Innovation In Procurement

A new era of innovation in procurement process

Contents
1

Evolution of Procurement Operations

IDP Survey Approach

Findings 10

4
5

Conclusion

16

Appendix 17

Adrian Penka
Global Procurement Transformation Lead
Tel.: +1 40 4806 5082
Email: adrian.penka@capgemini.com
4

Kirsten Schipper
Managing Consultant Procurement Transformation
Tel.: +31 30 689 5526
Email:kirsten.schipper@capgemini.com

Open Innovation
Firms that include their suppliers in the early stages of innovation projects
seem to substantially outperform their peers that do not. Yet a large proportion
of companies, does not include suppliers in over 90% of their New Product
Development projects. This is based upon our initial findings from World Caf
sessions and survey respondents.
Over the past decade we have seen a significant increase in turnover in
procurement as companies focus on core capabilities and outsource others.
This has increased the influence of the procurement function typically
controlling all spend one way or the other. At the same time, the nature of
innovation recognized by most successful companies as the key to sustainable
growth has evolved from a purely internal capability to something to be
delivered in collaboration with the external network of supply partners. From
this concept of Open Innovation, Capgemini expects two key developments: 1)
A greater focus on value chain optimization and interaction, and 2) A broader
role of supply partners in the innovation processes. In practice, however, these
two developments have not emerged as prominently as expected. In fact, the
role of procurement in managing supplier involvement in innovation continues
to be very limited.
Recently, some leading procurement organizations have embraced and
pursued the concept of being a key player in seeking, fostering and delivering
innovation in collaboration with other functions. From this, these leaders have
found that this type of capability requires them to play a completely different
game in terms of organization, skill sets and processes.
As companies realign and focus on becoming more open by leveraging a wider
knowledge base for sources of innovation, the total supply base both current
and potential suppliers should be utilized. Companies should consider
identifying and developing a supply base with complementary capabilities that
drive value through collaboration. From this, a joint development process can
emerge to support more innovative products through a more innovative value
chain. Consequently, this drives down supply management costs and drives up
value for the end customer.
Depending upon the product category, the innovation relationship continues
throughout the product/service lifecycle. This process of continuous
improvement will continue to yield new ideas and opportunities for further
value creation. In short, the key is to find supply partners, jointly develop
capabilities and improve products through close collaboration.

1
6

Evolution of Procurement
Operations

For procurement to play a role,

it needs to redefine its activities.
Traditional Procurement departments
focus on delivering savings,
contract coverage and operational
supply risk mitigation by regularly
sourcing categories. Given this focus,
Procurements natural involvement
in innovation is limited to work on
cost/risk reduction by sourcing and
contracting suppliers. In practice, this
means Procurement is involved once
all specifications are set in stone and
the innovation is ready for ramp-up.
Although usually working in team
structures, silo-thinking remains
prevalent.
The handover to Procurement usually
occurs well after supplier involvement
by R&D and beyond a point where
a significant impact can be made on
cost reduction and value creation of
the product. At this point it is too
late to deliver new innovations or
significantly increase development
speed.
The only variables remaining are cost
and risk reduction, and even these
have been compromised. Procurement
can no longer fully influence cost or
risk as the specifications are largely
set, and suppliers have been deeply
involved in the design process.
Furthermore, traditional procurement
targets (such as savings, continuity
of supply, contract coverage and
compliance) conflict with project
targets. This conflict may compromise
the value of the end product for the
customer. Delays in the innovation
project are likely to occur through
these or other conflicts.
Leaders in the market have
recognized that for innovation
projects the traditional Procurement
departments have to transform into
Innovation Driven Procurement
(IDP) groups. IDP groups are able
to support the business strategy in
pursuing innovation targets such as:

Delivering more innovations in less

time

Accelerating design and launch

cycles

Improving product / service pricequality ratio

Increasing the end customers

experience / satisfaction
IDP groups fundamentally
differentiate themselves on three key
dimensions:
1. They are able to help find scarce
sources of innovation capabilities.
These capabilities are not easy
to find in part because suppliers
typically are used to being mere
contractors delivering according
to specifications and directions.
Finding sources of innovation
supply requires knowledge of
markets and technology. Besides
being able to find the right supplier,
the buying company needs to
make itself attractive enough to
the supplier in order to ensure
resources are actually secured
for the buyer rather than its
competitors.
2. They are involved in innovation
projects from start to finish.
Procurement will have to re-align
its value proposition to innovation
projects as the values to measure
success (time-to-market, product
success, project efficiency, ROI)
are very different from what
Procurement traditionally delivers
(savings, contract compliance,
risk reduction). Furthermore,
Procurement must adapt to the
chaotic and uncertain environment
of early innovation stages with
the right organization, people and
processes.
3. They are able to manage supplier
involvement collaboratively. This
requires early procurement
involvement in innovation projects
to set supplier involvement
strategies and drive them all
through the project and possibly
beyond. Procurement, as the
owner of the interface between the
company and its supply base, will

have to make sure collaboration

within the innovation project is
enabled and monitored. It should be
a win-win for all parties involved.

Innovation Teams &

Organization
All of this requires a fundamentally
different way of working with
procurement as it becomes an integral
part of the innovation process inside
the company. This has a major impact
on the business model of procurement
shifting the customer focus from
internal client to external customer,
the role in innovation teams and the
way Procurement organizes:

Organization & Process: The

organization should model the
characteristics of innovation
projects. The processes in each
stage of innovation will include
scouting technologies, setting up
supplier involvement strategies and
managing continuous involvement.

Planning & Control: The

performance metrics will transition
from cost and risk related KPIs to
value and innovation related KPIs.

Human Resources: The innovation

process is new in both workload
and content, meaning extra
resources will be needed with
different skill sets. The people
needed to conduct IDP will
have stronger competences in
internal and external relationship
management, better product
knowledge and a strategic mindset.

Preferred Customer: Procurement

will ensure the company is
attractive to its most important
sources of innovation changing
the partnership, risk/reward
and relationship management
structures.

2
8

IDP Research Approach

This research focused on what

differentiates recognized innovators
from others in the market on the
aforementioned themes. First, we
identified the top innovative players
with a base in The Netherlands and
Germany. The CPOs and CIOs of
these companies were invited to
discuss the four themes in a series
of workshops entitled World Caf.
Through an analysis of the output
from these sessions, a set of measures
was identified for each theme that
these innovators recognized as a key
contributor to success.
Second, we conducted the first wave
of the IDP survey (50 firms) for
other regions of the world in which
we assessed perceived performance,
relative innovation success,
outcomes of the four themes and
differences between well and poorly
innovative suppliers. We analyzed
the respondents performance and
innovation models as follows:

Performance Scores
- Respondents were asked to rate
their performance in terms of
overall gains such as growth,
ROI, profit, competitiveness, and
on innovation performance such
as time-to-market and product
success.

Open / Closed Innovation

- Respondents indicated to what
degree their innovation process
is open to supplier inputs. In
this study we defined an Open
Innovator as a company that
involves suppliers in early
innovation stages for more than
90% of innovation projects, and
a Closed Innovator as a company
that involves suppliers early in
less than 10% of cases.

their business model in detail.

This IDP survey approach enabled us
to test what the World Caf innovators
regarded as levers of success. In some
cases it validated our findings across
industries, and in others it yielded
some interesting surprises.
We will be complementing this initial
IDP survey with a larger round in
early 2012. The collective output will
focus on major emerging patterns or
themes. A full analysis of the research
will be presented in the final report.

the responses, mainly around the

degree of Open Innovation. For the
purpose of this study, Open Innovation
is measured by a high percentage of
innovation projects in which suppliers
and Procurement are involved from
the beginning. Interestingly, high
performance is found in both open
and closed innovators. However,
there is a big difference in the degree
to which open innovators receive
exclusivity of innovations from their
suppliers, which can clearly be a
competitive advantage.

IDP Overview (Preliminary)

Just as in our selection of World Caf

innovation leaders, we noticed a wide
variety of industries among the top
performers.

In this initial report, you will find a

part of the output generated by the
first wave of 50 surveys. Overall, we
saw a clear distinction between top
and bottom performers measured
on financial results and innovation
success. From this it is clear that with
higher performance, we see more
IDP elements implemented. However,
there is still some variation among

This supports the notion that IDP is

not limited to any particular industry
or sector; it is a trait or foundational
element of the best performers in
the market. We focused the findings
below on both performance and
openness of innovation. An overview
of industries is given in figure 1.

Figure 1: Industry Segmentation

Manufacturing
Chemicals
Consumer Products
Telecom
Services
Automotive
Energy
Construction
Pharmaceutical
Media
Unknown

Analysis of Outcomes
- High performance companies are
those that conduct open as well as
closed innovation, resulting in a
mixed view of high performance
companies when we examine

3
10

Findings

Key Findings: Organization

& Process
In the World Caf session, we found
various operating models successfully
supporting the innovation process.
All Procurement functions were
involved in varying degrees with
innovation processes. Although for
some, this was determined on a caseby-case basis. Involvement consisted
of virtual teams, dedicated resources
within Procurement or category
managers were involved in early
design phases. In the case of category
teams, they were organized around
innovation projects. Procurement in
these companies was seen as a change
agent, helping the organization to
become more open and work together
to connect to supplier capabilities.
IT was leveraged as an enabler to
systematically share knowledge across
the value chain. Sharing information
with external partners depended
primarily on the contract terms and
conditions. Key takeaways from the
World Caf session:

Figure 2: Organization of Supplier Innovation

7
6

Degree of
Open Innovation

>90%

50 - 90%

10 - 50%

<10%

Unknown
Dedicated
innovation sourcing

Virtual teams

Cross-function teams

y-axis: 7-point Likert scale; 1 being lowest, 7 being highest

At a minimum, involvement should be early in the innovation lifecycle and

should consist of regular meetings with R&D. Most respondents have already
established this. A key point in figure 3 below was the participation in supplier
innovation meetings. This external coordination with the extended value chain
was significantly higher for open innovators.

Figure 3: Role of Procurement in Innovation

7

Set up shared responsibility for

R&D and Procurement with shared
KPIs

6
5
>90%

Use a small group of dedicated

innovation procurement personnel
and leverage the network of
capabilities around you

Set up a plan for each project in

the innovation funnel in which
you decide about supplier and
Procurement involvement

Act as a wedding planner in

connecting supply base capabilities
with customer demand
Similarly, the survey revealed that
having dedicated resources as a
Procurement department is an
effective approach. However, budget
constraints and economic realities
may force some respondents to
establish virtual teams instead of
assigning dedicated personnel.
In figure 2, we found that open
innovators are much more focused
on advanced structures to manage
innovation with suppliers.

50 - 90%

10 - 50%

<10%
Unknown
Supplier innovation
meetings

Internal innovation meetings

Supplier support

As more formal roles and organization are established, Procurements support

to innovation can become more effective. Among open and closed innovators,
we saw a clear distinction in the way these companies organize procurement
for innovation (figures 2 and 3). As part of this, top performers and open
innovators are explicit about the objectives and realization. Further, incentives
were important to open innovators but surprisingly not a differentiator for
performance. Finally, leveraging IT for systematic knowledge sharing was done
only by open innovators.

11

Key Findings: Planning &

Control
Shared KPIs among Procurement and
R&D were a dominant factor for the
World Caf participants, indicating
the level of importance and focus
these companies give to innovation.
Innovation and Procurement
Planning were integrated, and targets
were derived from the planning
of individual projects. Traditional
Procurement metrics were set aside,
and project-focused innovation targets
emerged. Top rated KPIs noted:

Figure 4: KPIs
7
6
5
>90%

50 - 90%
3

10 - 50%

2
1

<10%
Unknown
Material efficiency

Projects with suppliers

Overall Project Value

- Value creation
- Material efficiency

Supplier Involvement
- Sales realized from projects with
supplier involvement
- Number of projects completed in
conjunction with suppliers
- Number of innovation events
with suppliers
- Supplier satisfaction
These targets illustrated the difficulty
of measuring innovation-related gains,
especially if it was to be distinguished
for every team member. About half of
the targets for Procurement focused
on the effort, not on the outcome.
But a target set based on both effort
and outcomes balanced the needs of
getting everyone engaged/focused on
customer value and at the same time
contributing to the goal or expected
result.
The survey outcomes clearly
differentiated between top performers
and the rest. Shared targets were
formalized among most top
performers, and the targets they
apply were largely in line with those
mentioned. However, there were
strong differences even among the top
performers on the use of target sets.
Top performers in the survey scored
high on the number of ideas brought
forward by procurement
(see figure 4), whereas the World Caf
leaders clearly chose a stronger focus
on the effort to connect suppliers with
R&D.
12

Among open innovators we clearly

saw a distinction in the planning
measures and some of the KPIs (see
figure 5: Planning Measures). Although
the overall score was not very high,
we saw a structural connection
between procurement and innovation
made by open innovators. Among the
KPIs, there was little differentiation
except for the three shown in figure 4.
Material efficiency appeared to be one
of the starting points for Procurement
involvement as those with limited
open innovation were focused on this.

Ideas brought by
procurement

This area was subject to much

debate as Procurement tries to move
away from traditional targets in
innovation areas. However, the overall
performance of the Procurement
group is still being measured in some
cases with traditional metrics. Clearly,
this created issues at all levels within
the department confusion, reward
structure, goal alignment, etc. In
order to address this, top management
commitment and ongoing support for
open innovation and IDP overall were
critical.

Figure 5: Planning Measures

7
6
5

>90%

50 - 90%

10 - 50%

<10%

Unknown
Procurement in
Innovation Strategy

Innovation Targets in
Procurement Plan

KPIs shared with R&D

Key Findings: Human

Resources
World Caf leaders stressed the
importance of managing employee
career development carefully.
Competence and attitude based
selection and growth of personnel
was essential, especially with
the rather untraditional skill set
required in this innovation area.
Establishing innovation related KPIs
at all levels was seen as a powerful
tool. Recognition of contribution
in this area and as a criterion for
career development was also viewed
as essential for continued growth/
development of personnel. Key
takeaways from the World Caf
session:

Actively assess and manage the

capabilities of the department /
company

Procurement staff should be the

change agents in the company,
defining a new way of collaborating
in the network

Required skill sets

- Understanding of technology
- Coaching suppliers to present
themselves
- Engagement and collaboration
skills deployed in the network
and within the company

These skills are in line with

Procurements change agent and
relationship management roles
previously mentioned. The same
was true regarding the tools used
to ensure success joint training
programs and co-location of
Procurement and R&D. All World Caf
participants were focused on stronger
integration across the enterprise.

In terms of project management

skills, we found a low differentiation
among the respondents. This seemed
to indicate that this was viewed as
a core competency for innovation
management regardless of industry,
whether open/closed innovator
or top/bottom performer. Clearly,
more is needed than just managing
innovation as a project; its the
relationship that counts.

Among the survey respondents, there

was a high degree of variation in the
area of co-location and joint training.
These were applied exclusively by top
performers and primarily by open
innovators. Specialist knowledge
was clearly required more by open
innovators recruiting engineers
or demanding specialist knowledge
gain through virtual teams (e.g.,
marketing, legal, and others).

Figure 6: Knowledge & Skills

7
6

>90%

50 - 90%

10 - 50%

<10%

Unknown

1
Specialist

Supply base

Marketing & R&D

Entrepreneurial

Among the required skill sets noted

by survey respondents for successful
IDP were the following:

Strong relationship building

Facilitating, moderating and

influencing skills

Entrepreneurial business driven

attitude

Broad skill set (technical)

13

Key Findings: Preferred

Customer
Leading firms tend to engage in
buyer-supplier relationships that move
away from the more traditional view
on procurement where the supplier
persuades the buyer. Instead, an
important aspect of IDP is that buying
firms persuade innovative suppliers to
provide. Typically, the buying firms
target unique skill sets or capabilities
that suppliers possess. Therefore,
specific IDP strategies often focus on
strategic or key suppliers rather than
on suppliers of commodity goods.
As we have seen in this research
and others, a firms ability to build
close relationships with innovative
suppliers is directly correlated with
the firms successful innovation
performance. Key takeaways from the
World Caf session:

What attracts an innovative

supplier?
- Growth opportunities
- Risk / cost / resource / reward
sharing
- Help to enter new markets

What keeps innovative suppliers

satisfied?
- Chemistry / cultural fit / firm
relationships (on personal level)
- Trust: stick to commitment,
manage relationship at all levels
- Top management commitment,
accessibility and business
alignment
Responses from the IDP survey
and the feedback from the World
Caf session indicated that supplier
attractiveness and satisfaction were
important criteria for successful
innovation programs. Figure 7 depicts
the benefits companies received from
collaborating with their suppliers
against the level of customer
preference they perceived to have.
Companies with high preference from
these key suppliers enjoyed better
availability of supplier innovation
resources, stronger exclusivity
of innovations and in times of
shortage (bottlenecks) they were
provided more resources than their
competitors.

Figure 7: Gains from Customer Preference

7
6

Gains from
collaboration

>6

5-6

4-5

2
1

3-4
<3
Innovation resources

Exclusivity of innovations

y-axis: 7-point Likert scale; 1 being lowest, 7 being highest

14

Bottleneck preference

Attractiveness to suppliers for the

World Caf leaders meant not only
being one of the market leaders
(i.e., considerable size and growth
opportunities for suppliers), but also
it had to do with the business culture
or way of doing business. The ability
to share both risk and reward with
suppliers requires a large degree of
flexibility in managing a wide variety
of innovation opportunities to the
benefit of all parties involved. The
reputation for being a partner that can
get things done is also very important.
It is also something that is difficult to
change when the market perception is
negative.

It was interesting to see that very

few companies were willing to take
risk and left it all to their suppliers.
Capgemini believes this model is
unsustainable during a time when
resource scarcity is increasing, and
when competitors are recognizing
that their attractiveness matters.
It was also where open innovators
most clearly stood out against the
field. Interestingly, open innovators
seemed more willing to promote and
emphasize the concepts of trust and
fairness with supply partners.
According to World Caf participants,
supplier satisfaction was subject to
factors relating to financial stability,
such as a steady supply of business
flowing to the supplier. The ability
of the buying firm to place trust
ahead of profit was also an important
factor making a solid commitment
to the relationship even in hard
times. Finally, good chemistry on
all levels of the relationship was
deemed important along with top
management commitment. This
emphasizes the need to carefully
orchestrate and manage relationships
across the value chain.

The leaders recognized that strong

capability to manage short timeto-market windows was essential.
This of course again calls for early
procurement involvement, to manage
supplier involvement effectively
throughout a project.
The IDP survey responses supported
the idea of what makes a buyer
company attractive (see figure 8).
Also, this was what differentiated top
performers from the rest.
Figure 8: Sources of Attractiveness
7
6
5

>90%

50 - 90%

10 - 50%
2
1

<10%
Unknown
Risk compensation

Information sharing

Win-win creation

Trust & fairness

15

From the survey results, it appears

that top management commitment
was mentioned as a lever by nearly
all respondents (see figure 9).
This supported the idea that it is
essential but not enough to ensure
performance.
Clearly, trust and chemistry result in
higher attractiveness and satisfaction
for which the type of innovation was
irrelevant. The true differentiator in
this area can be found in the ability
to help suppliers innovate within the

supply chain or extended value chain.

Capgemini sees this as critical and
it should be managed on all levels
(e.g., project deliverables, resource
commitments, expectations, results,
etc).
Additional insights on the
attractiveness and satisfaction
elements of becoming a preferred
customer can be found in the
Appendix. This research was
conducted by the University of
Twente in the Netherlands.

Figure 9: Sources of Supplier Satisfaction

7
6
5

>90%

50 - 90%

10 - 50%

<10%

Unknown
Help suppliers innovate

Top management
committed

Manage expectations

Conclusion
The findings from the World Caf session and the survey responses all indicated
that IDP needs to be explicitly organized. We found clear differences in success
ratings and the way of organizing procurement and measuring its contribution.
Selecting, developing and rewarding employees for capabilities in managing
complex relations and projects is critical. From the World Caf session and the
IDP survey both, it is abundantly clear that successful innovation programs
start at the top commitment from executive leadership. This message must be
communicated to all levels of the organization and positioned as an integral part
of the achieving enterprise-wide goals. In keeping with that concept, KPIs should
be realigned to measure the contribution and impact of groups contributing to
innovation projects. An important part of this is attracting and retaining the
right talent in the procurement organization personnel with strong relationship
building, facilitation and moderation skills. Finally, our research clearly indicates
that true supply partnerships drive increased innovation, and this becomes a
differentiator in the market.

16

Appendix
Background: Innovation driven buyer-supplier relationships
This appendix is written by Niels Pulles (PhD researcher) and Prof. Dr. Holger Schiele (Chair of Technology Management - Innovation
of Operations) from the University of Twente, The Netherlands.
Leading firms tend to engage in buyer-supplier relationships that move away from a more traditional view on procurement
where the supplier persuades the purchaser to buy. Instead, an important aspect of IDP is that buying firms persuade
the innovative supplier to provide. The objectives of procurement function in these relationships are typically outside the
scope of exchange of goods or services. Often the buying firms aim for unique skills or capabilities that suppliers possess.
Therefore, a buying firms strategy is often not aimed at satisfying or attracting every single supplier. Most often, the concepts
relate to a situation in which buying firms want to attain preferential access to those resources that will give them an
innovation advantage over their competitors. Therefore, specific IDP strategies often focus on strategic or key suppliers rather
than on suppliers of commodity goods.

Competition for innovative suppliers

As we have seen in this research and others, the capability of firms to build close relations with innovative suppliers
positively impacts a firms innovation performance. However, often key suppliers are shared with main competitors. As
a consequence, firms frequently find themselves competing for a key suppliers best resources. These resources can take
different forms, and may refer either to tangible materials or to production capacity in times of scarcity or high demand.
Innovation resources can also refer to the suppliers best ideas, most experienced engineers, and latest technologies. When,
for example, four major competitors share one key supplier, this supplier can only share its best resources (e.g. best ideas,
newest technologies, scarce materials, most experienced personnel) with only one of the four competitors. Recent research
has shown how a preferred customer status (i.e. a buying firm that obtains preferential resource allocation from suppliers)
leads to a higher innovation contribution of suppliers.
Supplier capability

+ 0.367*

Supplier innovativeness
(R2 = 63%)

+ 0.542*
+ 0.043 n.s.
-0.103 n.s.

Preferred customer
+ 0.505*

Benevolent pricing
Behaviour (R = 24%)

*= Significant at p < 0.01, n.s.= not significant. Source: Schiele, H., Veldman, J., Httinger, L. (2011), Supplier Innovativeness
and Supplier Pricing: The Role of Preferred Customer Status, International Journal of Innovation Management, 15(1), pp.
1-27.
The figure above shows that by becoming a preferred customer, firms could significantly improve the suppliers contribution
to their innovation projects. In fact, in some cases it could be argued that a preferred customer status is even more important
than the innovation capabilities of the suppliers. Another important finding is that being a preferred customer status can lead
to benevolence in the pricing behaviour of suppliers. In other words, these findings seem to indicate that firms can acquire
better innovation resources than competitors without paying significantly more.

17

What can Procurement do to attain better commitment from innovative suppliers?

An important part of a larger round of surveys will have the aim to provide more exhaustive insights into how the allocation
of skills and capabilities from shared suppliers relates to a firms innovation performance. Furthermore, an upcoming survey
aims to provide more answers on what Procurements role might be to attain better innovation resources than competitors.
The World-Caf session already gave some insights on what leading firms do to commit innovative suppliers. The session was
based on two main topics: Customer Attractiveness, what do firms do to attract innovative suppliers, and Supplier Satisfaction,
what do firms do to satisfy innovative suppliers.

Customer attractiveness, supplier satisfaction, and preferred customers strategy

Concerning customer attractiveness, the participants considered three issues to be most important: (1) the potential business
opportunities for suppliers, (2) a reputation for collaboration of the buyer, and (3) a suppliers expectation of an ease to do
business with the given buyer. Three main drivers for supplier satisfaction were identified by the participants: (1) a durable
business approach, (2) a buyers relationship performance, and (3) a fit between the firms.
The discussions during the World-Caf session made it clear that leading firms actively apply a preferred customer strategy.
Although they might refer to it differently (e.g. becoming a customer of choice), the participants acknowledged the
importance of committing key suppliers. For example, the CPO of a food and beverage multinational explained how his
firm recently implemented a world-wide supplier satisfaction index. Another example was given by the delegate of a global
player in the tire industry, who described how his firm allows suppliers access to test facilities in exchange for access to latest
technologies.

World-Caf outcomes sources of

customer attractiveness

World-Caf outcomes sources of

supplier satisfaction

Business opportunities

Business approach

Growth opportunities for suppliers

Presence of buyer in growth

markets, acting as a reference

Share risks

Continuous income flow / long term

orientation

Reputation for collaboration

Relationship performance

Reputation of creating win-win

situation

Rewarding risk taking behaviour of

supplier

Reputation of high quality supplier

management

Known to share technologies

Reputation for being trustworthy

Relationship that is based on trust

purely on profits

Managing realistic expectations

Top management commitment/

accessibility

Ease to do business with

Short time from offer to actual sale

Fit between the firms

Chemistry between acting people/

tight relations

Cultural fit between firms

Strategic alignment of business

Customer attractiveness, supplier satisfaction, and preferred customer strategies can be considered as important concepts
for IDP functions. When applied properly, preferred customer strategies might make the difference in successful supplier
integration for better innovation outcomes.

18

Australia

Netherlands

Stephen Nestor
Email: stephen.nestor@capgemini.com
Tel.: +61 39 6133 388

Erick Haag
Email: erick.haag@capgemini.com
Tel.: +31 30 689 1811

Belgium

Kirsten Schipper
Email: kirsten.schipper@capgemini.com
Tel.: +31 30 689 5526

Filip Paenhuysen
Email: filip.paenhuysen@capgemini.com
Tel.: +32 27 081 363

Central Europe
Martin Raab
Email: martin.raab@capgemini.com
Tel.: +49 221 912644150

North America
Matthew Shull
Email: matthew.shull@capgemini.com
Tel.: +1 214 577 3216

Spain

Stefan Beckar
Email: stefan.becker@capgemini.com
Tel.: +49 89 9400 1126

Pedro Provedo
Email: pedro.provedo@capgemini.com
Tel.: +34 91 657 7521

Finland

Sweden

Markus Karki
Email: markus.karki@capgemini.com
Tel.: +358 94 526 5612

Micheal Skordy
Email: michael.skordby@capgemini.com
Tel.: +46 8 5368 4021

France

Bo Karlsson
Email: bo.x.karlsson@capgemini.com
Tel.: +46 8 5368 4065

Jean-Gabriel Padovani
Email: jean-gabriel.padovani@capgemini.com
Tel.: +33 14 967 2140
JeanPierre Pell
Email: jean-pierre.pelle@capgemini.com
Tel.: +33 14 967 5159

India
Prashant Kumar
Email: prashant.c.kumar@capgemini.com
Tel.: +91 9833522544
Smita Gotarne
Email: smita.gotarne@capgemini.com
Tel.: +91 9987794288

UK & Ireland
Hamish McKechnie Sharma
Email: hamish.mckechnie-sharma@capgemini.com
Tel.: +44 870 366 0435

Global (all other queries):

Adrian Penka
Email: adrian.penka@capgemini.com
Tel.: +1 404 806 5082

19

About Capgemini
With around 120,000 people in
40 countries, Capgemini is one of the
worlds foremost providers of consulting,
technology and outsourcing services. The
Group reported 2011 global revenues of
EUR 9.7 billion. Together with its clients,
Capgemini creates and delivers business
and technology solutions that fit their
needs and drive the results they want.
A deeply multicultural organization,
Capgemini has developed its own way
of working, the Collaborative Business
ExperienceTM, and draws on Rightshore,
its worldwide delivery model.
Learn more about us
at www.capgemini.com.

Capgemini Consulting is the global

strategy and transformation consulting
organization of the Capgemini Group,
specializing in advising and supporting
enterprises in significant transformation,
from innovative strategy to execution
and with an unstinting focus on results.
With the new digital economy creating
significant disruptions and opportunities,
our global team of over 3,600 talented
individuals work with leading companies
and governments to master Digital
Transformation,
drawing
on
our
understanding of the digital economy and
our leadership in business transformation
and organizational change.
For more information:
http://www.capgemini-consulting.com/

Rightshore is a trademark belonging to Capgemini

Capgemini Consulting is the strategy and transformation consulting brand of Capgemini Group
The information contained in this document is proprietary. 2012 Capgemini. All rights reserved.