Key account management quarterly research 2011

8,777 views

Published on

Key Account Management - Quarterly Research. In this research report, we review 3 case studies of key account management deployments and discuss various elements of success and failure. A presentation by Sales Benchmark Index.

Published in: Business, Technology
2 Comments
5 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • please send me a copy through francisarvinprado@yahoo.com.ph

    Thanks
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Would you have the latest module on Ket account management modules?
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total views
8,777
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
55
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
325
Comments
2
Likes
5
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Contact us if you would like to understand how you can leverage benchmarking best practices in Key Account Management.Email - info@salesbenchmarkindex.comPhone - 1-888-556-7338Web: http://www.salesbenchmarkindex.com
  • Key account management quarterly research 2011

    1. 1. Key Account Management<br />2011 Quarterly Research:<br />Key Account Management<br />
    2. 2. Key Account Management: Research Introduction<br />
    3. 3. Hypothesis<br />Does the benefit of a Key Account Program exceed the effort to implement one? <br />
    4. 4. Most Common Objectives of Key Account Programs: <br />Defend key accounts against competitive threats<br />Grow revenues received from key accounts via cross sell<br />Grow revenue received from key accounts via up sell<br />
    5. 5. Research Methodology<br />SMART – Identify KAM implementations whereby success/failure of the three objectives can be Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and Timely<br />Break down objectives into 4 levels<br /><ul><li>Inputs (key action steps)
    6. 6. Outputs (deliverables)
    7. 7. Purpose (program impact)
    8. 8. Goals (strategic intent)</li></ul>Data Collection - Interviews, Rep ride alongs, Data reviews, Surveys, Documentation reviews, Observation<br />Use of contrast method – Success vs. Failure<br />
    9. 9. Key Account Management: Case Study #1<br />
    10. 10. Case Study #1Firmographics<br />Industry: Software<br />Revenue: $337 million <br />Size: 960 employees<br />Region: North America<br />GTM: Multi-Channel<br />Age of Key Account Program: 27 months<br />
    11. 11. Results<br />Reduce churn by 50%<br />Result: Key customer churn reduced from 9% to 4.3% in 27 months<br />Grow key account client revenues<br />Result: Average account revenue up 6.1%<br />Increase penetration of software modules in use<br />Result: Average number of modules in use went from 1.4 to 2.3<br />Increase new module revenues<br />Result: Revenue generated from new module introduction within key accounts increased 13%<br />
    12. 12. InputsKey Actions Taken<br />Committed 19 Key Account Managers to Program<br />Key Account Manager to Key Account Support Ratio 1:5<br /><ul><li>1 Solutions Architect
    13. 13. 2 Solution Engineers
    14. 14. 2 Customer Service Reps</li></ul>Defined Key Account Selection Criteria<br />Focused Account Plans<br />
    15. 15. OutputsKey Account Team Structure<br />Corporate Functions – Professional Services, Product Development, Marketing, Legal, Finance, Etc<br />
    16. 16. OutputsAccount Attractiveness Score<br />
    17. 17. OutputsTotal Account Value<br />
    18. 18. OutputsQuarterly Account Progress<br />
    19. 19. OutputsMcKay 49<br />
    20. 20. OutputsStrategic Actions<br />
    21. 21. PurposeProject Impact<br />Specific: Reduce churn, Increase revenue per key account, Improve cross sell ratio, Up-sell new product offerings<br />Measurable: Churn reduced by 4.7%, revenue per account up by 6.1%, cross sell ration up to 2.3 vs. 1.4, and up-sell up 13%<br />Attainable: Deliverables/tools were simple enough that KAM’s adoption was not an issue<br />Realistic: Objectives of modest reduction in churn, revenue per account, number of products in use, and rate of consumption for new products introduced, were all set below industry benchmarks<br />Timely: Project duration is 27 months and counting; victories along the way; demonstrated organization patience<br />
    22. 22. GoalsStrategic Intent<br />Improved company revenue performance<br />Key customer receives differentiated attention<br />Account managers obtain success with less heavy lifting<br />
    23. 23. Key Account Management: Case Study #2<br />
    24. 24. Case Study #2Firmographics<br />Industry: Media<br />Revenue: $440 million <br />Size: 7,100 employees<br />Region: Global<br />GTM: Direct<br />Age of Key Account Program: 16 months<br />
    25. 25. Results<br />Drive key account win rates north of 90%<br />Result: Win rate declined by 21%<br />Retain key clients<br />Result: Renewal rate dipped below 80%<br />Renew at stable price points<br />Result: Annual Contract Value is down 6%<br />Increase Customer Lifetime Value<br />Result: Portfolio turnover is up to 27%<br />
    26. 26. InputsKey Actions Taken<br />Poorly constructed Key Account Recruitment Package<br />Impact: increased client leverage, forced price pressure, led to client shopping the offering<br />Account Planning Process all internal <br />Impact: increased bureaucracy and admin ‘cost’ to reps<br />Account decision makers decentralized<br />Impact: required rep-to-rep cooperation, which did not happen<br />Tried to automate in SFA first <br />Impact: Without running in ‘manual’ mode first the process was not tested and automation investment was wasted<br />Tried to go from launch to full roll out in 6 months<br />Impact: organizational burnout and turnover of key staff<br />
    27. 27.
    28. 28.
    29. 29.
    30. 30.
    31. 31. PurposeProject Impact<br />Specific: Win rates went down but no win/loss reviews are occurring to understand root cause<br />Measurable: Program was measurable<br />Attainable: Deliverables/tools were poorly designed, internally focused, difficult to use, and misplaced in their application. Result was poor account and rep adoption<br />Realistic: Objectives were not clear (examples: “own the account”, “get 100% wallet share”, “increase prices”)<br />Timely: Results were expected in an unrealistic 6 months<br />
    32. 32. GoalsStrategic Intent<br />Result<br />Drive key account win rates north of 90%<br />Retain key clients<br />Renew at stable price points<br />Increase CLV<br />
    33. 33. Key Account Management: Takeaways<br />
    34. 34. Key Account Program MetricsLeading Indicators<br />Metric name<br />World-Class<br />Wallet Share 76.5%<br />Program Recruitment Success 87.0%<br />Portfolio Value Improvement rate (quarterly) 13.3%<br />Account Attractiveness Score Improvement Rate 17.9% <br />Qualified New Candidate Member Rate 14.6% <br />
    35. 35. Key Account Program MetricsLagging Indicators<br />Metric name<br />World-Class<br />Accounts per Account Manager 3.4<br />Account Breakeven Rate 31.1%<br />Account Lifetime Value Ratio 2.6<br />Program Churn Rate 3.9% <br />Program Revenue Contribution 81.1%<br />
    36. 36. Top 10 Evidence-Based Best Practices<br />A Key Account Program should have all of these objectives: <br />Defense<br />Cross-sell<br />Up-sell<br />Program benefit for client must exceed program benefit for seller<br />Low breadth/high depth is the best approach<br />5 phased adoption takes an average of 13 months start to finish <br />Best selection approach is: <br />Account Attractiveness Score <br />Customer opt-in<br />
    37. 37. Top 10 Evidence-Based Best Practices<br />Build four-pronged risk mitigation approach into Account Plan<br />Execution<br />Operational<br />Talent <br />Deploy streamlined, value-driven Account Plans <br />Institutionalize the relationship through many-to-many contacts<br />Triangulate the review process to ensure continuous improvement<br />Client review<br />Account Manager audit<br />Peer review<br />Ensure the Program contains a process to exit accounts<br />
    38. 38. Hypothesis<br />Does the benefit of a Key Account Program exceed the effort to implement one?<br />Answer: <br />Yes -- if revenue concentration exceeds 80/20 rule (80% of revenue coming from 20% of accounts)<br />No -- if revenue is spread evenly across many accounts<br />
    39. 39. Learn More<br />Contact us to hear the rest of the story...<br />Email - info@salesbenchmarkindex.com<br />Phone - 1-888-556-7338<br />Web: http://www.salesbenchmarkindex.com<br />

    ×