Maintenance and Aftermarket Preferences in Mining for Europe and the former Soviet Union, 2015

 Published On: May, 2015 |    No of Pages: 36 |  Published By: Timetric | Format: PDF
Download Free Sample
Synopsis
This report provides a detailed analysis of customer preferences throughout the European and former Soviet Union mining sector, focusing on factors that influence preferences for maintenance and aftermarket services across different regions including the former Soviet Union, Western, Eastern and Souther Europe and Scandinavia. The analysis is based on Timetric’s extensive survey of 100 mine managers and procurement managers.
Areas of analysis include:

• Customer preferences for maintenance and aftermarket support structure. These include opting for either original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) or independent third parties as providers of three equipment parts categories: strategic parts, non-strategic parts and processing-related equipment.

• After sales equipment support preferences across three options; 'work with me', 'do it for me'; and 'do it myself'.

• Preferences for type of service contract, including maintenance only, operation and maintenance, and life cycle management.

• In each case responses are analysed by mine type, company size, commodity and European region (Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Southern Europe, the former Soviet Union and Scandinavia).

Summary
Overall trends in the data revealed:

• While OEMs dominate the supply of strategic parts with 60% choosing purely OEMs and 34% a mix of OEMs and third parties, third parties have a greater penetration of non-strategic parts. Availability of spare parts is a key weakness for OEMs, which provides third parties with an opportunity to gain further share unless the OEMs improve their supply infrastructure, logistics structure and performance.

• After-sales equipment support preferences show over half (55%) of respondents want regular input from their manufacturer, 24% prefer to outsource support work, and 21% prefer to keep work in-house.

• Service contract preference shows a direction for simpler structures with maintenance only (47%) favored ahead of operation and maintenance (30%), while life cycle management remains marginal across the region (18%).

• Opportunities for life cycle management services are greatest for the largest companies, and within the former Soviet Union.

Scope
The report is based on responses from a survey of 100 senior managers at operating European and former Soviet Union mines, and provides detailed analysis of maintenance and aftermarket preferences. Survey respondents came from 23 different countries, including Sweden, Kazakhstan, Turkey, United Kingdom, Finland, Spain, Russia and the Ukraine. This included five different commodity groups and a range of surface and underground mining operations.

Reasons To Buy
• Understand mining companies’ use of original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) or third parties for equipment parts and for processing equipment needs. Also how these preferences vary by commodity, company size and region.

• Gain knowledge of mining company preferences for after-sales support structure, and identify the services required based on mine type, company size and commodity.

• Understand the importance mining companies place on service and maintenance costs and capabilities. Then compare the results with the actual rated performance of these equipment manufacturers.

• Identify the service contract preferences of mines in Europe and the former Soviet Union, and compare across mine type, region and company size.

Key Highlights
Overall trends in the data revealed:

• For strategic parts and processing plant and equipment parts, Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) dominate with 60% and 66% of respondents purely sourcing parts from OEMs.

• When comparing mine types, surface mines use third parties more than underground mines, but only marginally.

• Some 55% of respondents want regular input from their OEMs for after-sales support, with 24% looking to outsource all their support requirements, and 21% preferring to complete their work in-house and without manufacturer involvement.

• The majority of respondents prefer a simple after-sales contract such as a maintenance only support structure, followed by operation and maintenance. While much less favoured, the former Soviet Union presents the best opportunities for Life Cycle Management contracts.
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary
2 Aftermarket Preferences
2.1 Types of Company Used for Parts
2.2 Regional Comparison: Companies Used for Parts in Europe and the Former Soviet Union
2.3 Comparison by Region and Commodity for Western Europe, Scandinavia and the Former Soviet Union
2.4 A Summary of Opportunities for Suppliers
3 After-Sales Equipment Support Preferences
3.1 After-Sales Equipment Support Preferences by Company Size and Mine Type
3.2 After-Sales Equipment Support Preferences by Commodity
3.3 A Regional Comparison of After-Sales Equipment Support
3.4 A Regional Comparison of After-Sales Equipment Support by Company Size
3.5 Importance of After-Sales Support When Choosing an OEM
3.6 Opportunities for Suppliers of Aftermarket Services
4 Service Contract Preferences
4.1 Service Contract Preferences by Company Size
4.2 Service Contract Preferences by Region
4.3 Service Contract Preferences by Commodity
5 Conclusion
6 Appendix I
7 Appendix II
7.1 Survey Background
7.2 Analysis of the Survey Sample
7.3 Equipment Sourced from Main Suppliers
8 Appendix III
8.1 What is This Report About?
8.2 Methodology
8.3 Contact Timetric
8.4 About Timetric
8.5 Disclaimer

List of Tables
Table 1: Respondent Countries and Regions, 2014/15
Table 2: Types of Company Used for Parts by Category (%), 2014/15
Table 3: Use of Third Parties and Mix of OEMs/Third Parties by Company Size (%), 2014/15
Table 4: Use of Third Parties and Mix of OEMs/Third Parties by Commodity Group (%), 2014/15
Table 5: Use of Third Parties and Mix of OEMs/ Third Parties by Country (%), 2014/15
Table 6: After-Sales Equipment Support Preference (%), 2014/15
Table 7: Preferences for After-Sales Support by Region (%), 2014/15
Table 8: Preferences for After-Sales Support by Mine Type and Company Size (%), 2014/15
Table 9: Average Rating of Importance and Performance of OEMs for Service and Repair Capabilities, and Maintenance & Service Costs (%), 2014/15
Table 10: Preference for Service Contracts (%), 2014/15
Table 11: Preference for Service Contracts by Company Size (%), 2014/15
Table 12: Preferences for Service Contracts by Region (%), 2014/15
Table 13: Preferences for Service Contracts by Commodity (%), 2014/15

List of Figures
Figure 1: Types of Company Used for Parts by Category (%), 2014/15
Figure 2: Use of Independent Third-Parties and Mix of OEMs and Third Parties by Mine Type (%), 2014/15
Figure 3: Use of Third Parties and Mix of OEMs/Third Parties by Company Size (%), 2014/15
Figure 4: Use of Third Parties and Mix of OEMs/Third Parties by Commodity Group (%), 2014/15
Figure 5: Use of Third Parties and Mix of OEMs/Third Parties by Region (%), 2014/15
Figure 6: Use of Third Parties and Mix of OEMs/Third-Parties by Region and Commodity (%), 2014/15
Figure 7: Use of Third Parties and Mix of OEMs/Third-Parties by Region and by Company Earning Below US$100 million (%), 2014/15
Figure 8: After-Sales Equipment Support Preference (%), 2014/15
Figure 9: Preferences for After-Sales Support by Mine Type and Company Size (%), 2014/15
Figure 10: Preferences for After-Sales Support by Commodity (%), 2014/15
Figure 11: Preferences for After-Sales Support by Region (%), 2014/15
Figure 12: Preferences for After-Sales Support by Region & Company Size (%), 2014/15
Figure 13: Average Rating of Importance and Performance of OEMs for Service and Repair Capabilities, 2014/15
Figure 14: Average Ratings of Importance and Performance of OEMs for Maintenance and Service Costs, 2014/15
Figure 15: Preference for Service Contracts (%), 2014/15
Figure 16: Preferences for Service Contracts by Mine Type (%), 2014/15
Figure 17: Preference for Service Contracts by Company Size (%), 2014/15
Figure 18: Preferences for Service Contracts by Region (%), 2014/15
Figure 19: Preferences for Service Contracts by Commodity (%), 2014/15
Figure 20: Respondent Countries, 2014/15
Figure 21: Survey Respondents by Region (%), 2014/15
Figure 22: Survey Respondents by Mine Type (%), 2014/15
Figure 23: Survey Respondents by Commodity (%), 2014/15
Figure 24: Equipment Supplied by Respondents’ Major Equipment Supplier by Type (%), 2014/15

If the above report does not have the information suitable for your business, we can provide custom research that can be lucrative for your business or enhance your profession.