Auto Warranty Report - BearingPoint

2y ago
17 Views
2 Downloads
750.71 KB
36 Pages
Last View : 6d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Lucca Devoe
Transcription

Commercial Services AutomotiveGlobal AutomotiveWarranty Survey ReportPartner organizationsSurvey Report

Most importantly, there was a clear desire amongstOEMs and suppliers to work together to make warrantymanagement the kind of proposition that can helpboth sides weather current and future storms.2Insight Journal

ForewordAs the automotive industry’s second century unfolds, its key players are confronted by awide range of challenges. Fuel prices are at an all-time high. The green agenda is highlyprominent, with increasing regulatory focus on emissions and fuel efficiency. And againstthe backdrop of a global credit crisis, the fight for customer spend and loyalty remainsfiercely competitive.Along with these challenges, warranty management remains one of the industry’s mostimportant and pressing issues. Car manufacturers and their dealers use warranties to winand retain customers. Those customers, in turn, expect to be given or be able to negotiatelonger warranty coverage. Suppliers are often caught in the middle—pressed to match thebumper-to-bumper warranties offered by original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), butoften the recipients of these longer warranties’ resulting cost burdens.In late 2007 we at BearingPoint decided that the time was right for a major primaryresearch effort on the subject of warranty management. How are companies around theworld rising to the warranty challenge? What responses are considered most critical andmost feasible? And of paramount importance, how can all of the key stakeholders worktogether to create a warranty environment in which OEMs, dealers, suppliers andcustomers all come out ahead?BearingPoint is a world leader in helping the automotive industry address its most burningimperatives; and as such was well positioned to launch such a study. Our professionalswork closely with most of the world’s major car and truck manufacturers, as well asnumerous first- and second-tier suppliers. However, we recognized that our analysis wouldbe strengthened by a collaborative research effort with the world’s foremost automotiveindustry organizations. We are therefore delighted that the following report has beenenhanced by the insights and assistance of the Original Equipment Suppliers Association(OESA), Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG), European Association of AutomotiveSuppliers (CLEPA) and Warranty Week magazine.It is a measure of the importance that the automotive industry places on the issue ofwarranty management that responses to our survey were strong. Most came from seniorexecutives. About one third of our respondents said they are their organization’s topwarranty executive. And virtually all have primary warranty responsibility either for theentire company or for a specific division or regional entity.From this highly qualified group of respondents, we learned a great deal—thatresponsibility for warranty management is fragmented across departmental silos andOEM/ supplier organizations, that there are divergent views as to the key barriers tosuccess, and that strong financial underpinnings such as specific cost targets and total costof ownership calculations are often lacking. Yet we also detected strong consensus inmany vital areas. Most importantly, there was a clear desire amongst OEMs and suppliersto work together to make warranty management the kind of proposition that can help bothsides weather current and future storms.We hope you find the following report both informative and helpful, and that you’ll feelfree to contact us with questions, comments or additional insights.James RodgerVice president, Global Automotive leaderBearingPointSurvey Report 3

Commercial Services AutomotiveWinning through collaboration:Observations and insights on warrantymanagement in the automotive industryIn this reportForeword31. Key findings62. The warranty organization103. Warranty duration,costs and incidents134. Gauging the effectivenessof warranty managementpractices195. Making warrantymanagement improvements266. The road ahead30About the BearingPointAutomotive Practice34Survey Development Partners36Acknowledgements38Lagging sales in North America andEurope. Stricter regulations. Industryrestructuring. Increased competition.More product complexity. These are theauto industry’s stark realities—conditionsthat present vehicle manufacturers andtheir supply chain partners with dramaticopportunities and challenges. Eachreality also affects and complicates thetask of warranty management. Now morethan ever, warranty management has adirect impact on the profitability of anoriginal equipment manufacturer (OEM),its dealer network and other supplychain partners.Further increasing the complexity ofwarranty management is its broadeningscope. Warranties reflect far more thanan OEM’s or supplier’s confidence in itsproduct. They are also a selling strategy, avital collaboration point, a cornerstone ofcustomer retention, a data managementhot spot, and a key contributor to riskand risk analysis. OEMs extend warrantiesto emphasize product quality and combatcompetitors. Suppliers work across tiersto keep increased complexity fromcompromising reliability and raisingwarranty costs. Both sides seek betterways to leverage diagnostic data.Estimates of global spend on warrantyclaims frequently run between 45 billionand 50 billion. In the United States,automotive manufacturers and theirsuppliers spent almost 13 billion onwarranty claims in 2006, according toWarranty Week.1 This represents a modestincrease from 2005, about 1.6 percent.However, the small rise masks a varietyof growing concerns that OEMs andsuppliers at all tiers have about warranty1“Automotive Warranties,” Warranty Week, May 15, 5.html4 Survey Reportmanagement. For example, warrantycosts are not dropping even thoughthe number of claims has been goingdown. This clearly implies higher repaircosts and/or increased labor rates.Moreover, there are many complicated,big-picture questions: Whose involvementand leadership are needed to increasecollaboration? What more can or shouldcompanies be doing to improve warrantycost-effectiveness? Where do collaboration breakdowns occur most frequently?Why do they happen? When should newanalytics be invoked? How can we usewarranty management to improve theoverall quality and reliability of parts,systems and vehicles?BearingPoint’s Automotive practicerecently teamed with the OriginalEquipment Suppliers Association (OESA),Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG),European Association of AutomotiveSuppliers (CLEPA) and Warranty Weekmagazine to address the above concerns.Via an online survey, our goal was to findout how OEMs and suppliers at all tiersand from all geographies perceive thewarranty challenge, and what solutionsthey are using or investigating to improvewarranty programs and reduce costs.We also expected survey input fromOEMs and suppliers to stimulate newdiscussions about, and insights into, howthese groups can expand their workingrelationship to increase value forconsumers, raise returns for stakeholders,and deliver lower costs and profitablegrowth for themselves. That feedback—enriched by insights from BearingPoint,OESA, AIAG, CLEPA and key industryexecutives—is interwoven throughoutthis report’s six sections.

1. Key findingsThe picture emerging from our researchis both positive and negative. On the plusside, OEMs and suppliers have mademeasurable warranty-related improvements over the past three years. Warrantyincidents are down. J.D. Power ratings areup. Increased product complexity andmore stringent customer demands havebeen met with new tools and well-focusedinitiatives. Moreover, respondents arelargely united in their view of whatfurther changes are most needed andhow important it is to work togetherearlier in the warranty managementprocess. Generally speaking, the watchword is collaboration. Virtually allrespondents look forward to working moreclosely within and across organizations.The not-unexpected downside is theindustry’s operational shortcomings.Respondents’ own assessments pointto a warranty management processwith room for significant and ongoingimprovement. Numerous factorscontribute to this appraisal:Responsibility for warranty managementis fragmented across departmentalsilos and between OEM and supplierorganizations. Among survey respondents,45 percent of OEMs and 25 percent ofsuppliers have discrete warranty organizations. Cross-functional processes arelimited, and resources are often strained.The industry recognizes the barriers towarranty improvement that this approachcreates. Many initiatives are underway toimprove the effectiveness of the currentsystem. However, partners still are notincluded as often or early as needed,and usable information rarely flows freelyenough to support dramatic processimprovements or significant costreductions. We believe that a moreholistic, cross-functional infrastructure isneeded at most enterprises.Perspectives on key issues varydramatically. OEMs and suppliers havevastly different views about the largestobstacles their organizations face inimproving warranty performance. OEMs’top issues are “resource shortages,”“purchase cost versus total cost ofownership” and “lack of product designinvolvement.” Suppliers’ top issues are“collaboration with the OEM/supplier,”“lack of diagnostic data” and “lack ofproduct design involvement.”Along these same lines, when supplierswere asked, “Do your OEMs provideenough information on service events,returned parts, and diagnostic andwarranty data for you to perform effectiveroot cause analysis?” Seventy-five percentof suppliers answered “no.” In addition,77 percent of suppliers said that it takesone month or longer to receive partsand/or data. Seven percent never receiveparts, and eight percent never receivedata. A more ingrained culture ofcollaboration at the design and troubleshooting stages is clearly needed, as arethe introduction and adoption of standardtemplates or mechanisms for sharingservice event data (including the components that would be found in a typicalwarranty claim).A more ingrained culture of collaboration at the design and troubleshooting stagesis clearly needed, as are the introduction and adoption of standard templates ormechanisms for sharing service event data (including the components that wouldbe found in a typical warranty claim).Survey Report 5

Commercial Services AutomotiveThe “collaboration dichotomy” (low levelsof collaboration despite widespread agreement that more collaboration is critical)poses a significant challenge. Supplierssimply are not getting the data they needquickly enough. Survey results do showthat data-sharing initiatives have beenlaunched, but significant and measurableimpact has not been widely observed.Win-win approaches are lacking. Ourresearch notes a progressive transfer ofdesign/release responsibility from OEMsto suppliers. In the past, OEMs assumedmost design/release responsibilities.However, 66 percent of respondingsuppliers now have design/releaseresponsibility for at least some parts.Since that practice is usually accompaniedby the introduction or enhancement ofa warranty cost-sharing program, oneresult of this shift is that many OEMs areseeing their warranty costs fall, whilemany suppliers are seeing or predictingincreased costs. There are many missingPoint of view“The reason collaboration is critical is that it is the only way we can gain access tothe data necessary to correct issues and then build this new knowledge into ourfuture products.”Daniel PaterraVice president,Manufacturingand Quality,Transmission SystemsBusiness Unit,BorgWarner, Inc.We are fortunate that warranty professionals in the automotive industry are willingto objectively rate the reality of the situation. This research project has done a goodjob of revealing the insights of our automotive warranty colleagues for the benefit ofimproving warranty management. They have provided a frank assessment and thisdocument identifies where opportunity for improvement exists.In general, the study reveals we need more collaboration. The reason collaboration iscritical is that it is the only way we can gain access to the data necessary to correctissues and then build this new knowledge into our future products. The surveyindicates that the necessary information doesn’t flow in the most efficient manner.Different formats, insufficient sample sizes, long lead times and partial data sets areimpeding the efficient flow of solutions. The open collaboration of all participants inthe chain is required to surface the information and develop speedy solutions towardsthe goal of improving consumer vehicle experiences.Take the issue of No Trouble Found—“the designation for a part replaced during aservice event that, when analyzed by the maker, meets all the requirements of a goodpart.” The survey indicates that, among suppliers, the most frequent classificationgiven to warranty parts associated with an incident is NTF. However, NTF is not theproblem; it is the beacon that points to the need for more diagnostic data and systemexpertise in root cause determination. NTF is basically an information problem, not apart or system problem.The bottom line is that collaboration—from consumers and dealers to suppliers andOEMs—is the common denominator for all warranty-related improvements. A sharedapproach to solving problems, increasing knowledge and ensuring continuousimprovement benefits everyone.6 Survey Report

BearingPoint’s message to OEM and supplier executivesThe picture emerging from the research is that, by the industry’s own assessments, the current state ofwarranty management is often ineffective. This appears to be compounded by a number of factors: Responsibility for warranty management is distributed across OEM and supplier organizations. OEMs and suppliers recognize that there have been improvements in warranty-related collaboration,yet there is a clear and urgent need to raise levels of collaboration further and support them withreliable processes and systems infrastructures. Suppliers are hamstrung by a lack of vital data from OEMs or protracted delays in receiving that data.Where this information is provided, it often appears too late in the cycle to be effectively utilized.If the “as-is” picture painted by the research seems gloomy, there are also indications that, if left unchecked,the situation could get worse—particularly for suppliers. The research highlights a progressive transfer ofdesign/release responsibility from OEMs to suppliers. As a result OEMs are seeing their warranty costs fall,while suppliers predict their costs will increase.Yet there are encouraging signs. OEMs and suppliers largely agree on the imperatives that must be addressedto move forward productively: Increase communication and collaboration between the OEM and its suppliers. Provide more (and timelier) diagnostic data to suppliers for root cause analysis. Increase collaboration among product design teams. Accelerate development of early warning systems. Assign sufficient resources to manage warranty. Ensure the timely and efficient communication of warranty claims, parts and data among partners.We hope that this report will remind industry leaders and key stakeholders in the warranty managementprocess that they must work together to improve collaboration and increase timely sharing of critical data.links in this equation, but the four mostprominent may be lack of early warningsystems, untimely data sharing, fewstandardized warranty metrics andan insufficient focus on total cost ofownership. Each of these is criticalto replacing zero-sum politics withwin-win relationships.Clear warranty cost targets are rare.Setting absolute cost targets is verydifficult, particularly for suppliers, whichhave limited ability to influence “noise”in the process. That noise (issues such asdata integrity, limited information,misdiagnoses, inability to send matingcomponents or the supposedly failedcomponent back for analysis, andvariance in repair procedures) canseriously impact costs. More control onthe part of suppliers could significantlychange the dynamic, as could agreementson shared analysis strategies and models.No Trouble Found (NTF) is a big issue. Thetop contributors to warranty incidents forOEMs are “product design” (cited by 58percent) and “assembly process capabilityat supplier” (50 percent). For suppliers,it’s “NTF” (cited by 61 percent), “manufacturing process capability” (53 percent)and “product design” (50 percent). On theSurvey Report 7

Commercial Services Automotiveone hand, high NTF levels reflect anincreased number of complex vehiclesubsystems since, as the complexity ofthese subsystems increases, so does thedifficulty of determining problems’ rootcauses. The aforementioned “noise” inthe warranty process also contributes toNTF problems. Even though NTF oftenmeans different things to differentorganizations (see the sidebar, “Gettingto the Heart of NTF,” on page 18), thereis little disagreement that more collaboration among OEMs, suppliers and dealersis needed to reduce NTF levels. It istypically easier to determine the causeof a problem if it is flagged early by highlyqualified people. New end-to-endapproaches to diagnostics and communication can help make that happen. Newforms of advanced training in diagnosticsand quality improvement at the dealerlevel could also reduce NTF levels, whileincreasing contextual information aboutincidents.Detection-to-correction cycles are athorny issue. By nearly identical margins(3.5 to 1) OEMs and suppliers feel thattheir overall detection-to-correction cycleshave improved over the past three years.Still, more progress is clearly called for inareas such as:Problem definition: There is no industrywide definition of what constitutes thedetection-to-correction cycle. Somecompanies start at the point that an issuehas been prioritized and assigned forfurther analysis/resolution. Othersinclude the time from the first report ofa particular issue. While the latter wouldseem to be better, it is usually the casethat issues encountered within theservice process do not become evident toanyone other than the dealer until atleast several days have passed andmultiple claims have been logged.8 Survey ReportProblem identification: Among suppliers,53 percent complete the problemidentification phase within seven days,another 19 percent within 21 days andanother six percent within a month.OEMs fared less well: 29 percent withinseven days, and the remainder in oneto two months or more. This, too, mayreflect a lack of close collaborationwith suppliers.Problem Diagnosis: Among suppliers,29 percent complete the diagnosis phasewithin seven days, another 49 percentwithin 21 days and another nine percentwithin a month. OEM performance is abit longer: 28 percent within 14 days,and the remainder in one to two monthsor more.Problem resolution: Among suppliers,six percent complete the problemresolution phase within seven days,another 23 percent within 21 daysand another 18 percent within a month.No OEM completes problem resolution inless than one to two months.As noted earlier, both suppliers and OEMsbelieve that collaboration betweenpartners has become more effective overthe previous three years. Still, the issue ofhow to work together to share data andapply knowledge to support continuousimprovement could be the auto industry’smost pressing warranty-related problem.Adoption of standardized terms, methodologies and tools—backed by appropriatecontract language—also is needed toimprove the situation. Becoming“customer-focused” and “incident ratefocused” (rather than “responsibility- andcost-focused”) will help drive increasedcollaboration. In addition, joint supportteams, improved systems and more openaccess to data and parts will contribute toa faster, more effective and less costlywarranty management process.

Survey demographicsIn late 2007, researchers at BearingPoint, OESA, AIAG, CLEPA and Warranty Week developed and posted an onlinesurvey on warranty management practices and invited participation from automotive and truck OEMs and suppliersat all levels, including Tier 1 systems and parts suppliers, Tier 2 suppliers and aftermarket suppliers.Responses were candid and revealing. More than 200 quality and warranty management professionals weighed in,the great majority representing suppliers. This is not surprising since the industry has many more suppliers than OEMs.Some OEMs indicated that they also serve in supplier roles. For example, an OEM engine, transmission or axle plantwould be considered a supplier to the vehicle assembly plant. Because OEM is usually their preeminent role, suchcompanies are characterized as OEMs for this analysis.Among OEMs, the primary segment served is “auto” (50 percent) followed by “medium/heavy-duty truck” (33 percent).The most frequently cited secondary segment is “light truck.” Among suppliers, most are Tier 1 parts and Tier 1 systemsproviders (47 percent and 32 percent, respectively). The most frequently cited secondary segments for suppliers are(in order) Tier 1 parts suppliers, Tier 2 suppliers and aftermarket suppliers. Not surprisingly, responding OEM organizations tend to be significantly larger than suppliers’ organizations.Many respondents’ companies are members of more than one industry association. Of responding OEM organizations,75 percent are members of AIAG. Among suppliers, 61 percent are affiliated with AIAG, while 53 percent are representedin OESA. Another 21 percent are affiliated with CLEPA.North America is the region most respondents represent. It also is the location of the parent companies of mostrespondents. A high percentage of respondents are decision makers, and about one-third said they are their organization’s top warranty executive. Among top executives, almost half (47 percent) have warranty responsibility for theentire company. The rest have responsibility for a specific division or regional entity.Throughout the report, survey responses from OEMs and suppliers generally are separated. In all cases, the responsedenominator represents the number of people who answered a particular question, as opposed to the sum of all thosewho returned the survey. Denominators exceed 100 percent whenever recipients were asked to give multiple answersto a question, such as “cite all that apply.” 5 billion 1–5 billion 500–999 millionSurvey recipients wereasked, “What is the sizeof your parent company(annual revenue) statedin U.S. dollars?” 100–499 million OEMs Suppliers 100 million020406080100Percentage of respondentsNorth AmericaLatin/South AmericaMiddle East/AfricaSurvey recipients wereasked, “Please specify theregion(s) that yourresponses represent.”Asia/Pacific Rim OEMs SuppliersEurope020406080100Percentage of respondentsSurvey Report 9

Commercial Services Automotive2. The warranty organizationAcross the response base, stand-alonewarranty departments are not the norm.More often, warranty responsibilities arescattered throughout the company.Among survey respondents, 45 percentof OEMs and 25 percent of suppliers havedistinct warranty organizations. Becausecompany size is a key determinant, theabove distinction is not surprising:A discrete organization to administerclaims is more necessary for OEMs andlarge Tier 1s and less critical for smallerorganizations (most of which aresuppliers). On both sides, warrantyresponsibilities are concentrated mostoften within warranty and qualitymanagement departments. Amongsuppliers, a sales and marketing affiliationis more prevalent than a formal warrantyorganization. This, too, is not surprising,since suppliers’ sales and marketing andquality organizations are commoncommunication channels with the OEM.The key is whether the supplier is crossfunctionally engaged with its counterparts at the OEM (as opposed to just salesand marketing and quality). Departmental affiliations are profiled in Figure 1.Figure 2 underscores the dispersed natureof warranty management. The qualityorganization is most likely to ownresponsibility for warranty managementand the warranty budget among OEMsFigure 1. Survey recipients were asked, “What organization are you andyour team a part of? (Please cite all that apply.)”QualitySales and marketingWarrantyProduct developmentManufacturingOtherManufacturing engineeringAftersales/Customer serviceSupply chainFinanceIT OEMs SuppliersLegal0153045Percentage of respondents10 Survey Report6075

QualityAftersales/Customer serviceManufacturingProduct developmentFinanceSales/Marketing Management BudgetOther01530456075Percentage of OEM respondentsQualityAftersales/Customer serviceManufacturingProduct developmentFinanceSales/Marketing Management BudgetOther01530456075Percentage of supplier respondentsFigure 2. Survey recipients were asked, “Who owns the responsibility for warrantymanagement and the warranty budget in your organization? (Check all that apply.)”and suppliers. However, the functions ofwarranty budget and warrant management are often split. Among suppliers, forexample, 30 percent noted that thefinance organization oversees warrantybudgets, but only four percent said thatfinance controls warranty management.Disparities of a similar magnitude werealso visible on the OEM side. It is true thatthe expertise of multiple people andorganizations is needed to design andmaintain warranty programs. However,it is clear that many companies do nothave a comprehensive (management andbudget) approach to the warrantychallenge. Disconnects between financialand quality departments often impedewarranty reduction and forecasting.The disconnect problem suggests thatwarranty processes are frequently viewedas cost centers, rather than sources ofpotential intelligence and revenue. Itshould also be noted that many non-autocompanies do a better job of usingwarranty and standard maintenanceexperiences to build goodwill, sell newservices and satisfy customers continuSurvey Report 11

Commercial Services Automotiveously. These practices are most effectivein companies where there is a fully crossfunctional, executive-led team whosemembers share common objectivesassociated with both customer- andwarranty-related issues.Warranty management and budgetfunctions report to executive management at 80 percent of OEMs and75 percent of suppliers. Mid-levelmanagement (as opposed to plant-levelmanagement) holds jurisdiction for mostof the remainder. This is an admittedlysoft area since budgets to administerclaims are often established at thedepartmental level (the plant, forexample) while chargebacks are addressedcorporately (for example, applied againstreserves or to the bottom line as avariance). Nevertheless, executive-levelreporting relationships are still key toresolving problems expediently. Decisionmaking processes cannot help but becompromised by fragmented organizational approaches to warranty management. Also, this distribution of jurisdictionmakes it more difficult for manufacturersto analyze current spend comprehensively, let alone to try and predict futurespend or develop new accrual models.BearingPoint’s view is that organizationalalignment is critical to efficientlymanaging the warranty process.A coordinated strategy for implementingand executing consistent processesat all levels and across departmentsneeds to be deployed. The resultingorganization should have largely unimpeded influence and budgetary controlin order to administer the warrantyfunction effectively.Point of view“In our view, it is critical that the principal goal of warranty defect analysis becontinuous improvement, rather than justification for cost recovery. ”Jorge SantosVice president,Corporate Quality,Inergy AutomotiveSystemsAs noted throughout this report, much warranty-related progress has been made inrecent years. A key shortcoming, however, continues to be most OEMs’ insistence ona cost recovery approach. In our view, it is critical that the principal goal of warrantydefect analysis be continuous improvement, rather than justification for cost recovery.This issue is frequently reflected in the return of allegedly failed parts. These itemsoften arrive damaged and/or incomplete. Accompanying descriptions of symptomsand failures are extremely rare. The net effect, of course, is a default “no troublefound” situation. Faced with the absence of meaningful information with which toperform root cause analysis, we and other suppliers have little choice but to absorbunnecessary costs or enter into protracted and confrontational negotiations. Andregardless of who wins that battle, warranty trend data is “polluted.”I can confirm that the above problem is Inergy’s most serious warranty-related issue.Our position is that absent, untimely or incomplete data are concerns that more OEMsmust take seriously. Virtually every supplier is being pressed to improve efficienciesand then pass its cost improvements on to the OEM. However, that cannot continue tohappen without a concerted effort to consistently provide us with physical product andcomprehensive information. Suppliers, of course, are part of the cooperation equation:Both parties must work together to make the warranty-management process aseamless, two-way process in which both sides share the effort and the spoils.12 Survey Report

3. Warranty duration,costs and incidentsFew issues raise more questions andencourage more discussion than thelength of warranties. On the one hand,longer warranties have become one ofOEMs’ most important selling tools. Butto keep that strategy from backfiring inthe long term, higher part/system qualityand shorter detection-to-correction cyclesmust accompany longer warranties. Thebottom line is that complete buy-in andsupport from suppliers, along with ashared philosophy about quality and dataanalysis, are essential to making longerwarranty periods viable and profitable.However, OEMs are prone to fall shortwhen it comes to providing the datasuppliers need to

warranty claims in 2006, according to Warranty Week.1 This represents a modest increase from 2005, about 1.6 percent. However, the small rise masks a variety of growing concerns that OEMs and suppliers at all tiers have about warranty management. For example, warranty costs are not dropp

Related Documents:

auto auto auto. frozen drinks smoothies puree med high pulse low / dough. auto auto auto. frozen drinks smoothies puree med high pulse low / dough. auto auto auto. frozen drinks smoothies puree med high pulse low / dough. auto auto auto. please keep these important safeguards in mind when using the . appliance: mportant: make sure that the .

The Data Conversion & Migration strategy document aims to provide an overview of the BearingPoint . 1 The data conversion & migration strategy for the MTS project is heavily related to the cutover strategy, aswell as to the interface strategy. For both, a strategy document and detail plan will be produced (which are separate deliverables). .

3 Contract Management - Objectives and Tasks 10 4 Contract Management - Self-Assessment 14 4.1 BearingPoint's Contract Management Maturity Level Model 14 4.2 Self-Assessment Based on the Maturity Level Model 16 5 Contract Types - Characteristics 19 5.1 Procurement Contracts and the Role of the Procurement Department 19

SAM - Software Asset Management A BearingPoint Accelerator A well-defined SAM solution is relevant because of its individual capabilities. Therefore we o er a wide-ranging SAM portfolio with various services . European roots and a global reach. The company operates in three units: Consulting, Solutions and Ventures. Consulting covers .

2016 American Home Shield Landmark Home Warranty 2016 American Home Shield OneGuard Home Warranties 2015 Fidelity National BPG Home Warranty 2014 American Home Shield HSA Home Warranty 2013 NRG Energy Allied Warranty 2012 Direct Energy Home Warranty of America 2002 Brera Capital Partners 2-10 Home Buyers Warranty .

MO 77 Motors: Rock Hill, SC 7th Avenue Auto Salvage: Fargo, ND 81 Auto Parts & Recycling : Salem, VA 82 Auto Wrecking: Brookfield, OH #9 Truck & Auto Parts (No US Shipping) : Tottenham, ON 97 Auto Wrecking Shull's Towing: Brewster , WA 98 Auto Recyclers: Brooksville, FL 99 Auto Dismantler: Stockton, CA A & A Auto & Truck LLC:

For your Limited Warranty to be in effect, you should receive the following documentation: Limited Warranty #3101 Application For Warranty form #316 (Refer to Section V.C. for applicability) Warranty Confirmation ALABAMA RESIDENTIAL WARRANTY COMPANY, LLC THIS LIMITED WARRANTY IS PROVIDED IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES.

Operation Guide for the Mercedes-Benz GLA/CLA This is a basic operation guide for those who are driving the Mercedes-Benz GLA/CLA vehicle for the first time. Please read this guide before you leave the rental office if you are not familiar with operation. For more information about the vehicle, please read the instruction manual. Basic Operations to Note Before Driving the Vehicle Starting .