[This Blog presents an excerpted portion of the White Paper written by Strategies For GrowthSM (SFGSM) and distributed by Tavant Technologies, a global leader in providing Cloud-based Warranty Management systems and solutions.To access the complete White Paper, or to download an archived copy of the companion Webcast, please use the Weblink provided at the end of the Blog.]
Each year, SFGSM conducts a series of Benchmark Surveys among its outreach community of more than 39,000 global services professionals. Total responses for the 2017 Warranty Chain Management Benchmark Survey, conducted in January/February 2017, are 215. As such, we believe the survey results to represent a realistic reflection of the global warranty chain management community in which we all serve.
Putting Things in Perspective
Overall, survey respondents identify the following as the top factors that are currently driving their desire – and ability – to optimize warranty management performance:
- 47% Post-sale customer satisfaction issues
- 43% Desire to improve customer retention
- 36% Customer demand for improved warranty management services
In order to effectively address these challenges – and strive to attain best practices – respondents then cite the following as the most needed strategic actions to be taken:
- 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
The survey results also reveal that roughly two-thirds (66%) of respondent organizations currently operate service as an independent profit center (or as a pure, third-party service company), compared with only 34% that operate as cost centers. At these percentages, the warranty management respondent base represented in the survey reflects a consistency over the past few years, and mirrors the overall composition of the global services marketplace.
Further, the two-thirds ratio supports the supposition that it would strongly benefit services organizations that are attempting to keep their customers satisfied – and make an attractive profit by doing so – to put into place a well-structured, automated and Cloud-based warranty management solution designed both to satisfy customers, and contribute directly to the bottom line.
However, while the importance of effective warranty management is sufficiently validated by the responses to the survey, a majority of warranty management solution users are not as duly impressed with the vendors that render them these services. For example, only 42% of respondents are presently satisfied with the services and solutions provided by their respective primary warranty management solution vendors – including a stunningly low 12%, or only one-out-of-eight, who are “extremely satisfied”.
In fact, just under half of users (44%) rate their perceptions of the performance of their primary vendor as “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied” – or what we would normally describe as a “complacent” user base. While only 3% of users claim to be “not at all satisfied”, there are still a total of 15% that fall into the “dissatisfied” category.
Research shows that a majority (i.e., 50% or greater) of the dissatisfaction that users have with their current vendors apparently stems from the importance that the market places on key factors including cost of services (70%), followed by the industry reputation and warranty management experience of the vendor (i.e., at 47%, each). Other factors influencing performance perceptions include the vendor’s data/information reporting capabilities (41%) and specific geographic experience (38%).
Roughly half (49%) of the survey respondents’ organizations have either implemented a “new” warranty management solution, or upgraded their existing solution, within the past three years or less. Of this amount, about one-in-seven (15%) have implemented a “new” solution, while more than one-third (34%) have upgraded their existing solution. The remaining 51% are currently using warranty management solutions that are, at least, three years old, or older (Figure 1).
The survey research clearly shows that those organizations that have implemented “new” warranty management solutions have realized the greatest levels of performance improvement – certainly, much greater than for those that have merely upgraded their respective Warranty Management solutions. The Key Performance Indicators, or KPIs, that reflect the greatest improvements for each category of organization are as follows:
Warranty Claims Processing Time:
- 14% Performance improvement for “New” Implementations
- 6% Performance improvement for Upgrades
Supplier/Vendor Recovery (as a percent of Total Warranty Expense):
- 8% Performance improvement for “New” Implementations
- 5% Performance improvement for Upgrades
Based on the results of SFG℠’s 2017 Warranty Chain Management Benchmark Survey, the key takeaways are:
- Roughly half (49%) of the warranty management segment have either implemented or upgraded their warranty management solutions in the past three years or less
- More than three-quarters (77%) of current warranty management processes are at least partially automated
- Over the next 12 months, annual warranty management budgets are expected to increase, with more than twice as many organizations planning increases over decreases
- Organizations with “new” warranty management implementations have realized significantly greater performance improvements than all other categories with respect to warranty claims processing time and supplier/vendor recovery (as a percent of total warranty expense)
- Warranty management organizations are being driven, first, by Customer-focused factors; second, by Product Quality-focused factors; and third, by Cost/Revenue-focused factors
- The most significant challenges currently faced by warranty services managers are identifying the root causes of product failures, followed by product quality issues and claims processing time and accuracy
- Currently, as well as in the next 12 months, warranty services managers will be focusing primarily on developing and/or improving their KPIs and warranty analytic programs, fostering a closer working collaboration between product design and service, and instituting/enforcing process workflow improvements for supplier cost recovery
- Nearly half (46%) of organizations are currently integrating warranty management with all other services functions, and just as many already have an end-to-end workflow process in place to handle claims and returns (46%); however, this means that more than half presently do not have these capabilities in place
- The top uses of data/information collected from warranty events are basically to improve processes (i.e., field service, depot repair, parts returns, etc.) and effect changes (i.e., product design, manufacturing, etc.)
- Customer satisfaction and warranty management-related costs are the top two categories of KPIs used by warranty services management organizations, followed by warranty costs, per product
[To access the complete White Paper, containing much more information and numerous supporting tables and charts, please visit the following Weblink, hosted by Tavant. An archived copy of the companion Webcast is also available for download at http://bit.ly/2lUppNZ.]