Research Support January 1994 School of Business Administration NOVA INCORPORATED: CASE C RESULTS OF A WORLDWIDE MARKET RESEARCH STUDY Working Paper #704 Dennis G. Severance The University of Michigan and Jack Muckstadt Cornell University Dennis G. Severance, Andersen Consulting Professor, Computers and Information Systems, The University of Michigan. Jack Muckstadt, Professor and Director, School of Operations Research and Industrial Engineering, Cornell University. FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY None of this material is to be quoted or reproduced without the expressed permission of Research Support COPYRIGHT 1994 The University of Michigan School of Business Administration Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1234

I

1 NOVA INCORPORATED: Case C Results of A Worldwide Market Research Study As much as anything, it had been the Born Again Marketing Task Force report that had convinced John Fisher of the urgency of revamping Nova's marketing strategy and logistics systems. The market survey of current U.S. customers concluded that Nova was unlikely to gain market share through price reductions because competitors could simply match them. It found, however, that U.S. customers were very sensitive to improvements in product quality and delivery reliability. And if improvement in these dimensions could be achieved, they would be difficult for competitors to duplicate. The recommendation that emerged from the Marketing Task Force in 1991 was a plan to prune the product line to 10 products by dropping 12 low volume parts that constituted just 5% of total sales. The task force proposed that Nova hold current prices on the modified product line and guarantee that defect free product would be shipped FOB from regional warehouses to any customer location on 24 hour notice with an average fill rate of 99%. They felt that if manufacturing and distribution could deliver on the marketing guarantee, Nova could quickly reacquire the market share that the company had lost over the past 12 years. While Fisher realized that the task force's market data had been informally compiled and that it reflected only the market conditions in the United States, he believed that the task force recommendations were directionally correct. He therefore embraced their proposal, making their recommendations corporate goals for 1992. At the same time, however, he contracted with a market research firm, Market Opinion 1/1/94

2 Associates (MOA), for a worldwide study of Nova's current and potential customer base. The MOA market survey was recently completed and a summary of preliminary data has been received. These data derive from personal interviews and questionnaire responses from users in all current key customer accounts, from a sample of smaller Nova accounts, and from large customers of Nova's key competitors. Four important new facts were uncovered. First, there are five service areas of major importance to customers. Second, not all customers consider the same areas of service to be most important. Third, customers in different regions of the world have different service concerns. Fourth, service performance for the same area of service are different in different parts of the world. The five types of service identified as most important by the study are: 1. Price (net of all discounts). 2. Timeliness and consistency of service (rapid and reliable resupply times). 3. Range of product line. 4. Technical assistance available both before and after sale. 5. Product quality as measured by reliability, durability and functionality. Data corresponding to these five categories were collected from each of Nova's sales regions and are presented here in the Appendix. Because of the large number of respondents in North America and Europe, data from these regions were subdivided by large volume customers and medium and small volume customers. Two types of questions were asked. The first type was associated with the relative importance of each service area to the responding company. The second asked for a rating of Nova's 1/1/94

3 current performance in each area of service. The scales used by the respondents are shown below. SCALE IMPORTANCE RATING PERFORMANCE RATING 1 Critically Important Exceptional 2 Very Important Good 3 Important Neutral 4 Somewhat Important Needs Improvement 5 Irrelevant Unacceptable 6 Don't Know Don't Know Each service was rated as being Very Important through Irrelevant by each company, while performance was rated as Exceptional through Unacceptable. The numbers in the summary tables of the Appendix are the percentage of respondents in each category. The Survey also showed that timeliness-of-service-required differs by region and by part number. Part numbers 1 and 2 had more stringent requirements for service in almost all markets. The following graphs show how long customers are willing to wait following the placement of an order. The graphs show the percentage that want one day service (next day), two or less days service, etc. Hence, for example, for part numbers 1 and 2 in Region 1, 60% of the demand must be satisfied in one day, 83% by the end of the second day, 92% by the end of the third day, 97% by the end of the fourth day, 98% by the end of the fifth day, and 100% by the end of the sixth day. 1/1/94

CUSTOMER DUE DATE LEAD TIMES REGION- I NORIH AMERICA PART NUMBERS: 1 and 2 1 T,_- — "-"-" II '5 0.8 a 0.6 / l06 0Days.4 3 0.2 _ 0 -- - v t- o --- ^ -- - Days REGION - 1 NORTH AMERICA PART NUMBERS: 3 fhru 10 REGION - 2 EUROPE ART NUMBERS: 1 and 2, 1.., I, ----, I 5 0-8 ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Days REGION - 2 EUROPE PART NUMBERS: 3 thru 10 c 0.8 I s 6 0.6 3.4 3 0.2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Days REGION - 3 EASERN BLOC PART NUMBERS: 3 thru 10 0.8 Days '5 0.8 * 0o.6 0.2. - EO /B" o 0.2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Days REGION - 3 EASTERN BLOC PART NUMBERS: I and 2 ' ' 0.8.0.6 -) 0.4 E 04 O 0.2 i- I"r 0 N ci i in a r ai i o 4 — t - '),0 P.I O-. 0 Days REGION - 4 SOUTH AMERICA PART NUMBERS: 1 and 2 ' 0.8 016 Days * n 0.4 30.2 2_.U.-, -- c' t O -0 t-. co O- 0 Days REGION - 4 SOUTH AMERICA PART NUMBERS: 3 lhru 10 REGION - 5 ASIA PACIFIC PART NUMBERS: 1 Ihr 10 5 0.8 -- 0.2 -0.2j - C t - 4 '0 t-, c O 0 Days

4 ASSIGNMENT Review the data and summarize the key observations from the MOA market survey for John Fisher. 1/1/94

Appendix (Respondent Ratings of Senrvice Importance and Performance) ff________)

REGION 1 - NORTH AMERICA WHAT LARGE COMPANIES VALUE RATING Important Critical Irrelevant Don't Know 1 2 3 4 5 6 SERVICE TYPE SERVICE TYPE SERVICE TYPE SERVICE TYPE Price 5% 25% 53% 11% 6% 0% Timeliness 68% 22% 10% 0% 0% 0% Variety 41% 17% 26% 11% 5% 0% Tech Asst 35% 26% 11% 6% 22% 0% Quality 92% 8% 0% 0% 0% HOW LARGE COMPANIES PERCIEVE OUR SERVICE RATING Exceptional Neutral Unacceptable Don't Know 1__ 2 3 4 5 6 Price 65% 21% 4% 0% 0% 10% Timeliness 9% 15% 19% 42% 4% 11% Variety 73% 11% 4% 1% 1% 10% Tech Asst 71% 17% 2% 1% 0% 9% Quality 79% 15% 3% 0% 0% 3% WHAT MEDIUM and SMALL SIZED COMPANIES VALUE RATING Critical Important Irrelevant Don't Know 1 2 3 4 5 6 Price 14% 31% 52% 3% 0% 0% Timeliness 59% 23% 17% 1% 0% 0% Variety 44% 21% 29% 5% 1% 0% Tech Asst 47% 32% 8% 9% 4% 0% Quality 95% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% HOW MEDIUM and SMALL SIZED COMPANIES PERCEIVE OUR SERVICE RATING Exceptional Neutral Unacceptable Don't Know _1 2 3 4 5 6 Price 32% 23% 6% 4% 1% 34% Timeliness 5% 11% 14% 29% 3% 38% Variety 38% 21% 3% 2% 1% 35% Tech Asst 52% 14% 6% 2% 0% 26% Quality 74% 11% 1% 0% 0% 14%

REGION 2 - EUROPE WHAT LARGE COMPANIES VALUE RATING Important Critical Irrelevant Don't Know 1 2 3 4 5 6 SERVICE TYPE SERVICE TYPE SERVICE TYPE SERVICE TYPE Price 12% 23% 56% 8% 1% 0% Timeliness 64% 27% 8% 1% 0 0% Variety 35% 14% 36% 8% 7% 0% Tech Asst 42% 23% 26% 5% 4% 0% Quality 92% 7% 1% 0% 0% 0% HOW LARGE COMPANIES PERCEIVE OUR SERVICE RATING Exceptional Neutral Unacceptable Don't Know 1 2 3 4 5 6 Price 44% 15% 4% 7% 3% 27% Timeliness 2% 14% 19% 32% 2% 31% Variety 58% 9% 3% 0% 0% 30% Tech Asst 52% 13% 7% 2% 0% 26% Quality 64% 17% 6% 0% 0% 13% WHAT MEDIUM and SMALL SIZED COMPANIES VALUE RATING Critical Important Irrelevant Don't Know 1 2 3 4 5 6 Price 21% 27% 47% 5% 0% 0% Timeliness 48% 32% 16% 4% 0% 0% Variety 40% 23% 27% 8% 2% 0% Tech Asst 52% 27% 10% 1% 0% 0% Quality 91% 8% 1% 0% 0% 0% HOW MEDIUM and SMALL SIZED COMPANIES PERCEIVE OUR SERVICE RATING Exceptional Neutral Unacceptable Don't Know _1 2 3 4 5 6 Price 27% 20% 7% 6% 1% 39% Timeliness 3% 16% 11% 22% 5% 43% Variety 34% 22% 5% 1% 0% 38% Tech Asst 41% 19% 7% 2% 0% 31% Quality 60% 21% 1% 0% 0% 18%

REGION 3 - EASTERN BLOC WHAT COMPANIES VALUE RATING Imoortant Critical Irrelevant Don't Know 1 2 3 4 5 6 SERVICE TYPE SERVICE TYPE Price 32% 29% 38% 1% 0% 0% Timeliness 19% 27% 24% 19% 11% 0% Variety 37% 24% 32% 10% 7% 0% Tech Asst 61% 30% 9% 0% 0% 0% Quality 82% 11% 6% 1% 0% 0% HOW COMPANIES PERCEIVE OUR SERVICE RATING Exceptional Neutral Unacceptable Don't Know 1 2 3 4 5 6 Price 17% 22% 6% 3% 1% 51% Timeliness 29% 19% 4% 0% 0% 48% Variety 42% 8% 6% 1% 0% 43% Tech Asst 25% 19% 14% 8% 2% 32% Quality 77% 2% 0% 0% 0% 21%

REGION 4 - SOUTH AMERICA WHAT COMPANIES VALUE RATING Critical Important Irrelevant Don't Know 1 2 3 4 5 6 SERVICE TYPE SERVICE TYPE Price 41% 27% 28% 4% 0% 0% Timeliness 17% 26% 28% 22% 7% 0% Variety 31% 33% 28% 6% 2% 0% Tech Asst 65% 27% 7% 1% 0% 0% Quality 86% 10% 3% 1% 0% 0% HOW COMPANIES PERCEIVE OUR SERVICE RATING Exceptional Neutral Unacceptable Don't Know 1 2 3 4 5 6 Price 27% 19% 10%. 2% 0% 42% Timeliness 33% 18% 4% 1% 0% 44% Variety 47% 7% 6% 2% 0% 38% Tech Asst 35% 22% 12% 3% 2% 26% Quality 82% 1% 0% 0% 0% 17%

REGION 5 - ASIA PACIFIC WHAT COMPANIES VALUE RATING Important Critical Irrelevant Don't Know 1 2 3 4 5 6 SERVICE TYPE SERVICE TYPE Price 11% 21% 49% 11% 8% 0% Timeliness 71% 23% 6% 0% 0% 0% Variety 43% 14% 31% 10% 2% 0% Tech Asst 40% 27% 15% 3% 15% 0% Quality 97% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% HOW COMPANIES PERCEIVE OUR SERVICE RATING Exceptional Neutral Unacceptable Don't Know 1 2 3 4 5 6 Price 57% 12% 4% 1% 0% 26% Timeliness 13% 15% 10% 36% 1% 25% Variety 59% 9% 5% 0% 0% 27% Tech Asst 68% 11% 4% 2% 0% 15% Quality 75% 10% 5% 1% 0% 9%

I I I I I I I I WHAT LARGE COMPANIES VALUE RATING Critical Important Irrelevant Don't Know 1 2 3 4 5 6 NA 5% 25% 53% 11% 6% 0% SERVICE EUR 12% 23% 56% 8% 1% 0% TYPE EB 32% 29% 38% 1% 0% 0% Price SA 41% 27% 28% 4% 0% 0% _AP 11% 21% 49% 11% 8% 0% 60% I 60%] I —~ --- — NA 50% NA 40% - + D — EUR WHAT LARGE COMPANIES VALUE 'RATING [ __ I L ________ Critical ______ Important ______ Irrelevant I Don't Know |_ _NA |5% | 30% 83% 94% 1EB00% 100% 20% SERVICE EUR 12% 35% 91% 99% 100% 100%______ TYPE EB 32% 61% 99% 100% 100% 100%______ Price SA 41% 68% 96% 100% 100% 100%_____ ___|_AP 11% 32% 81% 92% 100% 100% _____ - 40%<r^ ^ * EB iO 20%^ SA AP 0% - 1 2 3 4 5 WHAT LARGE COMPANIES VALUE RATING Critical Important Irrelevant Don't Know NA 5% 30% 83% 94% 100% 100% SERVICE EUR 12% 35% 91% 990/0 100% 100% TYPE EB 32% 61% 990/0 100% 100% 100% Price SA 41% 68% 96% 100% 100% 100% AP 11% 32% 81% 92% 100% 100% 100% m- - NA 80% 60% E 40% 20% S 0%- i AP 1 2 3 4 5 - i ' '1 I I rage i

WHAT LARGE COMPANIES VALUE.... _________ _ |RATING I Critical Important Irrelevant Don't Know __1 2 3 4 5 6_ NA 68% 22% 10% 0% 0% 0% SERVICE EUR 64% 27%? 8% 1%. 0% 0% TYPE EB 19% 27% 24% 19% 11% 0% Timeliness SA 17% 26% 28% 22% 7% 0% AP 71% 23% 6% 0% 0% 0% _ 80%- TNA 70% NA 60% — 1 EUR 50% 40% - --- EB 30%- 20% SA 10% 1 2 3 4 5 0%___________________________ F _______ T — _AP_____WHAT LARGE COMPANIES VALUE RATING Critical _Important ___ Irrelevant Don't Know 0 0 0 0 00 NA 68% 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% SERVICE EUR 64% 91% 99%/ 100% 100% 100% TYPE EB 19% 46% 70% 89% 100% 100% Timeliness SA 17% 43% 71% 93% 100% 100% AP 71% 94% 100% 100% 100% 100% __ 100% —, r. - 80% T "NA - I —, — EUR 60%t _ __ — *- EB 40% |l20%t- SA 20% 0% II APIj H ol --- —---—,,, 4. AP - 1 2 3 4 5. f I I -age z

..... I i 1 1.I I I I I! ' WHAT LARGE COMPANIES VALUE RATING Critical Important Irrelevant Don't Know 1 2 3 4 5 6 _____ NA 41% 17% 26% 11% 5% 0% SERVICE EUR 35% 14% 36% 8% 7% 0% TYPE EB 37% 24% 32% 10% 7% 0% Variety SA 31% 33% 28% 6% 2% 0% _AP 43% 14% 31% 10% 2% 0%__ 50% T _ 1%T -- — ~m NA 40% 0-IV ----1 EUR 30% ~"34 EB 20% 0o SA 10% o% AP 1 2 3 4 5 WHAT LARGE COMPANIES VALUE _ RATING Critical __ Important __Irrelevant Don't Know 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 41% 58% 84% 95% 100% 100% SERVICE EUR 35% 49% 85% 93% 100% 100% TYPE EB 37% 61% 93% 103% 110% 110% __ Variety SA 31% 64% 92% 98% 100% 100% _ AP 43% 57% 88% 98% 100% 100% _ i I 120%T - 100% ^ ----" — m —$~ ~"" NA 100% 10 1~80%l EUR 60% t |' EB 20% SA 0% A AP 1 2 3 4 5I___ 1 1,-. I f I,-; I-.,-, I --— I, l — Fage 5

...... I I I I i I I.I WHAT LARGE COMPANIES VALUE RATING Critical Important Irrelevant Don't Know 1 2 3 4 5 6 NA 35% 26% 11% 6% 22% 0% SERVICE EUR 42% 23% 26% 5% 4% 0% - 70% TYPE EB 61% | 30% 9%/o 0%9 0 % | ' 0% Tech Asst SA 65% 27% "7% 1% '0% 0% AP 40% 27% 15% 3% 15% 0% 0 --- —~ NA 60% 50% - - EUR 40% 30% * EB 20% 0 — o —SA 10% 0% AP 1 2 3 4 5 WHAT LARGE COMPANIES VALUE ____ RATING _Critical __Important Irrelevant Don't Know_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 35% 61% 72% 78% 100% 100% __ SERVICE EUR 42% 65% 91% 96% 100% 100% TYPE EB 61% 91% 100% 100% 100% 100% Tech Asst SA 65% 92% 99% 100% 100% 100% _ ____ AP 40% 67% 82% 85% 100% 100%_ 100%.. o — ~-NA 80% -,, r — EUR 60% 40% * EB 20% -- --- SA 0%' ' AP 1 2 3 4 5 1 | H | | X 5~~~~~I - - A rage 4

____ I I I I I I ___ WHAT LARGE COMPANIES VALUE....... IIRATING Critical Important Irrelevant Don't Know t1 1 2 3 4 " 5 ~ 6 __NA 92% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% __ SERVICE EUR 92% 7% 1% 0% 0% 0% TYPE EB 82% 11% 6% 1% 0% 0% Quality SA 86% 10% 3% 1% 0% 0% _ _____ AP 97% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% __ 100% NA:1% --- —— NA - 80% - - - EUR 60% "'40%- EB 20% i O SA 0% IAW I'M AP -- 0%1,- - A — AP - 1 2 3 4 5 _____I WHAT LARGE COMPANIES VALUE RATING ___ Critical Important Irrelevant Don't Know ________0 0 0 0 0 0 ____ NA 92% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% SERVICE EUR 92% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100%__ TYPE EB 82% 93% 99%0 100% 100% 100%_ Quality SA 86% 96% 99%/0 100% 100% 100% _AP 97% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% IN___ I-; NA 60% | 1 ---- EUR 60% 40% EB 20% -- SA 0%1 I, ' APL H1 2 3 4 5 ___ I's - I 1 - Fage 3

HOW LARGE COMPANIES PERCEIVE OUR SERVICE RATING 1 Exceptional Neutral Unacceptable Don't Know..1 2 3 4 5 6 __ N. A 65% 21% 4% 0% 0% 10% SERVICE EUR 44% 15% 4% 7% 3% 27% __ TYPE EB 17% 22% 6% 3% 1% 51% i Price SA 27% 19% 10% 2% 0% 42% _ _AP 57% 12% 4% 1% 0% 26% _ _.. _ _ _ I i i _ _ 70% NA 60%_ 50% - ' D EUR 40% ] 1 2 3 4 5 6 o ~ l_______ | ERATING J Exceptional Neutral __UnacceptablE Don't Know 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 NA 65% 86% 90% 90% 90% 100% TYPE EB 17% 39% 45% 48% 49% 100% Price SA 27% 46% 56% 1 58% 58% 100% ______ AP 57% 69% 73% 74% 74% 100% - 0%T _ --- -------- ---------- NA 20% 1 S |.SA 10% 1 AP 0% 2 3 4 5 'TP E1 2 39 4 5 / ' 58 4% '5 ----100 - I__L_____ I A IA,% 1 rugyt

_____ HOW LARGE COMPANIES PERCEIVE OUR SERVICE..._______._ RATING Exceptional Neutral Unacceptable Don't Know 1 2 3 4 5 6 NA 9% 15% 19% 42% 4% 11% __ SERVICE EUR 2% 14% 19% 32% 2% 31% __ TYPE EB 29% 19% 4% 0% 0% 48% _ Timeliness SA 33% 18% 4% 1% 0% 44% __ AP 13% 15% 10% 36% 1% 25% 50% 1~~- I I i I i L I~NA 40% HOW LARGE COMPANIES PERCEIVE OUR SERVICE ____ i 30% - EB - ___ ATI20%NGII1 R Exceptional __|_Neutral | UnacceptablC Don't Know______ I SA 0% = ~ ~' D Ap 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 HOW LARGE COMPANIES PERCEIVE OUR SERVICE RATING Exceptional Neutral Unacceptable Don't Know,1 2 3 4 5 6 NA 9%/ 24% 43% 85% 89% 100% SERVICE EUR 2% 16% 35% 67% 69% 100% TYPE EB 29% 48% 52% 52% 52% 100% _ Timeliness SA 33% 51% 55% 56% 56% 100% AP 13% 28% 38% 74% 75% 100% 90% __ --- — _ 80%- m- ~m NA 70% 60% Or _ -I- — EUR 50% -? 40%- * EB - 30% [- 20% I SA 10% 0% I A AP - 1 2 3 4 5 1 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LrII I ruy; 4

I I I I HOW LARGE COMPANIES PERCEIVE OUR SERVICE I,,,_______RATING Exceptional Neutral Unacceptable Don't Know _ _ _ 1 22 3 4 5 6 __ __NA 73% 11% 4% 1% 1% 10%__ SERVICE EUR 58% 9% 3% 0% 0% 30%_ TYPE EB 42% 8% 6% 1% 0% 43%__ Variety SA 47% 7% 6% 2% 0% 38% ___AP 59%/ 9o/ 5% 0% 0% 27%___ ' I t '' 80% 70% NA 650% t: I - EUR 50% 40% | 1 EB 30% - 20% ' ISA 10% 0% S AP 1 2 3 4 5 6 __~______ 0, _ HOW LARGE COMPANIES PERCEIVE OUR SERVICE RATING _ Exceptional Neutral _Unacceptable Don't Know 1 2 3 4 5 6 NA 73% 84% 88% 89% 90% 100% SERVICE EUR 58% 67% 70% 70% 70% 100%| TYPE EB 42% 50% 56% 57% 57% 100% Variety SA 47% 54% 60% 62% 62% 100% ___AP 59% 68% 73% 73% 73% 100%___ 100% - - T_ ___ ---m -m * * * ---- * NA 80% -- m~ ~ ~~ ~ -,~.EUR 60%~//; _E I e "' EB 40% - 20% SA 0%,, A -AP 1 2 3 4 5 I, ruyte o

- i - l -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HOW LARGE COMPANIES PERCEIVE OUR SERVICE I I I -- I I I - - -. II RATING Exceptional _ Neutral Unacceptable Don't Know __1 2 3 4 5 6 NA 71% 17%" 2% 1% 0% 9%/ SERVICE EUR 52% 13% 7% 2% 0% 26% TYPE EB 25% 19%/ 14% 8% 2% 32% Tech Asst SA 35% 22% 12% 3% 2% 26% __ ___AP 68% 11% 4% 2% 0% 15% 80% IINA 70%_ 60% 50% - 1 2 3 4 5 6 HOW LARGE COMPANIES PERCEIVE OUR SERVICE Exceptional Neutral Unacceptable Don't Know' 1 2 3 4 5 6 __ ___ NA 71% 88% 90% 91% 91% 100%__ SERVICE EUR 52% 65% 72% 74% 74% 100% TYPE EB 25% 44% 58% 66% 68% 100% _ Tech Asst SA 35% 57% 69% 72% 74% 100% _ AP 68% 79%/0 83% 85% 85% 100% _ 100%. m, --- —-* --- —* ___ __ NA [ AP - _80%t _ _-I EUR 60% I_' _* EB 40% — _ — EB _ 20% 1, -* SA 0% A AP 1 2 3 4 5 I

_______ HOW LARGE COMPANIES PERCEIVE OUR SERVICE RATING Exceptional Neutral Unacceptable Don't Know_ 1 2 3 4 5 6 'NA 79%/ 15% 3% 0% 0% 3% SERVICE EUR 64% 17% 6% 0% 0% 13% __ TYPE EB 77% 2% 0% 0%0 0% 21%___ Quality SA 82% 1% 0% 0% 0% 17% _____ AP 75% 10% 5% 1% 0% 9% __ 90% 80% - _! NA 70% - 60% *2 I —1 EUR 60% 50% 40% EB 30% 20%! SA 10% 1 2 3 4 5 6 T 0 i_______ HOW LARGE COMPANIES PERCEIVE OUR SERVICE _______ ______RATING I_ -__ Exceptional ___Neutral Unacceptable Don't Know 1 2 3 4 5 6 NA 79% 94% 97% 97% 97% 100% SERVICE EUR 64% 81% 87% 87% 87% 100% TYPE EB 77% 79% 79% 79% 79% 100% Quality SA 82% 83% 83% 83% 83% 100% ___AP 75% 85% 90% 91% 91% 100% 100% ______________, _. — |rA -------- NA 80% nI t EUR 60% 40% EB 20% -- - SA 0% - - - i -AP 1 2 3 4 5 _ Ii1 I Li tfA;-I Ir Arn F ruyu u

1 I!. WHAT MEDIUM and SMALL SIZED COMPANIES VALUE RATING Critical Important_ Irrelevant Don't Know_ 1 2 3 4 5 6 _ _NA 14% 31% 52% 3% 0% 0% SERVICE EUR 21% 27% 47% 5% 0% 0% TYPE EB 32% 29% 38% 1% 0% 0% Price SA 41% 27% 28% 4% 0% 0% _____AAP 11% 21% 49% 11% 8% 0%__ 60% ~_ 60% T j --- —- | ^ 50% -NA 40% O --- EUR 30% _ EB 20% _I~~~~- - O SA 10% A AP 0% __ 1 2 3 4 5 WHAT MEDIUM and SMALL SIZED COMPANIES VALUE I ___I___ TRATING__ Critical Important Irrelevant Don't Know_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 14% 45% 97% 100% 100% 100% SERVICE EUR 21% 48% 95%/ 100% 100% 100% TYPE EB 32% 61% 99%/ 100% 100% 100% Price SA 41% 68% 96% 100% 100% 100% _ AP 11% 32% 81% 92% 100% 100% _T__________ I _____ ____ ____ _________ 100%-. --— s- T|* NA 80% " m A - } —, -- EUR 60% EB 40% -- 20% SA 20 1 2 3 4 5 Page I

WHAT MEDIUM and SMALL SIZED COMPANIES VALUE RATING Critical Important Irrelevant Don't Know _ 1 2 3 4 5 6 NA 59% 23% 17% 1% 0% 0% _ SERVICE EUR 48% 32% 16%/ 4% 0% 0% TYPE EB 19% 27% 24% 19% 11% 0% _ Timeliness SA 17% 26% 28% 22% 7% 0% _AP 71% 23% 6% 0 0% 0% 0%__ - 80% N 0 -* NA 60% 7 --- —- EUR 40% ~e ---- EB 30% 20% - --- SA 10% 0% A AP ~1 2 3 4 5 I _ _ _ _ WHAT MEDIUM and SMALL SIZED COMPANIES VALUE I I __RATING | Critical | Important _ Irrelevant Don't Know 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 59% 82% 99% 100% 100% 100% SERVICE EUR 48% 80% 96% 100% 100% 100% TYPE EB 19%/ 46% 70% 89% 100% 100% _ Timeliness SA 17% 43% 71% 93% 100% 100% _AP 71% 94% 100%/ 100% 100% 100% __ 100% -— _-" — NA 80% -lIP- ~ EUR 60% * ^ ^^ ----EB 40% EB 20% 0 SA 20%! 0%1 2 3 4 A AP - 1 2 3 4 5 i i I,"r [age z

I I I I I I _ WHAT MEDIUM and SMALL SIZED COMPANIES VALUE RATING_ Critical Important _Irrelevant Don't Know _ _ _ 1 2 3 4 5 6 _ __NA 44% 21% 29% 5% 1% 0% SERVICE EUR 40% 23% 27% 8% 2% 0% TYPE EB 37% 24% 32% 10% / 7% 0% _ Variety SA 31% 33% 28% 6% 2% 0% AP 43% 14% 31% 10% 2% 0% _ 50% T NA 40%M 0 —I E —FUR 30% 12345 pI \< t~ ---- --- EB -K ' SA 10% 0%, - AP 1 2 3 4 5 WHAT MEDIUM and SMALL SIZED COMPANIES VALUE RATING! ___ Critical_ Important! Irrelevant Don't Know 0 0 0 0 0 0__ NA 44% 65% 94% 99% 100% 100%____ SERVICE EUR 40% 63% 90% 98% 100% 100% TYPE EB 37% 61% 93% 103% 110% 110% _ Variety SA 31% 64% 92% 98% 100% 100% _AP 43% 57% 88% 98% 100% 100% _ I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 120% T _, "_ -* — *~ --- NA 100% 80% L-1 EUR 60% -* EB 40% H O > ISA 20% SA 0%. 1 AP I 1 2 3 4 51 'I1 -age o

WHAT MEDIUM and SMALL SIZED COMPANIES VALUE RATING_ Critical Important Irrelevant Don't Know 1 2 3 4 5 6 NA 47% 32% 8% 9% 4% 0% _ SERVICE EUR 52% 27% 10% 1% 0% 0% TYPE EB 61% 30% 9% 0% 0% 0% Tech Asst SA 65% 27% 7% 1% 0% 0% __ ___|_ AP 40% 27% 15% 3% 15% 0%__ - / ----NA 60% _50%g, ---- EUR 40% _ 30% - ~ *' - EB 20% SA 10% 0% -!, A AP _1 2 3 4 5 WHAT MEDIUM and SMALL SIZED COMPANIES VALUE I RATING Critical _| Important _ Irrelevant Don't Know 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 47% 79% 87% 96% 100% 100% SERVICE EUR 52% 79% 89% 90% 90% 90% TYPE EB 61% 91% 100% 100% 100% 100% Tech Asst SA 65% 92% 99% 100% 100% 100% ____. AP 40% 67% 82% 85% 100% 100% 7 100% ",, = - - -*-NA ]VIM *~~ NA 80% — I EUR 60% *-, EB 40% EB 20% -SA 0%' -- A AP H 1 2 3 4 51 1_ I I I, I I I,, IJ rage 4

....I I I I I I ' 1 WHAT MEDIUM and SMALL SIZED COMPANIES VALUE RATING Critical Important Irrelevant Don't Know 1 2 3 4 5 6 NA 95% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% SERVICE EUR 91% 8% 1% 0% 0% 0% TYPE EB 82% 11% 6% 11% 0% 0% Quality SA 86% 10% 3% 1% 0% 0%. ____ AP 97% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0%__ 100%, -- NA 80% -_ ~ --- EUR 60% ---— e~ — 'EB 40%E 20% + SA 0% ' AP -1 2 3 4 5 I I I ___.I WHAT MEDIUM and SMALL SIZED COMPANIES VALUE _____RATING _____ ";_ LCritical_ Important Irrelevant Don't Know 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% SERVICE EUR 91% 99% 1 100% 100% 100% 100% TYPE EB 82% 93% 99% 100% 100% 100% Quality SA 86% 96%0 99% 100% 100% 100% _AP 97% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% __ 100% _i, - * NA 80% — 0 -- EUR 60% 40% -EB 20% - SA 0% AP —* A| AP H 1 2 3 4 51 I J.I, I I,I Page b

HOW MEDIUM and SMALL SIZED COMPANIES PERCEIVE OUR SERVICE RATING Exceptional Neutral Unacceptable Don't Know 1 2 3 4 5 6 NA 32% 23% 6%.4% 1% 34% _ SERVICE EUR 27% 20% 7% 6% 1% 39% __ TYPE EB 17% 22% 6% 3% 1% 51% __ Price SA 27% 19% 10% 2% 0% 42% __ AP 57% 12% 4% 1% 0% 26%___ 60% I NA 50% 40% 30% - 74.,, I EB 20% 10% 0% " AP 1 2 3 4 5 6 O HOW MEDIUM and SMALL SIZED COMPANIES PERCEIVE OUR SERVICE R____ATING Exceptional Neutral Unacceptable Don't Know 1 2 3 4 5 6 NA 32% 55% 61% 65% 66% 100% SERVICE EUR 27% 47% 54% 60% 61% 100% _ TYPE EB 17% 39%0 45% 48% 49% 100% _ Price SA 27% 46% 56% 58% 58% 100% _ _____AP 57% 69% 73% 74% 74% 100%_ 80% ___ - 70%-, ~A ---- NA -__ ---- EUR: ~~~40% T ~ ~~ EB 30% - 20% | SA 10% 0% O/, __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,,, A AP I % o I - K 1 2 3 4 5 ' l 1 -I i L — I V" - - - I% I I -- 1 I,, I I rage i

HOW MEDIUM and SMALL SIZED COMPANIES PERCEIVE OUR SERVICE IRATING Exceptional Neutral Unacceptable Don't Know __ _ 1 2 3 4 5 6 NA 5% 11% 14% 29% 3% 38% __ SERVICE EUR 3%. 16% 11% 22% 5% 43% TYPE EB 29% 19~/o 4% 0 0% 048% Timeliness SA 33% 18% 4% 1% 0% 44% _AP 13% 15% 10% 36% 1% 25%__ 50%I I 40% - _______ HOW MEDIUM and SMALL SIZED COMPANIES PERCEIVE OUR SERVICE ______ ________________ | RATING Exceptional Neutral ______ Unacceptable Don't Know______ 1 2 3 4 5 6 NA 5% 16% 30% 59% 62% 100% _ SERVICE EUR 3% 19% 30% 52% 57% 100% _ TYPE EB 29% 48% 52% 52% 52% 100% Timeliness SA 33% 51% 55% 56% 56% 100% ____ AP 13% 28% 38% 74% 75% 100%___ 80% 70% -:; - NA 60-s --- — EUR 50% 40% EB 20% I --- —SA 0% I -- AP 1 2 3 4 5,i Li...., rage z

HOW COMPANIES PERCEIVE OUR SERVICE __ t_______l |PRATING Exceptional Neutral Unacceptable Don't Know 1 2 3 4 5 6 ____ NA 38% 21% 3% 2% 1% 35% SERVICE EUR 34% 22% 5% 1% 0% 38% TYPE EB 42% 8% 6% 1% 0% 43% Variety SA 47% 7% 6% 2% 0% 38% ____ AP 59%/ 9% 5% 0% 0% 27% 60% 50% 30% I I EB 20% 10% 0% 4 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 _ _ _ _1 2 3 4 5 6_ TYPE EB 42% 50% 56% 57% 57% 100% Variety SA 47% 54% 60% 62% 62% 100%_____ VIC EHOW COMPANIES PERCEIVE OUR SERVICE I _ __I_ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ J _ _ _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ __ _AT IN G_. EB SERVICE EUR 34% 56 61% 62% 62% 100% TYPE EB 42% 50% |56% 57% 57%| 100%" Variety SA 47% 54% 60% 62% 62% 100% ___ AP 59%0 / 68% 73% 73% 73% 100% 60% EB I 50% i<- 2 4 30% 20% -- 10% I AP 0% 2 3 4 5 A - AP - 1 2 3 4 5 I --- — L I IG _ I ruyu o

.... HOW COMPANIES PERCEIVE OUR SERVICE __ R__ATING_ Exceptional Neutral Unacceptable Don't Know 1 2 3 4 5 6 _NA 52% 14% 6% 2% 0% 26% SERVICE EUR 41% 19% 7% 2% 0% 31% TYPE EB 25% 19/% 14% 8% 2% 32% Tech Asst SA 35% 22% 12% 3% 2% 26% AP 68% 11% 4% 2% 0% 15% _ 70% NA 60% 50%HOW COMPANIES PERCEIVE OUR SERVICE 40% 30% EB 20% SA 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 HOW COMPANIES PERCEIVE OUR SERVICE ________ R___ATING Exceptional Neutral Unacceptable Don't Know 1 2 3 4 5 6 NA 52% 66% 72% 74% 74% 100% SERVICE EUR 41% 60% 67% 69%/ 69% 100% TYPE EB 25% 44% 58% 66% 68% 100% Tech Asst SA 35% 57% 69% 72% 74% 100% AP 68% 79% 83% 85% 85% 100%____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 100% -- _ " A___ -- - NA 80%- ------------ - D —D3 — EUR 60% t e 40 % -- — EB | 40% 20% TSA 0% A AP 1 2 3 4 5 I I I I I I I " r-I~~~~ WZ5 71 II II ruyt- L4

.. HOW COMPANIES PERCEIVE OUR SERVICE _ RATING_ Exceptional Neutral _Unacceptable Don't Know 1 2 3 4 5 6 _ NA 74% 11% 1% 0% 0% 14% SERVICE EUR 60% 21% 1% 0% 0% 18% TYPE EB 77% 2% 0% 0% 0% 21% _ Quality SA 82% 1% 0% 0% 0% 17% AP 75% 10% 5% 1% 0% 90/0 90% 80% I NA 70% 60% -- EUR 50% -^ i-L __________ m__ |__ RATING_____________________ SA 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 HOW COMPANIES PERCEIVE OUR SERVICE RATING ___ Exceptional Neutral Unacceptable Don't Know _ _1 2 3 4 5 6 NA 74% 85% 86% 86% 86% 100% SERVICE EUR 60% 81% 82% 82% 82% 100% TYPE EB 77% 79% 79% 79% 79%/ 100% Quality SA 82% 83% 83% 83% 83% 100% AP 75% 85% 90% 91% 91% 100% _ 100% &0~____ " NA -0% l ':'D EUR 60% - *- EB 40% EB 20% — o- SA 0% I, -- - AP 1 2 3 4 5 ___ _ I — - jt ruyg U

GAPS IN THE A VERAGE RATINGS OF IMPORTANCE and PERFORMANCE REGION 1 - NORTH AMERICA Importance Performance Gap 2.88 1.32 -1.56 Price 1.42 3.19 1.77 Timeliness 2.22 2.54 1.29 1.26 -0.93 -1.28 Variety Tech Asst 1.08 1.22 0.14 Quality 3.50 3.00 0 g E 0 0. 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 Importance

GAPS IN THE AVERAGE RATINGS OF IMPORTANCE and PERFORMANCE REGION I - NORTH AMERICA(Med-Sml) Importance Performance Gap 2.44 1.77 -0.67 Price 1.60 3.23 1.63 Timeliness 1.98 1.57 -0.41 Variety 1.91 1.43 -0.48 Tech Asst 1.05 1.15 0.10 Quality 3.50 3.00 o 2.50 I 0 1 0 2.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 Importance

GAPS IN THE AVERAGE RATINGS OF IMPORTANCE and PERFORMANCE REGION 2 - EUROPE Importance Performance Gap 2.63 1.77 -0.86 Price 1.46 3.26 1.80 Timeliness 2.38 1.21 -1.17 Variety 2.06 1.45 -0.61 Tech Asst 1.09 1.33 0.24 Quality 3.50 3.00 0 o 2.50 E It 0. 2.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 Importance

GAPS IN THE AVERAGE RATINGS OF IMPORTANCE and PERFORMANCE REGION 2 - EUROPE(Med-Sml) Importance 2.36 1.76 2.09 1.56 1.10 Performance 1.92 3.18 1.56 1.57 1.28 Gap -0.44 1.42 -0.53 0.01 0.18 Quality Price Timeliness Variety Tech Asst 3.50 3.00 Q) 0 c O 0 t I0 La. 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 Importance

GAPS IN THE AVERAGE RATINGS OF IMPORTANCE and PERFORMANCE REGION 3 - EASTERN BLOC Importance Performance Gap 2.08 1.96 -0.12 Price 2.76 1.52 -1.24 Timeliness 2.33 1.48 1.26 1.40 2.16 1.03 -0.92 0.68 -0.23 Variety Tech Asst Quality 3.50 3.00 o 2.50 c 0 E 0 a. 2.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 Importance

GAPS IN THE A VERAGE RA TINGS OF IMPORTANCE and PERFORMANCE REGION 4 - SOUTH AMERICA Importance Performance Gap 1.95 1.78 -0.17 Price 2.76 1.52 -1.24 Timeliness 2.15 1.44 1.19 1.40 1.85 1.01 -0.75 0.41 -0.18 Variety Tech Asst Quality 3.50 3.00 0 c E 0 0 0. 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 Importance

GAPS IN THE AVERAGE RATINGS OF IMPORTANCE and PERFORMANCE REGION 5 - ASIA PACIFIC Importance Performance Gap 2.84 1.31 -1.53 Price 1.35 2.96 1.61 Timeliness 2.14 2.26 1.03 1.26 1.29 1.25 -0.88 -0.97 0.22 Variety Tech Asst Quality 3.50 3.00 o 2.50 E 0 a> 2.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 Importance