The Collaboration Advantage - Economist Intelligence Unit

Transcription

The collaboration advantage
Customer-focused partnerships in a
global market
Sponsored by
A report from the Economist Intelligence Unit
Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2008
Customer-focused partnerships in a global market
Contents
About the survey
3
Preface
5
Executive summary
6
Transact and collaborate
Introduction
The benefits gained from collaborative networks
Time Warner and Brightcove case study
Overcoming the challenges of partnering
7
8
10
12
10
Tapping into new talent through collaboration
16
Regional differences and similarities
17
The task of technology: a common platform for people and systems
Sizing up collaboration: the approach of small to medium-sized enterprises
19
22
Conclusion
24
Appendix: Survey results
26
About the survey
Of the 516 executives responding to the survey, 33% came from Europe, 32% from Asia-Pacific, 28%
from North America and 6% from the rest of the world. Participants represented 19 different industries,
of which the top three were manufacturing, financial services and professional services. Forty-three
percent of respondents’ organisations had annual revenue greater than US$1bn and 44% had less than
US$500m in revenue. Board members and chief executive officers (CEOs) comprised 43% of respondents.
Chief financial officers (CFOs), chief technology officers (CTOs) and other C-level executives made up the
remainder of the respondent panel.
Preface
T
he collaboration advantage: customer-focused partnerships in a global market is an Economist
Intelligence Unit white paper sponsored by SAP. The Economist Intelligence Unit’s editorial team
conducted the survey and wrote the report, and the findings and views expressed do not necessarily reflect
the views of the sponsor. Shaun Young and Alan M. Brooke contributed to the report, and Debra D’Agostino
and Nigel Holloway were the editors. Danielle Noble was responsible for layout and design.
Our research was based on a survey conducted in March 2008 of more than 500 business executives
worldwide, as well as desk research and in-depth interviews with executives from around the world about
the changing nature of business relationships, and the associated challenges and opportunities. Our
thanks are due to all the survey respondents and interviewees for their time and insights.
October 2008
Executive summary
I
n the global economy, the nature of business relationships is changing rapidly. Executives at
companies of all sizes are beginning to realise the need to collaborate and partner more frequently
with suppliers, customers and alliance groups—and even competitors—to launch new products, innovate
more quickly, lower costs and improve overall customer service. The goal is to develop a network of
suppliers and corporate partners that is mutually rewarding and transcends traditional business
agreements, which were based largely on price negotiation.
As companies collaborate with one another the old transactional arrangements have become more
complex and, in some ways, more risky. Firms now share more information with their partners than
before, opening up the possibility of sensitive business data ending up in the wrong hands and creating
significant issues around trust. In addition, corporate cultures may clash, as companies extend their
business networks across different regions, management styles and languages. As a result, companies
must think very carefully about the types of partnerships that make the most business sense, and how
best to manage the development of these relationships to ensure success.
In order to better understand the opportunities, challenges, risks and rewards companies have seen
from these types of agreements, the Economist Intelligence Unit conducted a survey in March 2008,
sponsored by SAP, which asked 516 senior executives how their business relationships are evolving.
The poll focused on the factors of success, the difficulties in creating closer partnerships, the terms of
engagement and the relevance of technology. We also conducted interviews with senior executives,
academics and industry experts. The study revealed the following key points:
l Collaboration among business partners is, among other things, intended to help companies get
closer to the customer. Forty-four percent of respondents say that their collaborative relationships allow
them to share business processes and information with partners to better serve their customers. Only
22% of respondents whose top relationship is transactional in nature can claim the same benefit.
Two-thirds of respondents whose most vital business relationship is collaborative say their firms created or
strengthened partnerships with customers in the past five years. These partnerships were not only designed to
meet specific needs as they arise, but were also based on a long-term strategy to assess potential future business
opportunities. Seventy-one percent of respondents whose most important business relationship is collaborative
say that their business relationships are moderately or very successful in achieving expected results.
l Companies are embracing collaboration both to reduce costs and to enhance revenue growth.
Among the 302 respondents (59% of the total) who said their most important business relationship was
collaborative (rather than transactional), one-half are focusing on using their business ties to improve
their sales and distribution channels for their products and services.
Over the next five years, 31% of all survey respondents say that a cut in production costs will be the
main reason for improving business relationships. In addition, 27% believe that achieving a higher sales
volume will be the primary goal in improving their business partnerships.
l The biggest challenge in collaborating with business partners is building trust. One-half of all
respondents say that trusting corporate partners enough to share information is the toughest aspect of
a new business relationship, and 64% of executives agree that strengthening personal relationships is
essential in establishing trust with their business partners. The lack of trust is a particularly thorny issue
in the area of information technology (IT): less than 20% of respondents are prepared to share security
systems, process technology or software applications.
l Technology is regarded as a key enabler of business relationships. Sixty-nine percent of survey
respondents agreed that the adoption of new technologies has benefited their most important business
relationships. But only 34% of respondents have upgraded their data network, and 32% have invested
in new security systems to support their most important business relationships. This indicates that more
work needs to be done in working with IT to make systems more open to partnerships.
Transact and collaborate
The Economist Intelligence Unit survey defines transactional
relationships as agreements meant to fulfil specific, immediate
needs. Collaborative relationships, meanwhile, are defined as
partnerships created to meet mutually beneficial goals, and share
the risks and rewards of future business opportunities. Both types
of relationships serve valuable purposes for companies: the goal
of transactional relationships tends to be the continued (and
sometimes automated) execution of specific functions, such as
order replenishment or ongoing maintenance of, say, the help desk.
Collaborative relationships, meanwhile, aim to connect companies to
bring about faster innovation and create future growth opportunities.
They can evolve from transactional relationships, particularly when
companies seek ways to gain a competitive advantage in reaching
the end customer. In order to contrast the characteristics of the two
types of business relationships, the survey asked senior executives
to classify the nature of their most important business relationship
as transactional or collaborative. Fifty-nine percent (302 in all) of
the respondents describe their most important business relationship
as collaborative (called the “collaboration” group in the paper) and
41% of the surveyed executives define their most important business
relationships as transactional (the “transaction” group).
Introduction
I
t was June 2000 and AG Lafley, the newly appointed chief executive officer (CEO) of US-based consumer
goods giant, Procter & Gamble (P&G), had come to a realisation: the company could not achieve its
growth objectives by focusing on its internal capabilities and resources alone. Investments in research
and development were yielding diminishing payoffs, and the company’s stock price had plummeted
from roughly US$58 in January to US$28 in June as a result of a failed restructuring initiative that cost
the company US$1.9bn. Consequently, the US$76.5bn firm decided to abandon its “invent it ourselves”
philosophy and shifted to a more collaborative approach—a strategy corporate executives coined “Connect
+ Develop”. The new model aimed to bring the capabilities and ideas of a variety of partners—suppliers,
entrepreneurs, universities, competitors and others—together to innovate and improve products.
The strategy was a success. Today, over 50% of P&G’s products and innovation pipeline involve external
partners, according to Jeff LeRoy, the firm’s external relations manager.
For example, ConAgra, a US-based packaged foods manufacturer, recently entered into a partnership
to license P&G packaging solutions, such as wrappings and non-splatter valves on product bottles. This
agreement was one of more than a thousand deals that P&G has struck since embarking on its Connect
+ Develop strategy. “P&G views a business deal as a success if both we and our collaborator are creating
value”, says Mr LeRoy. He estimates that about US$3bn in sales for P&G’s partners is thanks in part to
intellectual property created by P&G.
For P&G these collaborative relationships go beyond short-term deals and develop into long-term
partnerships—even with competitors. For example, P&G developed an innovative plastic wrap product,
now known as Glad Press’n Seal, that became the basis of a partnership with US-based Clorox struck in
late 2002. Two years later, P&G’s contributions to the venture, including the technology behind Glad
ForceFlex trash bags, released in 2004, have helped double Glad product sales and make it Clorox’s second
billion-dollar brand.
Most companies may not be ready to collaborate with their competitors as P&G has, but they do need to
become more agile in order to take advantage of changes in the market. But this is easier said than done.
Because few companies today work entirely on their own to develop and sell their products, they have to
make their entire business network more nimble—a significant re-engineering process.
Corporate executives are beginning to realise that they need to collaborate with their suppliers,
alliance partners and customers in ways they would rarely have dreamt of ten years ago. For example,
with respect to suppliers, most companies were intent on whittling down their supplier costs in order to
save every last dime and renminbi. The supply chain was a food chain in which the strongest and fiercest
emerged on top.
Although competition is certainly tougher today, many firms have realised that the old type of supply
chain merely commoditises goods and services. When companies compete solely on cost, profit margins
are cut to the bone. To avoid this fate, firms are partnering with their customers and suppliers in ways
that create lasting value for all sides. Collaboration has become the watchword, both among and within
companies. This paper focuses on external forms of collaboration.
As companies collaborate with one another, these formerly simple, transactional arrangements have
become more intricate, complex and flexible. Firms work together now to develop new goods, services
and innovative processes. To do this, they must share information that was once held in secret, known
only to a select few employees in the company.
The benefits of this type of partnering are many and varied, but the main aim is to husband resources
more powerfully—“to help each other get better faster”, in the words of John Hagel, co-chairman of
the Deloitte LLP Center for Edge Innovation. No company has a monopoly on great ideas; each must go
outside its own four walls in search of the most highly skilled partners, enabling all to focus on what they
do best. By involving other companies in research and development, production and distribution, the
relationship becomes richer and more strategic. It enables both sides to share the gains. What was a zerosum game then becomes a positive-sum relationship that may deepen and last for decades.
There are great rewards to be gained from this kind of collaborative network, but there are also
considerable risks. Business secrets may leak out, or vital customer data may end up in the hands
of a competitor. A network of business partnerships is highly complex, requiring an alignment of
objectives among companies. Corporate cultures may be very different, as partners are likely to be
located in several parts of the world. All of these issues serve to undermine the success of collaborative
partnerships.
One way of overcoming these challenges is to make full use of a wide range of technological tools
designed to enable companies to get closer to their alliance partners, suppliers and customers. Of
course, identifying which technologies are best suited to individual cases is part of the challenge, as is
determining how partners split the cost of implementation.
Forming mutually enriching partnerships with other companies is the current task for most companies.
But it is not the end of the story. The next stage in the evolution of business networks is to include the
final consumer, along with suppliers and corporate customers, in the development of new products and
services. This will require even more sophisticated methods of collaboration that corporate planners have
only just begun to imagine.
The benefits gained from collaborative networks
A
s one of the earliest adopters of collaborative partnering, Toyota Motors Corporation (Japan) has
become the leading global car manufacturer thanks to the support of a network of loyal suppliers,
built up over decades. Toyota understands suppliers’ costs and defines a target price that discourages
unreasonable cost estimates, but also allows the supplier to enjoy reasonable returns.
Toyota demands a great deal from its component makers. Not only will Toyota thoroughly investigate potential
partners for operational strengths and weaknesses—a process that can take as long as five years from start to
finish—it also requests design inputs from each of its suppliers to integrate into detailed master production
plans. This helps the manufacturer ensure quality and monitor any problems with its process or products.
Suppliers that enter into the rigorous, long-term relationship are viewed as trusted partners—and
see significant benefits as a result. For example, the company gave large up-front payments and price
increases to its suppliers in Thailand to help them during that country’s 1997 financial crisis. Those
suppliers made similar requests to other original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), but did not receive
the same level of support.
The Toyota message has been heard in corporate boardrooms around the world. Although other firms
have been slower to act upon Toyota’s best practices, more and more companies now understand the
value of enhanced relationships with their suppliers.
The benefits of collaboration extend beyond the supply chain. Survey data reveal that firms prioritising
collaborative relationships are more likely to partner directly with corporate customers. Two-thirds
of respondents that identified their most important business relationship as collaborative created or
enhanced partnerships with their corporate customers over the last five years, compared with only 56% of
executives whose relationships are largely transactional.
Coca-Cola (US) is an example of a company that collaborates with its corporate customers. Anthony
van der Hoek, Coca-Cola’s director of strategy and business solutions, says that it partners with retailers
10
Over the next five years, what are the main objectives your company seeks in improving business relationships?
Select up to three.
(%)
Enhanced customer centricity
41
Product and/or service differentiation
35
Improved speed-to-market
34
Expansion into new geographies
31
Lower production costs
31
Enhanced market visibility/reputation
28
Higher sales volume
27
Expansion into new distribution channels
25
Lower risk profile
12
Other, please specify
like 2Wal-Mart (US) and other food service customers around the world in what he calls a “demand-driven
Don’t know
value
network”. The network helps its partners “make sure that the right product is in the right place, at
1
the right time and at the right price”.
For example, Wal-Mart analyses transaction-level data of its shoppers collected at the point of sale to
predict purchase trends for specific shopper segments, organised by retail location, product quantity and
product type. The data from the analysis are shared with suppliers over a common software platform. In
turn, Coca-Cola shares with Wal-Mart the data it collects and analyses. “We all have information sources
where we and our retail partners get knowledge and develop insights”, says Mr van der Hoek. “Taken
together, it all contributes to the flavouring of the insights that we share.”
Coca-Cola’s collaboration with Wal-Mart demonstrates how such partnerships can improve a company’s
ability to understand the end-customer’s behaviour and improve service. This is a key step toward creating a
more customer-centric organisation, the top goal of business relationships in the future, according to surveyed
executives. Specifically, when respondents were asked to share their firm’s main objective in improving their
business relationships over the next five years, 41% said the goal was to tighten their focus on the customer.
“There’s a growing awareness that success hinges on anticipating and serving unmet needs in the
marketplace”, says Mr Hagel. “The best way to do that is to get very close to the customers that are driving
the edge of performance of the products with which you’re dealing.” One way of achieving this kind of
close proximity is to form a network of relationships with companies that can open up new distribution
Does the nature of your most important business relationship allow your partner to interact with your company’s end customers?
(%)
Our partner has no access to our end customers
21
Our partner has limited visibility to our end customers
30
We share business processes and information with our partner to better serve our customers
35
We allow our partner to directly interact with our customers (eg, bring its innovations to customers)
14
11
How has IT security been handled in your most important business relationship?
(%)
We each manage our own IT security.
51
We are responsible for IT security.
38
Our partner is responsible for IT security.
11
channels or provide market intelligence. Some companies are not only using the capabilities of the
companies in their business network to serve their customers better, but are also working directly with
their partners’ customers. This trend is still emerging, but collaborative relationships are more likely to
explore this opportunity to get closer to customers. According to the survey, 18% of the “collaboration”
respondents enable the business partners in their network to have direct contact with their customers,
compared with 8% of the “transaction” respondents.
One industry that relies on flexible supply chains is apparel, where tastes are fickle and producers
must react quickly to changes in demand. An exponent of close collaboration in fashion wear is Li & Fung,
a US$11.9bn Hong Kong-based consumer goods exporter that supplies customers such as Calvin Klein
and Anne Taylor. Li & Fung has assembled a network of over 10,000 companies around the world, many
of which are in the textile industry. For a given project, Li & Fung matches specialised providers, from
sources of yarn to processors of raw materials and fabrics. Every step of the process is co-ordinated,
Mr Hagel says, “to get the product of the right quality to the right distribution centres at the right time
and the right price”.
Time Warner and Brightcove
Collaborative relationships work best when they benefit all partners
in a business network and, as such, are certainly not limited to likeminded firms, or even companies of similar sizes. Large enterprises
often benefit from the expertise and agility of smaller companies,
while mid-market firms can take advantage of their larger partner’s
customer base, brand reputation and operational efficiencies. Such is
the case for US-based Time Inc., the largest magazine publisher in the
US, and US-based Brightcove, a smaller, privately-owned Internet TV
services company.
Time relies on many business partnerships to deliver a good
customer experience at its news, lifestyle and celebrity-oriented Web
sites, according to Aiden Colie, senior vice-president, Web technology.
In order to ensure that sites such as time.com and people.com meet
consumers’ rising expectations, Time Inc. has assembled a network of
partners who contribute to their online user experience. For example,
the company partners with DoubleClick, a US-based digital marketing
solutions provider, to serve all its online advertisements, Brightcove
to provide video content management and US-based TypePad and US12
based WordPress for blog capabilities. “They provide us with technology
that would be very difficult for us to build and maintain ourselves at
a good price”, Mr Colie says. “By being able to tap into these various
partners, we’re able to provide a much richer end-user experience.”
In return, the partners benefit from the experience of working
with a leading brand, and Time Inc., which had annual revenue of
about US$5bn in 2007, helped its partners develop new products and
services for its customers. For example, Brightcove builds customised
solutions for Time but is also able to develop its core products as a
result of the partnership.
“Time comes to us with a variety of requests and requirements from
its different properties. What we develop as a result of those requests
we will roll back into our product and build offerings that will also
benefit us, because our other customers will want those things as
well”, says Eric Elia, vice-president for creative services at Brightcove.
For Time’s Mr Colie, Brightcove fits the profile of a partner in a
collaborative relationship: “What I’m looking for in any partner is the
willingness to invest time to understand our business, and meet our
management team. The partner must not only understand the types of
technical skills we’re looking for but the kinds of individuals that will
fit in very well with our organisation.”
Li & Fung has larger operating profit margins (3.4% in 2007) than most of its competitors in part
because the company has built a network of partnerships, according to Mr Hagel. “The more participants
they can mobilise and continue to add to their network, the more value they can provide to their
customers through a broader range of best-in-class capabilities”, he says.
13
Overcoming the challenges of partnering
T
he most significant obstacle in creating a collaborative partnership is building trust among the
companies involved. One-half of the respondents to the survey—the largest proportion—said that
having enough trust to be able to share information is the most challenging part of the development
of new business relationships. A lack of trust is felt particularly strongly in the area of IT. Only a small
proportion of respondents are prepared to share the following with a partner: security technology (11%),
process technology (11%) and software applications (17%).
In order to develop trust, a collaborative relationship must be an investment between partners
committed to growing the network. “The real power and value in collaborative networks is not so much
connecting to existing resources as finding ways we can push each other and help each other get better
faster”, Mr Hagel says. “To do that, I have to have real respect for the partners I’m dealing with and I have
to build genuine long-term, trust-based relationships, because if we’re going to learn, we have to trust
each other enough to share what we know.”
The simplest and most direct way of building trust is to develop a close rapport between business
partners—two-thirds of respondents said this—but it is something that cannot be hurried. “The personal
element is critical, and is always built up over time”, says Coca-Cola’s Mr van der Hoek. In the case of
larger suppliers and customers, those relationships need to be constantly renewed, thanks to a high
turnover rate in several important functions, such as vendor sales, customer analytics and procurement.
New entrants to such fields as these often want to make an impression on their bosses by trying to score
points at their counterparts’ expense. But wiser counsel must prevail. “Having the institutions behind
them, with long-standing relationships and a degree of calmness, helps the companies’ relationships over
time and helps them to continue to partner collaboratively”, Mr van der Hoek says.
To accelerate building trust, Mr Hagel suggests focusing on the future (rather than current)
capabilities of the company, and creating a structured plan by which companies can demonstrate their
14
In the last five years, what have been the most challenging aspects of developing new business relationships? Select up to three.
(%)
Developing trust to share information
50
Conflicting corporate cultures
38
Agreeing to contractual terms
36
Ambiguous process ownership responsibility
26
Different performance assessment/metrics
24
Incompatible business processes
18
Information systems incompatibility
18
Risk management issues
13
Security issues
12
Restrictive intellectual property issues
12
Mismatched accounting practices
3
2
Don’t know
2
contribution to the partnership. This involves scheduling meetings to determine how each partner
can contribute to future opportunities and creating incentives to encourage partners to achieve the
objectives. For example, Mr Hagel notes that US sports equipment company, Nike, has established regular
tutelage programmes designed to help its production partners more rapidly reach and demonstrate their
capabilities in the relationship, thus building trust across the network.
Of course, trust (or the lack of it) is not the only challenge. Conflicting corporate cultures is a key
obstacle highlighted by 38% of survey respondents. To move beyond conflicting cultures to establish
trust, almost one-half of the respondents said gaining an understanding of each other’s business is
critical for the venture.
“A key success factor in establishing a relationship with a customer is to only listen and not speak at
the first meetings in order to understand what he needs. If you have a foundation of trust you are a step
ahead”, says Michael Kirchsteiger, managing director at voestalpine Anarbeitung GmbH, a member of the
voestalpine Group, a leading Austrian steel maker with US$7.4bn in annual revenue. Mr Kirchsteiger’s
unit provides custom processing solutions for steel makers.
When voestalpine Anarbeitung approaches a potential customer, the first response of the sales
target tends to be wariness: the fear that if it hands over processing tasks to a supplier—and a
subsidiary of another steel maker no less—the operating risks will increase. With such would-be
customers Mr Kirchsteiger seeks to establish trust through personal interaction with the client and by
demonstrating his company’s record of success with other steel makers.
If he succeeds in establishing a business relationship, the initial foundation of trust is then
strengthened by close collaboration with the customer and by providing technology-supported planning
15
and inventory control. In order to understand the needs of voestalpine Anarbeitung’s customers, his firm
not only talks to the procurement officers, but also to the managers on the production line. “We are very
open with our customers as well as our suppliers, bringing them into our planning process in order to
secure an optimised process, whether for buying, producing or selling.”
By developing trusting relationships with a range of fellow partners, including raw materials suppliers,
consultants, IT companies and universities, voestalpine Anarbeitung has increased its opportunities to
reach more customers and provide services that it may not have offered in the past. “Our partners enable
us to be faster, more flexible and to employ processes that are leaner and therefore more market-driven”,
Mr Kirchsteiger says. “Our company was founded to serve customers who are willing to pay a better price
for more flexible services than a classic steel mill can provide.”
Trust is more important for collaborative relationships than transactional ones, as they require
companies to share information and processes to operate effectively. One way to establish trust in
collaborative relationships is to share in the risks and rewards of the partnership, a point borne out by the
survey. The “collaboration” group tends to shape business agreements in order to enable partners to share
in the rewards (59% of the group) and the risks (45%). For “transaction” executives, only 38% enable their
partners to share in the rewards and only 33% make them share in the risks. By contrast, the “transaction”
group of respondents tended to resort more often to penalties if services levels were not met.
Tapping into new talent through collaboration
When it comes to building strong business relationships, the survey
results reveal a clear, universal challenge: overcoming a shortage of
qualified staff. Regardless of company size, region or industry—and
irrespective of how well respondents think their companies partner
with third-party businesses—the struggle to find talented workers has
had the most significant detrimental effect on business partnerships.
In fact, more than one-half of all respondents say that the shortage
of qualified workers has affected their company’s most important
business relationships in a damaging or very damaging way.
It’s true that demand for skilled workers rises in a competitive
market, and that finding qualified workers will become more and
more challenging over the next few years. But the shortage is just as
much an opportunity as an obstacle. One of the greatest benefits of
partnering with outside firms, for example, is to tap the expertise of
a third party. When carefully planned, partnerships can be a valuable
way to gain capabilities that could not otherwise be found in-house.
As US-based Sun Microsystems founder Bill Joy once noted, “there are
always more smart people outside your company than within it”.
Naturally, small companies have a harder time gaining access to
expertise than big ones. “We don’t have the luxury of larger companies
that can hire expertise if they need it”, says Dick Dell, executive director
of the Advanced Vehicle Research Center (AVRC), a firm based in North
16
Carolina that develops alternative fuels and other advanced technologies
for the automotive industry. Instead, “we look for other organisations to
partner with, not just companies but also academic institutions”.
For example, the AVRC recently completed a design-and-build
document with plans to construct a small portable hydrogen refuelling
station, Mr Dell says. Funded by the US Department of Energy, AVRC
brought together US-based Air Products in Pennsylvania, US-based
Ford Motor Company and the North Carolina State University (NCSU)
Solar Center. “In this case, the AVRC and NCSU Solar Center were
paid researchers under the federal contract, and we gained a lot of
knowledge that will be put to use in future projects”, Mr Dell says. Ford
and Air Products donated their consulting time to the project, and
“gained some positive public relations”, he says.
“Increasingly, companies are realising that while they need to
try to attract talent to their own firm, that’s not always possible”,
says Mr Hagel. And it may not even be advisable: with unexpected
fluctuations in demand, shifting economic stability and everincreasing market pressure from competitors, “there is an increasing
premium on flexibility, being able to connect quickly to the resources
that are most advantageous at that point in time. It’s hard to do that
if all you’re relying on are the resources within your own enterprise”.
In this way, partnering with outside firms not only provides access to
expertise, but creates greater business agility as well. “The challenge
is how to connect to those people and take advantage of the
capabilities, intelligence and skills they offer.”
If the risks and rewards are shared among corporate partners, even competitors can sometimes
work together to serve the customer. According to the survey, “collaboration” executives were more
likely to partner with peers or competitors than were the “transaction” respondents. Co-operation
with competitors is particularly common in the high-tech industries. UK-based Innovation Group has
partnered directly with US-based IT giant, IBM, since 2003 to provide software solutions to insurance
carriers. The partnership has yielded more than US$250m in revenue for the participants.
In 2006 the two companies started working with other vendors to deliver customised solutions for
insurers. “We believe the next step is composite business services”, Andrew Labrot, chief technology
officer (CTO) of Innovation Group, says. “Our customers need business services that are choreographed to
support business processes, such as issuing new policies.”
The partner network consists of IBM, Innovation Group and three other competing software
companies, Kana, Chordiant and SEEC. Other vendors are called upon as needed. The partners evaluate
customer needs and then provide solutions by building software applications in co-ordination with IBM.
“No single vendor provides the needed depth in any given stage of the process, so we are assembling them
according to each customer’s specific needs,” Mr Labrot adds. Innovation Group, a firm with US$220m in
annual revenue, has enjoyed a seven-fold increase in operating profit between 2003 and 2007.
However deep the level of trust, companies will insist that their partners install strong security
systems and processes to prevent information leaking out. K. Dinesh, a co-founder of India-based Infosys
Regional differences and similarities
A review of the survey results by region reveals differences and
similarities in how geographically dispersed companies approach the
establishment of business partnerships. Most notable among the
similarities is that all regions place tremendous strategic importance
on building relationships with customers. When asked with which
entities their companies formed new or significantly enhanced
business relationships over the past five years, “customers (for
example, forming customer communities or direct-to-consumer
channels)” was the top response in North America (61%) and AsiaPacific (67%) and, at 60%, ranked only slightly behind “suppliers”
(63%) in Europe. To exploit these business relationships, companies
across the board will focus primarily on sales and distribution
channels (46%), followed by marketing (34%) and research and
development (R&D; 33%). The top goal, agree all companies, is to
enhance customer centricity (41%).
The differences lay in how these companies are focusing their
efforts to achieve a more customer-oriented business approach. In
Europe and Asia-Pacific, respondents are more likely than their North
American-based counterparts to report that their companies are
changing their organisational structure (71% and 70%, respectively)
to improve their most important business relationships. Although
this was also the top response among North American respondents,
the response was much lower, at only 43%, indicating that North
American firms are undertaking a wider variety of approaches to
strengthen their customer relationships, including elevating the role
of the relationship manager (35%) and creating new distribution
channels (33%). Meanwhile, European and Asia-Pacific firms are more
likely to consider outsourcing non-core functions as a solution than
companies in North America. However, this could merely indicate
that North American firms have already outsourced many activities,
compared with firms in other regions.
Another key difference across the regions is the approach
companies take to sharing data and processes with business
partners. In Asia-Pacific, a region that is already highly regarded
for delivering quality customer service, respondents report a higher
tendency to regard their relationships with third-party stakeholders
as partnerships (67%, compared with 57% in Europe and 52% in
North America) rather than transaction-based agreements. Asian and
European firms are also more likely to share processes and data with
partners (41% for Asia, 39% for Europe and 24% for North America)
than other regions. Finally, when asked what respondents would
emphasise in forming new relationships over the next five years,
respondents in Asia-Pacific were more likely to cite visibility and
transparency on data and processes (53%) than companies in Europe
(38%) and North America (30%).
17
and head of its Quality, Information Systems and Communication Design Group, stresses the importance
of security at his company which has US$4.2bn in annual sales: “We have a close relationship [with our
partners], but each one of us has to protect our intellectual property”, he says. “It is very important and
we honour that. One of the ways you build trust is by honouring the rights of each of the partners in their
own territory, which includes the intellectual property of each of them.”
18
The task of technology:
a common platform for people and systems
O
ne would be hard-pressed to find a company today that successfully partners with outside vendors
without the aid of some kind of collaborative tool. Indeed, nearly 70% of survey respondents agree
that the adoption of new technologies has positively affected their most important business relationships.
When it comes to creating stronger partnerships, technology is perhaps the greatest enabler.
This has certainly been the case at Locher Evers International, a Vancouver-based freight
forwarding company. Locher Evers exports and imports goods to nearly every country across the
globe, and has branch offices in London, Germany and South Korea. But its inward-facing systems
made connecting with third parties a challenge. “In response to a customer inquiry”, says Peter
Over the next five years, which of the following communications technologies will be most essential to support your most
important business relationship? Select up to three.
(%)
E-mail
63
Portals (supplier/customer)
40
Web conferencing
36
Telephone conferencing
35
Video conferencing
31
Instant messaging
21
Social networking sites
12
Wikis
8
2
Don’t know
2
19
Broerken, director and chief financial officer (CFO) of the US$254m firm, “we would say, ‘Let me send
an email or fax to my overseas agent and get back to you tomorrow’”. Because of time differences, it
could take several days to find answers. Company officials knew there had to be a better way to get
customer queries answered quickly.
In the past, Locher Evers managed its data through a private network that could only be seen by
company employees. But in January 2008 the firm launched a new platform using extensible markup
language (XML). That made it possible for Locher Evers and its partners to set basic standards and
nomenclatures for data, allowing for secure data sharing with other shipping partners over the Web. “Every
time there is a shipment milestone, we will send an XML file to our partner, and they will do something
similar”, Mr Broerken says. Most importantly, the data are updated regularly and made accessible to
customers through a Web portal. The customer response has been very positive, says Mr Broerken.
Getting business partners to change their business processes was not an easy task, Mr Broerken admits.
In the future, when considering new partners, Locher Evers will require a certain level of technological
sophistication, according to Mr Broerken. “Five years ago in some developing countries, we were just happy
if they had reliable email”, he says. “Today they now have to have better data exchange capabilities.”
Locher Evers is not the only firm to recognise the value of the Internet in co-ordinating business
operations and facilitating greater communication between business partners. When asked which IT
changes their company has made to facilitate its most important business relationships, respondents
cited a move to Web-based systems as their top response. Furthermore, 40% of surveyed executives
believe that Web portals will be essential to their most important business relationships. Not surprisingly,
email is expected to remain a critical communications tool for connecting with business partners over the
next five years, according to 63% of respondents. Web conferencing (36%) and telephone conferencing
(35%) are also expected to be key communication methods.
“Clearly, communications technologies have been the enabler of the business process outsourcing
on a global scale”, asserts Scott McKay, senior vice-president of operations and quality, and CTO of
Genworth Financial, a US-based financial services company with annual revenue over US$10bn. “Better
communications technologies help deepen relationships and make people more effective. On an
infrastructure level, as processes and tools become easier to share and integrate, the speed at which we
can improve and build global processes is getting faster.”
How fast is fast? In the rapidly evolving field of Internet television and video publishing, US-based
Brightcove has created a network of content creators and publishers to deliver plug-and-play solutions to
meet the demands of specific online audiences, says Eric Elia, vice-president for creative services. To do
this, Brightcove has developed tightly-woven relationships with its own business partners, such as Visible
Measures, a US-based provider of Internet video usage analytics, and DoubleClick, a US-based digital
marketing solutions provider. “If a customer wants to add analytics tools to Brightcove, or make use of
DoubleClick’s ad serving system, it takes us just a few minutes to have that up and running”, Mr Elia says.
Unfortunately, few companies have reached this point. Although the survey’s findings indicate
that companies are investing in technology to drive more sophisticated and intimate partnerships,
the relevant technology is rarely shared across corporate boundaries. For example, when asked
how application ownership has been handled with respect to their firm’s most important business
20
In your company, which IT capabilities do you think need to be enhanced in order to improve your most important business
relationship? Select all that apply.
(%)
Customer relationship management (CRM)
47
Business process management (BPM)
40
Business intelligence/reporting/predictive analytics
32
Enterprise resource planning (ERP)
31
Supply chain management (SCM)
31
Supplier relationship management (SRM)
27
Workflow and/or document/content management
25
IT security
25
Web portal technology
22
Service-oriented architecture (SOA)
22
Systems integration
21
Database/storage
20
Product lifecycle management (PLM)
18
Network infrastructure
17
Server technology
11
Desktop hardware
7
Desktop support/help desk
6
relationships, 61% of respondents said “we each use our own applications”. Only 17% said they use their
partner’s applications. Similarly, only 38% of respondents share business processes.
This is particularly interesting considering the importance survey respondents place on transparency.
When asked which areas they would place the greatest emphasis on when forming new relationships over
the next five years, “visibility and transparency of data and processes” was surpassed only by “personal
relationships and expectation setting” as the most critical effort. It seems clear that companies recognise
the need to be more open with their partners, but have not yet taken action.
The challenge is to share enough to optimise collaboration without undermining privacy, security
and competitive intelligence, and this is where technology can help. To address this issue, Qualcomm, a
US-based manufacturer of wireless chipsets for mobile phones and provider of wireless data services, has
created an open yet secure environment to help developers and publishers of content more easily build
applications for use on a range of mobile devices. The development programme stands at the centre of
a network of thousands of developers, from leading content publisher/developers such as Disney, Major
League Baseball and Electronic Arts to small companies and individual developers.
The company provides developers with a software platform that includes the blueprint of the microchip
technology that Qualcomm sells to 45 different mobile phone manufacturers, including US-based
21
Motorola and South Korea-based Samsung. Through the software, content developers have access only
to their specific initiative, so that mobile phone manufacturers’ competitive advantages are protected.
Qualcomm serves as a gateway for these developers to submit applications to work within telephone
networks, such as US-based Verizon or US-based Alltel, and pays each developer 80% of the revenue it
collects from network operators.
In the five years since the platform was launched, Qualcomm has paid developers over US$1bn, and
now supports approximately 80m transactions per month. Benefits are seen by all parties involved:
Qualcomm earns revenue by distributing developers’ content and applications, developers benefit from
Qualcomm’s extensive distribution network, and telephony operators satisfy consumer demand with the
applications and content they receive through the network.
Unfortunately for most companies, there is still considerable work to be done with regard to internal
IT systems before they can begin to think about connecting with external partners. When asked which
capabilities need the greatest enhancement to improve firms’ most important business relationships,
customer relationship management ranked at the top of the list, indicating a clearly understood lack
of sophistication when it comes to sharing, interpreting and acting on customer information across
the corporate landscape and between business partners. Business process management and business
intelligence also rank high, further underscoring the need for companies to think more holistically about
sharing data and processes with third-party vendors.
At the other end of the spectrum, when asked which communications technologies will be most essential
to support companies’ most important business relationships in the future, respondents were least likely to
cite instant messaging (21%), social networks (12%) and wikis (8%), indicating that most companies have
yet to understand the value of these interactive tools. Although Mr Hagel of the Deloitte LLP Center for Edge
Innovation agrees that adoption of these technologies is still at a very early stage, he believes that many of
these tools are particularly appropriate for the challenges of supporting and enhancing collaboration, and
will be formally adopted in the future. “One of the key values of business networks is not just co-ordinating
Sizing up collaboration:
the approach of small to medium-sized enterprises
Small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), like their large enterprise
counterparts, are increasingly adopting collaborative relationships
with business partners. While larger businesses have worked
collaboratively with partners for many years, smaller companies,
based on the survey findings, are increasingly forming collaborative
relationships in a network of large and small companies. Here are
some key approaches of SMEs as they join these partnerships:
l Focus of collaboration. Smaller companies are more focused on
product and service differentiation (42%) than big companies (30%),
whereas large firms are slightly more focused on customer centricity
(44%) than smaller firms (37%).
22
l Nature of collaboration. Smaller companies are more likely to
share ownership of business processes with partners. By contrast,
large companies tend to take a more formal approach to managing
relationships with business partners, holding regularly scheduled
meetings and more frequently turning to service level agreements
than their smaller counterparts.
l Adoption of new technology. Small companies see greater
opportunities arising from the adoption of new technologies: 76%
see it as beneficial or very beneficial, compared with 63% for large
companies.
l Strategic change for improving collaboration. Big and small
companies are focusing primarily on changes to their organisational
structure in order to improve relations with their most important
stakeholders. Smaller firms are more likely to seek new distribution
channels, whereas large companies are more likely to outsource noncore functions and elevate the role of the relationship manager.
routine activity”, he says, “it is connecting the right people to each other—across not just distributed
geographies but also distributed entities—to address the problem that needs to be solved”.
Some companies are beginning to see the light. In July 2008, as a result of a meeting between Sun
Microsystems executives—including Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz—and roughly 150 of Sun’s partners
from 27 countries, the computer manufacturing company launched an invitation-only social networking
platform called ExecConnect. The forum, an extension of the company’s Partner Advantage Program for
third-party software vendors, provides a secure venue where Sun’s business partners can meet to discuss
new ideas and opportunities to work with one another.
But technology alone cannot strengthen corporate partnerships, bring companies closer to their
customers, or re-engineer business processes. Ultimately, IT systems will fail unless they are fully
supported and adopted by employees and cross-functional teams. “There will never be a computer system
in the world that comes out with what the next innovative product, process or strategy needs to be”, says
Mr van der Hoek of Coca-Cola. “It will always be a human being.”
23
The collaboration advantage:
advantage
Economist Intelligence Unit 2008
Conclusion
I
t seems clear from the survey data that companies want to improve their strategic business
partnerships. When asked to reflect on the lessons learned from past business relationships, twothirds of survey respondents say that in future they will place greater emphasis on developing personal
relationships and setting expectations with business partners. Strengthening these ties is a much higher
priority than setting service level agreements (36%) or managing intellectual property rights (23%),
indicating that companies are becoming more willing to be open and collaborative with other firms.
The aim, however, is to create a collaborative network that not only includes business partners but
end-consumers as well. In doing so, companies can gain insights from all points along the value chain,
and think more creatively about how to improve products, make processes more efficient, and conceive
innovative new business approaches to deliver greater value to end-consumers.
Many forward-thinking companies, such as Disney, Apple, Nike, P&G and others, have seen great
competitive success by adopting this mode of thinking. But for most companies, this goal is still
beyond the horizon. When asked what main objectives their companies will seek in improving business
relationships over the next five years, “enhanced customer centricity” ranked highest, at 41%, followed
by product and service differentiation (35%) and improved speed to market (34%). Again, the thinking
is on the right track, but there is much work to be done before companies can reap the benefits of a truly
integrated business network.
Companies of all sizes around the world looking to re-engineer their relationships with suppliers,
customers, alliance groups, competitors and other third-party stakeholders should consider the following
action points:
l Look beyond cost control. For critical business relationships, companies must think of ways to enhance
revenue and foster innovation with their partners while simultaneously controlling costs. By sharing the rewards
and the risks of collaboration, business relationships are likely to last longer and be more valuable to both sides.
24
l Find ways to build trust. As the adage goes, trust takes a lifetime to build and just one moment to
destroy. True partnership entails a high degree of visibility and transparency between companies. To
build confidence more quickly, partners should create a plan to reveal small amounts of key information,
progressively offering more and more insights to the point where each side fully understands the others’
strengths and weaknesses.
l Build a skills network. Select partners that can provide expertise in areas that are lacking at your
company, or significantly enhance existing capabilities. At the same time, look for partners that need
your know-how, and encourage employees to assist partners in achieving mutually shared business goals.
Doing this will reinforce mutual dependency, as well as enable corporate partners to act smarter than if
they were on their own.
l Share technology. Use technology to connect people and systems to share information quickly
and securely in a more collaborative business environment. The more that technology facilitates
communication between partners, strengthening personal relationships and trust, the more valuable it
will become for business networks in delivering superior products and services to customers.
l Invest and invite. A collaborative network is a long-term process, built on investing in personal
relationships, trust and technology. The best networks are the ones that continually grow by attracting
additional business partners that have access to more markets.
25
Appendix
Survey results
Appendix: Survey results
In March 2008, the Economist Intelligence Unit conducted a global online survey of 516 senior executives
from various industries. Please note that not all answers add up to 100% because of rounding or because
respondents were able to provide multiple answers to some questions.
In the past five years, with which entities has your company formed new or significantly enhanced business relationships
(either as a paid service or as a strategic collaboration)? Select all that apply.
(% of respondents)
Customers (eg, forming customer communities or direct-to-consumer channels)
62
Suppliers
55
Consultants and specialists
40
Logistics and distribution partners
31
Individual industry competitors/ peers
28
Educational institutions
27
Industry consortia
24
Government agencies (eg, trade development agencies)
21
Design partners
16
2
Don’t know
1
26
Appendix
Survey results
In which of the following functions will your company focus on
leveraging business relationships over the next five years?
Select up to three.
(%)
Sales & distribution channels
46
Marketing
34
R&D
33
Customer service
31
Manufacturing
22
IT
19
Finance
16
Human resources
15
Risk management
15
Logistics
14
Security
6
Legal
3
2
Don’t know
1
Over the next five years, what are the main objectives your company seeks in improving business relationships?
Select up to three.
(%)
Enhanced customer centricity
41
Product and/or service differentiation
35
Improved speed-to-market
34
Expansion into new geographies
31
Lower production costs
31
Enhanced market visibility/reputation
28
Higher sales volume
27
Expansion into new distribution channels
25
Lower risk profile
12
2
Don’t know
1
27
Appendix
Survey results
How have the following trends affected your company’s most important business relationships?
Rate on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1=In a very beneficial way and 5=In a very damaging way.
(% respondents)
1 In a very beneficial way
2
3
4
5 In a very damaging way
Changing customer demands
14
43
27
13 2
Shortage of qualified staff
5
12
31
46
6
Commoditisation of products and services
5
20
46
24
5
Rapid introduction of new products and services
9
37
39
14 1
Growth in new channels/mediums for revenue
11
43
38
81
Growth of non-traditional competition
5
20
47
26
2
Increased regulatory restrictions
3
17
40
33
6
Decreased regulatory restrictions
5
23
64
71
Increased speed-to-market
11
43
32
12
2
Adoption of new technologies
49
20
22
8
Influence of offshoring or outsourcing
12
31
46
9 2
What strategic changes has your company implemented to
improve the way that it manages its most important business
relationships? Select all that apply.
(%)
Organisation structure changes
62
Outsourcing non-core functions
39
Elevating the role of the relationship manager
36
Realignment of financial incentives
33
New distribution channels
33
Acquisitions
27
Alternative financing
16
Divestures
12
2
Don’t know/Not applicable
4
What best describes how your company prepares to embark on new business relationships?
(%)
We adapt to each occasion when the need arises.
56
We typically develop ad hoc joint committees to support the relationship.
21
We have a standing organisation prepared to engage with potential partners and manage the relationship as opportunities emerge.
22
28
Appendix
Survey results
In the last five years, what have been the most challenging aspects of developing new business relationships? Select up to three.
(%)
50
38
36
26
24
18
18
13
Security issues
12
12
3
2
Don’t know
2
In five years’ time, what do you think will be the most
challenging aspects of developing new business relationships?
Select up to three
(%)
41
39
26
22
20
20
19
Security issues
19
18
18
5
2
Don’t know
3
29
Appendix
Survey results
Which description better illustrates your most important business relationship?
(%)
Our partner works in close contact with us not only as a specific need arises, but in a strategic collaboration to assess potential opportunities.
59
Our partner is more of a contractor who can perform work for us according to specifications.
41
Does the nature of your most important business relationship allow your partner to interact with your company’s end customers?
(%)
Our partner has no access to our end customers
21
Our partner has limited visibility to our end customers
30
We share business processes and information with our partner to better serve our customers
35
We allow our partner to directly interact with our customers (eg, bring its innovations to customers)
14
What incentives, beyond payment and contract renewal, does your company offer to ensure effective performance within your
most important business relationship? Select all that apply.
(%)
We structure the agreement so that our partner shares significantly in the rewards of a successful engagement
50
We participate in joint process improvement efforts with our partner
50
We structure the agreement so that our partner shares significantly in the risks
40
We perform reference and marketing activities on behalf of our key partner to help them grow
27
We levy penalties for failure to meet service levels
20
2
Don’t know
5
30
Which factors will be most essential in establishing trust in
your most important business relationship over the next five
years? Select up to three.
What best describes how your company typically addresses
performance issues in your most important business
relationship?
(%)
(%)
Appendix
Survey results
Regularly scheduled meetings
Personal relationships
37
64
Ad hoc meetings according to need
Understanding each other’s business
25
49
Informal partner discussions
Flexibility and adaptability
21
48
Appeal to service level agreements (SLAs)
Shared financial goals and rewards
10
47
Quarterly or annual supplier reviews
Frequent communications
6
27
Contract language
#
17
Cultural similarities
#
15
Shared language
#
6
Common partners
#
3
In your company, which IT capabilities do you think need to be enhanced in order to improve your most important business
(%)
Customer relationship management (CRM)
47
Business process management (BPM)
40
Business intelligence/reporting/predictive analytics
32
Enterprise resource planning (ERP)
31
Supply chain management (SCM)
31
Supplier relationship management (SRM)
27
Workflow and/or document/content management
25
IT security
25
Web portal technology
22
Service-oriented architecture (SOA)
22
Systems integration
21
Database/storage
20
Product lifecycle management (PLM)
18
Network infrastructure
17
Server technology
11
Desktop hardware
7
Desktop support/help desk
6
31
Appendix
Survey results
What changes has your company made to its core technology
environment to facilitate its most important business
(%)
Move to web-based systems
38
Network upgrade
34
Security upgrade
32
Storage upgrade
24
Establishment of common data model
24
Adoption of open standards
22
Architectural reorientation/SOA
20
Major platform change (eg, from .NET to Java)
16
3
Don’t know
12
Over the next five years, which of the following communications technologies will be most essential to support your most
important business relationship? Select up to three.
(%)
E-mail
63
Portals (supplier/customer)
40
Web conferencing
36
Telephone conferencing
35
Video conferencing
31
Instant messaging
21
Social networking sites
12
Wikis
8
2
Don’t know
2
32
Appendix
Survey results
How has IT security been handled in your most important business relationship?
(%)
We each manage our own IT security.
51
We are responsible for IT security.
38
Our partner is responsible for IT security.
11
How has application ownership been handled in your most important business relationship?
(%)
We each use our own applications.
61
Our partner uses our applications.
22
We use our partner’s applications.
17
How has process ownership been handled in your most important business relationship?
(%)
We own the relevant processes.
51
We share ownership or do not strictly demark processes.
38
Our partner owns the relevant processes.
11
On average, how successful have your company’s business
relationships been in achieving the projected results?
How would you rate your company’s ability to form effective
business relationships, compared to that of your competitors?
(%)
(%)
Much better
Very successful
12
16
Better
Moderately successful
45
51
About the same
Satisfactory
35
26
Moderately unsuccessful
Worse
7
6
Very unsuccessful
Much worse
1
1
#
#
#
#
33
Appendix
Survey results
Reflecting on the lessons of your most important business relationship, which of the following areas would you place greater
emphasis on in forming new relationships over the next five years? Select up to three.
(%)
Personal relationships and expectation setting
66
Visibility and transparency on data and processes
40
Shared financial risks and distribution of rewards (eg, profit)
37
Service level agreements
36
Communications technology
23
Management of intellectual property rights
23
Open and secure IT infrastructure
18
Shared market risk and fair distribution of non-financial rewards (eg, access to new markets and partners)
15
In which region are you personally located?
Where is your company’s headquarters located?
(%)
(%)
Asia-Pacific
North America
32
North America
36
Western Europe
28
Western Europe
33
Asia-Pacific
27
Eastern Europe
22
Eastern Europe
6
Middle East and Africa
4
3
Latin America
3
Latin America
3
2
#
#
#
34
What is your primary industry?
Where are your key partners’ operations located?
(%)
(%)
Appendix
Survey results
North America
Manufacturing
47
14
Asia-Pacific
Financial services
47
12
Western Europe
Professional services
46
11
Eastern Europe
IT and technology
13
10
Healthcare, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology
8
9
Latin America
Consumer goods
7
8
Energy and natural resources
4
#
4
#
Chemicals
Construction and real estate
#
4
Entertainment, media and publishing
4
Transportation, travel and tourism
3
Government/Public sector
3
Telecommunications
3
Automotive
3
Retailing
3
Logistics and distribution
2
Agriculture and agribusiness
2
Education
2
Aerospace/Defence
1
Which of the following best describes your title?
What are your organisation's global annual revenues in US
dollars?
(%)
(%)
Board member
10
$500m or less
44
CEO/President/Managing director
33
$500m to $1bn
13
CFO/Treasurer/Comptroller
27
$1bn to $5bn
20
CIO/Technology director
14
$5bn to $10bn
6
Other C-level executive, please specify
15
$10bn or more
17
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
35
Appendix
Survey results
What are your main functional roles? Select up to three.
(%)
General management
45
Finance
43
Strategy and business development
36
IT
20
Marketing and sales
16
Risk
12
Operations and production
10
Customer service
10
R&D
8
Human resources
7
Information and research
7
Supply-chain management
4
Legal
4
Procurement
3
Other
2
36
Whilst every effort has been taken to verify the
accuracy of this information, neither The Economist
Intelligence Unit Ltd. nor the sponsor of this report can
accept any responsibility or liability for reliance by any
person on this white paper or any of the information,
opinions or conclusions set out in the white paper.
Cover image - © Photodisc/Getty Images
LONDON
26 Red Lion Square
London
WC1R 4HQ
United Kingdom
Tel: (44.20) 7576 8000
Fax: (44.20) 7576 8476
E-mail: [email protected]
NEW YORK
111 West 57th Street
New York
NY 10019
United States
Tel: (1.212) 554 0600
Fax: (1.212) 586 1181/2
HONG KONG
6001, Central Plaza
18 Harbour Road
Wanchai
Hong Kong
Tel: (852) 2585 3888
Fax: (852) 2802 7638

The Collaboration Advantage - Economist Intelligence Unit

Transcription

Similar documents

Mathew Hall, Peter Hegedüs, Josip Maras, Marco Mori, Zoltán

FORESTRY INDABA 2010

eq power point - desmarais - ATD SF East Bay

Economic Panel Discussion 20160114

Collaborative partnerships with families

customer intelligence through new eyes through

Through a Scanner Darkly Adventures in the land of the spooks

ZUMBROTA-MAZEPPA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 2805

EQ Power Intro Powerful8 e v1_05052013