The Engineering Excellence Study 2015 Short version

Stuttgart, December 2015

Contents A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J.

Management summary Study objectives and design Study results across industries Footprint strategy Technology roadmap Customer orientation Project management Further success factors The Engineering Excellence Study 2015 per industry Contacts

Page 3 7 10 14 19 22 29 33 39 45

This document shall be treated as confidential. It has been compiled for the exclusive, internal use by our client and is not complete without the underlying detail analyses and the oral presentation. It may not be passed on and/or may not be made available to third parties without prior written consent from Roland Berger Strategy Consultants. RBSC does not assume any responsibility for the completeness and accuracy of the statements made in this document. © Roland Berger Strategy Consultants

2

A. Management summary

3

Management summary (1/3) Study background and objectives > The impact of efficient engineering on a company's success is ever increasing owing to progressive globalization, larger volatility and ongoing high pressure on cost > This is calling more than ever for a strong but also efficient engineering setup in all industries > In the light of this environment, this study aims at deriving the status quo of the engineering value chain along selected key dimensions and enablers > By doing so, a transparency on the successful application of engineering bestpractice across and per industry is created > This study therefore aims at providing CEOs, CTOs and key decision makers with insights into the status quo in R&D, key challenges and best-practices in order to help in making the right decisions

Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

4

Management summary (2/3) Key results > Western Europe companies predominantly show a local R&D footprint. Importance of Europe will remain high, while China, USA and India are catching up. Structural shift of R&D focus is driven by need for proximity to sales and production locations. Quality of staff as most important decision criteria > Companies have problems to complete engineering projects on the planned time and on the planned budget. Timing of project start and timely availability of resources are the main limiting factors to project success > Customer requirements are fulfilled best in Europe and the US. Respondents have problems with meeting customer expectations in developing countries even though products are often adapted for local market requirements > Project leaders are trained well and enabled by organizational environment. Typically, firefighting is an exception for most companies > Reporting systems are very important for successful R&D projects. Many companies still have problems to find suitable KPI for measuring engineering efficiency Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

5

Management summary (3/3) Key results Engineering excellence differs by industry. For detailed industry-specific insights on any of the following industries, please refer to the latter sections of this study Aerospace & Defense

Engineered Products & High Tech

Automotive

Machinery/Plant Engineering

> Strong position of project management in the overall organization > Timely start of the project and availability of resources are issues to be improved > More international R&D footprint than other industries > Industry with the lowest share of revenues spent on R&D

Consumer Goods

> Industry with the highest percentage of development projects to complete within the planned time line and budget > Low local product adaptions and customer requirements fulfillment, especially in Asia Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

> Below average local product adaptions in China, India and Asia Pacific > Below average use of project management methods & tools for requirements identified > On time availability of predefined resources is often perceived as a limiting factor to project success > Special interests of stakeholders and missing coordination of target systems limit planning of projects

6

B. Study objectives and design

7

The new "Engineering Excellence Study 2015" provides a valuable look at the engineering value chain and best-practice Background > Increasing globalization, larger volatility and ongoing high pressure on cost require a strong but also efficient setup of the engineering function > Consequently, the impact of efficient engineering on a company's success is continuously increasing > Thus, the current study is designed to shed light on the engineering function

Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

Objectives > Derive the status quo of the engineering value chain along selected key dimensions and enablers > Create transparency on the successful application of engineering best-practice across and per industry

8

Five core industries in focus – Participating companies with median revenues of EUR 1 bn and on average 1,000 headcount in R&D Background of Engineering Excellence Study 2015 Participants' industries Consumer Goods

Remarks

Others

11%

5% 31%

Aerospace & Defence 15%

Engineered Products & High Tech

14% 24% Automotive

Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

> Study participants mainly headquartered in Western Europe > Contributors mainly from C-level, C-1 and C-2 > Median of revenue of participating companies around EUR 1 bn > R&D headcount accounts on average for 8.6% of total employees

Machinery/ Plant Engineering

9

C. Study results across industries

10

On average companies spend about 5% of revenues on R&D – Automotive industry with below average investments Investment in R&D [% of revenues] 6.2

Consumer Goods Engineered Products & High Tech

5.5

Machinery/Plant Engineering

5.3

Aerospace & Defense

5.2

Overall average Automotive

Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

Industries with above average R&D spend

5.2 4.3

Industries with below average R&D spend

11

Only 64% of all engineering projects are completed in the planned timeframe – Customer satisfaction of around 80% on average Achievement of customer goals and project timeframe [%] What percentage of development projects achieve the customer's goals as defined in the product requirements document?

What percentage of development projects are completed within the planned timeframe?

84.0

Aerospace & Defense

82.9

Automotive

86.0

69.2 54.3 76.4

Consumer Goods

69.8 81.7 Ø 81 Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

Engineered Products & High Tech Machinery/Plant Engineering

57.2 60.6 Ø 64 12

In most industries, more than 25% of engineering projects are over budget – Consumer Goods industry as best-practice for budgeting Achievement of project budgets [%] What percentage of development projects stay on budget?

Aerospace & Defense 0%-25%

17 50

26%-50% 51%-75%

17

76%-100%

17

14

0

Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

23

31

11

6

39

0

46

29

Machinery/ Plant Engineering

Engineered Products & High Tech

Consumer Goods

Automotive

22

22 57

44 33

22

13

D. Footprint strategy

14

R&D footprint is dominated by Western Europe – Importance will remain high while China, USA and India are catching up Global split R&D headcount What percentage of people employed in R&D at your company/ business unit work in the following regions?

How important is it to you to have a development location in the following countries in five years? Not important

Japan/South Korea/Taiwan India Latin & South America Central & Eastern Europe 0.5% 2.3% China 4.6% 2.8% USA 6.3%

Rest of Asia-Pacific

Somewhat important

Very important

Western Europe USA China

2.2% 2.2%

Central & Eastern Europe Latin & South America 79.0%

Western Europe

Japan/South Korea/Taiwan India Rest of Asia-Pacific

Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

15

Structural shift of R&D footprint driven by need for proximity to sales and production locations – Quality of staff is most important Importance development resources How important are the following factors for your company/business unit in decisions on building up development resources? Proximity to corporate HQ Proximity to production locations

Low wage costs

Proximity to sales market

Existing competencies in R&D

Not important

Somewhat important

Very important

Availability of skilled staff/labor

Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

Remarks > Availability of skilled R&D staff is viewed as the overall limiting factor for globalization of R&D footprint > The high importance assigned to existing competencies in R&D is in favor of regional continuity over a shift of the R&D footprint > Proximity to sales and production locations are recognized as somewhat important driving forces for shift of R&D footprint > Low wage costs and proximity to HQ are considered minor factors

16

More than 50% of study participants with 2-5 development locations – About 2 locations work together in an average project Number of development locations On average, how many development locations are involved in one development project?

How many development locations does your company/business unit have?

57%

2-5 13%

6-10 11-20 >21

1.9

19%

1

7% 4%

Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

Remarks > More than 75% of study participants concentrate their development activities in 1-5 locations, revealing a strong preference for regional integrity of development processes > Relatively low number of development locations involved per project of 1.9 shows that regional distribution of development activities is largely matched with functional distribution, with little crossregional exchange of R&D information 17

The majority of study participants invests 10-30% of capacity on coordination of distributed R&D footprint Time spent on admin tasks for coordination of R&D locations How high is the share of administrative hours/coordination tasks (e.g. travel, planning talks, etc.) for coordinating with international locations on development work?

20%

0-10%

41%

10-20%

> Time spent on administrative tasks differs significantly between respective industries > Whereas Consumer Goods companies invest maximum 20% of their capacity, Automotive companies do invest a much higher share

33%

20-30%

above 30%

Remarks

6%

Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

18

E. Technology roadmap

19

Technology roadmaps are extensively used for pre-development and development – Linkage of roadmaps in regular planning rounds Technology roadmaps Does your company/business unit have roadmaps (medium- and long-term planning for the coming 3-10 years) in the following areas? Pre-development

90%

10%

Development

93%

7%

Production Sales

79% 85%

21% 15%

Are the following methods used to link the roadmaps? 94%

Regular planning rounds KPI systems Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

68%

6% 32%

Remarks > All industries with a high share of roadmaps usage for predevelopment and development (between 82% and 100%) > Strong differences in production and sales with 100% in Aerospace & Defense and only 70% in Machinery/Plant Engineering > In all industries planning rounds are widespread, whereas the usage of KPI systems differs significantly between 44% (Machinery/Plant Engineering) and 100% (Aerospace & Defense) 20

However, roadmaps with limited support for robust planning – Better support for short lifecycle products and market pull markets required Technology roadmaps If roadmaps are used, how suitable do you think they are for supporting the following goals? Not suitable

Very suitable

Extending the planning horizon Making planning more robust/resilient With the help of roadmaps, products/ product families with the following characteristics can be planned well: Not true Partially true True

Short lifecycles Long lifecycles Technology push Market pull

Remarks > Roadmaps are suitable for extending the planning horizon and are especially used for product families with long lifecycles and to push technologies > Consumer Goods companies see usage of roadmaps least suitable > Roadmaps are also seen as only partially helpful for planning of short lifecycle products and market pull products

The lifecycles in different product segments1) 1) e.g. B2B, B2C are very different from each other Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

21

F. Customer orientation

22

Customer requirements are met best in Western Europe – In line with today's center of gravity of R&D footprint Matching of regional customer requirements In your view, how well do your products meet customer requirements in the following regions? Not met

USA Latin America/South America Western Europe Central and Eastern Europe Japan/South Korea/Taiwan China

Partially met

Remarks Completely met

> Participating companies mainly develop their products for Western Europe > Aerospace & Defense industry is very good in meeting customer requirements (especially in Western and Central/Eastern Europe) > Consumer Goods industry with biggest problems to fulfill customer requirements (especially in Asia)

India Rest of Asia-Pacific

Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

23

Adaption of the participating companies' products is mainly done in Western Europe and US – Further focus on Asia Customer requirements In which regions are products adapted locally?

Remarks Western Europe

USA

Central and Eastern Europe

China

22% 54%

39%

28%

81% India

Latin America/ South America 16%

Yes

Japan/South Korea/Taiwan

30%

Rest of Asia/ Pacific 14%

> Aerospace & Defense companies adapt products locally (especially in Western Europe and USA) > Consumer Goods companies often make no local adaptions, Asia out of scope for most companies > Automotive companies still develop for the Western Europe market but make local adaptions focusing on USA and China

No

Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

24

On average, the product development process takes 32 months – Longest in Aerospace and shortest in Consumer Goods industry Average product development process [months] How long does your average product development process last?

Remarks Aerospace & Defense

40

Automotive

36

Engineered Products & High Tech

35 32

Overall average Machinery/Plant Engineering

24 22

Others Consumer Goods

Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

Industries with above average development process duration

> Aerospace & Defense and Automotive OEMs often with > 60 months development processes > Development processes of suppliers with shorter duration > Machinery/Plant Engineering companies also need to develop faster than OEM

Industries with below average development process duration

21 25

Hardly any company develops products specifically for emerging markets Market requirements Please indicate how true the following statements are for your company/ business unit: Not true Target markets (target customers) for new products are systematically identified and their requirements are examined in a structured process New products are tested at an early stage with pilot customers Newly developed products are often changed after market launch To avoid "over-engineering"1), we have appropriate tools whose use in the product development process is mandatory (e.g. milestone concept with quality gates) Products for emerging countries are developed using a simpler product development process compared to that for products for industrial markets (e.g. fewer quality gates, elimination of validation steps, etc.) If operating in mass markets: Practical design and production concepts suitable for the mass market are consistently identified in the conceptual phase (as part of considering total cost of ownership)

Remarks Partially true

True

> Aerospace & Defense industry with a limited number of clients incorporates target customers in the development process (incl. pilot customers) > New developed products are often changed after market launch in A&D industry while Consumer Goods companies do not change the product anymore after launch > The EPHT industry tries to adapt the development process for emerging market products

If operating in mass markets: There are dedicated design guidelines (design principles/modules, etc.) specialized for mass market requirements

Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

26

Main ways to determine customer requirements include surveys, lead users and focus groups – Little focus on trend scouting Customer requirements determination When determining customer requirements, do you use the following tools? 69%

Surveys and studies

Customer clinic

24%

36% 76%

36%

Lead users Yes

31%

64%

Focus groups Trend scouting

Remarks

64% 65%

35%

> Surveys and studies are important in all industries with the exception of Machinery/ Plant Engineering – here direct customer contact through focus groups and lead users is most relevant > Many companies stress the importance of direct contact to the customer (direct sales, user experience etc.) > One company uses a reference customer model to determine requirements

No

Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

27

Design to cost and competitive pricing as main ways to determine selling price Customer-oriented development What methods do you use for cost-benefit analysis and to determine the selling price? 54%

Value-based featuring Quality function deployment Design to cost Competitors

Yes

Remarks 46%

32%

68% 95% 86%

5% 14%

> Quality function deployment is heavily used in the Consumer Goods industry - Competitor's pricing is less relevant than in other industries > Design to cost is used in all EPHT and Automotive companies > Some companies also use cost to design / target pricing methods

No

Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

28

G. Project management

29

P&L responsibility for projects is not consequently allocated to project managers – PM not established as career path Development project management Please indicate how true the following statements are for your company/ business unit: Not true

Project leaders for development projects are trained as such All relevant limiting conditions (goals, resources, milestones, work results, etc.) are usually defined at the start of the project Firefighting is the exception, not the rule Development projects usually begin at the planned point in time

Remarks Partially true

True

> Study shows that there is no clear common practice of responsibility and accountability allocation to project managers > Most participants have not centralized PM career path and development prospects in one PM organization unit > Dedicated training of PMs and clear definition of limiting project conditions before start are common practice among players

Resources are made available for development projects and approved by the line organization without any major problems

Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

30

Timing of project start and timely availability of predefined resources are often perceived as a limiting factor to project success Characteristics development projects To what extent is the project work on development projects at your company/business unit defined by the following characteristics? Not true The project sponsor helps drive the implementation of the project goals due to his or her position in the hierarchy The project leader responsibly manages the approved project budget independently and assumes sole responsibility in a development project The project leader has a say/veto right in staffing project employees. Leader also has access to agreed-upon resources in the line organization and the right to participate in performance evaluations of employees There is ONE project management organizational unit that manages the project leader career path and development opportunities If a dedicated PM organization exists: The PM organization is allocated (with solid-line reporting and responsibility for project targets) to a position with P&L responsibility The organization ensures appropriate communication structures be-tween project and line as well as effective escalation structures

Partially true

Remarks True

> Clear definition of development requirements is only somewhat accepted as a prerequisite for project kick-off > In general, timing of project milestones and deadlines are viewed as realistic, making firefighting an exception > However, timing of project start and availability/approval of predefined resources are often perceived as a limiting factor to project success

If the specifications for a development project are unknown/unclear the project is not kicked-off. First, requirements are clearly defined

Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

31

Project management focus is primarily on cost, quality, contents and timing – Other aspects are in risk of being left "out of sight" Importance of project management methods How much importance does your company/ business unit put on the following methods/ tools in project management? Content and scope management Integration management

Deadline management

Communication management

Cost management

Change management Procurement management Not important

Somewhat important

Very important

Quality management

Risk management

Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

Personnel management

Remarks > Costs, quality, deadlines and contents are commonly regarded as the most important project management objectives > Integration management as a means of prioritizing competing sub-project goals is considered only a minor factor to overall project success > The "softer" methods, i.e. personnel-, communication- and change management might also need more attention

32

H. Further success factors

33

Make-or-buy decisions are not consequently based on core and non-core competencies – Clear set of criteria missing Core competences and make-or-buy Not true

Core/ noncore

The development depth (scope of inhouse development) is systematically derived from our core/non-core competencies Core/non-core competencies are identified in a structured procedure A defined set of criteria is used to determine core/non-core competencies

Makeorbuy

Make-or-Buy decisions are fundamentally based on strategic corner stones, especially considering the defined core competencies of our company/business unit

Partially true

True

Remarks > Aerospace & Defense companies with strong focus on core competencies > Large OEM with strong focus on structured identification of core competencies > Especially Consumer Goods companies outsource non-core development activities to suppliers

Non-core engineering activities are consequently outsourced to free up capacities for core activities

Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

34

Change management projects show improvement potential in majority of the participants Change management and competence development Competence development

Change mgmt. (CM)

Not true Competence development is a central success factor The need for competencies is identified in a structured process and employees are developed and trained accordingly

CM in development projects is characterized by a clear process for defining targets and the necessary planning

Transformation processes are guided by experienced change agents and supported by management The success of the transformation processes is ensured through transparency. Employees are involved early on by means of an open communication and information policy and are continuously informed of the project's progress

Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

Partially true

True

Remarks > Global companies with strong focus on competence development > Structured training processes are implemented in companies who have identified competence development as success factor > Change Management in development projects with improvement potential for almost all participants – only few companies employ experienced change managers

35

Majority of the organizations adapt to the market accordingly, still, maturity models are only partially used Processes & organization and continuous improvement process Not true

Processes & organization

Processes & organization are regularly compared with market requirements and adjusted as necessary Changing market requirements (customer wishes, time-to-market, technology leaps, etc.) are responded to flexibly and processes and organizational structures are adapted accordingly

Continuous improvement process (CIP)

The concept of the self-learning organization is firmly established (e.g. according to CMM(i), etc.) To evaluate the development organization, a maturity level model (e.g. CMM(i), PMMM, OPM3) is used and the adjustment and development requirements are derived from that

Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

Partially true

True

Remarks > Especially Consumer Goods companies compare processes & organization with market requirements > Continuous improvement process is well established in Consumer Goods companies > Automotive and Aerospace & Defense companies have problems with implementation of continuous improvement

36

In general, projects are put into a company-wide framework – Still, special interests and non-coordinated target systems limit planning Cost-, Resource- and Budget Management Not true

Transparent planning and adhering to limits on resources and budgets often fail due to special interests

The project is put into a company-wide/business unit-wide target system for the purposes of planning and managing the project budget This target system integrates the interests of all stakeholders and is coordinated in such a way that special interests do not get in the way of the company's/business unit's interests

Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

Partially true

True

Remarks > Top-down budget planning based on target systems is widely used among study participant > Heterogeneous stakeholder landscape and their special interests are partially showstoppers for sticking to plans and targets > Majority of companies integrates development projects in an overarching target system

37

Majority of participants recognizes high importance of reporting systems – However, they are only partially used Extended enterprise, IT systems & tools and reporting Not true

Extended enterprise

There is a clear process for involving external partners in development projects Interfaces with the company's/business unit's environment are systematically mapped & managed/implemented in a structured way For involving external partners in development projects, IT systems and their interfaces are clearly defined

IT systems & tools Reporting

Lean processes are defined first, and only then the supporting ICT solutions are adjusted accordingly so that deviations from the required process are minimized In our company/business unit we use standard software/tool chains instead of proprietary solutions Reporting systems enable effective management of engineering activities (transparency/credibility, standards/comparability, etc.) In our company/business unit suitable performance indicators for measuring engineering efficiency are defined These performance indicators for engineering efficiency are applied and actively used in our company/our business unit

Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

Partially true

True

Remarks > Machinery/Plant Engineering Companies are often reluctant to involve external partners in the product development process > External interfaces are well structured only in the Consumer Goods and Aerospace & Defense industry > Standardized software is used in EPHT and Machinery and Automotive industry – process development often within existing IT framework > Consumer Goods companies with most efficient reporting systems among participants 38

Details per industry available in long version – Please do not hesitate to contact us Aerospace & Defense Automotive Consumer Goods

I.

The Engineering Excellence Study 2015 per industry

Engineered Products & High Tech Machinery/Plant Engineering

39

Strong international R&D collaboration in Aerospace & Defense industry – Strong project organization secures successful engineering Main results of the Engineering Excellence Study – Aerospace & Defense R&D footprint of European Aerospace & Defense companies is dominated by Western Europe due to easy access to high qualified staff and proximity to production and existing R&D capacities. USA followed by China and India will gain more importance in the next five years Around three different development locations involved in a R&D project. Strong position of project in the overall organization enables proper management of all involved resources Target customers are systematically identified to integrate their requirements in R&D process. Aerospace & Defense companies rely on focus groups and use results to adapt products to local requirements, especially for the US market Development projects are well structured before start. However a timely start of the project and the availability of resources is an issue that needs to be solved Non-core R&D activities are consequently outsourced. External partners are integrated via IT systems and standardized interfaces Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

40

Globalization of Automotive R&D organizations will continue – Customer requirements in growing sales markets need to be met better Main results of the Engineering Excellence Study – Automotive European Automotive companies with more international R&D footprint than other industries. China and USA with significant number of development resources and increasing importance. Driver is proximity to sales markets and production locations Multiple locations involved in a development project. Automotive companies struggle with high administrative effort for coordination of international locations Good internal communication between project and line as well between different departments. Planning is supported by technology roadmaps which are aligned in regular cross-functional planning rounds Customer requirements in developed markets are met very well. Automotive companies have problems in China and India even though they try to locally adapt products in these regions Project leaders are well trained and have a large number of methodology competencies. The project itself needs to be strengthened within the organization Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

41

Involvement of customer in development process is crucial for Consumer goods companies and leads to a shift of R&D focus to markets Main results of the Engineering Excellence Study – Consumer Goods Western European Consumer Goods companies with local R&D focus. Significant development capacity in Eastern Europe will lose importance while the US, Latin America, China and India require increased presence due to proximity to sales and production On overage less than two locations are involved in a development project. Thus not a lot of time is spend on administrative coordination tasks Roadmaps with limited support for robust planning. Consumer Goods companies require better support for short lifecycle products and market pull markets Consumer good companies are very tool driven regarding identification of customer requirements. Target customers are involved in development process and new products are tested customer clinics, focus groups and with pilot customers Development projects are enabled by organizational environment and generally managed very well. However staffing of resources is a frequent problem Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

42

EPHT companies spend a lot of effort on internal cross-functional collaboration – Use of supporting tools and methods below average Main results of the Engineering Excellence Study – Engineered Products & High Tech R&D footprint of EPHT companies is strongly focused on Western Europe, the US and China. Respondents underline the need for proximity to production locations and availability of skilled labor so that current locations remain important Even though only a small number of locations is involved in a R&D project, EPHT industry shows a high share of administrative work. This is due to high internal communication effort and a weak position of the project management organization EPHT companies meet customer requirements very well. Difficulties only in China, India and Asia Pacific due to below average of local product adaptions in these regions Companies in the EPHT industry with below average use of project management methods and tools for requirements identification In general, projects are put into a company-wide framework. Still, special interests and non-coordinated target systems limit planning Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

43

Europe will remain main location for R&D due to high qualification of employees – Project success limited by timing and availability factors Main results of the Engineering Excellence Study – Machinery/Plant Engineering R&D footprint of European companies is dominated by Western Europe due to easy access to high qualified staff. Structural shift of R&D footprint mainly driven by need for proximity to sales and production locations. In five years Western Europe still very important followed by China and India More than 50% of Machinery/Plant engineering companies have 2-5 development locations – In general, projects are put into a company wide network with on average two locations working together Special interests of stakeholders and missing coordination of target systems limit planning of projects P&L responsibility for projects is not consequently allocated to project managers – PM not established as career path On time availability of predefined resources is often perceived as a limiting factor to project success. Soft factors of project management are in risk of being left "out of sight" Source: Roland Berger Engineering Excellence Study 2015

44

J. Contacts

45

Study authors Dr.-Ing. Carsten Bock

Jochen Gleisberg

Principal

Partner

Tel.: +49 (711) 3275-7223 Mobile: +49 (160) 744-7223 [email protected]

Tel.: +49 (711) 3275-7221 Mobile: +49 (160) 744-7221 [email protected]

Christian Böhler

Markus Möhrle

Project Manager

Senior Consultant

Tel.: +1 312 662-5531 Mobile: +1 312 547-9203 [email protected]

Tel.: +49 (211) 4389-2148 Mobile: +49 (160) 744-2148 [email protected]

Prof. Dr. Olaf Mäder Faculty TEC Reutlingen University

Tel.: +49 (7121) 271-7107 Fax: +49 (7121) 271-7004 [email protected] 46

We have a strong international network with more than 500 operations & engineering professionals globally International Operations & Engineering network Canada

Netherlands

Sweden

Germany

Serge Lhoste

Alexander Belderok

Per I. Nilsson

Sebastian Feldmann

USA

Brazil

France

Jonathan Wright

Martin Bodewig

Michel Jacob

Max Blanchet (Global Head)

Steffen Gackstatter

Jochen Gleisberg

Emmanuel Bonnaud

Oliver Knapp

Thomas Rinn (Global Head)

Michael Zollenkop

Switzerland

Poland

Sven Siepen

Tomasz Narloch

Italy

Austria

India

Japan

China

Alberto de Monte

Roland Falb

Wilfried Aulbur

Ryuji Ono

Wu Qi

500 operations professionals globally, 300 projects delivered over the past 3 years 47

Besides our Supply Chain Excellence Study we have numerous other studies and extensive expertise – join us!

48