abp joint diagnostic report an examination of the abc xyz relationship in germany 5 may 2011

ABP Joint Diagnostic Report

An examination of the ABC XYZ Relationship in Germany

5 May 2011

Contents

3. Executive summary

4. List of Interviewees

5. ABC and XYZ overall benchmark

6. ABC and XYZ by dimension

7. ABC and XYZ v best in class (BIC)

8. ABC and XYZ v selection from database

9. Companies used to benchmark the relationship

10. Alignment / misalignment areas

11. Decile characteristics

12. Scores by dimension

13. Relationship strengths and weaknesses

14. Top ten relationship focus areas

15. Top ten revenue focus areas

16. Suggested action plan

17. Suggested next steps

18. Appendix 1 - Useful additional material

19. Appendix 2 – Explanation of terms used in the report

Executive Summary

Comments

The amount, quality and depth of data capture was very extensive.

There were considerable differences in perception of the maturity of the relationship depending on: location and technology area.

XYZ appears to view the relationship as more advanced generally. The best category was Cultural (53%) the worst was Commercial (30%).

The relationship was generally seen as needing more ‘systematisation’

It was generally acknowledged that neither side had enjoyed as much revenue as they would like from the relationship so far.

There was a good balance of: strategic, managerial and operational data collected. The Alignment / Misalignment Scores were very good.

Many interviewees commented favourably on the performance of the two alliance managers (Sebastian Loew and Thomas Metzger) in involving a wide variety of business people from both sides of the relationship.

The NK Index was 3.6% and 4.5% respectively indicating that the right people were interviewed (appropriate knowledge).

The NA Index was 5.3% and 3.8% respectively indicating that the relationship is viewed by both sides as a strategic alliance relationship.

The data integrity index was 98.5% and 100% indicating an extremely high degree of confidence in the data collected.

Statistic ABC XYZ

Overall Score

36 46

Commercial 21 39

Technical 47 55

Strategic 37 45

Cultural 50 57

Operational 32 40

Alignment 28.85% 28.85%

Misalignment

0.00% 0.00%

Data Integrity Index

98.50% 100.00%

API Index 385% 231%

Revenue +/%

Unknown Unknown

The relationship is in Stage 1.0 – 2.1 depending on location

List of Interviewees

ABC Sebastian Loew

Peter Buhrmann

Ulrich Buhrmann

Rüdiger Eberlein

Dieter Harreither

Olaf-Ruediger Hasse

Burkhard Kehrbusch

Peter Lempp

Ralph Meyer

Thomas Nietsch

Oliver Schwarz

Christoph Windheuser

Hans Zierer

XYZ Kerstin Eschke

Ulrich Franke

Christian Hebenstreit

Helene Lengler

Thomas Metzger

Thomas Schmidt

Björn Ständer

Paolo Sutter

Christiane Toffolo-Haupt

Steffen von Blumroeder

Joerg Weckenmann

Wolfgang Weigend

CHARTS / DIAGRAMS

ABC v XYZ Overall

ABC v XYZ by Dimension

ABC v XYZ v Best in Class (BIC)

ABC v XYZ v Database

ABC v XYZ Overall

Co1 Co2 Co3Co4

Co5Co6

Co7

Co8

Co9

Co10

T11

T12

T13

T14

T15

T16

T17

T18

T19

S20

S21

S22S23

S24S25S26S27S28S29

S30Cu31

Cu32

Cu33

Cu34

Cu35

Cu36

Cu37

Cu38

O39

O40

O41

O42

O43

O44

O45

O46

O47

O48O49

O50O51 O52

0

50

100

This chart shows the combined XYZ and ABC scores separately

ABC v XYZ by Dimension

Commercial Technical Strategic Cultural Operational0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

This chart shows the scores of the relationship Dimension by Dimension.

ABC v XYZ v Best in Class (BIC)

Co1 Co2 Co3Co4

Co5Co6

Co7

Co8

Co9

Co10

T11

T12

T13

T14

T15

T16

T17

T18

T19

S20

S21

S22S23

S24S25S26S27S28S29

S30Cu31

Cu32

Cu33

Cu34

Cu35

Cu36

Cu37

Cu38

O39

O40

O41

O42

O43

O44

O45

O46

O47

O48O49

O50O51 O52

0

50

100

This chart shows the combined XYZ and ABC scores separately and the green line shows the ‘best in class’ example from the ABP Database of a software / systems integrator partnership.

ABC v XYZ v Database

ABC XYZ BIC A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Companies used to benchmark the relationship

Hardware

Software

Services

Telecoms

IBM, Dell, Intel, Cisco, AMD, Lenovo, Sun, APC, HP, Motorola

Apple Inc, Micro Focus, uLogistics, Microsoft, Ariba, Epiphany, ITS, SSA, IBS, Genesys, Avaya, PLM, Business Objects, Chordiant, Intentia, Cognos, SAP (EMEA), Siebel, i2 Technologies, Peregrine, Frontline, Lawson, Kana, McAfee, SAP (UK) SAS Institute, CA

BT Global Services, Accenture, Atos Origin, Bearing Point, Deloitte, IBM GBS, Logica CMG, BCX, Csiper, Siemens Business Services, IDS Sheer, Ciber-Novesoft, IBS, BDO Unicon, Tieto, TCS, Wipro, Satyam, Everis, Aenis, Delaware

Vodafone, BT, Bell Canada, Nortel, Telus, Telmex, Sprint, Verizon, Telefonica, O2, Motorola, AT&T, Singtel

The following companies were used to benchmark the relationship

Alignment / Misalignment Areas

Alignment =/< 5%

T12 Partner company market position

S20 Shared objectives

O48 B2B Operational alignment

S27 Fit with strategic business path

T19 Partner accountability

Cu35 Alliance centre of excellence

O39 Alliance process

O43 Communication

T15 Product fit with partners offerings

Cu34 Dedicated alliance manager

S30 Common vision

O42 Formal business plan

O52 Issue escalation

Co2 Due Diligence

Misalignment =/> 50%

There were no areas of Misalignment > 50%. Areas > 20% were:

O47 Operational metrics

Co1 Business Value Proposition (BVP)

S26 B2B Strategic alignment

Co3 Optimum Legal / Business Structure

Cu31 Trust

T13 Host company market position

Co8 Commercial benefit

S25 Senior Exec support

Cu33 Collaboration skills

Co9 Process for negotiation

Decile characteristics

4th Decile- Some individual salespeople/ countries / champions beginning to ‘get it’- Dissatisfaction with commercial levels- Ad hoc knowledge transfer meetings taking place- Some projects show outstanding success (which produces even greater frustration)- No systematisation

5th Decile- Focus on systematisation and common approach- Coherent alliance ‘portfolio’ strategy developing country by country- Partner ‘map’ being developed for both sides- Beginnings of support from senior executive country champions- Both / all partners beginning to look to employ a ‘standard’ approach

6th Decile- Formal alliance tools being employed, : Some attention to external best practice- Benchmarking initiatives beginning to appear : Alliance process developing- Communication strategies more formalised : Formal alliance departments / functions appearing- Alliance business cases developing : Partner segmentation model appearing- Alliance departments beginning to be seen as a profit and loss centre not just a cost centre

ABC is in Decile 4 XYZ is in Decile 5 Decile 6 is the next progression target for both

Scores by dimension

Dimension C O BIC Combined

Commercial 21 39 86 30

Technical 47 55 77 51

Strategic37 45 75 41

Cultural 50 57 83 53

Operational 32 40 75 36

Best dimension = Cultural

Worst dimension = Commercial

Strengths (+/>75%) and Weaknesses (+/<25%)

Relationship Strengths

Cu34 Dedicated Resources82

T15 Product Fit with Partners Offerings78

Relationship Weaknesses

S24 Exit strategies13

O45 MOUP13

Co10 Cost Value Ratio 16

Co2 Due Diligence21

S23 Risk sharing21

O44 Quality Review21

O46 Change Management21

Co6 Alliance Reward System22

O49 Innovation23

O51 Project Plan25

Top Ten Relationship Focus Areas (+/<35%)

S24 Exit strategies

O45 MOUP

S23 Risk sharing

O44 Quality review

O46 Change management

Cu33 Collaboration skills

S29 Common strategic ground rules

Co9 Process for negotiation

T19 Partner accountability

S30 Common vision

Top Ten Revenue Focus Areas (+/<30%)

Co10 Expected Cost value ratio

Co2 Due Diligence

Co6 Alliance reward system

O49 Exponential breakthroughs (innovation)

O51 Relationship project plan

Co4 Alliance Audit

Co7 Calculation of Commercial cost

Co3 Definition of Optimum Legal / Business Structure

T11 Valuation of technical assets

O42 Formal business plan

Suggested Action Plan

Short term (i.e. Next 90 Days)- Develop a suitable set of relationship exit strategies- Identify all Key Stakeholders and map to roles- Communicate all key stakeholder roles- Run an MOUP workshop to develop a commonly accepted strategic direction for the relationship- Develop an expected cost value ratio for the relationship- Establish regular quality reviews- Establish collaboration training for both teams- Establish agreed internal and external communication programmes

Long Term (i.e. Next 12 Months)- Establish a formal due diligence process- Establish suitable risk sharing models- Establish a formal relationship governance model- Develop an alliance reward system for field sales staff- Develop an innovation / new offerings process- Establish and codify a suitable legal / business structure- Explore and align the relationship goals with the strategic business path of both organisations

Suggested next steps

Suggested next steps are;

Share results with partner and agree to run an alliance optimisation workshop – In progress

Review the diagnostic report with ABP prior to the workshop and clarify any confusion -Complete

Discuss / develop / agree a suitable alliance relationship optimisation process (See template in ‘Useful Additional Material’) - Complete

Run the relationship optimisation workshop - Planned

Develop an agreed joint action plan – To be agreed at the workshop

Document RACI chart for agreed actions and resource allocation (See explanation and template slides) – To be completed by ABP as a draft prior to the workshop

Set new targets based on impact analysis of action plan - Pending

Review progress every 90 days - Pending

Useful additional material

Suggested workshop agenda

List of Critical Success Factors

ABP Relationship Optimisation Process

RACI Explanation

RACI Template

Revenue potential calculator

Further details / help

Suggested Workshop Agenda

Relationship Analysis Review Alliance Best Practice Ltd (ABP) findings Agree consensus view where misalignment exists Define agreed strengths and weaknesses and the reasons for them

Relationship Planning Discuss / agree chosen relationship optimisation process Identify key stakeholders

Relationship Action Select weakness areas and agree suitable remedial short term and long term actions Map key stakeholders to agreed actions ‘Sign off’ developed action plan Agree potential / probable commercial impact of actions

Ongoing Relationship Review Agree a suitable cycle and format for action plan review (suggested 90 days)

Critical Success Factors Coding

Commercial Dimension Co1 Business Value Proposition (BVP) Co2 Due Diligence Co3 Optimum Legal / Business Structure Co4 Alliance Audit Co5 Key metrics Co6 Alliance reward system Co7 Commercial cost Co8 Commercial benefit Co9 Process for negotiation Co10 Expected Cost value ratio

Technical Dimension T11 Valuation of assets T12 Partner company market position T13 Host company market position T14 Market fit of proposed solution T15 Product fit with partners offerings T16 Identified mutual needs in the

relationship T17 Process for team problem solving T18 Shared Control T19 Partner accountability

Strategic Dimension S20 Shared objectives S21 Relationship Scope S22 Tactical and strategic risk S23 Risk sharing S24 Exit strategies S25 Senior executive support S26 B2B Strategic alignment S27 Fit with strategic business path S28 Other relationships with same partner S29 Common strategic ground rules S30 Common vision

Cultural Dimension Cu31 Business to business trust Cu32 Collaborative corporate mindset Cu33 Collaboration skills Cu34 Dedicated alliance manager Cu35 Alliance centre of excellence Cu36 Decision making process Cu37 Other cultural issues Cu38 Business to Business cultural

alignment

Operational Dimension O39 Alliance process O40 Speed of progress so far O41 Distance from revenue O42 Formal business plan O43 Communication O44 Quality review O45 Alliance charter O46 Change management O47 Operational metrics O48 Business to business

operational alignment O49 Exponential breakthroughs O50 Internal alignment O51 Project plan O52 Issue escalation

Co = CommercialT = TechnicalS = StrategicCu = CulturalOp = Operational

Stage 1 - Goal Setting Stage 2 - Diagnostic Stage 3 - Action Planning Stage 4 - Resource Mobilisation

To identify the currently projected commercial value of the relationship for the next 12 months.

To generate an objective view of the relationship which shows 52 strengths and weaknesses identified as a score from 0-100

Objective – To generate a jointly agreed (with the partner) action plan to optimise the relationship.

To map all identified actions to a RACI[1] framework to identify key stakeholders roles and responsibilities.

1.Contact all key stakeholders and draw up strawman value projection2.Resolve conflicts and discrepancies with stakeholders3.Document draft final value projection4.Obtain sign off of value projection from senior executive sponsor

1.Agree on number of diagnostic interviews to capture data2.Request diagnostic interview pack from ABP3.Receive briefing on use of pack4.Conduct diagnostic interviews5.Send results to ABP for collation and benchmarking6.Brief partner on exercise7.Send partner necessary documentation8.Send partner results to ABP for collation and benchmarking

1.Review Relationship diagnostic report received from ABP2.Readjust any scores necessary in the diagnostic3.Agree partner scores with partner4.Analyse areas of incongruity (i.e. CSFs which show different scores from one partner to the other)5.Agree common scores for all 52 areas (with the partner)6.Identify areas for action7.Identify short term and long term actions8.Identify help required with long term actions9.Produce agreed action plan

1.Conduct RACI chart mapping for all identified improvement actions2.Communicate and agree role of all stakeholders on the RACI chart3.Revise the RACI chart as necessary4.Agree a single stakeholder from both /all organisations in each category5.Sign off RACI chart with host and partner executives

1.Partner views2.Market growth projections3.Marketing forecasts4.Sales forecasts5.Business plans of affected units6.Relationship business plans7.Alliance strategy document

1.Key stakeholder mapping document2.Diagnostic pack from ABP

1.Relationship diagnostic report from ABP

1.Agreed joint action plan

1.Signed off value projection for next 12 calendar months

1.Relationship diagnostic report from ABP

1.A jointly agreed (with partner) action plan identifying; a) Short term b) Long term c) Anticipated results d) Help required

1.An agreed joint RACI chart for all identified actions

1.Senior Exec job description2.ABP relationship Optimisation Process3.Questions for Chief Alliance Officers (CAOs)4.Alliance value analysis calculator5.Business Value proposition6.Executive review meeting draft agenda7.Strategic Alliance Alignment Questionnaire8.Alliance Strategy Methodology9.Alliance Business case template

1.Letter explaining the diagnostic exercise2.Internal memo explaining diagnostic3.Scoring the ABP Success Factors4.The ABP relationship optimisation process5.Self Diagnostics – READ ME FIRST!6.Three stages of alliance development7.Instructions for completing the diagnostic8.Explanation of the ABP success factors9.Example Benchmarking Diagnostic report 10.Diagnostic benchmarking presentation

Tools Available1.MOUP[4] workshop instructions2.Operational Alignment assessment workbook3.MOUP models x 34.MOUP questionnaire5.How to conduct an ABP relationship optimisation workshop6.Alliance management methodology

1.RACI process explanation2.RACI chart template3.Alliance framework and governance questionnaire4.Scoring template showing high and low impacters5.Kick off meeting action list6.Capability assessment diagnostic questionnaire

Ob

jec

tiv

eIn

pu

tsO

utp

uts

De

liv

era

ble

sTo

ols

ABP Relationship Optimisation Process

Example RACI Template

Action Responsible Accountable Consulted Informed

Establish an alliance process

Document and publish a governance model

Establish a steering group

Identify key stakeholders

Develop an internal and external communication plan

Develop a formal and co-ordinated relationship business plan

Revenue Potential Calculator

Action Revenue $m / Score

Impacter Control Relevance

Importance

Result

Appendix 2 Explanation of Terms

Acronyms and concepts used in this report explained including Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

RACI Explanation

Responsible Accountable Consulted Informed

The person/s responsible for seeing that the action is completed. This will normally be the Alliance / Relationship Manager

The person/s who will actually carry out the action.

People that we need information from to validate the action and make sure that the action is reasonable and relevant.

People that we need to inform that we are carrying out the action. This will normally be the Executive Sponsor.

Critical Success Factor Scoring

Acronym Explanation

Critical Success Factor (CSF) A best practice factor which has been shown to have a statistical impact on the success of the relationship. The ABP questionnaire has 52 CSFs.

Dimension A collection of CSFs in 5 Dimensions (Commercial, Technical, Strategic, Cultural, Operational.)

Best Practice Score A number between 0 and 100 indicating the degree to which the CSF is present and contributing to relationship value. This is usually expressed as a percentage number (e.g. 35% = 35/100)

Overall Score The average of all the CSF scores for a particular partner (e.g. ABC Overall Score 65% means that ABC scored 65/100 averaged across all 52 CSF scores for the relationship in question.).

Not Applicable / Not Known

Acronym Explanation

Not Known or No Knowledge Index (NKI) The ‘Not Known’ Index expressed as a percentage of those questions that were answered as ‘Not Known’ or ‘No Knowledge’ expressed as a percentage of the total questions answered. (e.g. 3 ‘Not Known’ answers out of 52 would produce a NK Index of 3/52 *100 = 5.77%).

Not Applicable Index (NAI) The ‘Not Applicable’ Index expressed as a percentage of those questions that were answered as ‘Not Applicable’ expressed as a percentage of the total questions answered. (e.g. 6 ‘Not Applicable’ answers out of 52 would produce a NA Index of 6/52 *100 = 11.54%).

Data Integrity

Acronym Explanation

Data Integrity Index (DII) There are a number of control questions used in the ABP questionnaire. This means that if the score to one question is high then it is extremely unlikely that the answer to a corresponding other ‘control’ question would be low. This index is an expression of the degree of the data integrity expressed as a percentage. (e.g. 100% = excellent data integrity which can be absolutely relied on. 0% data integrity = data which is badly flawed and cannot be relied on).

Similar Score Index (SSI) This is the number of times a particular score appears in the questionnaire expressed as a percentage of the total number of questions answered. (e.g. 10 questions with the same score out of 52 = 10/52*100 = an SSI of 19.23%).

Alignment / Misalignment

Acronym Explanation

Alignment The degree to which the two parties scored the same for a particular CSF or combination of CSFs. Alignment is usually defined as equal to or less than 5% difference.

Misalignment The degree to which the two parties differed in their scoring of a CSF. Misalignment is usually defined as equal to or greater than 50% difference.

Strengths / Weaknesses

Acronym Explanation

Strength A score of equal to or greater than 75 out of 100 (75/100). This can sometimes be expressed as =>75%.

Weakness A score of equal to or less than 25 out of 100 (75/100). This can sometimes be expressed as =<25%.

High Impacters and Low Impacters

Acronym Explanation

Low Impacters Those CSFs which have an immediate impact on results (usually visible within 90 days of adoption).

High Impacters Those CSFs that take time to impact results (usually visible 12 – 18 months from adoption).

Revenue and Relationship CSFs

Acronym Explanation

Revenue Those CSFs that will have a direct impact on Revenue and Commercial factors in the relationship.

Relationship Those CSFs that will have an indirect impact on the revenue factors in a relationship but will enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the relationship leading to a beneficial effect over time. (These factors are usually considered for business sustainability reasons and to extend the useful life of the relationship.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

FAQ Answer

Where have the 52 Critical Success Factors come from?

The 52 critical success factors have been derived from examining over 27,000 international strategic alliances from 1989 – 2007. This research is ongoing.

Are the Best in Class (BIC) and World Class (WC) benchmarks theoretical or actual?

All benchmarks used in the reports are actual relationships that have been examined within the last 5 years.

How big is the Alliance Best Practice database?

The ABP database currently has 43,000 entries of the identified critical success factors in action.

Control Relevance Importance

Term Explanation

Control The degree to which the control is under the control of the two relationship managers (one from each partner). Usually expressed as a percentage (e.g. 100% = fully under control, 0% = not under control at all.

Relevance The degree to which the CSF in question is relevant to the two partners concerned having regard to the stage of the relationship, its relative maturity and its primary intent. Usually expressed as a percentage (e.g. 100% = fully relevant, 0% = not relevant at all.

Importance The degree to which the CSF in question is important to the two partners concerned. Usually expressed as a percentage (e.g. 100% = Critical, 0% = unimportant.

Revenue Potential Calculator The factors above are usually used in a tool called the RPC which calculates the actual revenue possible from a relationship..

Further Details

For further details please contact;

Mike Nevin

Managing Partner

Alliance Best Practice Ltd

Web: www.alliancebestpractice.com

Office: +44 (0)1675 442490

Mobile: +44 (0)7766 752350

E Mail: [email protected]

http://www.alliancebestpractice.com/

mailto:[email protected]

Sample Slide Bullet Points

If you don’t want to use the style and size of the fonts as used in this placeholder it is possible to replace it by selecting different options.

- For replacing the placeholder text you need to click on the placeholder text and insert your own text.

- The text that you insert will retain the same style and format as the placeholder text.

The text demonstrates how your own text will look when you replace the placeholder with your own text.

Placeholder for your own subheadline

Sample Slide Agenda / Summary slide

Placeholder for your content description

This text can be replaced with your own text

This is a placeholder text


1

2

3

4

5



Sample Slide Agenda / Summary slide







1

2

3

4

5Placeholder for your content description



6

7

8

Sample Slide Two text boxes

Insert your own text here



This is a placeholder text. This text can be replaced with your own text.




For replacing the placeholder text you need to click on the placeholder text and insert your own text.


Sample Slide Two text boxes






This is a placeholder text. If you don’t want to use the style and size of the fonts as used in this placeholder it is possible to replace it by selecting different options.


Sample Slide Image with text box






Sample Slide Three text boxes




Placeholder for your text





This is a placeholder text.

Placeholder for your text


Sample Slide Three images with text boxes

The text that you insert will retain the same style and format as the placeholder text.




Sample Slide Four text boxes

Placeholder for the headline

Placeholder foryour text


Placeholder foryour text





This is a placeholder text.


Sample Slide Three images with text boxes








Sample Slide Two images with text boxes






Sample Slide Large Image


34

45

5563

3038

45

56

34

46

6773

41

58

8591

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007 2008 2009 2010

Description 1 Description 2 Description 3 Description 4

Sample Slide Column diagram


Enter your

own text

here

Enter your

own text

here

+24

Sample Slide Bar diagram


91

86

81

73

65

43

USA

China

Germany

France

Italy

Spain

Sample Slide Line diagram


3439

49 48

6561

71

1519

27 29

3641

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Description A Description B

Forecast

2009-2010Forecast

2009-2010

Sample Slide Column diagram with text box


34

45

55

63

30

38

45

56

2007 2008 2009 2010

Description 1 Description 2 Insert your own text here




Sample Slide Pie chart with text box


5

42

2750

10

27

Description A Description BDescription C Description DDescription E Description E





Description 2005 2006 2007 FC 2008

This is a placeholder text xx xx xx xx

Insert your own text here xx xx xx xx

Placeholder for text xx xx xx xx

Placeholder for your own text xx xx xx xx

Placeholder for text xxx xxx xxx xxx

Placeholder for your own text xxx xxx xxx xxx

Insert your own text here xxx xxx xxx xxx

Placeholder for your own text xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

This is a placeholder text xx xx xx xx

Placeholder for text xx xx xx xx

Total xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

Sample Slide Table


Description 2007 FC 2008

Placeholder for text xx xx




Placeholder for text xxx xxx


Insert your own text here xxx xxx

Placeholder for text xxxx xxxx

This is a placeholder text xx xx


Total xxxx xxxx

Sample Slide Two tables


Description 2007 FC 2008







Insert your own text here xxx xxx

Placeholder for text xxxx xxxx

This is a placeholder text xx xx


Total xxxx xxxx

Sample Slide Pyramide chart





Placeholder

Placeholder for text


Pla

ceho

lder

text

Sample Slide Process with arrows







Step 1Step 1 Step 2Step 2 Step 3Step 3 Step 4Step 4 Step 5Step 5

Sample Slide Circle chart

For replacing the placeholder text you need to click on the

placeholder text and insert your own text.

This is a place-holder text. This text can be replaced with

your own text.


For replacing the placeholder text you need to click on the placeholder text andinsert your own text.


Placeholder, enter yourown text here

Do You Have Any Questions?

abp joint diagnostic report an examination of the abc xyz relationship in germany 5 may 2011

Documents

abc xyz relationship

dimension abc v xyz

abc v xyz overall page

xyz v selection

relationship dimension

combined xyz

abc scores

xyz overall benchmark