Winning and Retaining Business in the Asian Mining Equipment Sector, 2015

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 – L&T 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 suppliers' reputation – Customers in Asia are happy with their current supplier but are open to change in the long term – Product quality was the stand out area identified for improvement.

Scope

The survey is based on responses from 115 senior managers and decision makers at operating Asian mines, responsible for the purchase of equipment for plant and mine operations, along with its consumables. Survey respondents came from 7 different countries: India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Pakistan, Vietnam, Mongolia and Thailand. This included 6 different commodity groups and a range of surface and underground mining operations.

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.

Companies mentioned

L&T

BEML

Caterpillar

Komatsu

Hitachi

Atlas Copco

Sandvik

Liebherr

Hindustan Motors

Tata

Kirloskar

MTU

Ingersol Rand

Cummins

Bridgestone

Goodyear

Michelin

JK Tyres

Fiat

MRF

Datamine

Minex

AutoCAD

Geovia

SAPRunge

MineSight

Table of Contents

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 Bharat Earth Movers Ltd (BEML)

3.5.3 Komatsu

3.5.4 Atlas Copco

3.5.5 Larsen & Toubro Ltd (L&T)

3.5.6 Volvo

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 in 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 the Same Manufacturer?

Table 4: Average Importance Ratings for Key Factors when Choosing an Equipment Supplier, 2014

Table 5: Average Importance Ratings for 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 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 for 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: BEML – Breakdown of Respondents by Mine Type and Mineral (%), 2014

Figure 23: BEML – Customer Satisfaction Ratings and Average Importance Ratings (Part 1), 2014

Figure 24: BEML – Customer Satisfaction Ratings and Average Importance Ratings (Part 2), 2014

Figure 25: Komatsu’s 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: Atlas Copco – Breakdown of Respondents by Mine Type and Mineral (%), 2014

Figure 29: Atlas Copco – Customer Satisfaction Ratings and Average Importance Ratings (Part 1), 2014

Figure 30: Atlas Copco – Customer Satisfaction Ratings and Average Importance Ratings (Part 2), 2014

Figure 31: L&T – Breakdown of Respondents by Mine Type and Mineral (%), 2014

Figure 32: L&T – Customer Satisfaction Ratings and Average Importance Ratings (Part 1), 2014

Figure 33: L&T – Customer Satisfaction Ratings and Average Importance Ratings (Part 2), 2014

Figure 34: Volvo – Breakdown of Respondents by Mine Type and Mineral (%), 2014

Figure 35: Volvo – Customer Satisfaction Ratings and Average Importance Ratings (Part 1), 2014

Figure 36: Volvo – Customer Satisfaction Ratings and Average Importance Ratings (Part 2), 2014

Figure 37: Leading Suppliers by Share of Respondents – Surface Equipment (%), 2014

Figure 38: Leading Suppliers by Share of Respondents – Software (%), 2014

Figure 39: Leading Suppliers by Share of Respondents – Underground Equipment (%), 2014

Figure 40: Areas Where Main Suppliers Differentiated Themselves as Part of the Selection Process Relative to Their Competitors (%), 2014

Figure 41: 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 42: 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 43: If You had the Choice Again, Would you Choose the Same Manufacturer?

Figure 44: View of Main Mobile Mining Equipment Supplier vs Peers in the Market, 2014

Figure 45: Do you Anticipate Switching to a Different Supplier in the Next Five Years?

Figure 46: Areas for Improvement for Equipment Suppliers, 2014

Figure 47: Areas for Improvement for Equipment Suppliers by Company Size, 2014

Figure 48: Areas for Improvement for Equipment Suppliers by Commodity, 2014

Figure 49: Survey Respondents by Country (%), 2014

Figure 50: Survey Respondents by Mine Type (%), 2014

Figure 51: Survey Respondents by Commodity (%), 2014

Figure 52: Equipment Supplied by Respondents’ Major Equipment Supplier by Type (%), 2014

Figure 53: Equipment Supplied by Respondents’ Major Equipment Supplier, by Manufacturer (%), 2014

    Pricing

Discounts available for multiple purchases.

reportstore@globaldata.com
+44 20 7947 2745

Join our mailing list

Saved reports