company size categories within this survey based on the revenue of the respondents’ companies. These categories are outlined below:

• Below US$100 million • Between US$100 million and US$1 billion • Between US$1-10 billion • Above US$10 billion

Once respondents were divided between their respective company sizes, the top five factors from Figure 7 featured again throughout the top factors for each company size segment. Figure 12 shows six factors with the greatest variations in importance across the different company size categories.

The largest companies earning above US$10 billion gave lower ratings of importance across four of the six factors but rated ‘energy efficiency’ as the highest factor of importance. This factor did not rate highly with the other company segments. For the companies earning between US$100 million to US$1 billion, ‘operator’s feedback on operating comforts’ featured in their top factors yet did not feature amongst other company segments.

5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0





Average total operating hours of equipment


Iron Ore Coal




Figure 12: Ratings of Six Key Factors When Choosing an Equipment Supplier by Company Size, 2014/15


2.7 Summary

When choosing a supplier, buyers focus on quality, reliability, matching equipment to specific needs, and the ability to provide parts in a timely manner. Other attributes that respondents rate highly include the supplier’s ability to provide servicing and repairs either locally or on-site. Maintenance and service costs were also mentioned.

Smaller companies in the survey were more focused on factors relating to parts and services. In contrast, the largest companies place significant importance on services provided, such as repairs, installation and lifecycle management. The largest companies also rated ‘energy efficiency’ higher, which can support cost reduction with an increasing impact as fleet sizes increase.

5 6 7 8 9

Local/on-site service & repair capabilities of the OEM


Lowest total life costs (i.e. Overall cost of ownership including, fuel, servicing, etc.)


Energy efficiency


US$10bn US$1bn-$10bn US$100m-$1bn <US$100m

SUPPLIER PERFORMANCE AND KEY SUCCESS FACTORS



3 SUPPLIER PERFORMANCE AND KEY SUCCESS FACTORS

3.1 Introduction

This section identifies how well suppliers performed in terms of meeting customer needs. Supplier performance is analyzed according to customer satisfaction, using the same criteria as in Chapter 2. Caterpillar, Atlas Copco and Sandvik were identified as the main suppliers of heavy mobile equipment by 74% of the respondents. The remaining suppliers fall into the ‘Other’ category, consisting of 14 different companies that include Joy Global, Volvo and Komatsu. The three companies are analyzed based on their performance ratings for each criterion versus the relative importance for respondents.

Ratings were only taken for a respondents’ main heavy equipment supplier. Respondents also identified who they felt were the leading manufacturers and brands for a range of different mining equipment.

This section also outlines which factors were differentiators for the decision makers when selecting the current main supplier, thereby highlighting where suppliers were able to set themselves apart from the competition and what was most significant in them winning the contract.

3.2 Overall Supplier Performance

This section analyzes the differences between the importance respondents assigned to particular criteria when choosing an equipment supplier, as well as their satisfaction with their current primary equipment supplier. Figure 13 amalgamates all responses, comparing the average in terms of both importance and supplier performance.

• Respondents were generally satisfied with their suppliers across most factors, rating each factor between 6 (moderate satisfaction) and 8 (high level of satisfaction). Satisfaction ratings were not always in line with the importance of each factor, however; that is to say, where importance was highest, the level of satisfaction was often relatively low when compared with other factors. In contrast, there were factors where satisfaction was high, but the factor was relatively unimportant, such as the ‘breadth of product range’.

• For two of the most highly-rated factors – ‘product quality/reliability’ and ‘availability of spare parts’ – there is a gap between average performance and rated importance. As seen throughout the survey, improvement is needed in these areas. ‘Product quality/reliability’ commonly had the greatest disparity between importance and performance.

• The performance/importance variation was much higher for ‘lowest price’ and ‘breadth of product range’ however these factors were the two lowest rated factors in terms of importance. Suppliers consistently performed better for these two factors than the ratings of importance given by the respondents.




Figure 13: Average Importance Ratings vs. Average Performance Rating for Main Supplier, 2014/15


Importance rating from 1 = very minor to 10 = critical


3.3 Satisfaction Ratings by Region

Figure 14 compares satisfaction ratings by region, illustrating those respondents from Eastern Europe to be the most satisfied with their main suppliers. Their suppliers were rated the highest in 7 of the 16 factors.

Suppliers in the former Soviet Union received the lowest ratings of performance in 7 of the 16 factors, with Scandinavian suppliers receiving the lowest ratings in 6 factors. These low ratings provide opportunities for new suppliers to capitalize on weaknesses such as in maintenance and service costs, product training or lowest total life and potentially take market share.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Develop a long-term partnershipComplete service solution

Lowest total life costsDepth of data and reporting available

Product matching to needsEnergy efficiency

Lead time/speed to deliver and install equipmentProduct training available

Maintenance and service costs including cost of partsAverage total operating hours

Local/on-site service & repair capabilitiesOn-time delivery & installation of equipment

Availability of replacement partsProduct quality/ reliability

Performance Importance




Figure 14: Satisfaction Ratings by Region, 2014/15



3.4 Leading Suppliers by Category

This section compares the performance ratings for each supplier, presenting the top-rated supplier for each category and is presented in Table 3.

• Caterpillar edged the other suppliers by receiving the highest average ratings in XX of the 16 factors, including ‘maintenance and service costs’, ‘availability of replacement parts’, ‘product matching to needs’ and ‘lead time/speed to deliver equipment’.

• Atlas Copco received the highest average rating for XX of the 16 factors. These included important factors such as ‘lowest total life costs’, ‘product quality and reliability’ and ‘complete service solutions’.

• Sandvik took out XX of the highest average ratings out of the 16 factors, such as ‘lowest price’ and ‘long-term partnership’.

• A further 14 companies were mentioned, including Joy Global, Volvo and Komatsu, however they lacked sufficient sample size for individual analysis.






Maintenance and service costs including cost of parts


Lead time/speed to deliver and install equipment

Energy efficiency


Depth of data and reporting available

Lowest total life costs


Develop a long-term partnership

Breadth of supplier's product range

Lowest price

5 6 7 8 9 10

Eastern Europe Western Europe Southern Europe Scandinavia Former Soviet Union




Table 3: Average Ratings for Key Factors When Choosing an Equipment Supplier, 2014/15

Factor Group Factor Supplier with highest average performance rating

Cost Lowest Price Sandvik

Lowest total life costs Atlas Copco

Maintenance & service costs Caterpillar

Product Attributes

Product matching to needs Caterpillar

Energy efficiency Atlas Copco

Availability of replacement parts Caterpillar

Average total operating hours Caterpillar

Depth of data available Caterpillar

Product quality/reliability Atlas Copco

Supplier Attributes and Capabilities

Breadth of supplier's product range Atlas Copco

Complete service solutions Atlas Copco

Lead time/speed to deliver equipment Caterpillar

On-time delivery of equipment Caterpillar

Product training available Caterpillar

Local/on-site service & repair Caterpillar

Long-term partnership Sandvik

Timetric Mining Equipment, Technology and Services Survey, H2 2014 and H1 2015 © Timetric

3.5 Benchmarking Key Suppliers

Respondents identified 17 different companies as their main suppliers of heavy mobile mining equipment. Caterpillar was identified as the dominant supplier in the region with 36% of respondents noting them as the supplier providing the majority of their equipment.

This section of the report focuses on the three main suppliers identified.

Figure 15: Main Heavy Mobile Equipment Suppliers by Share of Respondents (%), 2014/15


Caterpillar, 36%

Atlas Copco, 23%

Sandvik, 15%

Other, 26%




3.5.1 Caterpillar

Caterpillar is the world’s leading manufacturer of construction and mining equipment, diesel and natural gas engines, industrial gas turbines and diesel-electric locomotives. The company operates three divisions: Resource Industries, Construction Industries, and Power Systems – the first of which service the mining industry.

The Resource Industries division is primarily responsible for supporting customers using machinery in mine and quarry applications. Through its acquisition of Bucyrus International, Inc. (Bucyrus) in July 2011, Caterpillar is able to offer mining customers the broadest product range in the industry.

The Resource Industries product portfolio includes the following machines and related parts:

• Electric rope shovels • Draglines • Hydraulic shovels • Drills • Highwall miners • Large mining trucks • Longwall miners • Large wheel loaders • Articulated trucks

According to the survey, Caterpillar is one of the dominant suppliers of mining equipment in Europe and the former Soviet Union, supplying all mine types and mines extracting a wide range of commodities. A breakdown of the use of Caterpillar equipment is displayed in Figure 16, although this is in order to provide context and is not representative of Caterpillar’s actual market share.

Figure 16: Caterpillar – Breakdown of Respondents by Mine Type and Mineral (%), 2014/15


Base Metals22%

Precious Metals22%

Coal8%

Iron Ore20%

Other28%

Surface61%

Underground11%

Both Surface and Underground

28%




Figure 17 show the average satisfaction scores respondents given for Caterpillar for each of the 16 factors. These factors have been ordered by importance from the original pool of respondents in Figure 13, illustrating the satisfaction scores for the most important factors overall, down to the least important.

• Caterpillar received satisfaction ratings above 6.50 for all 16 factors, and received ratings higher than 7.40 for 14 of the 16 factors. In particular, Caterpillar rated highly for ‘product quality/ reliability’; ‘average total operating hours’; ‘depth of data and reporting available’ and ‘breadth of supplier’s product range’. Caterpillar has the broadest range of mining equipment in comparison to the other suppliers in the survey, due to the acquisition of Bucyrus in 2011.

Figure 17: Caterpillar – Customer Satisfaction Ratings and Average Importance Ratings, 2014/15


A further question asked respondents to score their major supplier on a scale of one to 10, where five was ‘on par’ with other equipment suppliers, one was far inferior and 10 was far superior. A further analysis of overall rakings can be found in Section 4.3. Caterpillar received an average score of nine, with the highest number of responses categorized as ‘superior’. Caterpillar received positive comments from a number of respondent relating to it being a proven and reliable supplier, such as:

• “Reliable machines, fantastic support” • “Professionals with a long working history” • “Good service and availability of parts near to mine sites” • “Comprehensive one-stop package”

Some negative feedback for Caterpillar outlined issues regarding high price and inflexibility:

• “Not willing to change their terms and they are not flexible in sales contracts and equipment development”

• “Very expensive and needs to work on cost reduction”

Product quality/ reliabilityAvailability of replacement parts

On-time delivery & installation of equipmentAverage total operating hours

Local/on-site service & repair capabilitiesMaintenance and service costs including cost of parts

Lowest total life costsLead time/speed to deliver and install equipment

Depth of data and reporting availableEnergy efficiency

Product training availableComplete service solution

Develop a long-term partnershipProduct matching to needs


5 6 7 8 9 10

Caterpillar - Average Satisfaction Rating Caterpillar - Average Importance Rating




3.5.2 Atlas Copco

Atlas Copco is a Swedish company founded in 1873. It develops and manufactures industrial tools, air compressors, construction and mining equipment. Most notably rock and assembly systems, and offers equipment rental and related services. The products are sold and rented under different brands through a worldwide sales and service network, reaching more than 180 countries, half of which are served by wholly or part-owned sales companies. The group operates through a number of divisions within four business areas: Compressor Technique, Mining and Rock Excavation Technique, Construction Technique and Industrial Technique.

Specific categories of mining equipment comprise:

• Surface rock drills • Underground roof supports • Underground drills • Underground trucks • Underground LHD.

In total, 87% of respondents who identified Atlas Copco as their main supplier had underground mining operations, and a small proportion had pure surface operations.

Figure 18: Atlas Copco – Breakdown of Respondents by Mine Type and Mineral (%), 2014/15


Base Metals44%

Precious Metals30%

Iron Ore17%

Other9%

Surface13%

Underground70%


17%




Figure 19 show the average satisfaction scores respondents gave for Atlas Copco for each of the 16 factors. These factors have been ordered by importance from the original pool of respondents in Figure 13, illustrating the satisfaction scores for the most important factors overall, down to the least important.

• Atlas Copco’s performance was quite varied across the range of factors. Highly-rated factors included ‘product quality/ reliability’; ‘breadth of supplier’s product range’; ‘average total operating hours’ and ‘complete service solution’.

• Atlas Copco received its lowest average ratings for ‘maintenance and service costs’ and ‘lowest price’, with the latter also having low importance among customers.

Figure 19: Atlas Copco – Customer Satisfaction Ratings and Average Importance Ratings, 2014/15


On the whole, Atlas Copco’s respondents were positive, especially on quality, with comments such as:

• “Equipment is good. We have good relationship with them” • “We are very satisfied” • “Atlas Copco has a very good service” • “Atlas Copco's after sales support is excellent”

Product quality/ reliabilityProduct training available

On-time delivery & installation of equipmentLowest total life costs

Energy efficiencyAvailability of replacement parts

Maintenance and service costs including cost of partsProduct matching to needs

Local/on-site service & repair capabilitiesAverage total operating hours

Complete service solutionLead time/speed to deliver and install equipment

Breadth of supplier's product rangeDepth of data and reporting available

Develop a long-term partnershipLowest price

5 6 7 8 9 10

Atlas - Average Satisfaction Rating Atlas - Average Importance Rating




3.5.3 Sandvik

Sandvik’s Mining division specializes in equipment, tools and service for the mining industry. The business is active in exploration, rock drilling, rock cutting, crushing, and loading and hauling solutions for surface and underground applications.

Sandvik’s equipment comprises:

• Drilling rigs • Rock bolters • LHDs • Continuous mining machines

Sandvik was the third-largest supplier of equipment amongst survey respondents, with 15% of respondents nominating Sandvik as their main equipment supplier. Even with its strength in underground and hard rock mining, it is surprising that only 47% of respondents who nominated Sandvik as their primary supplier were involved solely in underground mining, with 33% involved solely in surface mining. This large proportion of surface operations is attributed to the drill rigs that Sandvik manufactures for surface and hard-rock drilling.

Figure 20: Sandvik – Breakdown of Respondents by Mine Type and Mineral (%), 2014/15


Figure 21 shows the average satisfaction scores respondents gave for Sandvik for each of the 16 factors. These factors have been ordered by importance from the original pool of respondents in Figure 13, illustrating the satisfaction scores for the most important factors overall, down to the least important.

• Sandvik received high ratings for ‘opportunity to develop long-term partnerships’, ‘depth of data and reporting’, ‘complete service solution’ and ‘energy efficiency’.

• Sandvik received the lowest performance ratings for ‘maintenance and service costs’, ‘product training available’, ‘lowest price’ and ‘lowest total life costs’, which were amongst the lowest ranked in terms of importance.

Base Metals27%

Precious Metals40%

Coal6%

Iron Ore7%

Other20%

Surface33%

Underground47%


20%




Figure 21: Sandvik – Customer Satisfaction Ratings and Average Importance Ratings, 2014/15


In general, Sandvik received positive comments from its equipment users:

• “Competitive price and delivery, they are quicker than others” • “Quality equipment” • “Experience has always been good”

Product quality/ reliabilityLocal/on-site service & repair capabilities

Availability of replacement partsOn-time delivery & installation of equipment

Energy efficiencyProduct matching to needs

Average total operating hoursComplete service solution

Lead time/speed to deliver and install equipmentMaintenance and service costs including cost of parts

Develop a long-term partnershipProduct training available

Lowest total life costsBreadth of supplier's product range

Depth of data and reporting availableLowest price

5 6 7 8 9 10

Sandvik - Average Satisfaction Rating Sandvik - Average Importance Rating




3.5.4 Comparison of leading suppliers

Figure 22 below shows a graph that combines the average satisfaction ratings for all three of the main companies, Caterpillar, Atlas Copco and Sandvik, for comparison.

Figure 22: Customer Satisfaction Ratings for Sandvik, Atlas Copco and Caterpillar, 2014/15

NOTE: Factors are ranked in the same order as overall ratings of importance. Source: Timetric Mining Equipment, Technology and Services Survey, H2 2014 and H1 2015 © Timetric

3.5.5 Overview of the remaining suppliers

There were 14 other companies mentioned at the main suppliers, including Joy Global, Volvo, Komatsu, Bell Equipment, Liebherr and ThyssenKrupp. Whilst the number of responses was insufficient to show specific ratings, we have included comments provided below.

Respondent comments regarding Joy Global:

• “Excellent on site service representatives” • “Their back-up services are good”

For the Volvo Group:

• “We are satisfied, the best so far we have operated”

For Komatsu:

• “Direct line call that helps us solve our problems quickly” • “Lead time is very long”

Product quality/ reliabilityAvailability of replacement parts

On-time delivery & installation of equipmentLocal/on-site service & repair capabilities


Maintenance and service costs including cost of partsProduct training available

Lead time/speed to deliver and install equipmentEnergy efficiency

Product matching to needsDepth of data and reporting available

Lowest total life costsComplete service solution

Develop a long-term partnershipBreadth of supplier's product range

Lowest price

5 6 7 8 9 10

Caterpillar - Average Satisfaction Rating Atlas Copco - Average Satisfaction Rating Sandvik - Average Satisfaction Rating




3.6 Leading Manufacturers by Equipment Type

Respondents were asked to nominate the two leading manufacturers (first and second) for different types of mining equipment, regardless of their own main supplier. The results indicate the businesses considered the leading manufacturers for each type of equipment.

• Caterpillar dominated the following heavy equipment categories: trucks, excavators, loaders, dozers and shovels, followed by Komatsu. Volvo, Hitachi, Sandvik and Atlas Copco were the other-mentioned manufacturers, with Komatsu particularly prominent in the loaders market.

• Atlas Copco and Sandvik were most frequently nominated as the two leading suppliers in the drills market. Atlas Copco had the highest number of respondents placing them as the leading company with Sandvik having the highest number of respondents who nominated them as the second leading company. Tamrock featured in this category even though it was acquired by Sandvik in 1997.

• P&H was mentioned for excavators and shovels. P&H is a subsidiary of Joy Global Inc, but Joy Global did not feature in this section of the survey.

Figure 23: Leading Suppliers by Share of Respondents – Underground Equipment (%), 2014/15

Note – Volvo, Sandvik and Atlas Copco have been mentioned under UG Longwalls and do not make longwall systems, but make support tool systems that compliment current longwall systems and machines. Source: Timetric Mining Equipment, Technology and Services Survey, H2 2014 and H1 2015 © Timetric

Leading Company 1

Leading Company 2

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Atlas Copco

Volvo

Caterpillar

Sandvik

UG Trucks

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Volvo

Caterpillar

Atlas Copco

Sandvik

UG Loaders/LHDs

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Boart Longyear

Komatsu

Atlas Copco

Sandvik

UG Drills & Drilling Equipment

Leading Company 1 Leading Company 2

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Volvo

Eickhoff

Joy Global

Atlas Copco

Sandvik

UG Longwalls





Figure 24: Leading Suppliers by Share of Respondents – Surface Equipment (%), 2014/15


Leading Company 1

Leading Company 2

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Sandvik

Atlas Copco

Volvo

Komatsu

Caterpillar

Trucks

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

P&H

Volvo

Sandvik

Hitachi

Komatsu

Caterpillar

Excavators

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

P&H

Sandvik

Hitachi

Komatsu

Caterpillar

Shovels

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Volvo

Atlas Copco

Komatsu

Caterpillar

Dozers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Atlas Copco

Volvo

Sandvik

Komatsu

Caterpillar

Loaders

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Tamrock

Boart Longyear

Caterpillar

Sandvik

Atlas Copco

Drills & Drilling Equipment

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Mercedes-Benz

Volvo

Caterpillar

Cummins

Engines


0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Yokohama

Goodyear

Dunlop

Michelin

Bridgestone

Tyres





Figure 25: Leading Suppliers by Share of Respondents – Software (%), 2014/15


3.7 How Suppliers Differentiated Themselves

In order to understand what may have persuaded decision makers to choose their main supplier over other options, they were asked in what areas their main supplier differentiated themselves from the rest of the market during the selection process. Respondents were asked to consider a series of factors, selecting those where the supplier clearly differentiated themselves during the purchasing process. It is important to note that where the respondent said ‘no’ it does not mean it was not a factor in their choice, just that it was not a differentiating factor when choosing this supplier against others being considered.

• This section illustrates the importance of the manufacturers’ logistics systems, and the representatives they employ, with 82% of respondents citing ‘better track record/expectations of delivery on time’, followed by 81% citing ‘demonstrated their product was superior’ and ‘better understanding of your needs’, and 80% choosing ‘better timing of contact’ as the top differentiating factors when selecting their current main supplier.

• As Figure 26 demonstrates, most respondents felt that their current suppliers differentiated themselves in most factors, with more than 70% of respondents nominating their supplier differentiated themselves in eight of the 12 factors.

• Suppliers were less likely to differentiate themselves in terms of cost. The three lowest differentiating factors were all cost related, including ‘gave more benefits for same/lower price’, ‘better payment terms’ and the lowest was for ‘better price’.

• Suppliers with reputations for high prices were less likely to differentiate themselves on ‘price’, with Caterpillar, for example, having a lower average share of respondents nominating ‘better price’ as a factor.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Datamine

MineSight

Deswik

Vulcan

Surpac

Software





Figure 26: Areas Where Main Suppliers Differentiated Themselves from their Competitors (%), 2014/15


3.7.1 Comparison of leading suppliers

Figure 27 below outlines the comparison of the three main suppliers. The differentiating factors on the left are organized in order from the original ranking in Figure 26. It interesting to note that Atlas Copco differentiated itself the most, in 8 of the 12 factors, including 4 that were chosen by over 90% of respondents.

Figure 27: When Choosing this Supplier, Where do you Feel They Differentiated Themselves from the Competition? (%), 2014/15


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Better price












Yes No












Better price

30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Percentage of Respondents who chose 'YES'

Caterpillar Atlas Copco Sandvik

CUSTOMER RETENTION AND KEY AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT



4 CUSTOMER RETENTION AND KEY AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT

4.1 Introduction

This section explores buyer’s retrospective views on their choice of supplier, their switching likelihood and views on key areas for improvement.

4.2 Post-Sales Satisfaction with Suppliers

Respondents were asked whether they would select the same manufacturer if they were given the choice again.

Overall, respondents were happy with their choices. In total, 84% responded ‘definitely yes’ or ‘probably yes’ to choosing the same manufacturer. Only 6% felt they would probably not, and no respondents cited ‘definitely not’.

Figure 28: If you had the Choice Again would you Choose the Same Manufacturer? (%), 2014/15


Definitely yes41%

Probably yes43%

Not sure10%

Probably not6%




When comparing results by region, only respondents in Southern Europe, Scandinavia and the former Soviet Union indicated that they would not choose the same manufacturer again, including 13% of respondents from Southern Europe. The most satisfied respondents are from Western Europe with 92% indicating they definitely or probably would choose the same manufacturer.

Figure 29: ‘Would you Choose the Same Manufacturer Again?’ by Region (%), 2014/15


Figure 30 shows the attitudes towards choosing the same manufacturer if the option was presented, divided amongst the three main manufacturers, Caterpillar, Atlas Copco and Sandvik. It shows that respondents generally would choose the three manufacturers again with 80% and above choosing either ‘definitely yes’ or ‘probably yes’.

Figure 30: ‘Would you Choose the Same Manufacturer Again?’ by Main Supplier (%), 2014/15


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Definitely yes Probably yes Not sure Probably not

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Definitely yes Probably yes Not sure Probably not




4.3 Customer Ratings of Main Supplier Relative to Peer Group

On a scale of one to 10, with one being far inferior, five being on par and 10 being far superior, respondents were asked to rate their main supplier relative to other mining equipment suppliers in their market. This question aims to gauge buyers’ views on how the manufacturer they chose compares to other options available, and where buyers feel there are still better options. Figure 31 groups responses given to the three suppliers, Caterpillar, Atlas Copco and Sandvik and groups responses according to one and two being ‘far inferior’, three and four being ‘inferior’, five being ‘on par’, six to eight being ‘superior’ and nine and 10 being ‘far superior’.

• The three main suppliers, Caterpillar, Atlas Copco and Sandvik, were all rated as either ‘far superior’ or ‘superior’ by more than 80% of respondents.

• Caterpillar had the highest share, of the three main suppliers, of respondents considering them to be ‘far superior’. While Sandvik had the highest share of respondents who considered them either ‘far superior’ or ‘superior’.

Figure 31: View of Main Mobile Mining Equipment Supplier vs Peers in the Market (%), 2014/15


4.4 Anticipated Switching Within the Next Five Years

Respondents were asked if they anticipate switching suppliers within the next five years. This is a typical lifecycle for the majority of mining equipment, since companies tend to depreciate equipment over five years, at that point making the decision to rebuild, replace or upgrade.

• Respondents were somewhat divided on whether they would switch suppliers within the next five years. There is a slight inclination to remain with their current suppliers, with 40% of respondents probably or definitely not switching, compared with 31% probably or definitely switching.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Far Superior Superior On Par




Figure 32: Do you Anticipate Switching to a Different Supplier within the Next Five Years? (%), 2014/15


Attitudes across the different regions on switching to a different supplier within the next five years show miners in Southern Europe most likely to switch, with 56% of respondents anticipating a move.

It is interesting to note that Southern European respondents listed ‘lead time/speed to deliver and install equipment’ and ‘on-time delivery and installation of equipment’ in the top five important factors when choosing a supplier. However, there were significant disparities when performance ratings were compared. This shows some dissatisfaction with the performance of their current supplier/manufacturers, contributing to the large share of respondents planning to make a switch. Satisfaction ratings across the factors for choosing a supplier are outlined in Figure 14.

Figure 33: ‘Do you Anticipate Switching to a Different Supplier within the Next Five Years?’ by Region (%), 2014/15


Definitely Yes4%

Probably Yes27%

Not Sure29%Probably Not

26%

Definitely Not14%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Definitely yes Probably yes Not sure Probably not Definitely not




4.5 Key Areas for Product and Service Improvement

In this section, respondents were asked to rank, in order, the top three areas where suppliers of heavy equipment need to improve. Figure 34 displays the results, showing the total number of selections by ranking.

• Overall, ‘product quality and reliability’ was by far the most frequently chosen area for improvement. Product quality and reliability is the most important factor when choosing a supplier and, although the leading suppliers were all rated highly for the quality of their products, there remains room for improvement as they each received ratings of performance lower than the associated ratings of importance.

• The ‘ability to support cost reduction/minimization’ was selected as one of the top three areas for improvement by just under half of respondents. The decline in commodity prices over the last two years has driven a greater focus on cost reduction across all aspects of mine-site operations.

• ‘After-sales service’ was ranked third. • ‘Punctuality/on-time delivery’, ‘local/on-site service/repair capabilities’ and ‘product training’ all ranked

lowest in voting combinations.

Figure 34: Areas for Improvement for Equipment Suppliers, 2014/15


Respondents were also asked if they wished to add further commentary on areas for improvement. Respondents were concerned with the energy efficiency ratings of the equipment, the ability of data capture and also the lack automation of some equipment.

In Figure 35, the results are broken down into the five main regions: Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Southern Europe, the former Soviet Union and Scandinavia.

• There are some clear similarities between respondents in Eastern, Western and Southern Europe, and Scandinavia. ‘Product quality/reliability’ features as the top factor in each of the four regions, with ‘ability to support cost reduction’ ranked second.

• Respondents from the former Soviet Union outlined different areas for improvement. As with the other regions, ‘product quality/reliability’ received the highest number of votes as the top area for improvement, however it was only equal third in terms of total votes. ‘Ability to support cost reduction’ and ‘after-sales service’ received the highest number of votes for areas of improvement.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Local/on-site service/repair capabilities

Product training

Punctuality/ On time delivery

Speed of delivery/ Lead times in product availability

Ability to provide full service/ lilfe cycle management

Knowledge and capability of the local sales representatives

Availability of parts

After sales service

Ability to support cost reduction/minimisation


1st 2nd 3rd




Figure 35: Areas for Improvement for Equipment Suppliers by Region, 2014/15


0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Punctuality/ On time deliveryLocal/on-site service/repair …

Availability of partsProduct training

After sales serviceKnowledge and capability of …

Speed of delivery/ Lead times …Ability to support cost …

Ability to provide full service/ …Product quality/ reliability

Eastern Europe

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Local/on-site service/repair …Speed of delivery/ Lead times …Ability to provide full service/ …Punctuality/ On time deliveryKnowledge and capability of …

Availabil ity of partsProduct training

After sales serviceAbility to support cost …


Western Europe

0% 20% 40% 60%

Local/on-site service/repair …Ability to provide full service/ …

Product trainingPunctuality/ On time delivery

Speed of delivery/ Lead times …Knowledge and capability of …

Availability of partsAfter sales service

Ability to support cost …Product quality/ reliability

Southern Europe

0% 20% 40% 60%

Product trainingPunctuality/ On time deliveryAbility to provide full service/ …

Speed of delivery/ Lead times …Local/on-site service/repair …

Knowledge and capability of …Availabil ity of parts

Product quality/ reliabilityAfter sales service

Ability to support cost …

Former Soviet Union

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Product trainingLocal/on-site service/repair …

After sales serviceSpeed of delivery/ Lead times …

Availabil ity of partsKnowledge and capability of …Punctuality/ On time deliveryAbility to provide full service/ …

Ability to support cost …Product quality/ reliability

Scandinavia

1st 2nd 3rd




When the results were broken down based on commodity, a similar pattern emerged throughout. ‘Product quality/reliability’ was consistently the top area for improvement. There was also seen to be a clear need to improve support for cost reduction amongst most commodity groups, although this rated relatively low for respondents producing iron ore.

Figure 36: Areas for Improvement for Equipment Suppliers by Commodity, 2014/15


0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Product trainingAbility to provide full service/ …Knowledge and capability of …Local/on-site service/repair …

Punctuality/ On time deliveryAvailability of partsAfter sales service

Speed of delivery/ Lead times …Ability to support cost …


Base Metals

0% 20% 40% 60%

Ability to provide full service/ …Local/on-site service/repair …

Punctuality/ On time deliverySpeed of delivery/ Lead times …

Product trainingAvailability of parts

Knowledge and capability of …After sales service

Product quality/ reliabilityAbility to support cost …

Precious Metals

0% 10% 20% 30%

Product trainingLocal/on-site service/repair …

Speed of delivery/ Lead times …Ability to provide full service/ …Punctuality/ On time delivery

After sales serviceKnowledge and capability of …

Availability of partsAbility to support cost …


Coal

1st 2nd 3rd

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Local/on-site service/repair …Product training

After sales serviceAvailability of parts

Ability to provide full service/ …Ability to support cost …

Speed of delivery/ Lead times …Knowledge and capability of …Punctuality/ On time delivery


Iron Ore

1st 2nd 3rd

ACTION POINTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS



5 ACTION POINTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

During the current downturn in mining around the world, suppliers will need to improve their performance across a range of factors in order to succeed in retaining and expanding their market share. Many of the suppliers that feature heavily throughout the survey are well established in the industry and are unlikely to lose a significant share of the market, however, opportunities in Europe and the former Soviet Union have arisen in areas in which customers have outlined a lack of satisfaction with their supplier.

• Whilst the large suppliers performed well in terms of product quality and reliability, respondents still feel improvements can be made in these areas. Demonstrating that their product was superior was a key areas of differentiation across the region and it is vital companies are able to provide high quality equipment if they are to succeed in this market.

• The ability to support cost reductions was outlined as very important to customers, particularly those in the former Soviet Union. Suppliers of heavy equipment should support customers to achieve cost savings whether through improved utilization, diagnostics monitoring, personnel training or energy efficiency.

• Another issue that suppliers need to address is inventory and after sales service. The availability of parts and after sales service featured amongst the main areas in need of improvement by suppliers.

Current and prospective suppliers can also improve their performance in Europe and FSU by paying particular attention to customer relationships.

• Apart from product quality and the ability to support cost minimization, companies in the survey outlined that improvements are needed in ‘after sales services’, ‘knowledge and capability of local sales representatives’ and ‘ability to provide lifecycle management’. These issues can be addressed by hiring the correct people with the right skill sets, or by improving the training provided to current employees. Suppliers can also provide the right equipment and tools to their employees, in order to improve the lifecycle management services they offer to mining companies.

APPENDIX I



6 APPENDIX I

6.1 Selected Data Tables

Table 4: Average Ratings for Key Factors When Choosing an Equipment Supplier, 2014/15 Factor Importance

Product quality/ reliability 8.74

Lowest price 6.46

Lowest total life costs 7.55

Product matching to needs 7.65

Breadth of supplier's product range 6.91

Complete service solution 7.48

Lead time/speed to deliver and install equipment 7.67

Energy efficiency 7.66

On-time delivery & installation of equipment 8.08

Product training available 7.70

Maintenance and service costs including cost of parts 7.77

Availability of replacement parts 8.13

Local/on-site service & repair capabilities 7.91

Average total operating hours 7.81

Depth of data and reporting available 7.57

Develop a long-term partnership 7.26

Company reputation and past experience 8.01

Operator's feedback on operating comforts 7.95

Note: For each rating 1 = very minor, 10 critical. Source: Timetric Mining Equipment, Technology and Services Survey, H2 2014 and H1 2015 © Timetric

Table 5: Average Ratings for Key Factors when Choosing an Equipment Supplier by Mine Type, 2014/15 Factor Surface Underground

Product quality/ reliability 8.95 8.95

Availability of replacement parts 8.20 8.22

On-time delivery & installation of equipment 8.15 8.27

Company reputation and past experience 8.02 7.95

Operator's feedback on operating comforts 7.88 7.95

Local/on-site service & repair capabilities 8.02 7.97

Average total operating hours of equipment 8.02 7.84

Maintenance and service costs 7.85 7.92

Product training available 7.80 8.05

Lead time/speed to deliver and install equipment 7.90 7.89

Energy efficiency 7.59 7.97

Product matching to needs 7.66 7.86

Depth of data and reporting 7.93 7.46

Lowest total life costs 7.39 7.54

Complete service solution 7.73 7.78

Develop a long-term partnership with the OEM 7.46 7.19

Breadth of supplier's product range 6.90 7.27

Lowest price 6.20 6.76

Note: For each rating 1 = very minor, 10 critical. Source: Timetric Mining Equipment, Technology and Services Survey, H2 2014 and H1 2015 © Timetric

APPENDIX I



Table 6: Average Importance Ratings vs. Average Performance Ratings for Main Supplier, 2014/15 Factor Importance Performance




Local/on-site service & repair capabilities 7.91 7.54

Average total operating hours 7.81 7.79

Maintenance and service costs including cost of parts 7.77 7.24


Lead time/speed to deliver and install equipment 7.67 7.44


Product matching to needs 7.65 7.64

Depth of data and reporting available 7.57 7.67

Lowest total life costs 7.55 7.16

Complete service solution 7.48 7.77

Develop a long-term partnership 7.26 7.73



Note: For each rating 1 = very dissatisfied, 10 = very satisfied. Source: Timetric Mining Equipment, Technology and Services Survey, H2 2014 and H1 2015 © Timetric

Table 7: Main Heavy Mobile Equipment Suppliers by Share of Respondents (%), 2014/15 Main OEM %

Caterpillar 36%

Atlas Copco 23%

Sandvik 15%

Other 26%


APPENDIX I



Table 8: Caterpillar – Customer Satisfaction Ratings and Average Importance Ratings, 2014/15 Factors Caterpillar - Performance Caterpillar - Importance





Local/on-site service & repair capabilities of the OEM 7.70 8.14

Maintenance and service costs including cost of parts 7.48 8.03 Lowest total life costs (i.e. Overall cost of ownership including, fuel, servicing, etc.) 6.84 7.86

Lead time / speed to deliver and install equipment 7.73 7.83

Depth of data and reporting available on the equipment's operation 7.94 7.83



Complete service solution (e.g. life cycle management) 7.73 7.39

Opportunity to develop a long-term partnership with the OEM 7.70 7.31

Product matching to needs and level of customisation available 7.70 7.28




Table 9: Atlas Copco – Customer Satisfaction Ratings and Average Importance Ratings, 2014/15 Factors Atlas - Performance Atlas - Importance



On-time delivery & installation of equipment 7.41 7.96 Lowest total life costs (i.e. Overall cost of ownership including, fuel, servicing, etc.) 7.45 7.91














APPENDIX I



Table 10: Sandvik – Customer Satisfaction Ratings and Average Importance Ratings, 2014/15 Factors Sandvik - Performance Sandvik - Importance












Product training available 6.93 7.00 Lowest total life costs (i.e. Overall cost of ownership including, fuel, servicing, etc.) 7.07 6.87





Table 11: When Choosing this Supplier, Where do you Feel They Differentiated Themselves from the Competition? (%), 2014/15

Factors Caterpillar Atlas Copco Sandvik Other

Better track record/ expectations of delivery on time 89% 87% 73% 73%

Demonstrated their product was superior 81% 96% 67% 77%

Better understanding of your needs 81% 83% 73% 85%

Better timing of contact 69% 91% 80% 85%

Better maintenance and service provision 72% 96% 80% 73%

Better use of latest technologies 75% 91% 80% 69%

Better tendering skills 81% 83% 67% 77%

Better ability to build a long-term relationship 75% 83% 87% 69%

More fuel efficient products 64% 70% 73% 69%

Gave more benefits for same/lower price 67% 87% 47% 62%

Better payment terms 47% 70% 67% 62%

Better price 42% 57% 80% 65%


Table 12: If You Had The Choice Again, Would You Choose The Same Manufacturer? (%), 2014/15 Choose again %

Definitely yes 41%

Probably yes 43%

Not sure 10%

Probably not 6%


APPENDIX I



Table 13: View of Main Mobile Mining Equipment Supplier vs. Peers in the Market (%), 2014/15

Company Far Superior Superior On Par Inferior

Caterpillar 25% 58% 17% 0%

Atlas Copco 9% 78% 13% 0%

Sandvik 13% 80% 7% 0%

Other 31% 46% 23% 0%


Table 14: Do You Anticipate Switching to a Different Supplier Within the next Five Years? (%), 2014/15 Switch Supplier %

Definitely Yes 4%

Probably Yes 27%

Not Sure 29%

Probably Not 26%

Definitely Not 14%


Table 15: Customer Satisfaction Ratings for Sandvik, Atlas Copco and Caterpillar, 2014/15

Factors

Caterpillar - Average Satisfaction Rating

Atlas Copco - Average Satisfaction Rating

Sandvik - Average Satisfaction Rating

Product quality/ reliability 8.00 8.09 7.36

Availability of replacement parts 7.61 7.57 7.29

On-time delivery & installation of equipment 7.85 7.41 7.21

Local/on-site service & repair capabilities 7.70 7.32 7.43

Average total operating hours 7.94 7.86 7.36

Maintenance and service costs including cost of parts 7.48 7.05 6.93

Product training available 7.61 7.50 6.93

Lead time/speed to deliver and install equipment 7.73 7.50 7.07

Energy efficiency 7.52 7.67 7.50

Product matching to needs 7.70 7.60 7.43

Depth of data and reporting available 7.94 7.45 7.71

Lowest total life costs 6.84 7.45 7.07

Complete service solution 7.73 7.86 7.50

Develop a long-term partnership 7.70 7.76 8.00

Breadth of supplier's product range 7.91 8.14 7.43

Lowest price 6.75 6.67 7.07


APPENDIX I



Table 16: Satisfaction Ratings by Region, 2014/15

Factors Eastern Europe

Western Europe

Southern Europe Scandinavia

Former Soviet Union

Product quality/ reliability 8.25 8.35 8.56 7.57 7.43

Availability of replacement parts 7.88 7.65 7.88 7.14 7.61

On-time delivery & installation of equipment 8.25 7.91 7.38 7.39 7.04

Local/on-site service & repair capabilities 7.88 7.96 7.53 7.35 7.22

Average total operating hours 7.75 8.09 8.13 7.50 7.57

Maintenance and service costs including cost of parts 7.88 7.50 7.87 6.26 7.35

Product training available 8.38 7.83 7.94 6.74 7.35

Lead time/speed to deliver and install equipment 8.25 7.61 7.31 7.48 7.04

Energy efficiency 8.13 7.73 7.75 7.45 7.09

Product matching to needs 7.38 8.22 7.87 7.36 7.26

Depth of data and reporting available 7.88 7.52 7.69 7.77 7.65

Lowest total life costs 7.25 7.78 7.13 6.68 6.95

Complete service solution 8.88 7.83 8.20 7.48 7.35

Develop a long-term partnership 8.38 7.57 8.00 7.52 7.70

Breadth of supplier's product range 8.25 8.17 7.93 7.87 7.61

Lowest price 6.88 7.70 6.87 6.48 6.82


Table 17: ‘Do you Anticipate Switching to a Different Supplier within the Next Five Years?’ by Region

(%), 2014/15 Regions Definitely yes Probably yes Not sure Probably not Definitely not

Eastern Europe 0% 11% 44% 44% 0%

Western Europe 0% 28% 32% 20% 20%

Southern Europe 6% 50% 6% 31% 6%

Scandinavia 8% 24% 24% 20% 24%

Former Soviet Union 4% 20% 40% 28% 8%


Table 18: ‘Would you Choose the Same Manufacturer Again?’ by Region (%), 2014/15 Region Definitely yes Probably yes Not sure Probably not

Eastern Europe 33% 33% 33% 0%

Western Europe 44% 48% 8% 0%

Southern Europe 31% 56% 0% 13%

Scandinavia 44% 32% 16% 8%

Former Soviet Union 44% 44% 4% 8%


APPENDIX II



7 APPENDIX II

7.1 Survey Background

Between November 2014 and January 2015, Timetric surveyed general managers, mine managers, procurement managers and other decision makers involved in European mining operations. The survey was conducted principally via telephone interviews, with a small number of email responses. The aim of the survey was to delve into the mining equipment, technology and services sector, and examine a range of issues such as the performance of equipment suppliers, maintenance, parts, technology and patterns.

Each respondent was asked up to 40 questions and sub-questions, with certain questions specifically for equipment purchasers.

The following sections provide a breakdown of the responses given and details the equipment provided by the main suppliers.

7.2 Analysis of the Survey Sample

• The former Soviet Union, Scandinavia and Western Europe had equally the largest shares of respondents, each accounting for 25% of the total pool.

• Some 40% of respondents were based in surface mining operations, 37% in underground and the remaining 23% at combined surface and underground mines.

Figure 37: Respondent Countries, 2014/2015

Source: Timetric Mining Equipment, Technology and Services Survey, H2 2014 & H1 2015 © Timetric

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

APPENDIX II



Figure 38: Survey Respondents by Region (%), 2014/15


Figure 39: Survey Respondents by Mine Type (%), 2014/15


• When analyzing respondents by commodity, base metals was the most common, followed by precious metals, other, coal and then iron ore.

Western EU25%

Scandinavia25%

Former Soviet Union25%

Southern EU16%

Eastern EU9%

Surface, 41%

Underground, 36%

Both surface and underground, 22%

APPENDIX II



Figure 40: Survey Respondents by Commodity (%), 2014/15


7.3 Equipment Sourced from Main Supplier

Respondents were asked to list all types of equipment obtained from their previously nominated main supplier. This question was open-ended, and respondents were neither prompted nor asked to choose from a designated list of equipment.

• Over 50% of respondents nominated trucks as the main equipment sourced from their main supplier, with loaders, excavators and drills rounding up the top four. These shows the reliance respondents have on their equipment manufacturers as they use machinery considered the backbone of many mining operations.

• The results also indicate that the bulk of a mine site’s mining equipment consists of trucks, loaders, excavators and drills, with one excavator/loader able to serve multiple trucks.

Figure 41: Equipment Supplied by Respondents’ Major Equipment Supplier by Type (%), 2014/15


Base Metals, 28%

Precious Metals, 24%Other, 22%

Coal, 14%

Iron Ore, 12%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

GradersRollers

LHDsContinuous Miners

CrushersDozers

ShovelsDrills

ExcavatorsLoadersTrucks

Percentage of Respondents

APPENDIX III



8 APPENDIX III

8.1 What is This Report About?

This report analyzes the results of a survey of 100 buyers, influencers and key users of mining equipment, technology and services in Europe. The survey was conducted between November 2014 and January 2015, with the interviews conducted over the phone and via email.

‘Wining and Retaining Business in the European and former Soviet Union Mining Equipment Sector, 2015 – A survey of key buyers and decision makers’ provides an overview of the survey results, with all responses amalgamated to ensure respondents remain anonymous.

We contacted key decisions makers by phone using CATI techniques. Almost all interviews were conducted by phone with a smaller number of cases where the respondent completed the survey online.

8.2 Methodology

Timetric’s dedicated research and analysis teams consist of experienced professionals, with an industry background in marketing, market research, consulting and advanced statistical expertise.

Timetric adheres to the Codes of Practice of the Market Research Society (www.mrs.org.uk) and the Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals (www.scip.org).

The majority of interviews were conducted by phone using CATI techniques, with a small number completed by respondents online.

All Timetric databases are continuously updated and revised.

8.3 Contact Timetric

If you have any queries about this report, or would like any further information, please contact [email protected].

8.4 About Timetric

Timetric is a leading provider of online data, analysis and advisory services, covering construction, mining, financial services and travel and tourism. It provides integrated information services covering risk assessments, forecasts, industry analysis, market intelligence, news and comment.

Timetric provides:

• High-quality data including proprietary, specialized industry data, survey-based research, social media monitoring, macroeconomic data and forecasts.

• Expert analysis from experienced economists and analysts, who use robust proprietary models, indices and forecasts.

• Powerful proprietary visualization and workflow technologies developed over years of extensive investment.

APPENDIX III



Timetric has office locations in London, New York, San Francisco, Hyderabad, Seoul, Singapore and Sydney. It employs 500 people, including 150 analysts and economists, and 200 professional researchers.

8.5 Disclaimer

All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher, Timetric.

The facts of this report are believed to be correct at the time of publication but cannot be guaranteed. Please note that the findings, conclusions and recommendations that Timetric delivers will be based on information gathered in good faith from both primary and secondary sources, whose accuracy Timetric is not always in a position to guarantee. Timetric will accept no liability, whatsoever, for actions taken based on any information that may subsequently prove to be incorrect.

Publisher Sample - MarketResearch.com: Market Research ... › product › sample-8947922.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of Publisher Sample - MarketResearch.com: Market Research ... › product › sample-8947922.pdf ·...