tavant webcast slides: how the right warranty management solution can help improve your...

Research Powered By© 2017 Strategies For GrowthSM

“Research Analysts to the Services Industry”

How the Right Warranty Management Solution Can Help Improve Your

Organization’s Bottom Line

Special Management Webcast Hosted by:

March 1, 2017

Research Powered By

SFG℠’s 2017 Warranty Chain Management Survey:

Launched on January 10, 2017

Based on data collected through February 20, 2017

“Live” for 41 Days

215 Total Respondents

Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Process is Fully Automated

Process Is Partially Automated

Process Is All Manual

No Formal Warranty Management Process

20

57

15

7

22% of Organizations Have Either a Manual WM Process – or None at All …

n = 143

22%

Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0





20

57

15

7

However, More than Three-Quarters Are At Least Partially Automated …

n = 143

77%

Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0





20

57

15

7

… But, Only 20% Are Currently Fully Automated …

n = 143

Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0





29

71

0

0

However, This Figure Jumps to 29% Among Organizations that Have Acquired or Upgraded Their WM Solution within the Past 3 Years:

n = 52

Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0





29

71

0

0

Leading to at Least Partially Automated Among Organizations that Have Acquired or Upgraded Their WM Solution within the Past 3 Years:

n = 52

100%

Research Powered By

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Decrease by >10%+

Decrease by 5% to 9%

Decrease by < 5%

Remain the Same

Increase by < 5%

Increase by 5% to 9%

Increase by > 10%+

6

2

10

38

19

12

13

Overall, Annual Warranty Budgets Are Largely Expected to Increase* …

n = 120

* In the next 12 months.

(Percent Response)

Research Powered By

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Decrease by >10%+


Decrease by < 5%

Remain the Same

Increase by < 5%


Increase by > 10%+

6

2

10

38

19

12

13


n = 120

44%


(Percent Response)

Research Powered By

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Decrease by >10%+


Decrease by < 5%

Remain the Same

Increase by < 5%


Increase by > 10%+

6

2

10

38

19

12

13


n = 120

44%

18%


(Percent Response)

Research Powered By

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Decrease by >10%+


Decrease by < 5%

Remain the Same

Increase by < 5%


Increase by > 10%+

6

2

10

38

19

12

13


n = 120

44%

18%


Expected to Increase over Decrease by a

ratio of > 2:1!

(Percent Response)

Research Powered By

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

No - Neither Implemented nor Upgraded OurWM Solution

Yes - Upgraded Existing WM Solution

Yes - Implemented a New WM Solution

51

34

15

Roughly Half (49%) of the WM Segment Have Implemented and/or Upgraded Their Respective WM Solutions in the Past Three Years or Less …

n = 107

(Percent Response)

Research Powered By

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

No - Neither Implemented nor Upgraded OurWM Solution

Yes - Upgraded Existing WM Solution

Yes - Implemented a New WM Solution

51

34

15

Roughly Half (49%) of the WM Segment Have Implemented and/or Upgraded Their Respective WM Solutions in the Past Three Years or Less …

n = 107

49%

(Percent Response)

Research Powered By

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Declined by >25%

Declined by 10% to 24%

Declined by < 10%

No Change

Improved by < 10%

Improved by 10% to 24%

Improved by > 25%

3

3

12

12

21

12

12

Warranty Claims Processing Time Has Improved Since Implementation …

n = 33

(Percent Response)

Base: Have Implemented or Upgraded Their WarrantyManagement Solution in the Past Three Years

Research Powered By

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Declined by >25%


Declined by < 10%

No Change

Improved by < 10%


Improved by > 25%

3

3

12

12

21

12

12

45%


n = 33

(Percent Response)


Research Powered By

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Declined by >25%


Declined by < 10%

No Change

Improved by < 10%


Improved by > 25%

3

3

12

12

21

12

12

45%


n = 33

(Percent Response)


18%

Research Powered By

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Declined by >25%


Declined by < 10%

No Change

Improved by < 10%


Improved by > 25%

3

3

12

12

21

12

12

45%


n = 33

(Percent Response)


18%

Improved is cited over Declined by a

ratio of 2.5:1!

Research Powered By

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Declined by >25%


Declined by < 10%

No Change

Improved by < 10%


Improved by > 25%

3

12

16

25

34

9

0

Total Warranty Expense Has Improved Since Implementation …

n = 32

(Percent Response)


Research Powered By

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Declined by >25%


Declined by < 10%

No Change

Improved by < 10%


Improved by > 25%

3

12

16

25

34

9

0

43%


n = 32

(Percent Response)


Research Powered By

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Declined by >25%


Declined by < 10%

No Change

Improved by < 10%


Improved by > 25%

3

12

16

25

34

9

0

43%


n = 32

(Percent Response)


31%

Research Powered By

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Declined by >25%


Declined by < 10%

No Change

Improved by < 10%


Improved by > 25%

3

12

16

25

34

9

0

43%


n = 32

(Percent Response)


31%

Improved is cited over Declined by a

ratio of 1.4:1!

Research Powered By

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Declined by >25%


Declined by < 10%

No Change

Improved by < 10%


Improved by > 25%

3

7

0

33

33

27

7

Supplier / Vendor Recovery Has Improved Since Implementation …

n = 30

(Percent Response)


Research Powered By

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Declined by >25%


Declined by < 10%

No Change

Improved by < 10%


Improved by > 25%

3

7

0

33

33

27

7

67%


n = 30

(Percent Response)


Research Powered By

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Declined by >25%


Declined by < 10%

No Change

Improved by < 10%


Improved by > 25%

3

7

0

33

33

27

7

67%


n = 30

(Percent Response)


10%

Research Powered By

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Declined by >25%


Declined by < 10%

No Change

Improved by < 10%


Improved by > 25%

3

7

0

33

33

27

7

67%


n = 30

(Percent Response)


10%

Improved is cited over Declined by a ratio almost 7:1!

Research Powered By

Comparison of Organizations with New WM Implementations vs. Upgrades

Mean KPI values reflect a significant advantage for those organizations that have implemented “new” Warranty Management solutions within the past three years vs. those that have upgraded existing WM solutions, as follows:

Key Performance Organizations with “New” With UpgradedIndicator (KPI) WM Implementations WM Solutions

Research Powered By




Warranty Claims 14% Improvement 6% ImprovementProcessing Time

Research Powered By





Warranty Expense 3% Decline No Change(as a % of Total Sales)

Research Powered By





Warranty Expense 3% Decline No Change(as a % of Total Sales)

Supplier / Vendor 8% Improvement 5% ImprovementRecovery (as a % ofTotal Warranty Expense)

Research Powered By

A Majority of Organizations Currently Offer an Extended Warranty Agreement or Service Contract …

n = 204

55%

25%

20%

Currently Offer Extended Warranties

Yes

No

Don't Know

n = 161

Research Powered By

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Equally In-House & by Third Parties

Managed Mostly by Third Parties

Managed Entirely by Third Parties

Managed Mostly In-House

Managed Entirely In-House

10

2

9

12

67

With About Two-Thirds Managing Extended Warranties Entirely In-House …

n = 87

(Percent Response)

Research Powered By

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0






10

2

9

12

67

Almost 4-in-5 Managing Extended Warranties at Least Mostly In-House …

n = 87

(Percent Response)

79%

Research Powered By

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0






10

2

9

12

67

And Nearly 9-in-10 Managing Portions of Extended Warranties In-House

n = 87

(Percent Response)

79%

89%

10%

Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Mandate to Drive Increased Service Revenues

Product Defect-related Costs

Dealing with Inferior/Deficient Product Quality

Customer Demand for Improved WarrantyServices

Desire to Improve Customer Retention

Post-Sale Customer Satisfaction Issues

23

26

28

36

43

47

The Principal Drivers Impacting Today’s Warranty Management Initiatives

n = 132

Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0







23

26

28

36

43

47

… Are, First, Customer-Focused …

n = 132

Customer-focused

Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0







23

26

28

36

43

47

… Then, Product Quality-focused …

n = 132

Customer-focused

Product Quality-focused

Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0







23

26

28

36

43

47

… And, Finally, Cost/Revenue-focused …

n = 132

Customer-focused

Product Quality-focused

Cost/Revenue-focused

Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

Other Key Drivers Focus on Costs,

n = 132

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Costs Associated with Fradulent Claims

Escalating Warranty Administrative Costs

Need to Improve Supply Chain Performance

Compliance to Regulatory Requirements

Mandate to Improve Service Profitability

Logistics and/or Reverse Logistics Costs

6

11

13

14

18

20

Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

Other Key Drivers Focus on Costs, Profitability

n = 132

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0







6

11

13

14

18

20

Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

Other Key Drivers Focus on Costs, Profitability, Compliance

n = 132

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0







6

11

13

14

18

20

Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

Other Key Drivers Focus on Costs, Profitability, Compliance & Performance

n = 132

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0







6

11

13

14

18

20

Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

The Greatest Challenges Facing Today’s Warranty Management Initiatives …

n = 122

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

High Levels of NFFs

Repair Management

Data Quality

Claims Processing Time & Accuracy

Product Quality Issues

ID of Root Causes of Product Failures

20

25

25

30

30

42

Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

Other Challenges include Systems, Costs, Sales & Management Issues:

n = 122

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Reverse Logistics Management

Constraints of Repair Network

Sale of Extended Warranties

Managing Admin Costs for WarrantyFulfillment

Cost Recovery from Suppliers

System Limitations

13

15

16

16

17

18

Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

Specific Challenges Relating to Product Complexity include:

n = 124

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Lack of Certified / Experienced Technicians

Increased Reliance on OEM for Joint Support

Increasing Labor Charges / Costs

No Significant Challenges

29

29

29

31

Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

Specific Actions Taken to Address Product Complexity Issues include:

n = 118

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Increasing the Organizations Mfg. Activities

Establishing Contracts with OEMs for FieldService Support

Outsourcing Field Service to SpecializedVendors

Providing Self-Diagnostic Capabilities

Increased Technician Training / Certifications

No Specific Actions Required

14

18

21

35

38

24

Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

Specific Challenges Relating to Changing Customer Expectations include:

n = 124

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Need to Provide Instant Decisions on Claims

Ability to Provide B2B Customers w/ B2CService

Demand for Quicker Claims Turnaround Time

No Significant Challenges

20

22

53

26

Research Powered By

Putting Things in Perspective: Current Strategic Actions Already in Place:

The top Strategic Actions currently being undertaken by Services Organizations to address the key Drivers/Challenges of Warranty Chain Performance are:

Research Powered By

Putting Things in Perspective: Current Strategic Actions Already in Place:

The top Strategic Actions currently being undertaken by Services Organizations to address the key Drivers/Challenges of Warranty Chain Performance are:

43% Develop/Improve Metrics, or KPIs for Advanced Warranty Chain Analytics

28% Foster a Closer Working Collaboration Between Product Design & Service

28% Institute/Enforce Process Workflow Improvements for Supplier Cost Recovery

27% Streamline Parts Return Process to Improve Overall Efficiency

23% Restructure for Improved Warranty Management Oversight & Accountability

22% Purchase or Upgrade an Automated Warranty Chain Management Solution

20% Improve Warranty Management-related Planning and Forecasting Activities

20% Outsource some, or all, Warranty Management Activities to Third Parties

20% Implement a Claims Review Process to Curb Fraudulent Claims

19% Restructure/Update Existing Warranty Pricing Schedule

18% Provide Additional Training to Extended Warranty Sales Personnel

Research Powered By

Putting Things in Perspective: Planned Strategic Actions (Next 12 Months):

The top Strategic Actions being planned in the next 12 months to address the key Drivers/Challenges of Warranty Chain Performance are:

Research Powered By

Putting Things in Perspective: Planned Strategic Actions (Next 12 Months):

The top Strategic Actions being planned in the next 12 months to address the key Drivers/Challenges of Warranty Chain Performance are:

26% Develop/Improve Metrics, or KPIs for Advanced Warranty Chain Analytics

25% Restructure for Improved Warranty Management Oversight & Accountability

24% Improve Warranty Management-related Planning and Forecasting Activities

22% Institute/Enforce Process Workflow Improvements for Supplier Cost Recovery

19% Foster a Closer Working Collaboration Between Product Design & Service

18% Purchase or Upgrade an Automated Warranty Chain Management Solution

17% Streamline Parts Return Process to Improve Overall Efficiency

16% Provide Additional Training to Extended Warranty Sales Personnel

15% Restructure/Update Existing Warranty Pricing Schedule

9% Implement a Claims Review Process to Curb Fraudulent Claims

7% Outsource some, or all, Warranty Management Activities to Third Parties

Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Early Warning: Systematic Failures

Sr. Executive Oversight of All WM Activities

Separate Reporting of WM FinancialPerformance Data

End-to-End Workflow Process to HandleClaims & Returns

Structured WM Integration w/ All ServiceFunctions

44

44

45

46

46

The Top Warranty Management Capabilities Currently in Place include …

n = 93

Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Ability to Track In-Warranty Repairs at PoS

KPI Measurement: Claim Rates

Centralized Data Warehouse

KPI Measurement: Claim Processing Time

KPI Measurement: Total Warranty Costs

37

38

40

41

44

Other Key Warranty Management Capabilities Currently in Place include …

n = 93

Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Closed-Loop WM System in Place

Multi-Division Collaboration

WM Operational/Financial Info Distribution

KPI: Detection-to-Correction Time

Ability of Field Techs to Review WarrantyEntitlements on Each Job

29

29

30

32

35

But, Wait – There’s More:

n = 93

Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Structured WM Integration w/ All ServiceFunctions

End-to-End Workflow Process to HandleClaims & Returns

KPI: Claims Processing Time Time

Centralized Data Warehouse for ProductPerformance & WM Information

Early Warning: Systematic Failures

24

25

26

27

27

… And, Even More Being Planned* (in the Next 12 Months) …

n = 93

* By at least one-quarter of respondents.

Research Powered By

Putting Things in Perspective: Technology Applications Currently Used

Technology applications currently being used by Services Organizations include:

Research Powered By



63% Customer Relationship Management (CRM)

58% Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)

53% Financial / Accounting System (separate from ERP)

52% Warranty Management

Research Powered By







49% Spare Parts / Inventory Management

45% Contract Management

37% Business Intelligence / Analytics

35% Product Lifecycle Management (PLM)

35% Workforce Management System (WMS)

30% Knowledge Management (KM) Application

28% Enterprise Asset Management System (EAMS)

27% Service Lifecycle Management (SLM)

26% Service Forecasting and Planning Application

26% Remote Asset Monitoring / Management

Research Powered By

Putting Things in Perspective: Technology Applications Being Planned*


Technology applications currently being planned for use* include:

Research Powered By

Putting Things in Perspective: Technology Applications Being Planned*


Technology applications currently being planned for use* include:

21% Service Lifecycle Management (SLM)

20% Business Intelligence / Analytics

20% Knowledge Management (KM) Application

20% Remote Asset Monitoring / Management

19% Service Forecasting and Planning Application

18% Workforce Management System (WMS)

17% Product Lifecycle Management (PLM)

14% Enterprise Asset Management System (EAMS)

13% Spare Parts / Inventory Management

13% Contract Management





Research Powered By

Putting Things in Perspective: Emerging Technologies Currently Used

Emerging Technologies currently being used by Services Organizations include:

Research Powered By

Putting Things in Perspective: Emerging Technologies Currently Used

Emerging Technologies currently being used by Services Organizations include:

35% New, dedicated mobile applications

35% Self-learning applications for technicians

33% Remote asset monitoring / management

28% Leveraging the Internet of Things (IoT) and telemetry data

28% Machine learning and other advanced analytics platforms

28% Work order / shop floor management systems for your dealers

14% Augmented Reality (AR) / Virtual Reality (VR) / Mixed Reality (MR)

13% Artificial Intelligence

Research Powered By

Putting Things in Perspective: Emerging Technologies Planned for Use*

Emerging Technologies planned for use* by Services Organizations include:


Research Powered By

Putting Things in Perspective: Emerging Technologies Planned for Use*

Emerging Technologies planned for use* by Services Organizations include:

35% New, dedicated mobile applications

33% Leveraging the Internet of Things (IoT) and telemetry data

30% Self-learning applications for technicians

27% Remote asset monitoring / management

23% Machine learning and other advanced analytics platforms

21% Augmented Reality (AR) / Virtual Reality (VR) / Mixed Reality (MR)

21% Artificial Intelligence

18% Work order / shop floor management systems for your dealers


Research Powered By

Nearly Half (45%) of Respondents Are Clearly Looking at Investing in Predictive Maintenance Systems; Most Are Unsure – But None Rule It Out

n = 204

29%

16%55%

Yes - CurrentlyInvestingYes - Planning toInvestDon't Know /Unsure

(Percent Response)

n = 90

Currently Investing / Planning to Invest*


Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

To Make Manufacturing Changes

To Improve Depot Repair Processes

To Improve Equipment / Part ReturnProcesses

To Make Product Design Changes

To Improve Field Service Processes

34

37

45

45

70

The Top Uses of Data/Information Collected from Warranty Events Are:

n = 83

Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

To Make Changes to Product Documentation

To Make Purchasing Decisions

For Inclusion in Regular Corporate FinancialPerformance Reporting

To Make Supplier Selection

25

25

27

30

Other Key Uses of Data/Information Collected from Warranty Events Are:

n = 83

Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Claims Administration

Entire Warranty Process, incl. Service Mgmt.

Spare Parts Planning and Inventory Mgmt.

Returns / Exchange Management

Overall Repair Operations

Reverse Logistics

21

25

29

37

37

37

Roughly One-Third of Respondents Outsource Their RL, Repair & Returns …

n = 52

Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0






Reverse Logistics

21

25

29

37

37

37

And, One-Quarter Currently Outsource Their Entire Warranty Process …

n = 52

Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0




Reverse Logistics



10

10

12

17

17

23

Plans for Outsourcing* Are Greatest for Claims Administration …

n = 52


Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0




Reverse Logistics



10

10

12

17

17

23

But Somewhat Less So for All Other Individual WM Activities …

n = 52


Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0




Reverse Logistics



10

10

12

17

17

23

However, an Additional One-in-Six Plan to Outsource* All WM Activities …

n = 52


Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Specific Geographic Experience

Data / Info Reporting Capabilities

Warranty Management Experience

Industry Reputation

Cost of Services

38

41

47

47

70

When Evaluating Outsourced Support, Cost of Services Is Most Important:

n = 66

Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0




Industry Reputation

Cost of Services

38

41

47

47

70

… Followed By Industry Reputation and WM Experience …

n = 66

Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0




Industry Reputation

Cost of Services

38

41

47

47

70

… And Data/Info Reporting and Geographic Experience:

n = 66

Research Powered By

(Percent Response)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Business Vision and Strategy

Specific Vertical Market Experience

Global Footprint / Coverage

Ability to Integrate with Installed Systems

Financial Viability

26

29

29

32

33

Other Outsourced Partner Evaluation Factors also Include:

n = 56

Research Powered By

Primary Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) Currently Being Used Are …

Primary KPIs currently being used by Services Organizations are:

Research Powered By



68% Customer Satisfaction

54% Total Warranty Costs

Research Powered By





42% Warranty Costs, Per Product

41% Warranty incidents, Per Product

35% Claims Processing Time

34% In-Warranty Product Return Rate

29% Total Revenues from Extended Warranty Sales

29% Time from Defect Detection to Correction

27% Claims Processing Costs

26% Analysis Cycle Time

25% Time from Product Sale to Defect Detection

12% Re-imbursement Cycle time (i.e., from Suppliers)

11% Warranty Reserve Variation

Research Powered By

The Singular Most Important KPIs Currently Being Used Are …

The most important KPIs currently being used by Services Organizations are:

Research Powered By



35% Customer Satisfaction Cited by 35%Cited by 35%

Research Powered By




19% Total Warranty Costs Cited by 35%Cited by 19%

Cited by 35%Cited by 35%

Research Powered By









Research Powered By






8% Warranty Costs, Per Product

5% In-Warranty Product Return Rate

5% Claims Processing Costs

4% Claims Processing Time

4% Warranty incidents, Per Product

3% Time from Product Sale to Defect Detection

1% Total Revenues from Extended Warranty Sales

1% Re-imbursement Cycle time (i.e., from Suppliers)

0% Warranty Reserve Variation

0% Analysis Cycle Time




Research Powered By

Current KPI Values Reflect Mixed Performance Among Respondents …

Mean KPI values currently being used to measure Warranty Management performance appear to be reasonably high – but somewhat lower than in past years:

Research Powered By




Research Powered By



82% Customer Satisfaction (Down from 85% in 2016)

Research Powered By




8.9 Days Warranty Claims Processing Time

Research Powered By




8.9 Days Warranty Claims Processing Time (Increased from 5.57 Days in 2016)

Research Powered By





25% Services Profitability

Research Powered By





25% Services Profitability (Not measured in 2016)

Research Powered By






However, many Organizations are still not attaining even Industry Average levels of performance:

Research Powered By







56% Not attaining at least 90% Customer Satisfaction

Research Powered By







56% Not attaining at least 90% Customer Satisfaction29% Not attaining at least 80% Customer Satisfaction

Research Powered By








78% Not Attaining 2 Days or Less Warranty Claims Processing Time

Research Powered By








78% Not Attaining 2 Days or Less Warranty Claims Processing Time49% Not Attaining 4 Days or Less Warranty Claims Processing Time

Research Powered By








78% Not Attaining 2 Days or Less Warranty Claims Processing Time49% Not Attaining 4 Days or Less Warranty Claims Processing Time24% Taking 15 Days or More for Warranty Claims Processing Time

Research Powered By









59% Not attaining at least 30% Services Profitability

Research Powered By









59% Not attaining at least 30% Services Profitability45% Not attaining at least 20% Services Profitability

Research Powered By









59% Not attaining at least 30% Services Profitability45% Not attaining at least 20% Services Profitability25% Not attaining at least 10% Services Profitability

Research Powered By

Overall, Things Appear to Be Getting Better for WM Organizations …

Mean KPI values for most key Warranty Management activities reflect year-over-year growth in most cases – although somewhat lower than in past years:

Research Powered By



Warranty Claims Processing Time (30% Improvement; 21% Decline = 1.4:1 Ratio)

Research Powered By




Reimbursement Cycle Time (18% Improvement; 8% Decline = >2:1 Ratio)

Research Powered By





Revenue from Extended Warranties (47% Improvement; 13% Decline = >3:1 Ratio)

Research Powered By





Revenue from Extended Warranties (47% Improvement; 13% Decline = >3:1 Ratio)

Warranty Claims Processing Costs (40% Decline; 15% Improvement = ~3:1 Ratio)

Research Powered By

Comparative Year-over-Year KPIs of Organizations with “New” WM Implementations, Upgraded WM Solutions vs. All Others:

Mean KPI values reflect a significant advantage for those organizations that have implemented “new” Warranty Management solutions within the past three years vs. those that have merely upgraded existing WM solutions:

Key Performance “New” WM Upgraded AllIndicator (KPI) Implementation WM Solution Others

Research Powered By




Warranty Claims 8.8% -2.5% 0.1%Processing Time

Research Powered By





Reimbursement 1.7% -1.6% -0.3%Cycle Time(from Suppliers)

Research Powered By





Reimbursement 1.7% -1.6% -0.3%Cycle Time(from Suppliers)

Revenues from 12.5% 10.8% 4.4%Extended WarrantySales

Research Powered By

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Not at All Satisfied

Not Very Satisfied

Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied

Very Satisfied

Extremely Satisfied

3

12

44

30

12

Only 42% of Users Are Presently Satisfied with their Primary WM Vendor …

n = 77

(Percent Response)

Research Powered By

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0


Not Very Satisfied


Very Satisfied

Extremely Satisfied

3

12

44

30

12

Only 42% of Users Are Presently Satisfied with their Primary WM Vendor …

n = 77

42%

(Percent Response)

Research Powered By

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0


Not Very Satisfied


Very Satisfied

Extremely Satisfied

3

12

44

30

12

… But, Only 12% Are Extremely Satisfied:

n = 77

42%

(Percent Response)

12%

Research Powered By

Even More (44%) Are Fairly Complacent About Their Primary Vendors:

(Percent Response)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0


Not Very Satisfied


Very Satisfied

Extremely Satisfied

3

12

44

30

12

n = 77

Research Powered By

However, Roughly 1-in-6 are Not Very/Not at All Satisfied:

15%

(Percent Response)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0


Not Very Satisfied


Very Satisfied

Extremely Satisfied

3

12

44

30

12

n = 77

Research Powered By

Key Takeaways from SFG℠’s 2017 Warranty Management Benchmark:

Roughly two-thirds (66%) of FSOs currently manage Service as a Profit Center

More than half (57%) are presently using a partially automated WM process;however, about one-fifth (20%) are fully automated

Annual Warranty Budgets are largely expected to increase for 2017

Principal Drivers currently influencing today’s WM initiatives are:

First, Customer-focused (i.e., Satisfaction, Retention, Improved WM Services) Second, Product Quality-focused (i.e., Dealing w/ Inferior/Deficient Product Quality) Third, Cost/Revenue-focused (i.e., Defect-related Costs, Increased Service Revenues)

Top challenges facing today’s WM initiatives are:

Identification of root causes of product failures Product quality issues Claims processing time and accuracy

Roughly half of Organizations (49%) have implemented and/or upgraded their respective WM solutions in the past three years; and, as a result, have realized:

9% improvement in Warranty Claims Processing Time 6% improvement in Supplier/Vendor Recovery (as a % of Total WM Expenses)

Research Powered By


Top uses of the data/information collected from Warranty-related events are to:

Improve Field Service processes Make Product Design changes Improve Equipment / Part Return processes Improve Depot Repair Processes Make Manufacturing changes

Primary Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) currently being used for WM are:

Customer Satisfaction Total Warranty Costs Warranty Costs, per Product / Warranty Incidents, per Product

Roughly half of Organizations are not currently attaining at least 90% Customer Satisfaction (56%), 4 Days or Less Warranty Claims Processing Times (49%), or at least 20% Services Profitability (45%)

Revenues from Extended Warranty Sales have increased somewhat over the past year; but so have Warranty Claims Processing costs

Less than half (42%) of Organizations are “Very Satisfied or Extremely Satisfied” with the performance of their Primary WM solution vendor

Research Powered By


Organizations that have implemented a “new” Warranty Management solution in the past three years have experienced significantly greater year-over-year improvements than those who have merely upgraded their existing WM systems (and vs. All Others) in:

Warranty Claims Processing Time

Reimbursement Cycle Time (from Suppliers)

Revenues from Extended Warranty Sales

A majority of Warranty Chain managers (54%) cite Best Practices as the one Services-related area they are most interested in understanding better

This bodes extremely well for the future well-being of Warranty Chain Management

Research Powered By

SFG℠ Contact Information

Bill Pollock, President

Strategies For Growth℠

(610) 399-9717

[email protected]

www.s4growth.com

@PollockOnService

Research Powered By

Rohit Lohan, Senior Product Manager, Tavant Technologies

Research Powered By 142

Choose Right Solution/Product

Self-service

Support Business Growth

Collaborate withpartners

Intelligent

Closed loopIOT readyCustomer focusBeyond Wnty


Tavant Warranty Products

Tavant Warranty- Enterprise ready- On-premise- Closed Loop Wnty Mgmt

Tavant Warranty on Demand- Enterprise ready- Cloud based- Closed Loop Wnty Mgmt

Tavant Manufacturing Analytics Platform- Exhaustive schema- Cloud based- Plug-n-play architecture

Product Registration Service Center


Tavant Warranty

Inventory Management

(product registration, PDI, transfers, inspections)

Recall/field improvement campaigns

Claims Management

(warranty, EW, PM, service)

Supplier Recovery

Integrated part returns

Fraud Scoring

CORE

(rules, workflow, BI)

Highly Configurable

Closed loop Wnty Management

Modular & Integrated


Tavant Warranty on Demand

Salesforce Platform(customer information)

Sales Cloud, Service Cloud, Marketing Cloud

(Capture customer touch points)

Tavant Warranty On DemandTavant Warranty On Demand

leveraging Force.com cloud environment

Highly Configurable

Customer Focused

Collaboration

Research Powered By

TAVANT Solution

Successful Solution Deployment

Impactful

Flex

ible

146

+

CUSTOMER

Scalable

Industry Experience <Business Nuisances <

Customer Policies <

Warranty Domain Expertise <Best Practices <

Business Analytics Lab <Data Sciences Expertise <

Scalable solution Backbone <

Predictive Analytics Platform

Cost Advantage

Machine Learning Out of box

dashboards

Faster, Better,

Decision Making

Flexible Business Model

Real-time decision

support API

Dedicated Data

Scientists

Tavant Manufacturing Analytics Platform

Research Powered By

Research Powered By

Thank you for attending the WebinarWebinar playback will soon be available through www.tavant.com

Any other questions? Feel free to write to [email protected]

http://www.tavant.com/

mailto:[email protected]

tavant webcast slides: how the right warranty management solution can help improve your...

Automotive