State of warranty chain management (wcm) for 2019 sfg analyst take paper (mize)

An SFG℠ Analysts Take
A Special SFG℠ Analysts Take
Written by: Bill Pollock
President & Principal Consulting Analyst
Strategies For Growth℠ / PollockOnService
Westtown, Pennsylvania USA
+1 610-399-9717
wkp@s4growth.com
www.PollockOnService.com
Research Powered by
State of Warranty Chain Management
(WCM) for 2019 – and Beyond!
Moving Toward More Expansive and Robust
Global WCM Growth in the Next 12 Months
© 2019 Strategies For Growth
January, 2019
Complimentary Distribution Made
Possible through:
+1 813-971-2666
info@m-ize.com
www.m-ize.com

A. Putting Things in Perspective
The data and analysis contained in this paper are based on the results of Strategies For GrowthSM‘s (SFGSM)
2019 Warranty Chain Management Benchmark Survey, conducted in November/December, 2018. The
2019 global respondent base is comprised of 105 warranty management professionals.
Overall, survey respondents appear to be focused on a “cluster” of customer-centric market factors that
are driving their respective organizations to improve existing levels of warranty management performance.
The top drivers cited are:
• 60% Post-sale customer satisfaction issues
• 43% Desire to improve customer retention
• 40% 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:
• 46% Improve Warranty Management–related planning and forecasting activities
• 43% Develop/improve metrics, or KPIs, for advanced warranty chain analytics
• 34% Restructure for improved Warranty Management oversight & accountability
The remainder of this Analysts Take paper provides additional insight into each of these and other related
areas that may be impacting an organization’s drive to attain warranty chain management best practices.
B. Survey Respondent Disposition
An overview of the survey respondent disposition reflects a microcosmic representation of the global
Warranty Chain Management services community, as follows:
• 59% Manufacturer/OEMs or Third Party Maintenance (TPM) providers; 16% Professional Services; 10%
Dealer/Distributors; 5% In-house/Self-Maintenance; and 10% Authorized Services Providers
• 80% North America, 12% EMEA, and 8% Asia-Pacific
• 48% C-Level/VP/GM; 20% Director; 24% Manager; and 8% Technician and Other
• 50% Small Enterprises (i.e., less than US$100 million); 27% Medium Enterprises (i.e., between US$100
and US$999 million); and 23% Large Enterprises (i.e., US$1 billion or larger)
• 28% High-Tech/IT Services; 16% Medical/Healthcare; 16% Industrial/ Manufacturing; 12% Consumer/
Retail; and 28% Other (including 12% Construction, etc.)
As such, we believe the survey results to represent a realistic reflection of the global warranty chain
management community.
Research Powered by
Page 2 of 17.

C. The Movement Toward Universally Automated Warranty Management Processes
Despite the benefits that a formal, automated, warranty management solution may bring to the services
organization, there are still at least a majority (56%) that currently perform their warranty management
activities via an at least partially manual process. In fact, one-in-six organizations (16%) have no formal
warranty management process in place at all, and another one-in-five (20%) rely entirely on manual
processes! However, a somewhat higher percent, approaching two-thirds of the respondent organizations
(63%), are currently performing their warranty management activities through at least partially automated
systems. Of that amount, more than one-quarter (27%) report that their warranty management processes are
now “fully automated” (Figure1).
Presently, nearly half (46%) of respondents report that their warranty-related services are being performed
directly by the manufacturer or OEM, while an identical percent (46%) rely on a dealer/service center, or third-
party service organization, as the primary services provider. Only 7% report that they perform warranty-
related services internally, or in-house, and another 4% report that customers typically return the failed
equipment to the depot themselves.
In a majority of warranty-related cases, a service technician repairs the equipment or unit directly at the
customer site (56%). However, in just over one-third of these incidences (34%) a replacement unit for the
failed equipment or part is used in the following distribution:
• 16% Service technician replaces the failed equipment/part at the customer site
• 11% A replacement is sent to the customer site before the failed unit is returned to the depot
• 7% A replacement is sent to the customer site following return of the failed unit from the depot
Research Powered by
Page 3 of 17.
Research Powered By
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
Process is Fully Automated
Process Is Partially Automated
Process Is All Manual
No Formal Warranty Management Process
27
36
20
16
n = 44
56%
Figure 1
A Majority (56%) of WM Services Organizations Are Still Running at
Least Partially Manual; However, 63% Are at Least Partially Automated
(Percent Response)
63%

D. Annual Warranty Budgets Are Expected to Continue to Increase
Overall, there appears to be a significant uptick in the percent of services organizations that expect to
increase their warranty management budgets over the next 12 months. In fact, nearly two-thirds of
respondent services organizations (62%) expect their annual budgets to increase in 2019, with more than
one-in-five (21%) anticipating increases of 10% or more.
Another 21% expect no changes to their annual budgets over the course of the next 12 months, and only
18% anticipate a decline during the period. However, most of the anticipated declines (i.e., 10%) are
expected to be less than 5%, with only 8% anticipating a decline of more than 10%.
As such, with more than three times as many respondent organizations expecting to increase their annual
warranty budgets over those planning to decrease, the warranty chain management segment appears
poised to deal with a growing market – and a commensurately increasing budget – to manage their
respective warranty activities in the coming year (Figure 2).
Incidentally, these anticipated percent increases reflect the highest levels of warranty budget growth
derived from any of the annual Warranty Chain Management (WCM) Benchmark Survey Updates
conducted by SFG℠ in the past 5 years, thereby portending for a more expansive WCM market in the
coming 12 months.
Research Powered by
Page 4 of 17.
Research Powered By
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
Decrease by >10%+
Decrease by 5% to 9%
Decrease by < 5%
Remain the Same
Increase by < 5%
Increase by 5% to 9%
Increase by > 10%+
8
0
10
21
31
10
21
n = 39
62%
* In the next 12 months.
Expected to Increase
over Decrease by a
ratio of > 3:1!
18%
Figure 2
Overall, Annual Warranty Budgets Are Largely Expected to
Continue to Increase in the Next 12 Months …
(Percent Response)

E. Benefits of Establishing – and Effectively Managing – an Extended Warranty Program
The survey results reveal that nearly two-thirds (63%) of respondents currently offer an extended warranty
agreement or service contract to their respective customers (Figure 3). This percent would actually
increase to near three-quarters (i.e., ±73%) when reallocating the “don’t know/unsure” responses into the
“yes/no” categories.
Further, while ±one-quarter report that they do not currently offer extended warranties of any type, the
remaining respondents estimate that between 9.0% (median) and 16.7% (mean) of their total annual
services revenues come from the sale of extended warranties.
Overall, 38% of respondents report that the percent of total revenues coming from the sale of extended
warranties have increased over the previous 12 months, with 9% saying the increase has been by greater
than 25%. Half of respondents (50%) report that this percent has remained unchanged during the period,
and only one-in-eight (12%) report a modest decrease of less than 25%, leading to an “increased-over-
decreased” ratio of more than 2:1.
Research Powered by
Page 5 of 17.
Research Powered By
n = 204
63%
24%
14%
Currently Offering Extended Warranties
Yes
No
Don't Know
(Percent Response)
n = 42
Figure 3
A Near-Two-Thirds Majority (63%) of Organizations Currently Offer
an Extended Warranty Agreement or Service Contract …

F. Principal Drivers Impacting the Warranty Management Market
The respondents to the survey have also clearly identified the specific drivers that are pushing them to
aspire to the attainment of higher levels of performance. In fact, they have provided responses that
suggest that there are essentially three main “clusters” of factors that drive their respective warranty
management initiatives: (1) Customer-focused, (2) Product Quality-focused and (3) Profit-focused – and in
that order (Figure 4).
For example, among the Customer-focused drivers, post-sale customer satisfaction issues (60% – up from
58% just a year earlier, and only 42% in 2016!), the desire to improve customer retention (43%) and
customer demand for improved warranty services (40%) are the top three drivers cited with respect to
optimizing overall service performance. No other drivers are cited by more than 28% of respondents.
The next “cluster” of drivers is Product Quality-focused, and is represented by (1) dealing with product
defect-related costs (28%), and (2) inferior/deficient product quality (23%). The third “cluster”, Profit-
focused, is comprised of a single driver: internal mandate to drive increased service profitability (23%).
As such, the warranty chain management community has made it clear that it is squarely focused on, first,
satisfying – and retaining – its customers; second, dedicated to improving product quality-related issues;
and third, mandated to drive increased services profitability – thereby improving all key aspects of
warranty management activities.
Research Powered by
Page 6 of 17.
Research Powered By
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
Mandate to Improve Service Profitability
Dealing with Inferior/Deficient Product Quality
Product Defect-related Costs
Customer Demand for Improved Warranty
Services
Desire to Improve Customer Retention
Post-Sale Customer Satisfaction Issues
23
23
28
40
43
60
n = 40
Profit-Focused
Customer-
Focused
Product Quality-
Focused
Figure 4
The Principal Warranty Management Drivers Are, First, Customer-Focused;
and Then, Product Quality- and Profit-Focused
(Percent Response)

G. Greatest Challenges Currently Facing Warranty Managers
Aside from the top clusters of customer-, product quality- and revenue-focused drivers, warranty services
managers are also faced with myriad additional challenges that come from many different areas. The top
challenge, as cited by nearly two-thirds (63%) of the survey respondents, is the ability to identify the root
cause of product failures. However, nearly half (45%) also cite cost recovery from suppliers as one of their
top three challenges.
Further, between 28% and 30% of respondents also cite repair management (30%), claims processing time
and accuracy (30%), and sale of extended warranties (28%) as significant challenges as well (Figure 5).
Among the other key challenges faced by warranty managers today are:
• 25% High levels of No Fault Founds (NFFs)
• 23% Managing administration costs for warranty fulfillment
• 20% Warranty reserve accrual management
• 16% Reverse logistics management
• 5% Fraudulent claims management
Accordingly, warranty managers may often find themselves deluged with many challenges, some of which
relate directly to the bottom line, such as supplier cost recovery, cost management, sales of extended
warranties and the management of their repair and reverse logistics operations, among others.
Research Powered by
Page 7 of 17.
Research Powered By
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
Sale of Extended Warranties
Claims Processing Time & Accuracy
Repair Management
Cost Recovery from Suppliers
ID of Root Causes of Product Failures
28
30
30
45
63
n = 40
Figure 5
The Greatest Challenges Facing Today’s Warranty Management Initiatives
Are the Identification of Root Causes and Cost Recovery from Suppliers
(Percent Response)

H. Current and Planned Strategic Actions Taken by Warranty Management
Organizations
Based both on the survey findings and SFGSM’s ongoing research, it is not surprising to find that the
global warranty management community recognizes that it will need to continue to improve warranty
management-related planning and forecasting activities (46%); develop/improve metrics, or Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs) for advanced warranty chain analytics (43%); and restructure for improved
warranty management oversight and accountability (34%). In fact, these represent the top three
strategic actions presently being taken by the global warranty management community (Figure 6).
Planned strategic actions over the next 12-month period also reflect a strong focus on warranty
management operations improvement. For example, 34% of respondents plan to restructure, or update,
their existing warranty pricing schedules; and 31%, each, plan to develop/improve metrics, or Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs) for advanced warranty chain analytics, institute/enforce process workflow
improvements for supplier cost recovery, and purchase and/or upgrade an automated Warranty Chain
Management (WCM) solution. And so, these trends are expected to continue!
All told, these current and planned strategic actions reflect a global warranty management community
that already has a good understanding of the importance of planning, forecasting, and performance
measurement – and recognizes that they will still need to improve these, and other, key processes in
order to both bolster the bottom line and keep up with customer expectations.
Research Powered by
Page 8 of 17.
Research Powered By
Ø 46% Improve Warranty Management-related Planning and Forecasting Activities
Ø 43% Develop/Improve Metrics, or KPIs for Advanced Warranty Chain Analytics
Ø 34% Restructure for Improved Warranty Management Oversight & Accountability
Ø 29% Streamline Parts Return Process to Improve Overall Efficiency
Ø 29% Institute/Enforce Process Workflow Improvements for Supplier Cost Recovery
Ø 23% Provide Additional Training to Extended Warranty Sales Personnel
Ø 20% Purchase and/or Upgrade an Automated Warranty Chain Management Solution
Ø 20% Outsource some, or all, Warranty Management Activities to Third Parties
Ø 17% Implement a Claims Review Process to Curb Fraudulent Claims
Ø 9% Restructure/Update Existing Warranty Pricing Schedule
Ø 0% Foster a Closer Working Collaboration Between Product Design & Service
Figure 6
The Top Strategic Actions Currently Being Undertaken to Address the
Key Drivers/Challenges of Warranty Chain Performance Are:
(Percent Response)

I. Top Uses of Collected Warranty Management Data
The key to success for most warranty management organizations – and the other organizations within the
enterprise with which they interact – is not so much related specifically to what data they are collecting,
but, rather, on how they use that data to improve their overall performance. For the global warranty
management community, the main uses of the data they collect through warranty-related events are
mainly associated with improving field service processes (79%), and improving warranty management
performance (68%).
Making product design changes (61%), improving equipment/part return processes (57%), making
manufacturing changes (50%), and improving depot repair processes (50%) are also cited by ay least half
(50%) of respondents as among the top uses of the collected data (Figure 7). Overall, most of these cited
uses are related to effecting change in the way services processes are designed, or where changes are
required with respect to existing products and/or manufacturing processes.
Other key uses of data/information collected from warranty-related events, as cited by at least one-quarter
(25%) of respondents, include:
• 39% For inclusion in regular corporate financial performance reporting
• 39% Making changes to product documentation
• 36% Making supplier selection
• 29% Making purchasing decisions
Research Powered by
Page 9 of 17.
Research Powered By
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
To Improve Depot Repair Processes
To Make Manufacturing Changes
To Improve Equipment / Part Return
Processes
To Make Product Design Changes
To Improve Warranty Management
Performance
To Improve Field Service Processes
50
50
57
61
68
79
n = 28
Figure 7
The Top Uses of Collected WM Data Are to Improve Field Service Processes,
Improve Warranty Management Performance & Make Product Design Changes
(Percent Response)

J. Primary KPIs Used to Measure Warranty Management Performance
The survey findings reveal that there are basically five warranty management service performance metrics,
or KPIs, presently being used by a majority (or near majority) of the respondent organizations that
participated in SFG℠’s 2019 Warranty Chain Management Benchmark Survey (Figure 8). They include:
• 72% Customer Satisfaction (cited by 56% as their number one KPI)
• 72% Total Warranty Costs (cited by 17% as their number one KPI)
• 72% Analysis Cycle Time (cited by 11% as their number one KPI)
• 56% Claims Processing Time (not cited as a number one KPI)
• 48% Warranty Costs, per Product (cited by 6% as their number one KPI)
However, there are also an additional seven KPIs that are used by at least one-quarter (25%) or more of
respondents. These include:
• 44% Warranty Incidents, Per Product
• 44% In-Warranty Product Return Rate
• 40% Claims Processing Costs
• 36% Total Revenues from Extended Warranty Sales
• 32% Analysis Cycle Time
• 28% Time from Defect Detection to Correction
• 28% Warranty Reserve Variation
Thus, from the survey data, the most commonly used warranty management KPIs tend to focus primarily
on customer satisfaction and the costs of performing warranty management operations.
Research Powered by
Page 10 of 17.
Research Powered By
Ø 56% Customer Satisfaction
Ø 17% Total Warranty Costs
Ø 11% Analysis Cycle Time
Ø 6% Warranty Costs, per Product
Ø 6% Re-imbursement Cycle time (i.e., from Suppliers)
Ø 0% Time from Defect Detection to Correction
Ø 0% Warranty Reserve Variation
Ø 0% Claims Processing Time
Ø 0% In-Warranty Product Return Rate
Ø 0% Warranty incidents, Per Product
Ø 0% Total Revenues from Extended Warranty Sales
Ø 0% Claims Processing Costs
Ø 0% Time from Product Sale to Defect Detection
Cited by 35%Cited by 17%
Figure 8
(Percent Response)

However, using specific KPIs to measure warranty analytics is only half the battle – the other half, of
course, is to attain high levels of performance when those metrics are applied to the organization’s
performance. This is where the survey results seemingly portray a somewhat mixed level of performance
across all warranty management segments. Further, many of the principal KPIs have experienced declines
from the previous annual period. In addition, there are many – in fact, too many – individual organizations
that are still not performing anywhere near as well as they should be.
The mean values currently being derived through the measurement of two key metrics both reflect
declines from the previous year’s survey results. For example, customer satisfaction has declined modestly
to 81%, down from 82% in 2018 and 2017 (i.e., although down even more from 85% in 2016). An 81%
rating is not bad, although it does fall below the typically desired 85% performance line. However, mean
warranty claims processing time has declined by roughly two (2) days year-over-year, decreasing from 7.6
days in 2018, to 9.6 days in 2019 (i.e., and substantially down from only 5.6 days in 2016) (Figure 9).
However, looking at the distribution of warranty management organizations that fall below the mean
averages, we find high percentages of organizations that are still not attaining even sub-par performance
levels. For, example, nearly half (45%) are not attaining at least 80% customer satisfaction, and almost one-
third (30%) are not attaining at least 70% satisfaction! We find these percents to be somewhat shocking! In
addition, the roughly one-third (33%) taking 15 days or more for warranty claims processing time puts
many organizations well behind their competitors in terms of customer satisfaction and other key metrics.
Research Powered by
Page 11 of 17.
Research Powered By
q Mean KPI values currently being used to measure Warranty Management
performance appear to be reasonably high – however, somewhat lower than
in past years:
Ø 81% Customer Satisfaction (Declined from 82% in 2017)
Ø 9.6 Days Warranty Claims Processing Time (Declined from 7.6 Days in 2017)
q However, many Organizations are still not attaining even Industry Average
levels of performance:
Ø 60% Not attaining at least 90% Customer Satisfaction
45% Not attaining at least 80% Customer Satisfaction
30% Not attaining at least 70% Customer Satisfaction
Ø 75% Not Attaining 2 Days or Less Warranty Claims Processing Time
58% Not Attaining 4 Days or Less Warranty Claims Processing Time
33% Taking 15 Days or More for Warranty Claims Processing Time
Figure 9
(Percent Response)

K. Satisfaction with Their Organization’s Current KPI Measurements
Despite significant declines in warranty claims processing time from 2018 to 2019, a majority of respondent
organizations (57%) still report that they are at least “somewhat satisfied” with their company’s warranty
claims processing time performance. However, 22% are at least “somewhat dissatisfied”, leading to a ratio of
greater than 2.5:1 of “satisfieds-over-dissatisfieds” (Figure 10).
However, the results prove otherwise with respect to Reimbursement Cycle Time where just over one-third
(34%) claim to be at least “somewhat satisfied” , with a more than half (52%) claiming to be at least
“somewhat dissatisfied” – this time leading to a negative ratio of greater than 1.5:1 of “dissatisfieds-over-
satisfieds” (Figure 11).
Research Powered by
Page 12 of 17.
Research Powered By
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
Extremely Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Extremely Satisfied
0
22
22
35
22
n = 23
57%
22%
22%
Satisfieds over
Dissatisfieds by a
Ratio of >2.5:1!
Figure 10
Satisfaction with the Company’s Current Level of Performance
with Respect to Warranty Claims Processing Time
(Percent Response)
Research Powered By
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
Extremely Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Extremely Satisfied
13
39
13
30
4
n = 23
34%
4%
52%
Dissatisfieds over
Satisfieds by a
Ratio of >1.5:1!
Figure 11
Satisfaction with the Company’s Current Level of Performance
with Respect to Reimbursement Cycle Time
(Percent Response)

K. Cloud vs. Premise-Based WCM Solutions
Presently, only one-quarter (24%) of respondents report that they are using a formal, Warranty Chain
Management (WCM) solution to manage their warranty-related activities. However, another 28% are
either planning to implement a WCM solution in the next 12 months (8%) or considering an
implementation in the next 12 to 24 months, or beyond (20%). Still, just under half (44%) report they are
neither using nor planning to implement a formal WCM solution at this time (Figure 12).
For those organizations either currently using, planning or considering implementing a formal WCM
solution, nearly two-thirds (62%) prefer the use of a Cloud-based solution, either exclusively (31%), or in
combination with a Premise-based capability (also, 31%).
However, even among those who are using, or would prefer to use, a Premise-based WCM solution (14%),
an additional 31% would still prefer using such a WCM solution in combination with Cloud-based
capabilities, as well.
As such, while those respondents who prefer one type of solution over another (i.e., Cloud-based at 31%;
Premise-based at only 14%), the ratio of “Cloud-over-Premise” currently stands at a ratio more than 2.2:1.
However, the overall survey results reflect that there remains a strong desire among the global warranty
management community for both Cloud- and Premise-based solutions to meet their existing needs and
requirements from the selected WCM solution.
Research Powered by
Page 13 of 17.
Research Powered By
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
Don't Know / Unsure
Neither Using nor Planning to Implement*
Considering Implementing**
Planning to Implement*
Presently Using
4
44
20
8
24
* In the next 12 months.
** In more than the next 12 months.
n = 25
52%
Figure 12
Presently, One-Quarter (24%) Are Using a WCM Software Solution;
However, This Percent Could Potentially Double in 12 to 24 Months:
(Percent Response)

L. Summary and Key Takeaways
Based on the results of SFG℠’s 2019 Warranty Chain Management Benchmark Survey, the key takeaways
are:
• Nearly two-thirds (63%) of current warranty management processes are at least partially automated;
however, one-in-five (20%) are still entirely manual
• Annual warranty budgets are expected to increase in the next 12 months, leading to a somewhat more
expansive segment in the coming year
• Warranty management organizations are being driven, first, by Customer-focused factors; second, by
Product Quality-focused factors; and third, by Profit-focused factors
• The most significant challenges currently faced by warranty services managers are identifying the root
causes of product failures, followed by cost recovery from suppliers
• Currently, as well as in the next 12 months, warranty services managers are focusing primarily on
improving Warranty Management-related planning and forecasting activities, developing and/or
improving their KPIs and warranty analytics programs, and restructuring for improved warranty
management oversight & accountability
• The top uses of data/information collected from warranty-related events are basically to improve
existing processes (i.e., field service, part returns, depot repair, etc.), improve overall performance (i.e.,
warranty management performance), and effect changes (i.e., product design and manufacturing)
• Customer satisfaction, product failure rate, and total warranty costs are the top three categories of KPIs
used by warranty services management organizations, followed by claims processing time
• The 2019 warranty management survey results reflect slight-to-modest declines in year-over-year
performance, particularly for customer satisfaction and warranty claims processing time
• While the mean and median average survey results for 2019 seemingly portray an acceptable level of
warranty management performance across all respondent segments, there are many – in fact, too many
– individual organizations that are not performing anywhere near as well as they should be in at least
two key measurement categories: customer satisfaction and warranty claims processing time (i.e., 30%
to 60% of survey respondent organizations)
Historically, the primary factors cited as driving the warranty management community to improve its
operational efficiencies and overall performance have essentially been customer-driven; that is, with a
focus primarily on meeting – and exceeding – customer expectations for overall warranty management
performance, returns processing, claims processing time, replacement units and the like. However, the
economic bust of the past decade changed the way warranty management organizations think by also
placing increased emphasis on other key factors, such as total warranty costs and various other cost-,
revenue- and profit-related issues. Still, the number one factor, overall, is to meet their obligations with
respect to keeping their customers satisfied.
Research Powered by
Page 14 of 17.

There is no getting around it – if your organization finds itself behind the curve with respect to (1) the
automation of its existing warranty management processes (or lack thereof); (2) its ability to meet (if not
exceed) its customers’ key demands, requirements and expectations; (3) its ability to recover costs from its
suppliers/vendors; or (4) dealing with the costs associated with running its warranty management
operations; these gaps will likely only get larger over time – unless it considers implementing a new, or
upgrading its existing, Warranty Chain Management (WCM) solution.
The leading warranty management organizations (i.e., those that have already attained, or are poised to
attain, best practices status) are doing so mainly by taking the appropriate steps to:
• Improve their Warranty Management-related planning and forecasting activities
• Develop and/or improve the KPIs they use to measure their performance over time
• Restructure for improved warranty management oversight and accountability
• Streamline parts return processes to improve overall efficiency
• Institute/enforce process workflow improvements for supplier recovery
• Purchase and/or upgrade to an fully automated Warranty Chain Management (WCM) solution
Research Powered by
Page 15 of 17.

About The Author About Strategies For Growth℠
Bill Pollock is President &
Principal Consulting Analyst at
Strategies For Growth℠ (SFG℠),
the independent research analyst
and services consulting firm he
founded in 1992.
Previously, Bill served as President &
Chief Research Officer (CRO) at The Service Council;
Vice President & Principal Analyst, heading up Aberdeen
Group’s Service Management Practice; and Managing
Analyst, Services Industry at Gartner.
In consecutive years, Bill was named “One of the Twenty
Most Influential People in Field Service” by Field Service
News (UK); one of the “Top 10 People Every Field Service
Pro Should Follow” by Field Service Digital; one of
Capterra’s “20 Excellent Field Service Twitter Accounts”;
and one of Coresystems’ “Top 10 Field Service Influencers
to Follow”.
Bill has also had more than 350 articles, columns and
features published on topics including Field Service
Management (FSM), Service Lifecycle Management (SLM),
Customer Relationship Management (CRM), Warranty
Chain Management (WCM), Augmented Reality (AR), the
Internet of Things (IoT), Reverse Logistics, and others for
leading international services publications.
He writes monthly feature articles for Field Service News,
Field Service Digital, Field Technologies Online, and The
Future of Field Service and is a regular contributor to
Warranty Week and other services-related publications.
Bill may be reached at +(610) 399-9717, or via email at
wkp@s4growth.com. Bill’s blog is accessible at
www.PollockOnService.com, and via Twitter
@SFGOnService.
Strategies For Growth℠ (SFG℠) is an
independent research analyst and advisory
consulting firm that supports services
organizations with a full range of strategic,
marketing, business planning and consulting
services.
During the past 25+ years, SFG℠ has
consulted to more than 300 client
organizations around the globe. These
engagements have involved strategic services
planning, market research/custom surveys,
thought leadership content development and
market outreach support, customer needs &
requirements analyses, customer satisfaction
measurement & tracking programs, business
intelligence gathering, vertical market
segmentation, services assessments and the
development of strategic recommendations
for improving service performance and
customer retention.
SFG℠’s thought leadership content develop-
ment services include White Papers and
Analysts Take reports; Webinars, ghost-
written/published articles, data support for
Infographics, guest Blogposts, expert
interviews, User Group keynote presenta-
tions and development of Website content.
The original SFG℠ website is now archived,
and has been rebranded as
www.PollockOnService.com. However,
previously published articles, columns,
features and white papers are still accessible
for review and download at
www.s4growth.com.
© 2019 Strategies for Growth℠ All rights reserved. No part of the material protected by this copyright may be
reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording,
broadcasting or by any other means without written permission from Strategies for Growth℠ . You shall not display,
disparage, dilute or taint our trademarks and service marks or use any confusingly similar marks, or use our marks in
such a way that would misrepresent the identity of the owner. Any permitted use of our trademarks and service marks
inures to the benefit of Strategies for Growth ℠. All other trademarks, service marks or registered trademarks
appearing on these Strategies for Growth℠ pages are the trademarks or service marks of their respective owners.
Page 16 of 17.

Research Powered by
Page 17 of 17.
About Mize:
Mize enables companies to optimize key post-sale customer interaction events, such as product registration, warranty,
service plans, parts, support, service, and maintenance, to increase customer satisfaction and retention. Mize’s
connected customer experience platform and Smart Blox elevate customer experience and engagement with customers,
build knowledge about customers and products, and increase revenue from the existing customer installed base. Mize
harnesses the web, mobile, cloud, IoT, and analytics technologies to maximize customer lifetime value.
Mize optimizes all post-sale service interactions from product registration to trade-in to deliver a seamless experience
during the entire customer lifecycle. You can replace disparate applications and data silos with a unified platform for
managing your Installed Base, Warranty, Service Contracts, Product Support, Field Service, and Service Parts. Mize
focuses on delivering best-in-class solutions exclusively for Discrete Manufacturers and their service value chain partners.
Mize customers realize tangible and immediate ROI by unlocking value from the existing customer and product installed
base:
• 67% increase in aftermarket lifetime value from the customers
• 30% plus profit margin with revenues from Service Contracts, Service Parts, and aftermarket services and products
• 15% lower costs by optimizing service delivery
• 5 X Profit margins by increasing customer retention and repeat sales
Our Solution:
• Mize Connected Customer Experience Platform connects Customers, Channel Partners, Manufacturers, and Suppliers.
• Mize Smart Blox are modular and cost-effective building blocks to simplify and enhance all of your service interactions.
• Mize Solutions interconnect service interactions into customer journeys making it easier for your customers to do
business with you.
Please visit www.m-ize.com for more information.
Complimentary Distribution of this Analysts Take Paper has been Made Possible through:

State of warranty chain management (wcm) for 2019 sfg analyst take paper (mize)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to State of warranty chain management (wcm) for 2019 sfg analyst take paper (mize)

Similar to State of warranty chain management (wcm) for 2019 sfg analyst take paper (mize) (20)

More from Mize Inc.

More from Mize Inc. (14)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

State of warranty chain management (wcm) for 2019 sfg analyst take paper (mize)