Winning and Retaining Business in the African Mining Equipment Sector, 2014

Winning and Retaining Business in the African Mining Equipment Sector, 2014

Summary

Overall trends in the data revealed -
- Customer priorities in supplier selection are product quality and availability of parts
- Suppliers perform well, but have lower levels of satisfaction in key areas
- Sandvik received the highest average satisfaction ratings, with Caterpillar considered the leading supplier for most categories of mining equipment
- Account managers make a significant impact in the selection process, alongside product quality and use of the latest technology
- Although loyal to their suppliers, customers look for improvement in parts availability and product quality.

Scope

- Winning and Retaining Business in the African Mining Equipment Sector, 2014 published by GlobalDatas Mining Intelligence Centre, provides readers with a detailed analysis of customer preferences in the African mining equipment sector. The analysis is based upon GlobalDatas survey of 108 mine managers, procurement managers and other key decision-makers

Reasons to buy

- Identify key areas for differentiation by understanding what factors most influence choice of supplier
- Target product and service improvement areas based on where mining equipment suppliers are currently underperforming relative to customer expectations
- Develop successful sales and marketing strategies through an understanding of the leading competitors and their strengths and weaknesses.

1 Executive Summary
2 Customer Priorities in Supplier Selection
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Key Factors when Choosing a Supplier
2.3 Summary
3 Supplier Performance and Key Success Factors
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Overall Supplier Performance
3.3 Individual Supplier Performance Relative to Customer Importance
3.4 Leading Suppliers by Category
3.5 Benchmarking the Major Suppliers
3.5.1 Caterpillar
3.5.2 Joy Global
3.5.3 Komatsu
3.5.4 Sandvik
3.5.5 Atlas Copco
3.6 Leading Manufacturers by Equipment Type
3.7 How Suppliers Differentiated Themselves
4 Customer Retention and Key Improvement Areas
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Post-Sales Satisfaction with Suppliers
4.3 Customer Ratings of Main Supplier Relative to Peer Group
4.4 Anticipated Switching Within the Next Five Years
4.5 Key Areas for Product and Service Improvement
5 Action Points and Recommendations
6 Appendix I
6.1 Selected Data Tables
7 Appendix II
7.1 Survey Background
7.2 Analysis of the Survey Sample
7.3 Equipment Sourced from Main Supplier
8 Appendix III
8.1 What is This Report About?
8.2 Methodology
8.3 Contact GlobalData
8.4 About GlobalData
8.5 Disclaimer

List Of Tables

Table 1: Highest Average Rated Supplier for Each Criteria, 2014
Table 2: Highest Average Rated Supplier for Each Criteria, 2014
Table 3: If you had the Choice Again, would you Choose this Manufacturer?
Table 4: Average Importance Ratings for Key Factors when Choosing an Equipment Supplier, 2014
Table 5: Average Importance Ratings for Key Factors when Choosing an Equipment Supplier by Mine Type, 2014
Table 6: Importance Ratings for Key Factors when Choosing an Equipment Supplier, 2014
Table 7: Average Importance Ratings for Key Factors when Choosing an Equipment Supplier by Commodity, 2014
Table 8: Average Performance Ratings for Main Current Supplier, 2014
Table 9: Average Performance Ratings by Main Supplier, 2014
Table 10: Weighted Average Performance Rating by Main Supplier, 2014
Table 11: Areas of Improvement for Equipment Suppliers, 2014
Table 12: View of Main Mobile Mining Equipment Supplier vs Peers in the Market, 2014

List Of Figures

Figure 1: Average Ratings for Key Factors When Choosing an Equipment Supplier - Highest- and Lowest-Rated Criteria, 2014
Figure 2: Average Importance Ratings vs Average Performance Rating for Main Supplier, 2014
Figure 3: Areas Where Main Suppliers Differentiated Themselves as Part of the Selection Process Relative to Their Competitors (%), 2014
Figure 4: If You Had the Choice Again Would You Choose the Same Manufacturer? (%), 2014
Figure 5: Do You Anticipate Switching to a Different Supplier Within the Next Five Years? (%), 2014
Figure 6: Areas of Improvement for Equipment Suppliers
Figure 7: Average Ratings for Key Factors When Choosing an Equipment Supplier, 2014
Figure 8: Average Ratings for Key Factors When Choosing an Equipment Supplier by Mine Type, 2014
Figure 9: Average Ratings for Key Factors When Choosing a Supplier (Part 1), 2014
Figure 10: Average Ratings for Key Factors When Choosing a Supplier (Part 2), 2014
Figure 11: Ratings for Key Factors When Choosing an Equipment Supplier by Company Size, 2014
Figure 12: Ratings for Key Factors When Choosing an Equipment Supplier by Commodity, 2014
Figure 13: Average Importance Ratings vs Average Performance Rating for Main Supplier, 2014
Figure 14: Overall Performance vs Overall Importance, 2014
Figure 15: Product Attributes - Performance vs Importance, 2014
Figure 16: Cost - Performance vs Importance, 2014
Figure 17: Supplier Attributes and Capabilities - Performance vs Importance
Figure 18: Main Heavy Mobile Equipment Suppliers by Share of Respondents (%), 2014
Figure 19: Caterpillar - Breakdown of Respondents by Mine Type and Mineral (%), 2014
Figure 20: Caterpillar - Customer Satisfaction Ratings and Average Importance Ratings (Part 1), 2014
Figure 21: Caterpillar - Customer Satisfaction Ratings and Average Importance Ratings (Part 2), 2014
Figure 22: Joy Global - Breakdown of Respondents by Mine Type and Mineral (%), 2014
Figure 23: Joy Global - Customer Satisfaction Ratings and Average Importance Ratings (Part 1), 2014
Figure 24: Joy Global - Customer Satisfaction Ratings and Average Importance Ratings (Part 2), 2014
Figure 25: Komatsus Breakdown of Respondents by Mine Type and Mineral (%), 2014
Figure 26: Komatsu - Customer Satisfaction Ratings and Average Importance Ratings (Part 1), 2014
Figure 27: Komatsu - Customer Satisfaction Ratings and Average Importance Ratings (Part 2), 2014
Figure 28: Sandvik - Breakdown of Respondents by Mine Type and Mineral (%), 2014
Figure 29: Sandvik - Customer Satisfaction Ratings and Average Importance Ratings (Part 1), 2014
Figure 30: Sandvik - Customer Satisfaction Ratings and Average Importance Ratings (Part 2), 2014
Figure 31: Atlas Copco - Breakdown of Respondents by Mine Type and Mineral (%), 2014
Figure 32: Atlas Copco - Customer Satisfaction Ratings and Average Importance Ratings (Part 1), 2014
Figure 33: Atlas Copco - Customer Satisfaction Ratings and Average Importance Ratings (Part 2), 2014
Figure 34: Leading Suppliers by Share of Respondents - Surface Equipment (%), 2014
Figure 35: Leading Suppliers by Share of Respondents - Software (%), 2014
Figure 36: Leading Suppliers by Share of Respondents - Underground Equipment (%), 2014
Figure 37: Areas Where Main Suppliers Differentiated Themselves as Part of the Selection Process Relative to Their Competitors (%), 2014
Figure 38: When Choosing to Buy from this Supplier, where do you Feel They Differentiated Themselves as Part of the Selection Process Relative to the Competition? (Part 1)
Figure 39: When Choosing to Buy from this Supplier, where do you Feel They Differentiated Themselves as Part of the Selection Process Relative to the Competition? (Part 2)
Figure 40: If you had the Choice Again would you Choose the Same Manufacturer?
Figure 41: View of Main Mobile Mining Equipment Supplier vs Peers in the Market, 2014
Figure 42: Do you Anticipate Switching to a Different Supplier within the Next Five Years?
Figure 43: Do you Anticipate Switching to a Different Supplier within the Next Five Years?, By Current Supplier Overall Rating
Figure 44: Areas for Improvement for Equipment Suppliers, 2014
Figure 45: Areas for Improvement for Equipment Suppliers by Company Size, 2014
Figure 46: Areas for Improvement for Equipment Suppliers by Commodity, 2014
Figure 47: Survey Respondents by Country (%), 2014
Figure 48: Survey Respondents by Mine Type (%), 2014
Figure 49: Survey Respondents by Commodity (%), 2014
Figure 50: Equipment Supplied by Respondents Major Equipment Supplier by Type (%), 2014
Figure 51: Equipment Type Sourced by Commodity (%), 2014
Figure 52: Equipment Type Sourced by Mine Type (%), 2014
Figure 53: Equipment Supplied by Respondents Major Equipment Supplier, by Manufacturer (%), 2014

Fill The Form For Sample Request

Full Name*

Business Email *

E-mail

Country *

Select Country Albania Algeria Afghanistan Angola Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Andorra Anguilla Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Bosnia Cambodia Cameroon Central African Republic Chad Chile China Colombia Comoros Congo (Brazzaville) Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Cayman Islands Denmark Djibouti Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji Finland France Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Herzegovina Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kuwait Korea Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Lithuania Luxembourg Liechtenstein Macau Macedonia Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Middle East & North Africa (MENA) Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North Korea Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territories Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Palestine Qatar Romania Russia Rwanda Samoa Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Korea Spain Sri Lanka Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Scotland San Marino Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States of America Uruguay Uzbekistan Uraguay Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Virgin Islands Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Canada Grenada Cape Verde Belize Curacao Republic of Srpska Antigua and Barbuda Saint Lucia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Guadeloupe Martinique Montserrat Niue

Contact No *

Alternate No

Note : * Kindly provide us with your company id and get the sample reports at the earliest.

There is no Reviews available