Wohlers Report 2015 Service Provider Survey Results

Transcription

Wohlers Report 2015
Service Provider
Survey Results
July 2015
Copyright © 2015 by Wohlers Associates, Inc.
All rights reserved.
Service Provider Survey Results
July 2015
Table of Contents
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................3
Question 1. Primary Business.............................................................................................................4
Question 2. Secondary Business ........................................................................................................6
Question 3. Additive Manufacturing Services ...............................................................................8
Question 4. Direct Part Production................................................................................................ 10
Question 5. Other Services ................................................................................................................ 11
Question 6. Industries Served.......................................................................................................... 12
Question 7. Equipment Used ............................................................................................................ 13
Question 8. AM System Performance ............................................................................................ 16
Selected Comments.............................................................................................................................. 17
Summary.................................................................................................................................................. 22
Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................................... 22
COPYRIGHT © 2015
2
WOHLERS ASSOCIATES, INC.
July 2015
Introduction
Wohlers Associates sends a survey to service providers each year to help identify
trends in the additive manufacturing (AM) service industry. The results of the
survey are used in the preparation of the annual Wohlers Report. The service
provider (SP) survey is relatively short and does not require a large commitment of
time. Participation in the survey is voluntary, and participants are not required to
answer any questions that they do not feel comfortable answering. Only composite
(summary) information is published. Individual companies’ responses are not made
available in the report or in any other Wohlers Associates’ publications. If any
comments from the surveys are used, they are published anonymously.
In exchange for their support, each of the participants receives this report, which
summarizes the responses to the survey. None of the companies that respond are
identified in this report, and no one outside of Wohlers Associates sees the
responses from any individual company. This report is distributed only to those
who participate in the survey.
The 2015 survey asked for information about the respondents’ experiences in the
calendar year 2014. (The 2014 survey was for 2013 calendar year.) The number of
respondents continues to increase almost every year. This year, 87 service
providers in 23 countries participated, with 38 from the U.S., eight from Germany,
five from Canada, four from Australia, three each from China, France, India, and
Italy, two each from Belgium, England, Netherlands, Spain, and Turkey, and one each
from Austria, Brazil, Denmark, Ireland, Japan, Portugal, South Africa, Sweden,
Switzerland, and Thailand.
Source: Wohlers Associates, Inc.
COPYRIGHT © 2015
3
July 2015
The survey included eight questions. The following pages summarize the responses
to each of the questions.
Question 1. Primary Business
In 2014, what was the percentage growth (or decline) in revenues at your
company from producing parts and patterns on your additive manufacturing
(AM) systems?
For 2014, 89% of service providers indicated growth in revenues in their primary
AM business. (The “primary business” consists of revenues from producing parts on
AM systems.) This follows primary revenue growth of 86% in 2013, 93% in 2012,
91% in 2011, and 83% in 2010. As shown in the following chart, more than 80% of
respondents have reported growth in each of the past five years. This data indicates
stability and vitality of the AM service industry.
As shown in the following chart, the mean (average) growth rate in primary AM
revenues rose to 33% in 2014. This increase follows two years of slight declines of
20% in 2013 and 22% in 2012. The median growth rate in the primary AM business
has been identical for the past three years at 15%. In the years 2010 and 2011, the
service industry experienced strong growth in mean and median rates. The 33%
average growth rate in the past year is impressive, and correlates closely with the
35.2% growth rate of the entire AM industry in 2014. The extremely consistent
median value over the past three years is an indicator of stability in the service
provider segment.
COPYRIGHT © 2015
4
July 2015
The next chart details the growth rate distribution of the primary business revenue
among survey respondents. Interestingly, 12% of service providers experienced
growth rates greater than 100%. Conversely, the percentage of service providers
that experienced growth rates in the three ranges between 0% and 60% declined
slightly from 81% to 73%. Only 10% of respondents experienced a decline in
primary revenue growth in 2014.
COPYRIGHT © 2015
5
July 2015
Overall, the responses to this question indicate stability for primary revenues in the
service provider sector. The industry is enjoying ongoing, steady growth.
Question 2. Secondary Business
In 2014, what was the percentage growth (or decline) in revenues at your
company from secondary work? “Secondary” includes tooling produced from
AM patterns, tooling components produced directly using AM, and molded
parts and castings from this tooling.
The percentage of service provider companies with revenue growth in the
secondary business tends to mirror the percentage of service provider companies
with revenue growth in the primary business. The following chart demonstrates this
correlation. For the fifth consecutive year, more than 90% of respondents reported
growth in secondary business revenues.
The mean growth rate in revenues for secondary services rose to 21% in 2014,
following a rise of 14% in 2013. The average growth rate was 10% in 2012, 25% in
2011, and 27% in 2010, as shown in the following chart. The median growth rate for
2014 dropped to 7% in 2014, after rising to 10% in 2013 and dropping to 5% in
2012. The median growth rate was 12% in 2011 and 11% in 2010.
COPYRIGHT © 2015
6
July 2015
These fluctuations in mean and median growth in secondary revenues reflect more
volatility in the secondary market compared to the primary market. The drops in
2007–2009 correlate closely to the global recession and the overall decline in the
AM industry. The declines in 2012 and the divergence of average and median
growth in 2014, however, are more difficult to interpret. The steep declines from the
2012 survey may be a slight statistical anomaly. The 2014 decline in median growth
may also be insignificant, since 94% of survey respondents reported growth.
Overall, the data continues to indicate that the secondary business in the service
provider industry is strong.
The following detailed chart shows the distribution of growth rates from secondary
services. In 2014, growth in secondary services again paralleled the growth in
primary services. For the second straight year, 69% of survey respondents reported
growth between 0% and 20%. The number of respondents reporting declines
remained very low. Only 6% of respondents reported negative growth in 2014,
following 5% in 2013, 6% in 2012, and 7% in 2011.
Overall, the responses to this question indicate stability for secondary revenues in
the service provider sector. However, they also indicate that the secondary market
segment is slightly more volatile and unsettled than the primary market. The wide
variety of secondary services may be the reason for this volatility.
COPYRIGHT © 2015
7
July 2015
Question 3. Additive Manufacturing Services
How do your customers use the AM parts that you provide? Please provide a
percentage for each of the nine categories listed below. If you do not have hard
data, estimate these percentages. Please do not create new categories.
The way that customers use the parts they purchase from service providers, and if
that use changes over time, is relevant to the AM industry. The following chart
shows the average responses for eight application categories. The format for this
question was changed in the 2013 survey (based on results from the 2012 calendar
year). Previously, functional models and direct part production were treated
separately. Starting with the 2013 survey, the two were combined into a single
category named “functional parts.” This change in the collected data necessitated
the creation of a new chart.
COPYRIGHT © 2015
8
July 2015
As indicated in the chart, fit and assembly prototypes and functional parts (which
includes functional prototypes) continue to be the primary applications for AM
parts. The percentages for all categories have remained fairly consistent over the
past several years.
The following chart was taken from the 2012 survey and is provided for reference
and continuity. The category “Education/research” was added in 2010, so no data is
available for previous years. Since other categories have changed over the history of
the report, results are shown for the years 2007–2011 of the survey only.
COPYRIGHT © 2015
9
July 2015
Question 4. Direct Part Production
Companies are using AM increasingly for the production of parts that go into
final products. What percentage did this segment of your business grow in
2014?
The following chart indicates that service providers have continued to experience
growth in direct part production. For 2014, average growth in direct part
production was 20.9%, following growth of 19.9% in 2013 and 16.9% in 2012.
In previous surveys, we also asked survey respondents to estimate growth in direct
part production in five and 10 years, respectively. We concluded that the results for
this part of the question were statistically inconclusive, in part due to the difficulty
in estimating growth with the effect of compounding rates. We eliminated this
portion of Question 4 in the 2014 survey, which surveyed the performance of the
service provider segment for the 2013 calendar year.
Direct part production requires an elevated level of process control, repeatability,
and quality assurance. In the 2013 service provider survey report (based on results
from the 2012 calendar year), we stated our belief that a select number of service
providers would develop this application as opportunities arise. We anticipated that
a relatively small number of service providers would move aggressively into direct
part production and work as contract manufacturers to develop reliable production
processes. We believe this scenario is occurring in the service provider segment,
although consolidation continues to skew the survey data somewhat.
We anticipate this application category will continue to grow, if only from the simple
fact that the ratio of production parts to prototypes is typically 1,000:1 or greater. In
COPYRIGHT © 2015
10
July 2015
other words, for every 1,000 end-use parts manufactured, only one prototype is
produced, although this ratio varies widely amongst products, companies, and
industries. We continue to assert that the opportunity for more commercial
production activity from AM over the coming years is immense.
Question 5. Other Services
Do you provide other services in-house? If so, please indicate which of the
following services you provide (in-house) by answering Yes or No.
Service providers offer many services in addition to parts built on additive
manufacturing systems. This mix of “other” services changes from year to year, and
this information is important to the SP segment. The following chart tracks the
categories of these other services over the past 11 years. This year’s survey results
were fairly consistent with trends from prior years, although most categories
declined slightly from 2013 levels—particularly urethane castings. This data point is
at odds with comments from some SPs who reported that demand for urethane
castings had actually increased in 2014.
Note that the “CNC Machining” category was added for 2011, so no data is available
for previous years for this category.
COPYRIGHT © 2015
11
July 2015
Somewhat surprisingly, 3D scanning and reverse engineering dropped from 61% in
2013 to 53% in 2014. Only 27% of survey respondents offered injection molding in
2014, the fourth consecutive year this percentage has dropped. Service providers
offering injection mold tooling remained at 35% in 2014. Service providers offering
metal casting dropped slightly, from 16% in 2013 to 15% in 2014.
These year-to-year changes may be partly due to the changing population of service
providers responding to the survey, rather than service providers actually dropping
these services from one year to the next.
Question 6. Industries Served
Please indicate which industries you serve and the approximate percentage of
your revenue from each. Please use the provided categories and do not create
new ones.
The following chart shows the industries served over the past 11 years. In the 2014
survey, the aerospace category jumped to 14.6% after averaging about 10% over
the previous four years. Motor vehicles and consumer products/electronics are the
two most served industries. These two industries each represent 19.8% of the total
for 2014. The medical and dental industry declined for the second consecutive year.
A category for the oil and gas industry was added in 2011, but dropped from the
2012 survey and folded back into the “Other” category.
COPYRIGHT © 2015
12
July 2015
Question 7. Equipment Used
Please indicate the AM equipment you have in-house, grouped by the
manufacturer and technology, so that we can estimate the growth in capacity.
Indicate the machines that were added last year and the total number of
machines you had in-house at the end of the year.
AM equipment manufactured by 3D Systems was the most commonly installed
equipment at the service providers that responded to the survey. Of the 1,067
cumulative systems installed, 383 (36%) were from 3D Systems. This percentage is
down from 45% in 2013 and 2012. This total includes 245 vat photopolymerization
(stereolithography), 53 plastic powder bed fusion (laser sintering), 41 binder jetting
systems, and 35 material jetting (multi-jet modeling) systems. Respondents
indicated that 309 system installations (29%) were from Stratasys, down from 33%
in 2013. In that group, 249 are FDM material extrusion systems and 60 are PolyJet
material jetting systems. EOS GmbH manufactured 228 (21%) of the systems, up
from 18% in 2013. This total is comprised of 148 EOS P polymer machines and 80
EOS M metal machines.
COPYRIGHT © 2015
13
July 2015
The “Other” category includes in-house/proprietary machines, as well as a small
number of machines from Arcam, Aspect, Concept Laser, DM3D, Envisiontec, ExOne,
Mcor, SLM Solutions, Solidscape, Voxeljet, and Xi’an Bright Laser Technologies.
The following chart shows the equipment added to survey respondents’ operations
in 2014. The systems most frequently added were from EOS, 3D Systems, and
Stratasys. Of the 206 systems added, 69 were from EOS, 54 were from 3D Systems,
and 46 were from Stratasys. In 2013, respondents added 36 EOS, 60 3D Systems,
and 55 Stratasys machines. A total of 36 EOS P polymer systems were added,
compared to only two 3D Systems polymer powder bed fusion systems.
The “Other” category includes systems from Concept Laser, Solidscape, 3D Systems’
powder bed fusion and material jetting systems, Xi’an Bright Laser Technologies, inhouse/proprietary systems, and a small quantity of other equipment.
COPYRIGHT © 2015
14
July 2015
The following chart tracks the percentage of respondents that added equipment
over the past 10 years. In 2014, 60 of the 87 survey respondents (69%) added
equipment. In 2013, 56 of the 82 survey respondents (68%) added equipment,
purchasing a total of 194 systems.
In 2009, only 22% of survey respondents added equipment. This percentage has
risen steadily over the past five years. This trend reflects the confidence and
optimism of service providers in the growth and stability of their businesses.
COPYRIGHT © 2015
15
July 2015
Question 8. AM System Performance
8a. Which AM technology is making your company the most money?
Question 8 was modified for the survey that was sent in 2014. Previously, this
question had three parts. The first part asked which system is making the most
money, and the second part asked which technology was making the most money.
We felt this was redundant, so we simplified the question. For the past two surveys,
we have only asked which technology is making the most money.
As has been the case for many years, 3D Systems’ stereolithography (SL) systems
continue to make the most money for survey respondents. Nearly one-third (31.0%)
reported SL made the most money in 2014. Polymer powder bed fusion from EOS
ranked second at 19.0%. (We did not separate EOS P systems from EOS M systems
in previous surveys.) Material extrusion (FDM) from Stratasys was third at 15.5%,
followed by the metal powder bed fusion technology from EOS (9.5%). 3D Systems’
laser sintering technology made the most money for only 2.4% of respondents in
2014, down from 7.7% in 2013. The “Other” category is comprised of inhouse/proprietary systems, binder jetting systems from ExOne and Voxeljet, and
metal powder bed fusion technologies.
8b. If you were going to expand your AM capacity, which technology would you
most likely acquire?
This question reveals which technologies the respondents see as most promising for
the future of their businesses. The following chart shows the results.
COPYRIGHT © 2015
16
July 2015
A high number of respondents said that they would acquire both the polymer and
metal powder bed fusion technologies from EOS. Just over 40% of respondents
selected one of the two EOS technologies, up from 27.8% in 2013. 3D Systems’
stereolithography (SL) and selective laser sintering (SLS) technologies were also
more popular choices in 2014. SL rose from 12.7% in 2013 to 13.7% in 2014, while
SLS rose from 6.3% in 2013 to 8.2%. Meanwhile, the Stratasys FDM technology fell
from 10.1% in 2013 to 6.8% in 2014.
In addition to the metal powder bed fusion technologies from EOS, Concept Laser,
and SLM Solutions, the “Other” section includes metal AM technologies from Arcam,
Optomec, 3D Systems, and Renishaw. Combined, these results suggest that service
providers will likely acquire metal AM systems at a higher rate than in the past.
Another trend is the diversity of responses. For the past two years of surveys,
responses to this question have covered a wider variety of available technologies. In
addition to those shown and mentioned, ExOne, Voxeljet, and 3D Systems’ multi-jet
modeling and binder jetting technologies were selected.
Selected Comments
Survey respondents are invited to include comments. The following anonymous
comments, listed at random, were selected for their relevance to the state of the
service provider segment or because they were interesting and insightful.
“2014 ended up a bit better than expected, primarily because of new AM production
parts business.”
COPYRIGHT © 2015
17
July 2015
“Production opportunities are becoming very common and were the reason for
adding two machines in 2014. We have multiple opportunities right now that would
require us to purchase multiple machines. I believe this trend is going to continue
and is ultimately our business plan—more production and less prototyping.”
“While coming from a low basis, the number of AM parts we produced for direct
manufacture applications increased exponentially, as did the number of clients
requesting budgetary pricing for future projects.”
“The continued acquisitions of service bureaus by system manufacturers has
continued to put pressure on AM pricing at a rate disproportionate to the still high
cost of new equipment. This has done two things: 1) made the investment into new
AM equipment unattractive from a business perspective, and 2) continues to fuel the
innovation of the open-source community. 3D Systems and Stratasys seem to be in a
race to near-zero profits. We continue to offer AM focused on quick-turn, local
service primarily for prototyping where profit margins are more resilient. The bulk
of our revenue has moved to design engineering services.”
“The AM market is growing at a faster pace. Indian manufacturing companies are
evolving in manufacturing of 3D printing systems in plastic material. There is a huge
demand for low-cost metal AM systems.”
“Metal AM seems to be taking off and is a likely investment for us in the near future.”
“In the past we have done a lot of Formula 1 work but 60% of the teams are
struggling … We see demand from this sector decreasing. In the last year we have
seen more companies looking to AM to create tooling and direct parts and I believe
their interest in this has been ignited by all the media coverage of the cheap 3D
printers. A lot of the big manufacturing companies are saying to their Tier One
suppliers, ‘You must have an AM strategy and demonstrate how you are utilizing it.’
The biggest interest is in metal sintering but people are afraid to jump in and buy a
machine. Unlike SLA, SLS, and FDM, the metal sintering companies are setting much
more realistic expectations and it is making large companies wary of buying
machines.”
“2014 was about 5% down from 2013, but business is skyrocketing. I would not be
surprised to see 20% increase in sales in 2015. We just completed a 16,000-ft2
expansion, doubling our production space. And we plan to add more CNC machines,
injection-molding machines, and possibly more SLA. We are also adding personnel.
Most our new business is in aerospace.”
“2014 was not a steady year, with a lot of ups and downs.”
“2014 was Phase 1 of a five-year plan for additive. In 2015, we will see 2–3 more
EOS M 290 machines plus one EOS P 760. Over five years we expect to have 15–20
COPYRIGHT © 2015
18
July 2015
DMLS systems and 5+ SLS, 2 FDM, and 1 SLA system. In addition, we will have over
20 high-end CNC systems.”
“Looks like the trend I noted in 2011 is continuing after a blip in 2012: we continue
to see a decline in AM sales as our customers embrace the consumer-grade printers
and lower-priced industrial printers. We see much more demand for short-run
production parts (urethanes) than we do for traditional AM prototypes. We do see
customers come back to us after a year or so of buying their own equipment but
their purchasing patterns are different. They use us much less for iterative
prototyping and more for show models and multiples used in marketing-type
applications.”
“We believe our rapid prototyping business declined because customers added
capabilities in-house and reduced outsource business.”
“We added a [3D Systems] ProX 300 in May 2014. We are still having issues and 3D
Systems is attempting to make upgrades. 3D Systems is actually going to replace our
machine in February or March [2015]. The machine is OK but for parts no taller than
4 inches. I hope the upgrades allow us to produce parts 9 inches tall, which is what
3D Systems sold us on and why we bought the machine.”
“I’m excited to finally see a new player like Prodways entering the market.”
“2014 was another growth year, with 2015 starting off with a lot of buzz for us. We
had a record fourth quarter, record December, and record January 2015. We are
looking forward to another double-digit growth year.”
“Another outstanding year; overall top line growth was 41%. Tremendous demand
for large SLS parts drove us to buy an EOS P 760. We were forced to outsource
significant volumes of oversized SLS in 2014 and it was unpredictable in both
quality and delivery. Sintering in general is a significant growth area for us. SLA
continues to do well also, both for prototype parts and patterns for our urethanecasting department.”
“AM seems to be a mature industry with many competitors, several of them public
institutions who use public funds to purchase AM machines and compete with
private companies.”
“We grew dramatically in 2014, and learned a lot about the AM business. We are
partnering now with urethane molding and prototyping companies that can provide
a more complete package of services. There are many clients in the pipeline that are
just slow to adopt AM. We believe that will be the growth opportunity in 2015. It
should be a good year.”
“We would like to see upgrades for current machines to 1) accelerate production
time, 2) reduce cost of material, 3) reduce cost of maintenance plan with a more
COPYRIGHT © 2015
19
July 2015
flexible plan, 4) reduce cost of upgrades, 5) more independent controllers, slicing
software, such as CNC machining independent controllers from Fanuc, Siemens, and
machine programming like NX CAM, Delcam, and MasterCam, and 6) the possibility
for a premium price to better control machine input to use special material and
blends.”
“Architectural modeling rebounded, driven by public attention as well as a strong
rebound in construction.”
“We are primarily focused on materials development and process advancement
with and emphasis on high-temperature thermoplastics and composites, refractory
metals, and ceramics. Our RP business was very strong and we completed the single
largest prototype we’ve ever made. We also received our AS9001c certification,
which allows us direct commercialization into aerospace applications.”
“I build parts as a service bureau. I am getting more calls from the general public
over the past year. Their interest is increasing, which in turn is generating new
business.”
“We started a sand printing service for castings in 2014. Sand printing is currently
the only viable 3D printing technology for large industrial parts. We print molds
every day for hundreds of kilograms of metal and concrete parts that are used in
industrial applications such as pumps and engines. It is remarkable that the most
ready technology for industrial applications gets the least attention.”
“We completed an upgrade of all our plastic systems to the latest technology level in
2014.”
“We are still noticing a huge gap in design in order to get parts printed. Most
individuals that come to us wanting 3D printing have no clue what is necessary to
get to a final printed part. We see most of our revenue from other businesses that
haven’t invested in their own printers.”
“Service bureau revenues were actually on par or on slight increase in 2014
compared to 2013. In-house equipment and materials development was also active
during 2014, which had some limiting effect on commercial capacity. “
“Our revenue was down for the year, but our profits went up.”
“In China, besides a few direct manufacturing cases, the most common use of AM is
as a service or tool for further production needs. In 2014, we used AM to make
prototypes and used the prototypes as molds to cast patterns. We are also equipped
with injection molding and vacuum casting tools. This is our business model. I
believe a lot of similar Chinese prototyping companies use this same model.”
“We are seeing more and more small 3D printers in customer hands.”
COPYRIGHT © 2015
20
July 2015
“The continued consolidation [in the service provider segment] has had less of an
effect on downward market pricing than initially expected at merger announcement,
with the new “Stratasys Direct Manufacturing” being a major potential disrupter. In
fact, it seems to be helping us earn business in many ways as one of the largest
independent service bureaus in the industry.”
“The Indian market is being flooded with the locally manufactured low-cost FDM
printers, which will impact the business of service bureaus and visual aids segment.”
“2014 was a transition year for us with lots of personnel movement influencing
sales. The initiation of work in metal AM demonstrates the technology is still in need
of maturity, but significant potential seems to exist. We will be adding a Prodways
machine in 2015.”
“Note to Stratasys: Stop charging so much to upgrade materials. You are missing out
on material sales.”
“The new machines from Prodways are interesting.”
“2014 started nicely, but the fourth quarter slowed. There appears to be a
saturation occurring, with mid-frame machine sales penetrating the OEMs and a
large number of sub-$10,000 printers penetrating design studios for verification
models. Part pricing seems to be driving sales, but on a positive note, new vertical
markets are taking advantage of 3D printing. Companies that have never used the
technology are starting to dabble in it to determine cost benefits. I believe that 2015
overall will be a big year, and the use of paid parts services will grow as a result of
new vertical markets and end uses.”
“90% of our business comes from CNC machining.”
“In the first week of 2015, we added an EOS P 396—25% faster than the P 395—
unbelievable.”
“Market demand increased sharply in 2014. More and more end users began to try
to use AM technology to solve their machining problem. Some end users began to
design parts for manufacturing using AM technology. The [Chinese] government is
prepared to support and popularize AM technology. We certainly believe 2015 will
much better than 2014.”
“The level of awareness and acceptance is increasing rapidly. Now it is important to
make no exaggerated promises, and the machine manufacturers must accelerate
their development.”
“Excellent growth in 2014—we almost doubled our sales. Thanks to all who work
and contribute to our industry.”
COPYRIGHT © 2015
21
July 2015
Summary
In this survey for Wohlers Report 2015, 87 service providers in 23 countries
participated. The industry as seen through the eyes of these companies is important
because they represent a wealth of knowledge, experience, and insight. They are
also among the early adopters and innovators of new technology, and often are the
first to experience growth or downturns in business that serve as harbingers of
emerging trends in the additive manufacturing industry.
Most of the service providers that responded to the survey had a positive year in
2014, in both the primary and secondary revenue streams. Based on this data and
their comments, we believe the majority is in relatively good financial health when
the survey was conducted in early 2015. As a whole, they are growing, and growth
in 2014 continued a positive trend that began in 2010 after two years of decline.
* * *
Acknowledgement
We are grateful for your participation in our annual survey, and we hope that this
report helps to make your contribution worthwhile. The data we collect in our
annual survey of service providers aids us in trend analysis, recent historical
changes, and market forecasts. The AM industry has experienced an unprecedented
level of attention from the media, government agencies, and organizations of all
types in the recent past. We are experiencing some of the best years for the
technology and industry, and believe even more exciting times are ahead.
We believe in the adage, “A rising tide lifts all boats,” so we sincerely wish you
continued success in your business. Thank you again.
Tim Caffrey
Senior Consultant
[email protected]
Terry Wohlers
Principal Consultant and President
[email protected]
COPYRIGHT © 2015
22

Wohlers Report 2015 Service Provider Survey Results

Transcription

Similar documents

Optima Camelview Village

zoning map - Town of Kaukauna

Zimmel Associates - New Jersey Business Magazine

Kate Cairns Associates: Online Courses

Sonepar USA For more info

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

Discover what makes Zumasys one of the best places to work

Valmark Associates Produces DVD

Post-Positive® System

A Sterling Reputation for Real Estate Service with Integrity