Top Banner
FRONTERE Noémie Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry 28/06/2013 Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry June 2013
16

Business model innovation in the tyre industry

Nov 01, 2014

Download

Business

This report focuses on Michelin’s fleet solutions (MFS) activity and the way the company has dealt with the transition from product provider to service provider so far. It sums up some major strategic and business-environmental reasons for making services a core business, even though the results have not been as convincing as expected. It identifies the key elements of the company’s business model that should be strengthened and innovated upon for Michelin to build its service activity as a successful complement to tyre sales. Finally it details the impact of the suggestions on the cost structure and revenues streams, and the challenges associated with the proposed innovation.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Business model innovation in the tyre industry

FRONTERE Noémie Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry 28/06/2013

1

Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry

June 2013

Page 2: Business model innovation in the tyre industry

FRONTERE Noémie Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry 28/06/2013

2

Michelin: Business Model Innovation

Executive summary: This report focuses on Michelin’s fleet solutions (MFS) activity and the way the

company has dealt with the transition from product provider to service provider so far. It sums up some

major strategic and business-environmental reasons for making services a core business, even though the

results have not been as convincing as expected. It identifies the key elements of the company’s business

model that should be strengthened and innovated upon for Michelin to build its service activity as a

successful complement to tyre sales. Finally it details the impact of the suggestions on the cost structure

and revenues streams, and the challenges associated with the proposed innovation.

Contents:

Introduction: MFS and its strategic importance ..................................................................................................................................... 3

Part 1: Analysis of the Business Model components to strengthen ...................................................................................................... 4

1. Redefining the value proposition ............................................................................................................................................. 4

1.1. Service at the core of the value proposition .................................................................................................................. 5

1.2. How to define the right price and the impact on the revenue structure ..................................................................... 5

2. How to manage resources in line with the new value proposition ........................................................................................ 6

2.1. Managing human resources: the culture shift ............................................................................................................... 6

2.2. The need for a separate MFS business unit ................................................................................................................... 7

3. New activities to conduct in line with the new value proposition.......................................................................................... 8

3.1. Innovating marketing and customer relationship ......................................................................................................... 8

3.2. International management of R&D and innovation ...................................................................................................... 8

3.3. The need to decentralise the new MFS business unit ................................................................................................... 9

4. Managing the key partners: integrating the distribution network ....................................................................................... 10

5. Summary: Suggested innovations represented on the Business Model Canvas © ............................................................. 11

Part 2: Evaluation of the financial and strategic impacts of BM innovation ....................................................................................... 12

1. Financial value of the business model innovations for Michelin .......................................................................................... 12

1.1. Impact on the revenue structure ................................................................................................................................. 12

1.2. Impact on the cost structure ........................................................................................................................................ 12

1.3. MFS valuation after innovations .................................................................................................................................. 13

2. Strategic advantages of the new business model ................................................................................................................. 14

Conclusion and challenges of the new approach ................................................................................................................................. 15

References .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 16

Page 3: Business model innovation in the tyre industry

FRONTERE Noémie Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry 28/06/2013

3

Introduction: MFS and its strategic importance

Over the past decade, Michelin, a traditional tyre manufacturer, has been experimenting with a radically

new service and customer-centric approach to maintain its leadership. Michelin Fleet Services (MFS),

also nicknamed the TK business model (Ton-Kilometre), first started in 2001. The concept is innovative:

tyres are not sold but rented to large companies; Michelin takes care of the maintenance of the fleet and

reduces the oil consumption and CO2 footprint by choosing the right products for the customer.

Michelin’s first step towards a different approach was taken in 2001 with TK services targeted at the

trucking industry. The modern version of MFS (post 2011) is targeted at all fleets large enough to require

a significant maintenance effort (trucks, buses, construction/mining equipment etc.). However this

model has for the present failed in providing Michelin with a strong secondary source of revenues: the

customer basis is lower than expected and profitability is disappointing (see Figure 1).

Three strong arguments are generally given by the literature in favour of the transition from products to

services:

1) There is statistical evidence that services provide a profitable and a more stable source of

revenues (Quinn, 1992)

2) Across a wide range of industries customers are outsourcing more activities to concentrate on

their core business, therefore generating opportunities to be seized (Lojo, 1997)

Page 4: Business model innovation in the tyre industry

FRONTERE Noémie Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry 28/06/2013

4

3) From a strategic point of view services are a source of enduring competitive advantage, because

they necessitate a complex internal organisation and a special business model than competitors

will find difficult to replicate (Heskett et al., 1997)

In addition to these considerations, it seems that Michelin’s functional economic approach is a perfect

solution given the evolution of the industry’s external environment: environmental norms play an

increasing role in recycling policies (rubber) and push Michelin’s large clients to control their CO2

emissions more tightly: this is easier to do with the new MFS services. Other benefits of MFS for Michelin

will be detailed and quantified in part B of the report.

However the case highlights the difficulty of the transition from providing goods to providing services:

the business model has to be significantly modified to allow such a change in strategy. This paper thus

focuses on some of the major elements of Michelin’s business model that should be strengthened (in

addition to what has already been done) to allow the company to take advantage of this new source of

revenues.

Part 1: Analysis of the Business Model components to strengthen

If Michelin is the first player in the tyre industry to attempt a move towards services, it is not the first

company to be confronted to challenges in designing the right business model for its new service

activities.

The following paragraph draws on existing literature and examples from different industries (particularly

automobile, equipment manufacturers and technology) to provide Michelin with suggestions to improve

its existing MFS business model and make services a core of its business. It first highlights the

clarification in the value proposition that Michelin should undertake and subsequently the different parts

of the business model that should be innovated upon.

1. Redefining the value proposition

Michelin has been confronted to serious difficulties in designing and defining its new value proposition

(Lehrangebot 2011). Currently, in internal and external communication, the company still positions itself

as a tyre manufacturer which emphasizes on high-tech and quality products supported by intensive R&D

(see ‘Mission’ section in Annual Report 2012).

Figure 1 highlights the gap between the current size of MFS’s customer basis and the company’s 2005

expectations. It proves that clients are not fully convinced of the interest of the new service offer. The

intangibility of services, compared to products, makes it difficult for them to estimate the value of MFS

(Lehrangebot 2011). Therefore a new – and clear – definition of Michelin’s value proposition is required.

Page 5: Business model innovation in the tyre industry

FRONTERE Noémie Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry 28/06/2013

5

1.1. Service at the core of the value proposition

First, Michelin’s innovative value proposition should position the product as part of the offering only, as

opposed to being in the centre. The value proposition would therefore involve more customization: as

opposed to tyre sales which are largely standardized (and quickly becoming commoditized, according to

Young 2008) a higher mix of services tends to require higher levels of customization (Brown 2012). For

instance most maintenance and service providers establish service modules to deliver unique solutions

to customers (Gillai and Yu 2013).

Second, if Michelin is responsible for maintenance of fleets there will be an incentive to develop

products with longer lifespans: in terms of R&D the new activity will presumably reinforce the premium

segment which will also have an impact on product offering. Selling premium tyres has always been a

priority for Michelin: in the early 2000s the company transferred all non-premium product lines to

affiliated brands (BFGoodrich, Kleber) and kept only the highest quality lines under the Michelin brand

which represented 83% of sales in 2012 (Annual Report 2012). The premium segment is the most

profitable and fastest growing in the global market, in line with tougher environmental norms (see Figure

2). As the company becomes involved in MFS services it should focus even more on product lines that

offer longer lifespans, better security and save energy (thus oil and CO2).

1.2. How to define the right price and the impact on the revenue structure

In the case of MFS prices are negotiated per kilometre on a contract-per-contract basis. While prices

were raised in 2011 because many fleets under the fleet solution contract were believed to be

unprofitable, on the contrary many customers considered the price of the service was too high

(Lehrangebot 2011). Therefore Michelin has to work on its pricing system to convince more customers to

completely outsource their tyre maintenance while making services an economically viable activity in the

medium term.

Page 6: Business model innovation in the tyre industry

FRONTERE Noémie Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry 28/06/2013

6

Oliva and Kallenberg (2003), who have analysed the transition from products to services of a large

sample of machine manufacturers1, underline an important factor that explains many product-to-service

transition failures: companies have to make sure prices of services are established, even at the very

beginning, ‘on the basis of equipment availability, and not based on the provider’s cost of monitoring

the equipment, and performing scheduled maintenance and emergency repairs’. The customer has to be

able to evaluate straight away the value created for him by the new service offering. This will allow a

larger customer base and therefore a great database: more experience and information on maintenance

costs for the company. Once enough data has been collected prices can be raised for certain customer

segments because the company will have new evidence to convince them that outsourcing maintenance

is profitable for them. Short term profitability has to be sacrificed for the sake of medium and long-term

success.

In the case of Michelin, prices have been raised early on because of fears that the activity was

unprofitable (Lehrangebot 2011). There is no reason why Michelin’s services activity should not be

economically viable in the long term. As a tyre manufacturer the company possesses many advantages

over traditional maintenance companies: lower customer acquisition costs, lower knowledge acquisition

costs and lower capital requirements. However over-pricing contracts today for the sake of short-term

profitability is not the best alternative. Michelin has to assess properly tyres wear rates in different

environments and usage conditions before defining an optimal pricing system. This assessment requires

not only time and a large customer base but also new skills and activities, particularly information

gathering and data processing, which are still underdeveloped as we will see later on.

2. How to manage resources in line with the new value proposition

2.1. Managing human resources: the culture shift

Michelin is traditionally a very product-centric organisation, which translates in its external and internal

communication. The most recent internal newsletter (April 2012) and the company’s 2012 Annual Report

highlights new product development as a key to future success, but services are only mentioned twice in

the annual report (no mention of MFS).

In an interview given to CEO Forum (2011) Alan Hyde, MD of NEC Australia and New Zealand, explains

how services have come to play a significant role in NEC’s current strategy and the importance of

resources management in an effective transition. If services are to have a place in future strategy

employees and managers have to be convinced that those services are more than add-ons designed to

showcase the product. For instance they should not be given out for free to facilitate a sale. Hyde further

emphasizes the need for employees in the service sector to be empowered, to ‘quickly anticipate and

respond to the needs of customers’ with whom they will work in close contact.

1 The machine manufacturing industry is similar to the tyre industry in many aspects, especially its maturity (slow market

growth, slower technological innovation and commoditization)

Page 7: Business model innovation in the tyre industry

FRONTERE Noémie Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry 28/06/2013

7

This new attitude has to be translated directly in Michelin’s general HR management – not only in the

MFS branch – to promote the concept of services. Concerning MFS specifically, due to the complexity of

the new services, special competencies have to be developed through new recruitment policies and staff

dedicated to MFS need to be more entrepreneurial and ‘pro-active in engaging with customers’ at every

level (i.e. not only employees working in sales or directly in the client’s premises). The need for a

different corporate culture calls for a business unit specially dedicated to MFS.

2.2. The need for a separate MFS business unit

MFS possesses presently dedicated resources (sales force and marketing) but is not an independent unit.

Lehrangebot (2011) underlines the impact of conflicting interests on the ‘failure’ of MFS. Competition

between the traditional tyre sales department and the new MFS dedicated sales force has been

detrimental to the MFS activity. It is not surprising that the product sales force has more influence inside

the organisation (96% of Michelin’s revenues in 2012) and the power to shape other activities (R&D) to

achieve the highest sales of new tyres possible. Meanwhile, the objective of MFS is to increase the

lifespan of those tyres.

According to Oliva and Kallenberg (2003), a success factor at this stage is to create a new business unit

totally dedicated to the service offer. This unit should be run as a profit centre, with not only its own

sales force but IT, HR, R&D etc. This requires duplicating some resources but will empower the new unit

which will have higher chances to thrive and eventually become a second pillar of the organisation. As

well as new resources, Michelin also needs new performance indicators to monitor service activities and

incentives (pay schemes used to interlink departments) in order to reduce sabotage of the service

activities by the product teams.

Making MFS a new profit centre will also involve reconfiguration of systems, for instance the information

system. The increased amount of invoices sent to the central server by MFS (over one third of Michelin’s

total volume of invoices2, Young 2008) should be handled directly by a team inside the MFS business

unit. This will allow better data processing and make the pricing system progressively more efficient

thanks to a deeper understanding of the specific maintenance required for different types of customers.

Finally it is interesting to note that the idea of making MFS a stand-alone subsidiary had been discussed

internally as early has 2006 but dismissed by product division managers on the basis that the two

separate Michelin offers could blur the company’s image in the eyes of its customers: Michelin would

not be identified clearly as a tyre company any longer (Young 2008). This argument reveals the product-

centricity and the need for an internal culture shift that have already been discussed. It is obvious that

top management should be involved in the transition and support MFS if they believe in the concept of

services and not only product.

2 Each work on a tyre by a service provider generates a new invoice (Young 2008)

Page 8: Business model innovation in the tyre industry

FRONTERE Noémie Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry 28/06/2013

8

3. New activities to conduct in line with the new value proposition

3.1. Innovating marketing and customer relationship

As discussed previously the economic performance of the company depends on the ability to get access

to data concerning tyres wear rates and usage by customers. There is a need to understand in details

how the customer uses the product and what his needs and business model are. Information gathering

requires stronger customer relationships therefore specific external marketing efforts and time. Business

development today is carried on by Michelin managers from the product divisions based on their existing

contacts (Lehrangebot 2011). However selling a ‘solution’ requires the company to develop new contacts

inside potential customer’s organisation and to talk to more senior executives.

MFS’s marketing and business development teams should thus have a different profile. The company’s

marketing program itself has to be re-designed to ‘reposition the company’s brand in the mind of current

and potential customers’ (Oliva and Kallenberg 2003). Michelin should not be pictured solely as a tyre

manufacturer.

3.2. International management of R&D and innovation

In terms of innovation, it would be interesting for Michelin to draw on the example of NEC. NEC operates

in a different industry more exposed to technological change (see Figure 3) however it has been

confronted to similar problems as Michelin when changing its value proposition.

According to MD Alan Hyde, organisations willing to succeed in the transition have to change their

approach to innovation and R&D (CEO Forum 2011). Unlike innovation in a product centred organisation

which is focused on technical R&D, innovation in services is interlinked with the organisation’s internal

processes and structure, in accordance with customer needs. For Hyde, process innovation plays a major

role and involves IT systems, logistics and Human Resources. Innovation is therefore ‘more internal in

scope’. It is also more international and requires flexible innovation management structures.

7,6% 8,2%

7,7%

5,7% 5,3%

3,0% 3,4% 3,0% 2,9% 2,9%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

NEC Michelin

Page 9: Business model innovation in the tyre industry

FRONTERE Noémie Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry 28/06/2013

9

3.3. The need to decentralise the new MFS business unit

The two activities described above emphasis the need for local responsiveness, flexibility, adaptability,

entrepreneurship in the marketing, innovation and maybe even pricing of fleet services.

Furthermore most of MFS’s potential customers are regional or local. For instance, in Europe MFS’s key

accounts are five major road transporters (Schenker, DHL, TNT, Geodis, Norbert Dentressangle), with

strong regional operational integration. However, 80% of transportation companies operate the local

level (Lehrangebot 2011). In China or India domestic and local players also play a major role in road

transportation (Euromonitor 2010). Most bus companies also operate at the local or national level: many

MFS clients are local transportation companies like TFL (London Buses). Diversity of infrastructure

conditions and specific regulations are additional pressures for the local adaptation of fleet solutions.

Decentralisation of decisions and localisation of MFS services are bound to happen if teams work in close

contact with clients and front-office activities become more important than back-office ones (Lasserre

2012). However the existing organisational structure of Michelin is centralized and functional: each

product division has its own marketing, development, production and sales forces (Annual Report 2012).

All product managers regularly report to the French HQ (Lasserre 2012). If the MFS business unit is to be

separated as suggested above this structure cannot be replicated. The new unit could be divided

according to geographic areas or follow a customer portfolio approach.

Page 10: Business model innovation in the tyre industry

FRONTERE Noémie Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry 28/06/2013

10

In any case the organisation should be given local autonomy. The best structure is probably transnational

(see Figure 4). In the new decentralised organisation IT back-office functions and data processing could

be outsourced to avoid trouble and costs (for instance in India).

4. Managing the key partners: integrating the distribution network

The creation of a global services network will also involve a close coordination of third-party service

providers: Michelin’s current distributors and maintenance contractors. The question of the

management of those key partners is a principle agent problem. Michelin’s reputation is at stake if the

quality of services rendered by the different partners is lower than expected.

Monitoring dealerships can determine the success or failure of service activities. For instance, when Ford

attempted in the 1990s to enter post-sales services, it failed because of the structure of its network of

independent dealers (Economist 2001). Indeed, creating the right service network able to respond locally

to customer’s needs is difficult, especially across wide geographic areas.

As for Ford, creating a global service infrastructure is a challenge for Michelin due to the current

situation of its fragmented dealership agreements. For instance, in Australia alone, more than 300

independent dealers sell Michelin tyres and provide end-users with MFS and traditional maintenance

(Michelin Australia release 2012).

Page 11: Business model innovation in the tyre industry

FRONTERE Noémie Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry 28/06/2013

11

Michelin should try and integrate further its largest networks of dealerships (Figure 5), both for quality

standards, reputation and information gathering purposes. This would also benefit its tyre sales

activities. Standard IT systems should be provided to dealers in order to gather data that will be

necessary to control maintenance costs and adapt service offers. To be able to work with the

independent dealers the company should develop adapted KPI reporting and new accreditation

programs. In Australia for instance, the only accreditation available to dealers today is the traditional

OH&S program (Michelin Australia release 2012) which is not specific to MFS. In exchange for closer

monitoring the company provides the small dealers with improved and stable revenue streams from

maintenance.

Finally the degree to which third-parties can customize services has to be clear: given that large

customers operate regionally some services have to be transferable between geographic areas.

5. Summary: Suggested innovations represented on the Business Model Canvas ©

Page 12: Business model innovation in the tyre industry

FRONTERE Noémie Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry 28/06/2013

12

Part 2: Evaluation of the financial and strategic impacts of BM innovation

1. Financial value of the business model innovations for Michelin

1.1. Impact on the revenue structure

Based on Figure 6, business model innovations will have two different impacts on the revenue stream:

direct (MFS sales), and indirect (better understanding of customer needs).

The following figure presents a ten year forecast of MFS fleet and revenues. Revenues per vehicle have

voluntarily been set to 2008 levels, not including the recent price increase.

The indirect benefits – for the product divisions - stem from:

- Deeper understanding of the needs and profile of customers of replacement tyres;

- Closer integration and monitoring of the network of dealers.

They are difficult to monetize but could guide R&D efforts of the whole company.

1.2. Impact on the cost structure

Given duplication of certain organisational functions and the forecasted increased revenues generated

by MFS the number of employees and associated cost is given in the table below.

Page 13: Business model innovation in the tyre industry

FRONTERE Noémie Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry 28/06/2013

13

Integrating the distributor and maintenance networks through new IT and data gathering services will

also affect operational expenses, especially in the short term, however there will be synergies with

existing structures. As suggested previously certain IT services could be outsourced to lower cost

countries.

1.3. MFS valuation after innovations

Projected cash flow and NPV of MFS independent unit in € million*initial data

2012* 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Operational parametersRevenue (€/vehicle) 933 980 1029 1080 1134 1191 1251 1313 1379 1448 1520 1596

Increase in revenue/vehicle 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Vehicles under contract (K) 345 397 456 525 603 694 798 918 1055 1214 1396 1605

Fleet growth rate 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15%

322 389 469 567 685 827 998 1205 1455 1757 2122 2562

290 408 493 539 616 732 866 1022 1212 1434 1712 2042Operating margin 10% -5% -5% 5% 10% 12% 13% 15% 17% 18% 19% 20%

Op. margin variation 15% 15% 15% 10% 10% 5% 5%

EBITDA 32 -19 -23 28 68 95 132 183 243 323 410 520

tax rate 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33%

CF 22 -19 -23 19 46 64 88 123 163 217 275 348

Discount rate (inflation deducted) 10%

NPV (€ million)

Revenues

OPEX

557

Page 14: Business model innovation in the tyre industry

FRONTERE Noémie Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry 28/06/2013

14

The table above presents a rough ten year valuation of the MFS business unit, which is estimated around

500 million euros. This is non-negligible for a company which itself is valued 6.5 billion euros (market

capitalisation 2013).

2. Strategic advantages of the new business model Along with the advantages already listed, by strengthening the position of MFS inside Michelin, the business model innovations will have the following effects:

- At the corporate level, balancing two activities with different risks profiles and revenue dynamics (revenues from punctual tyres sales vs. regular monthly revenues from three to six years MFS contracts) while enjoying operational synergies,

- Integrating – and thus better controlling – the value chain by engaging more closely with distributors and performing after-sales services (maintenance),

- Reducing the overall sensitivity to the price of raw materials and especially rubber, - Establishing a lasting competitive advantage over other international players through an

innovative business structure and new capabilities difficult to replicate.

Page 15: Business model innovation in the tyre industry

FRONTERE Noémie Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry 28/06/2013

15

Conclusion and challenges of the new approach

The following table sums up the business model components that should be strengthened and the

operational challenges3 the new approach involves.

3 Because the biggest challenge is ability to accept innovation, it is worth noting with Young (2008) that Michelin is famous in

the industry for continuously questioning its economic model and developing new approaches to the traditional tyre business.

Business model component

Current management

Suggested management

Expected positive impact

Operational Challenges

Value proposition and customer relationship

Product performance at the core of the value proposition Standardization of services MFS priced according to Michelin costs

Service at the core of the offer Customization of services MFS priced according to product availability (customer centric)

Larger MFS revenues with no negative impact on the revenues from product sales

Internal acceptability (by product divisions)

Key resources (1) HR

Management of HR ‘product-centric’ Supervision at home Little contact with customer apart from sales force

‘Culture shift’: need for entrepreneurial and pro-active attitude More contact with customer at all levels

Better customer relationship, flexibility and adaptability

Need to recruit new profiles

Key resources (2) structure

MFS managed as a product division inside a centralized corporate structure

MFS managed as an independent profit centre

Better MFS performance and development

Internal acceptability Management of the interface between MFS and other units

Key activities (1) marketing

MFS marketing team supports product marketing teams Service as an add-on

Marketing to reposition the company as a service provider Closer customer relationship

Information gathering Understanding of customer needs

Internal fear that Michelin’s image could be ‘blurred’

Key activities (2) R&D and innovation

Approach to innovation is technical = product R&D

Product R&D and service and process innovation

Flexibility and innovation required by new service approach

Acquisition of the required capabilities (internal innovation management etc)

Key partners (distributors)

Fragmented dealership agreements (low monitoring)

Integrated network of dealers (through accreditation programs and improved reporting systems)

Data gathering (for MFS and Michelin’s other purposes) Quality of service

Dilution of some of Michelin’s operational ratios Time needed to diffuse knowledge and good practices

Page 16: Business model innovation in the tyre industry

FRONTERE Noémie Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry 28/06/2013

16

References

Brown, S. 2012 “Moving from Products to Services: The Six Big Challenges”, 16 February, W.P. Carey

School of Business Marketing Review

CEO Forum 2011, “From products to services: Interview with Alan Hyde, Managing Director of NEC

Australia and New Zealand”, viewed 20 June 2013, < http://www.ceoforum.com.au/article-

detail.cfm?partner=rss&cid=12405&t=/Alan-Hyde/From-products-to-services>

Economist 2001, “The shake-up at Ford”, 1 November, viewed 25 June 2013,

<http://www.economist.com/node/842705>

Euromonitor 2010, “Regional Focus: Investments in transport infrastructures expected to grow in Asia

Pacific”, 6 July, Viewed 20 June 2013

Gillai, B. and Yu, T. 2013 “B2B Managed Services: Business Value and Adoption Trends”, Stanford Global

Supply Chain Management forum, March

Heskett, J. Sasser, W. and Schlesinger, L.1997, The Service Profit Chain, Free Press, New York, NY

Lehrangebot, 2011, “Michelin Fleet solutions, a new sales strategy”, viewed 5 June 2013

<http://www.slideserve.com/mercedes/michelin-fleet-solutions-a-new-sales-strategy>

Lasserre, P. 2012, Global Strategic Management (Third Ed), Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire

Lojo, M. 1997, “Contracting of high-technology industrial services”, Sloan School of Management

Cambridge, MA

Michelin Australia release, 2012, “New structure for Michelin Fleet Solutions”, viewed 20 June 2013

<http://transport.michelin.com.au/Home/News-Promotions/News/TB-News/node_1746>

Michelin, 2012, Annual Report, released January 2013, Paris, viewed 20 June 2013,

<http://www.michelin.com/corporate/finance/documents>

Michelin, 2013, “Newsletter Avril 2013: Produits et Innovations”, released 10 April, Paris

Oliva R. and Kallenberg, R. 2003, “Managing the transition from products to services”, International

Journal of Service Industry Management, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 160-172

Quinn, J. 1992, Intelligent Enterprise, Free Press, New York, NY

Young, L. 2008, From Products to Services: insight and experience from companies which have embraced

the service economy, John Wiley & Sons, London