KAM will boost the business 25% and more Over 65% of the participants estimate the KAM contribution both in revenues and profit up to 25% and more to the total result. KAM therefore has a significant impact for the organisations. When we consider the high investments and efforts needed to establish a KAM organisation we believe companies should aim for even more. The opportunities exist. Thestudy shows significant areas of improvement with strong impact on profit and turnover. Furthermore, it could be very interesting to reflect what we would have lost if we would not have introduced KAM. Overall satisfaction with KAM programme is high The overall satisfaction is high. Companies are satisfied most with the positive turnover development. On the other hand, only a minority believes that our financial results are better than competitors. It seems that the focus on profit is still not high enough. This is also reflected for instance in the criteria used for the selection of key accounts. Top performers, on the other hand, show the highest satisfaction with regard to profit. They confirm our key accounts are very profitable. KAM is a traditional topic that is still new for many companies In 56% of the companies, KAM was established less than 5 years ago. So, although KAM in general is existing for more than 25 years, the real roll out in a lot of companies has started only recently. Obviously, it takes time before reaching satisfying results: 70% of the top performers have more than 5 years of KAM experience. Practice makes perfect. It seems that a lot of companies follow a trial and error approach when building up and expanding KAM. A systematic approach right from the start can definitely shorten this learning process and save money in the progress. Different organisational approaches In 40% of the companies, KAM is organised as a support function. 35% of the companies prefer a separate organisational unit. And in 25% KAM is a project organisation. Them majority of top performers have KAM organised as a separate unit. They also prefer full time managers (75%). Clear organisational frames seem to support success in KAM. Already today 71% of all KAM organisations are established internationally. But obviously companies still struggle with the complexity. So far, locally organised KAM programmes show better results. Integration of KAM in the organisation with room for improvements In general, companies are quite satisfied with the way they have organised the dimensions strategy, people, solutions, management and measurement. However, a deeper analysis shows significant differences between top and low performers. • People: The focus on the own KAM team has the strongest impact on the success of the KAM programme. Top performers focus strongly on aspects like: analyse the personal competencies of the KAM staff and match them with the requirements in KAM, they provide special training and development packages and consider the specific KAM needs in the overall HR strategy. • Strategy: Top performers are more careful in the selection process of key accounts. They use a number of criteria and select through a structured process. Already here they lay the foundation for success in the future. • Solutions: Top performers are more prepared to fulfil special key accounts needs and invest in customized solutions. • Management: Top performers have achieved that the corporate culture supports the whole KAM approach and that KAM processes are defined, known and accepted in the entire organisation. • Measurement: Top performers are better able to measure KAM success. The controlling and reporting systems are well established and have professional IT support. Multiple objectives needed Successful KAM organisations have a system of multiple objectives which are followed simultaneously within a holistic approach reflecting the complexity of KAM. Furthermore, KAM success is facilitated by focussing more on improved prices and terms, active risk management and cross-selling. Successful KAM organisations also concentrate much more on customer requirements. Turnover is still the most popular criteria for selecting key accounts The majority of companies still count on turnover (potential as well as current) as main selection criteria. Top performers much stronger consider current and potential contribution margin as well as qualitative criteria. As the investments in specific key accounts sometimes are very high, the selection of the right clients is of utmost importance for the future success. A lot of challenges Top problem is pricing and price pressure. Again, it seems that top performers suffer less. Among others they benefit from more customized offers, which reduces competitive pressure and, last but not least, they have on average the better KAM teams. Most important areas for improvement The most important areas for improvement are linked to the work with individual key accounts like improved planning and realisation of planning with individual key accounts and improved analysis and understanding of individual key accounts. Especially top performers focus on these aspects. Balance of Power is possible The power between key accounts and their suppliers in general seems to be reasonably balanced. This is the precondition for building real win-win-situations. Anyhow, top performers show significantly more self confidence. They also are more convinced that the benefits in the relationship are balanced. Future of KAM The importance and the international/global focus will strongly increase within the next years. Especially for top performers, KAM will become one of the most important ways to achieve competitive advantages. Cross-Country Benchmarking UK and Finland seem to have the longest experience with KAM. In France and Benelux KAM is still a young approach. With regard to the organisation, especially Germany relies on clear responsibilities and prefers separate organisational units and full-time KAM managers. UK relies more on project organisations (30%). The highest international scope can be found in UK followed by Sweden and Benelux. In Germany, KAM very often still has a more local focus. In the selection of key accounts, Finland focuses most France and Germany least on current and potential contribution margin. The satisfaction with the quality of the key account managers is high in France and Benelux and low in Germany and Denmark. The satisfaction with the integration of KAM in the total organisation is high in UK and again low in Germany and Denmark. The overall satisfaction with the results achieved is high in UK and Finland and low in Germany and France. The power in the relationship is well balanced in Finland, Sweden and UK and quite unbalanced in Germany and France. Regarding the benefits of the relationship France, Benelux and UK are most and Germany and Denmark are least satisfied. Learning from the best: It seems that a cross-country benchmark makes sense for many companies.