Schwerpunkt | Herausforderungen

The Cost and

Complexity Challenge of
Serving Small Customers
It may feel counter-intuitive – but the more customers a company serves, the
worse an impact they can have on profits. Driving growth and profitability in the
small customer segment requires fundamental changes in how an organization
serves its customers and how it steers its sales force and customer service teams.

Ingo Aghte, Georg Winkler

36 Marketing Review St. Gallen 3 | 2014

 Schwerpunkt | Herausforderungen

Serving small customers and their unique requirements while maintaining

the same level of customer service is a noble goal for any enterprise – and
Ingo Aghte
is a Partner in McKinsey’s London office.
some companies excel at it – yet, in some industries, serving customers in
E-mail: [email protected]
line with the principle that all customers are equal can erode margins, divert
www.mckinsey.com
attention from more profitable key accounts and medium-sized customers,
and cause costly complexity in the supply chain. Fixing the situation is nei-
ther simple nor solved by a single magic fix, but requires deep, fundamen-
tal changes in how the organization serves its customers and incents its sales
Georg Winkler
is a Partner in McKinsey’s Berlin Office.
force, partners with its key distributors, and implements controls in its sys-
E-mail: [email protected]
tems and processes to sustain changes and enforce policies. Addressing the
www.mckinsey.com
problems and making moves to solve them can improve a company’s return
on sales (ROS) by as much as two percent.
Our insights were derived from projects with clients in the chemical in-
dustry. We were involved with ten implementations of this strategy across
Europe, Asia, and North America, and across all instances saw a positive fi-
nancial impact from reduced costs and improved margins. Some clients even
realized increased revenue following moves to improve their model to serve
small customers. When small accounts are served in an appropriate way, the
top and bottom line can both increase. Growth can also be realized if dis-
tributors are appropriately set up for serving smaller customers and man-
aged as a combination of a key account, an extended sales force and a ser-
vice provider. Savings come from levers such as providing small customers

“The more customers a company serves, the worse

an impact they can have on profits.”

with a smaller set of tailored services instead of offering the same services
as for large customers, opening up lower-cost inside sales channels and mak-
ing the sales team aware of the profit implications of their actions.
Our experience in protecting margins from the complexities of selling to
smaller customers stems mostly from our work with clients in the chemical
industry. Here, the challenge is adapting a highly capital intensive manufac-
turing operation and a supply chain geared for large volume production with
long planning cycles and shipping that product in tankers and trains down
to the customization of a small customer’s order requiring a 25 kg shipment
on a partially loaded truck. However, our approach is relevant for any busi-
ness-to-business manufacturer with a customer base of hundreds of cus-
tomers or more, and a high level of product complexity with hundreds or
more of stock keeping units (SKUs). This would include industries such as
the metals, pulp and paper, construction materials and other capital inten-
sive and logistics intensive industries.
We have seen two clear archetypes emerge for addressing the challenges
to improve the management of small customers and for reducing the com-
plexity those customers inflict on the entire supply chain, from the frontline

Marketing Review St. Gallen 3 | 2014 37

Schwerpunkt | Herausforderungen

into the back office, over logistics and warehousing right tention of the sales force away from higher-value customers
down to operations. The first archetype is based on segment- (figure 1). Cutting back those costs and freeing the sales team
ing the customer base and differentiating service levels based to focus on top-line growth can have an impact as high as a
on customer profitability vs. cost to serve; the second is based 2 % ROS.
on building a landscape of strategic distribution partners.
Both approaches can function alone, but they can also be
combined to varying degrees. “Organizations can address the small
customer challenge through rigorously
Diagnostic process
How can a company analyze and identify the sources of com-
segmented services or through strategic
plexity and imbalance in its current operating model and gain distributor alliances.”
a clear view of the true “cost to serve” its customers? Differ-
entiating between customer segments and each segment’s con-
tribution to margins is an essential first step before classify- The following five key questions (see figure 2) will expose
ing those customers who are high value and high volume and flaws and provide a baseline to aid in the identification of fu-
those who could easily erode margins by consuming a dispro- ture improvements:
portionate share of services. 1. What percentage of the customer profile is “small”? – An-
A typical situation is when a large number of small cus- alyzing the impact of small customers on margins against
tomers contribute relatively little to gross margins but create average return on sales will draw a picture of which ac-
disproportionate levels of complexity, account for an equally counts are contributing to profitability and which are not.
unbalanced share of costs, and, in the process, divert the at- This is a classic Pareto analysis to assess which customers

Fig. 1 Large Numbers of Small Customers Create Substantial Complexity and Often Dilute Profits

Exemplary analysis of customer complexity

Gross margin share 10 90

A large number of small customers
contribute only little to gross margin …
Number of customers 80 20
Actively managing
customer complexity
Share of order lines 25 75 reduces costs and
frees up resources for
… but create disproportionate com- targeted growth
plexity in back office and supply
Share of shipments 30 70
chain and divert sales effort from
high-value customers

Share of sales 35 65
force time

Small High-value
customers customers

Source: McKinsey

38 Marketing Review St. Gallen 3 | 2014

 Schwerpunkt | Herausforderungen

generate the last 10 % of gross margins. What is usually

revealed is that 70–90 % of customers generate the last 10 % Management Summary
of the margin, while the top 10–30% of the customers de- It would seem that more customers mean better busi-
livers almost 90 % of the margin. Therein lays the challenge ness, but if care isn’t taken to tailor the services offered
of serving the small customer: their numbers may be high, to smaller customers, the complexity and cost they
but their profit contributions pale in comparison to the or- cause as they receive the same treatment intended for
ganization’s largest and most valuable accounts. larger accounts can erode profits. This article presents
2. What share of the back-office work is driven by small cus- two ways organizations can solve the small customer
tomers? – The relevant information is usually hidden in complexity conundrum through segmented services or
the customer service desk order line data. Once the low through a new partnership model with key distributors
gross margin customers are identified in the first analysis, that could improve return of sales by as much as two
their impact on the back office can be assessed against percentage points.
their optimal “fair share” of customer service resources.
Back office and other sales, general and administrative
expenses (SG&A) are often allocated in a simple “per-
centage-of-sales” manner. Every order line is allocated a and analyze the usage of logistics services. In our experi-
fixed percentage of its value in SG&A cost. However, this ence, low-margin customers generate higher freight effort
does not reflect the true costs each order line causes. and pressure on the supply chain by generating a dispro-
Whether an order line has a value of 5,000 or 500,000 EUR, portionate number of shipments, with smaller average
the amount of time a customer service employee spends volume per transport. Our analysis has shown that small
entering that order line into the system is roughly the customers can easily generate two to three times the logis-
same. In a first approximation, back-office costs should be tics cost for every dollar or euro of revenue than larger cus-
allocated as a fixed amount per order line. tomers.
3. What share of logistical complexity is driven by small 4. What percentage of the company’s sales effort is spent on
customers? – Look to the freight database for this data small versus large customers? – Analyze where the sales

Fig. 2 Five Diagnostic Questions

How to assess your organization’s customer complexity

1 What percentage of your gross margin vs. revenue is driven by small customers?

2 What share of your back office work is driven by small customers?

3 What share of your logistical complexity is driven by small customers?

4 What percentage of your sales force effort is spent on small versus large customers?

5 What are the effects of small customers on your company’s product portfolio?

Source: McKinsey

Marketing Review St. Gallen 3 | 2014 39

Schwerpunkt | Herausforderungen

force is spending their time. Is it on high-margin premi-

um accounts or low-margin small ones? The cost of sales
Main Propositions
must be allocated to customers based on the true effort
• Failure to differentiate between large and small cus-
spent to serve those customers and then matched against
tomers and serving all as equals can erode margins and
the customers’ absolute contribution to margins. A single
divert attention from key accounts.
sales visit can easily cost up to 1,000 EUR and quickly
• Small customers can drive costly complexity by ty-
erode the absolute margin of a small account. Until cus-
ing up capacity of your sales team, by requesting cus-
tomers are correctly segmented by their needs and profit-
tom packaging, lab services, and other customer sup-
ability, and the sales force is actively measured and com-
port services originally designed for larger accounts.
pensated according to the profitability of those segments,
• Segmenting customers and developing differenti-
the situation will continue to deteriorate.
ated service levels can correct the issue, but only if the
5. Finally, what are the effects of small customers on the com-
segmentation is enforced through internal order man-
pany’s product portfolio? – Analyze the product catalogue
agement systems and sales incentives.
by the types of customers and the SKUs they buy, and look
• Rethinking distributors as key partners, reducing
at the age record of the stock to determine the stock value
their numbers, and building incentives can shift the
and the costs of storing products. Small customers drive
service burden to the remaining distributors that are
complexity at the product level when certain SKUs are only
better positioned to serve small accounts.
sold to them. In our experience, such products hardly con-
tribute to margins, drive a disproportionate share of the
stock value and have above-average stock age.

Fig. 3 Additional Return-on-Sales Generated by the Distributor and the Differentiated

Service Level Approaches

Lever Complexity reduction model Rationale & comments

Strategic
Distribution Differentiated
Partners Service Levels

Margin improvement 1.0 1.8

• Lower discounts to distributors
• Higher prices in indirect channel
Sales (frontline
0.2 0.5
• Cost reductions from reducing frontline and back
& back office) office sales functions

Technical
0.2 0.6
• Reduction of technical services to lower
application tier segments
Outbound
0.2 0
• Bundling of shipments to distributors
freight • More single location and full truckloads
Warehousing 0.1 0 • Distributors cover most warehousing cost
• Overproportional reduction in order lines

Other 0.1 0
• Further positive effects from distributor
consolidation, e.g., payment term reduction

Total 1.7 2.8 Typical impact from complexity reduction

Source: McKinsey

40 Marketing Review St. Gallen 3 | 2014

 Schwerpunkt | Herausforderungen

Based on the answers to these five questions, a picture should The decision on which model to adopt – distributor-based
emerge that will not only align specific customer accounts or differentiated – is based on the specific product service re-
with their impact on the bottom line, but also provide a sense quirements of the customers, the company’s market position,
of the areas where resources should be realigned and the po- the specific regional circumstances and the expected financial
tential cost savings of doing so. Typically, we see those cus- impact of the model. The most important factor for success is
tomers generating the last 10 % of gross margin at the same to be sure to tackle the issue of small customer-driven com-
time generating 25–45 % of the cost-to-serve elements such plexity from the front end of the supply chain – at the inter-
as sales, customer service and freight, indicating a 15–35 % face between the company and the customer – because com-
savings potential on the baseline cost to serve (cost of sales, plexity is largely driven by customer and not organizational
customer service, supply chain, etc.). To achieve those savings, behavior.
customers need to be segmented to distinguish between the
accounts that deserve the highest levels of service and sales The Differentiated Service Model
support, and those that need to be reformed and served at a A differentiated service model reduces costs by tailoring ser-
different level for the sake of profitability. vices to a profitability-based segmentation and reduces com-
Complexity increases costs and the unique demands small plexity in the supply chain through the enforcement of strin-
customers make can breed complexity in the following ways: gent service levels. The goal of the model is to free resources
customers may require custom packaging, small or non- to serve high-value customers while aligning different service
standard order sizes; they may place high demands on back levels to the requirements of each customer segment.
office services ranging from technical support to expectations Differentiating service levels is not about providing “good”
of more face-to-face contact with a salesperson. All of these service to some customers and “bad” service to others. Differ-
demands will reveal themselves as costs which need to be entiation is about providing the appropriate service based on
managed by reducing complexity and banning exceptions. each customer’s requirements, their future potential and their
Small and low-margin customers have requirements that are
often completely different from those of larger customers, for
instance swift price quotes vs. receiving value-added servic-
es. Understanding those requirements and offering targeted,
Lessons Learned
pragmatic, low-cost solutions can increase profitability and
customer satisfaction, at the same time turning those cus-
• Start with understanding the true cost-to-serve for
each customer segment. Analyze margin contributions,
tomers into a viable, profitable segment that has, in our experi-
share of back office services, percentage of sales effort,
ence, sometimes raised sales by up to 30 %.
share of shipping and logistics transactions, and cus-
Reducing complexity cannot be achieved by segmentation
tomers’ use of the SKU portfolio. Segment by absolute
alone. Building a differentiated customer model means putting
profitability not by average.
in place systems and processes to insure that no exceptions are
made, and that, if the customer demands a specific service, the
• Segmenting customers and service levels will not re-
duce complexity on its own. Process adjustments, sys-
service will be made available for a fee. Simplification is nei-
tem changes, and performance management are re-
ther an easy nor a one-time process, but an ongoing, active
quired to ensure the success of the new approach.
campaign to keep expensive services (and other complicating
factors) from creeping back and eating into profits.
• Deciding between a differentiated service approach,
a distributor-based solution, or a combination of both
depends on the product offering, the company’s market
Two Solution Models
position, regional circumstances, and SKU complexity.
We have developed two archetypes to more efficiently serve
small customers: one relies extensively on external distribu-
• If the distributor model is part of the solution for
serving small customers, then those distributors must
tors and the other is an internally focused differentiated
be managed as strategic partners and not as a margin-
service solution (figure 3). Which one of these solutions a
diluting, necessary evil.
company adopts depends on the service intensity of the prod-
ucts being sold and on external market factors.

Marketing Review St. Gallen 3 | 2014 41

Schwerpunkt | Herausforderungen

willingness to pay. After all, if one pays economy prices, one to achieve the required profitability for a higher service level
cannot expect first class service. within a specific period of time, with success linked directly
Once the customer base is segmented, service levels may be to the sales person’s bonus. At one of our clients, the sales team
aligned along a series of tiers. For example: bronze customers, initially nominated about 40 % of the customer list for an
the least profitable, would not be granted priority shipping, upgrade, but this list was quickly revised down to 5 %, when
pricing exceptions, custom lab work, samples, R&D projects, the sales force was told their bonus depended on the upgrad-
custom inventory and non-standard delivery quantities or ed customers actually attaining the defined financial target
packaging. Silver customers would get some services for free within the next 12 months. Within a year, almost all of the re-
and would have to pay for others, while gold customers would maining upgraded customers had achieved the required tar-
get all available services, with authorization required to ex- get, justifying the service investment.
tend certain services such as pricing exceptions or custom in-
ventory. Switching to a clear set of tiers means delivering bet- How to Implement Differentiated Service Levels
ter services to the highest-value customers while relieving de- One of our clients, a global specialty chemical manufacturer,
mands for customer service, scheduling and production and was under pressure to grow but had an engrained mindset of
internal alignment across the back office. giving the same level of service to all of its customers, even to
the smallest, which generated a disproportionate impact on
costs.
“Differentiation is about providing the To correct the situation, reforms were put in place. Rush or-
appropriate service based on each der, custom tailoring and other costly services were restrict-
ed to high-value customers, and service level restrictions were
customer’s requirements, their future
hard-wired into the company’s ERP system. When customer
potential and their willingness to pay.” service representatives entered a new order, a pop-up window
would open, showing the customer’s segment, current prof-
itability and the services the customer could be offered. If a
Moving to a differentiated service model also means chang- salesperson then tried to grant a service to an account falling
ing the approach to sales management. The sales force has to outside of pre-established parameters (for example rush order
be made aware of the financial implications of their service status), a window would pop up on the screen indicating that
promises and given financial incentives tied directly to the im- the service was blocked and that authorization was required to
pact their customers have on the business after the cost-to- grant an exception. Other remedial moves included moving all
serve those customers is deducted. Taking costs into account standard customer requests to a self-service web portal.
moves the sales force from being indifferent to the impact of The financial improvements realized by these changes were
granting expensive services to being keenly sensitive of the immediate. The company saw a 1–2 % increase in ROS from
impact of services on their own compensation. The custom- the cost savings alone during the first year; was able to reduce
er service desk needs guidance to insure their attention is complexity by 40 % (as represented by a reduction in the num-
focused on the high-value customers and not distracted ber of custom lab requests), and redirected its sales force’s at-
by “bronze”-level accounts. High-cost processes such as lab tention to high-value accounts. The company was able to im-
work need to be taken away from the lower-level customers bue itself with a new mindset towards customer service, where
and moved to a fee-based service model; granting rush status service differentiation became second nature to all functions.
to all orders labeled urgent by the customer should be man- One of the main steps the company took to implement this
aged and only reserved for the premium segment. differentiated service model was centered on the shift of more
To ensure the segmentation does not only happen based on than half of the customers to an inside phone-based sales
historic parameters and to keep the sales force attuned to cus- channel. Customer contacts for inside sales people rose to as
tomer segmentation, future profitability and sales potential many as 40 a day, double the expected rate, and the segment
should be evaluated in addition to past performance. Cus- became one of the most profitable within the first year of the
tomers could then be up- or downgraded to a different ser- changes, due to significantly reduced costs and a topline
vice level. To avoid rampant upgrading, customers would have growth of up to 20% due to the increased attention. This add-

42 Marketing Review St. Gallen 3 | 2014

 Schwerpunkt | Herausforderungen

ed another percent of ROS to the company’s financial perfor- service provider for small customers, providing high-cost
mance. services such as 24-hour delivery and repackaging that are
Taking action against customer complexity is often post- prized by smaller customers. Success will follow if the busi-
poned or watered down due to the fear that it will cause a ness consolidates its existing set of distributor relationships
negative reaction and attrition among customers. In our expe- and winnows them down to a few strategic partners in a
rience, this fear is unfounded. In the above case, moving almost
60 % of the customer base to an indirect or distributor channel
led to a 20 % increase of the volume of that segment. This im- “Distributors tend to better understand
provement was the direct result of more frequent customer con- the value of the product to small
tact by inside sales reps who were able to speak to a customer
every other week, versus the old direct sales model where a sales
customers and hence are able to price
person would make an in-person call once or twice a year. them more effectively.”

The Distributor Model

By following the distributor archetype, small customers and trust-based relationship. It is crucial to follow a selection
the related complexity are essentially “outsourced” to a set of process built on best practices to select partners and build
carefully selected distribution partners. Performing this trans- relationships on an active management system where the
fer successfully begins with a mindset shift, followed by care- distributors are given strong incentives to expand the busi-
ful selection and clear performance management. ness and reduce complexity and cost in the supply chain by
Distributors need to be seen and managed as a hybrid of bundling shipments and pruning the number of SKUs in the
a key account, an extension of one’s own sales force, and a catalogue.

Intensivseminar Aktives Preismanagement –

Mehr Profitabilität durch professionelles Pricing
Die am Markt durchgesetzten Preise bestimmen massgeblich den Erfolg von Unternehmen. Kein anderes Marketing-
instrument hat eine derart hohe Durchschlagskraft und Wirkungsgeschwindigkeit auf den Gewinn. Folglich stellt sich
die zentrale Frage nach der optimalen Gestaltung des Preismanagements zur Sicherstellung einer langfristig hohen
Profitabilität. Primäres Ziel dieses kompakten Intensivseminars ist die Beantwortung dieser Leitfrage.

Inhalte: Statische und dynamische Preisstrategien, Preisbildung für Innovationen und bestehende Produkte, Preis-
differenzierung und nichtlineare Preisgestaltung, Verrechnung von Vor- und Nebenleistungen, Preiskalkulation und
Preiscontrolling, Rabattgestaltung und Preistaktik im Verkauf, Preispsychologie, Preiskommunikation, Preisorgani-
sation, Preismanagement und Bonussysteme.

Wann und Wo?

23.– 27. März 2015 im Raum St.Gallen

Kontakt und detaillierte Broschüre

[email protected], Telefon + 41 (0)71 224 28 73

www.ifm.unisg.ch/weiterbildung

Marketing Review St. Gallen 3 | 2014 43

Schwerpunkt | Herausforderungen

If the business is so complex and seemingly unattractive, How to Implement a Distributor Solution
what are the incentives for the distributors? Consolidating One client we advised, a global producer of specialty chemi-
their numbers means the remaining ones will be handed a cals with revenues over 1.1 billion euros and 2,000 employees,
bigger part of the business, often three to four times what was running into difficulties when trying to expand its share
they handled previously. With fewer distribution relation- in a highly fragmented market while managing its distribu-
ships to manage, the original equipment manufacturer tors locally and at arm’s length. Three moves were made to im-
(OEM) can focus on the remaining distributors and work prove distributor relations. First, the company reduced the
with them much more closely to jointly develop the business number of its distributor relationships by 75 %, from over 80
rather than treat the distributor as just another warehouse to fewer than 20 distributors. The role of a distribution man-
and logistics provider. Lastly, with fewer competitors in the ager was created to drive the selection of the distributors
race, the remaining distribution partners are in the pole po- and negotiate terms according to best practices, followed by
sition for any future business extension, e.g., to other geo- a rigorous, on-going management system to manage the
graphic areas or business lines. distributor relationships on a pay-for-performance basis.
Once the distributor landscape is restructured, managing the Finally, the company addressed the complexity in its supply
ongoing performance should be tied to key performance indi- chain and was able to bundle orders, focus on single point
cators whereby the distributor attains certain service levels shipments and then eliminate SKUs that were sold to small
such as shipping full trucks, fast fulfillment of payment terms, customers only.
no “broken pallets” and other specifics to be agreed upon at The company saw a 1–2 % ROS improvement from both
the outset of the revised OEM–distributor relationship. cost savings and targeted top line growth. It was able to im-
prove the margin it made with distributors through the con-
solidation process, but also changed its attitude towards the

Fig. 4 Basic Rules for Handling Customer Complexity

Four Basic Rules for Handling Complexity

Reduce customer complexity to the profitable minimum

Increasing complexity from globalization and hypercompetitive markets requires to change
focus from customer complexity management to customer complexity reduction

Focus on small customers – size matters

Start with taking out complexity from small customers as they generate significantly
disproportionate complexity

Establish complexity ownership and performance management

Allocate clear ownership for customer complexity with sales management and establish
rigorous performance management processes (e.g., tracking for growth customers)

Tackle complexity from the commercial ‘front end’

Complexity is largely driven by customer behavior – effective and sustainable optimization
efforts reduce complexity where it originates

Source: McKinsey

44 Marketing Review St. Gallen 3 | 2014

 Schwerpunkt | Herausforderungen

remaining distributors from “necessary evils” to that of the distributor model is obviously called for, e.g. using large-
“growth engines”. distributor relationships in consolidated markets and a net-
The cost savings from the distributor model are mainly due work of smaller distributors in fragmented markets such as
to lower sales management costs. There are some expected India. Leveraging distributors can also be relevant in markets
losses from the top line once a company moves to such a mod- and cultures where the customer relationship is dominated by
el and transfers customer relationship management from its local distributors. Similarly, a weak market presence can lead
own sales team to the distributor. But it is at the bottom line to the decision to give an entire country or region to a dis-
where the impact is most felt. Some margin will be lost as av- tributor while reserving only some key accounts for the direct
erage prices to key-account-sized distributors will likely be sales force.
lower than those to small customers; but sales management Which model is selected will depend on market size, port-
and technical support costs will decrease as the distributors folio complexity in terms of SKUs and packaging sizes, the
start servicing the customers and take responsibility for field- number of customers who will be affected by the change, and
ing technical support questions directly. However, in some the impact of losing direct contact with the market by putting
cases we saw average prices for distributors remain at previ- distributors in the middle. A hybrid approach is definitely fea-
ous levels as distributors tend to better understand the value sible and recommended when warranted.
of the product to small customers and hence are able to price In our years of advising clients, we have seen the issue of
them more effectively. Other improvements will come in out- cost and complexity caused by small customers coming up
bound freight because shipments are bundled to distributors again and again. Implementing the necessary changes is a
from a single location on a full-truckload basis rather than challenge that is not just about cutting out the complexity
sending shipments of odd-sized orders on partially full trucks through centrally mandated measures such as pruning back
to small accounts. products from the catalogue and handing customers over to
All told, a company that pulls the distributor “lever” to re- trusted distributors. A company must also create transparen-
duce complexity can typically realize a similar positive impact cy and awareness throughout its organization about the costs
as with the differentiated service model, around 1–2% ROS. and complexity customers create and then build the capabil-
ities across hierarchies and functions to deal with the issue.
How to Decide Between the Two Approaches Finally, in order to make the changes sustainable, a cadence
Choosing one of these two approaches is a relatively straight- of reviews needs to be put into place to ensure costs and com-
forward decision process. If the type of business is highly cus- plexity do not creep back into the organization. Wherever
tomized, then a differentiated service model is called for. If these guiding principles (see figure 4) were followed, impact
the company is selling specialty products or commodities, and was sizeable, sustainable and the change was positively re-
the distributor channel is important for market access, then ceived internally and externally.

a Zusätzlicher Verlagsservice für Abonnenten von „Springer für Professionals | Marketing“

Zum Thema „small customer“ cost complexity Suche

finden Sie unter www.springerprofessional.de 46 Beiträge, davon 9 im Fachgebiet Marketing Stand: März 2014

Medium
☐ Zeitschriftenartikel (7)
Von der Verlagsredaktion empfohlen
☐ Buchkapitel (44) Jüttner, U., Windler, K., Michel, S.,Thol, S.: Solution Readiness – A Guiding Framework für
Supplier Firms, in: Marketing Review St. Gallen, 2013, Vol 4, pp. 52-63
Sprache www.springerprofessional.de/4628778
☐ Deutsch (2) Wessely, P.: Conclusion of the research on the value determination of SCIs, in Wessely, P.:
☐ Englisch (44) Value Determination of Supply Chain InitiativesValue, Wiesbaden, 2011, pp.110-116
www.springerprofessional.de//1814122

Marketing Review St. Gallen 3 | 2014 45