1. ABP Joint Diagnostic Report An examination of the ABC XYZ Relationship in Germany 5 May 2013

2. Contents 3.Executive summary 4.List of Interviewees 5.ABC and XYZ overall benchmark 6.ABC and XYZ by dimension 7.ABC and XYZ v best in class (BIC) 8. ABC and XYZ v selection from database 9.Companies used to benchmark the relationship 10.Alignment / misalignment areas 11.Decile characteristics 12.Scores by dimension 13.Relationship strengths and weaknesses 14.Top ten relationship focus areas 15.Top ten revenue focus areas 16.Suggested action plan 17.Suggested next steps 18.Appendix 1 - Useful additional material 19.Appendix 2 – Explanation of terms used in the report Page  2

3. Executive Summary Comments  The amount, quality and depth of data capture was very extensive.  There were considerable differences in perception of the maturity of the relationship depending on: location and technology area.  XYZ appears to view the relationship as more advanced generally. The best category was Cultural (53%) the worst was Commercial (30%).  The relationship was generally seen as needing more ‘systematisation’  It was generally acknowledged that neither side had enjoyed as much revenue as they would like from the relationship so far.  There was a good balance of: strategic, managerial and operational data collected. The Alignment / Misalignment Scores were very good.  Many interviewees commented favourably on the performance of the two alliance managers (Sebastian Loew and Thomas Metzger) in involving a wide variety of business people from both sides of the relationship.  The NK Index was 3.6% and 4.5% respectively indicating that the right people were interviewed (appropriate knowledge).  The NA Index was 5.3% and 3.8% respectively indicating that the relationship is viewed by both sides as a strategic alliance relationship.  The data integrity index was 98.5% and 100% indicating an extremely high degree of confidence in the data collected. StatisticABCXYZ Overall Score 3646 Commercial 2139 Technical 4755 Strategic 3745 Cultural 5057 Operational 3240 Alignment 28.85% Misalignment 0.00% Data Integrity Index 98.50%100.00% API Index 385%231% Revenue +/% Unknown The relationship is in Stage 1.0 – 2.1 depending on location Page  3

4. List of Interviewees ABC  Sebastian Loew  Peter Buhrmann  Ulrich Buhrmann  Rüdiger Eberlein  Dieter Harreither  Olaf-Ruediger Hasse  Burkhard Kehrbusch  Peter Lempp  Ralph Meyer  Thomas Nietsch  Oliver Schwarz  Christoph Windheuser  Hans Zierer XYZ  Kerstin Eschke  Ulrich Franke  Christian Hebenstreit  Helene Lengler  Thomas Metzger  Thomas Schmidt  Björn Ständer  Paolo Sutter  Christiane Toffolo-Haupt  Steffenvon Blumroeder  Joerg Weckenmann  Wolfgang Weigend Page  4

5. CHARTS / DIAGRAMS ABC v XYZ Overall ABC v XYZ by Dimension ABC v XYZ v Best in Class (BIC) ABC v XYZ v Database Page  5

6. ABC v XYZ Overall Page  6 This chart shows the combined XYZ and ABC scores separately

7. ABC v XYZ by Dimension Page  7 This chart shows the scores of the relationship Dimension by Dimension.

8. ABC v XYZ v Best in Class (BIC) Page  8 This chart shows the combined XYZ and ABC scores separately and the green line shows the ‘best in class’ example from the ABP Database of a software / systems integrator partnership.

9. ABC v XYZ v Database Page  9

10. Page  10 Companies used to benchmark the relationship Hardware Software Services Telecoms  IBM, Dell, Intel, Cisco, AMD, Lenovo, Sun, APC, HP, Motorola  Apple Inc, Micro Focus, uLogistics, Microsoft, Ariba, Epiphany, ITS, SSA, IBS, Genesys, Avaya, PLM, Business Objects, Chordiant, Intentia, Cognos, SAP (EMEA), Siebel, i2 Technologies, Peregrine, Frontline, Lawson, Kana, McAfee, SAP (UK) SAS Institute, CA  BT Global Services, Accenture, Atos Origin, Bearing Point, Deloitte, IBM GBS, Logica CMG, BCX, Csiper, Siemens Business Services, IDS Sheer, Ciber-Novesoft, IBS, BDO Unicon, Tieto, TCS, Wipro, Satyam, Everis, Aenis, Delaware  Vodafone, BT, Bell Canada, Nortel, Telus, Telmex, Sprint, Verizon, Telefonica, O2, Motorola, AT&T, Singtel The following companies were used to benchmark the relationship

11. Alignment / Misalignment Areas Alignment =/< 5%  T12Partner company market position  S20Shared objectives  O48B2B Operational alignment  S27Fit with strategic business path  T19Partner accountability  Cu35Alliance centre of excellence  O39Alliance process  O43Communication  T15Product fit with partners offerings  Cu34Dedicated alliance manager  S30Common vision  O42Formal business plan  O52Issue escalation  Co2Due Diligence Misalignment =/> 50% There were no areas of Misalignment > 50%. Areas > 20% were: O47Operational metrics Co1Business Value Proposition (BVP) S26B2B Strategic alignment Co3Optimum Legal / Business Structure Cu31Trust T13Host company market position Co8Commercial benefit S25Senior Exec support Cu33Collaboration skills Co9Process for negotiation Page  11

12. Decile characteristics  4 th Decile -Some individual salespeople/ countries / champions beginning to ‘get it’ -Dissatisfaction with commercial levels -Ad hoc knowledge transfer meetings taking place -Some projects show outstanding success (which produces even greater frustration) -No systematisation  5 th Decile -Focus on systematisation and common approach -Coherent alliance ‘portfolio’ strategy developing country by country -Partner ‘map’ being developed for both sides -Beginnings of support from senior executive country champions -Both / all partners beginning to look to employ a ‘standard’ approach  6 th Decile -Formal alliance tools being employed, : Some attention to external best practice -Benchmarking initiatives beginning to appear : Alliance process developing -Communication strategies more formalised : Formal alliance departments / functions appearing -Alliance business cases developing : Partner segmentation model appearing -Alliance departments beginning to be seen as a profit and loss centre not just a cost centre ABC is in Decile 4 XYZ is in Decile 5 Decile 6 is the next progression target for both Page  12

13. Scores by dimension DimensionCOBICCombined Commercial21398630 Technical47557751 Strategic37457541 Cultural50578353 Operational32407536  Best dimension = Cultural  Worst dimension = Commercial Page  13

14. Strengths (+/>75%) and Weaknesses (+/<25%) Relationship Strengths  Cu34 Dedicated Resources82  T15 Product Fit with Partners Offerings78 Relationship Weaknesses  S24 Exit strategies13  O45 MOUP13  Co10 Cost Value Ratio16  Co2Due Diligence21  S23Risk sharing21  O44Quality Review21  O46Change Management21  Co6Alliance Reward System22  O49Innovation23  O51Project Plan25 Page  14

15. Top Ten Relationship Focus Areas (+/<35%)  S24Exit strategies  O45MOUP  S23Risk sharing  O44Quality review  O46Change management  Cu33Collaboration skills  S29Common strategic ground rules  Co9Process for negotiation  T19Partner accountability  S30Common vision Page  15

16. Top Ten Revenue Focus Areas (+/<30%)  Co10Expected Cost value ratio  Co2Due Diligence  Co6Alliance reward system  O49Exponential breakthroughs (innovation)  O51Relationship project plan  Co4Alliance Audit  Co7Calculation of Commercial cost  Co3Definition of Optimum Legal / Business Structure  T11Valuation of technical assets  O42Formal business plan Page  16

17. Suggested Action Plan  Short term (i.e. Next 90 Days) -Develop a suitable set of relationship exit strategies -Identify all Key Stakeholders and map to roles -Communicate all key stakeholder roles -Run an MOUP workshop to develop a commonly accepted strategic direction for the relationship -Develop an expected cost value ratio for the relationship -Establish regular quality reviews -Establish collaboration training for both teams -Establish agreed internal and external communication programmes  Long Term (i.e. Next 12 Months) -Establish a formal due diligence process -Establish suitable risk sharing models -Establish a formal relationship governance model -Develop an alliance reward system for field sales staff -Develop an innovation / new offerings process -Establish and codify a suitable legal / business structure -Explore and align the relationship goals with the strategic business path of both organisations Page  17

18. Suggested next steps Suggested next steps are;  Share results with partner and agree to run an alliance optimisation workshop – In progress  Review the diagnostic report with ABP prior to the workshop and clarify any confusion -Complete  Discuss / develop / agree a suitable alliance relationship optimisation process (See template in ‘Useful Additional Material’) - Complete  Run the relationship optimisation workshop - Planned  Develop an agreed joint action plan – To be agreed at the workshop  Document RACI chart for agreed actions and resource allocation (See explanation and template slides) – To be completed by ABP as a draft prior to the workshop  Set new targets based on impact analysis of action plan - Pending  Review progress every 90 days - Pending Page  18

19. Appendix 1 – Useful Additional Materials Suggested workshop agenda List of Critical Success Factors ABP Relationship Optimisation Process RACI Explanation RACI Template Revenue potential calculator Further details / help

20. Suggested Workshop Agenda Relationship Analysis  Review Alliance Best Practice Ltd (ABP) findings  Agree consensus view where misalignment exists  Define agreed strengths and weaknesses and the reasons for them Relationship Planning  Discuss / agree chosen relationship optimisation process  Identify key stakeholders Relationship Action  Select weakness areas and agree suitable remedial short term and long term actions  Map key stakeholders to agreed actions  ‘Sign off’ developed action plan  Agree potential / probable commercial impact of actions Ongoing Relationship Review  Agree a suitable cycle and format for action plan review (suggested 90 days) Page  20

21. Critical Success Factors Coding Commercial Dimension Co1 Business Value Proposition (BVP) Co2 Due Diligence Co3 Optimum Legal / Business Structure Co4 Alliance Audit Co5 Key metrics Co6 Alliance reward system Co7 Commercial cost Co8 Commercial benefit Co9 Process for negotiation Co10 Expected Cost value ratio Technical Dimension T11 Valuation of assets T12 Partner company market position T13 Host company market position T14 Market fit of proposed solution T15 Product fit with partners offerings T16 Identified mutual needs in the relationship T17 Process for team problem solving T18 Shared Control T19 Partner accountability Strategic Dimension S20 Shared objectives S21 Relationship Scope S22 Tactical and strategic risk S23 Risk sharing S24 Exit strategies S25 Senior executive support S26 B2B Strategic alignment S27 Fit with strategic business path S28 Other relationships with same partner S29 Common strategic ground rules S30 Common vision Cultural Dimension Cu31 Business to business trust Cu32 Collaborative corporate mindset Cu33 Collaboration skills Cu34 Dedicated alliance manager Cu35 Alliance centre of excellence Cu36 Decision making process Cu37 Other cultural issues Cu38 Business to Business cultural alignment Operational Dimension O39 Alliance process O40 Speed of progress so far O41 Distance from revenue O42 Formal business plan O43 Communication O44 Quality review O45 Alliance charter O46 Change management O47 Operational metrics O48 Business to business operational alignment O49 Exponential breakthroughs O50 Internal alignment O51 Project plan O52 Issue escalation Co = Commercial T = Technical S = Strategic Cu = Cultural Op = Operational Page  21

22. Stage 1 - Goal SettingStage 2 - DiagnosticStage 3 - Action PlanningStage 4 - Resource Mobilisation To identify the currently projected commercial value of the relationship for the next 12 months. To generate an objective view of the relationship which shows 52 strengths and weaknesses identified as a score from 0- 100 Objective – To generate a jointly agreed (with the partner) action plan to optimise the relationship. To map all identified actions to a RACI [1] framework to identify key stakeholders roles and responsibilities. [1] 1.Contact all key stakeholders and draw up strawman value projection 2.Resolve conflicts and discrepancies with stakeholders 3.Document draft final value projection 4.Obtain sign off of value projection from senior executive sponsor 1.Agree on number of diagnostic interviews to capture data 2.Request diagnostic interview pack from ABP 3.Receive briefing on use of pack 4.Conduct diagnostic interviews 5.Send results to ABP for collation and benchmarking 6.Brief partner on exercise 7.Send partner necessary documentation 8.Send partner results to ABP for collation and benchmarking 1.Review Relationship diagnostic report received from ABP 2.Readjust any scores necessary in the diagnostic 3.Agree partner scores with partner 4.Analyse areas of incongruity (i.e. CSFs which show different scores from one partner to the other) 5.Agree common scores for all 52 areas (with the partner) 6.Identify areas for action 7.Identify short term and long term actions 8.Identify help required with long term actions 9.Produce agreed action plan 1.Conduct RACI chart mapping for all identified improvement actions 2.Communicate and agree role of all stakeholders on the RACI chart 3.Revise the RACI chart as necessary 4.Agree a single stakeholder from both /all organisations in each category 5.Sign off RACI chart with host and partner executives 1.Partner views 2.Market growth projections 3.Marketing forecasts 4.Sales forecasts 5.Business plans of affected units 6.Relationship business plans 7.Alliance strategy document 1.Key stakeholder mapping document 2.Diagnostic pack from ABP 1.Relationship diagnostic report from ABP1.Agreed joint action plan 1.Signed off value projection for next 12 calendar months 1.Relationship diagnostic report from ABP1.A jointly agreed (with partner) action plan identifying; a) Short term b) Long term c) Anticipated results d) Help required 1.An agreed joint RACI chart for all identified actions 1.Senior Exec job description 2.ABP relationship Optimisation Process 3.Questions for Chief Alliance Officers (CAOs) 4.Alliance value analysis calculator 5.Business Value proposition 6.Executive review meeting draft agenda 7.Strategic Alliance Alignment Questionnaire 8.Alliance Strategy Methodology 9.Alliance Business case template 1.Letter explaining the diagnostic exercise 2.Internal memo explaining diagnostic 3.Scoring the ABP Success Factors 4.The ABP relationship optimisation process 5.Self Diagnostics – READ ME FIRST! 6.Three stages of alliance development 7.Instructions for completing the diagnostic 8.Explanation of the ABP success factors 9.Example Benchmarking Diagnostic report 10.Diagnostic benchmarking presentation Tools Available 1.MOUP [4] workshop instructions [4] 2.Operational Alignment assessment workbook 3.MOUP models x 3 4.MOUP questionnaire 5.How to conduct an ABP relationship optimisation workshop 6.Alliance management methodology 1.RACI process explanation 2.RACI chart template 3.Alliance framework and governance questionnaire 4.Scoring template showing high and low impacters 5.Kick off meeting action list 6.Capability assessment diagnostic questionnaire Objective Inputs Outputs Deliverables Tools ABP Relationship Optimisation Process Page  22

23. Example RACI Template ActionResponsibleAccountableConsultedInformed Establish an alliance process Document and publish a governance model Establish a steering group Identify key stakeholders Develop an internal and external communication plan Develop a formal and co-ordinated relationship business plan Page  23

24. Revenue Potential Calculator ActionRevenue $m / Score ImpacterControlRelevanceImportanceResult Page  24

25. Appendix 2 Explanation of Terms Acronyms and concepts used in this report explained including Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

26. RACI Explanation ResponsibleAccountableConsultedInformed The person/s responsible for seeing that the action is completed. This will normally be the Alliance / Relationship Manager The person/s who will actually carry out the action. People that we need information from to validate the action and make sure that the action is reasonable and relevant. People that we need to inform that we are carrying out the action. This will normally be the Executive Sponsor. Page  26

27. Critical Success Factor Scoring AcronymExplanation Critical Success Factor (CSF)A best practice factor which has been shown to have a statistical impact on the success of the relationship. The ABP questionnaire has 52 CSFs. DimensionA collection of CSFs in 5 Dimensions (Commercial, Technical, Strategic, Cultural, Operational.) Best Practice ScoreA number between 0 and 100 indicating the degree to which the CSF is present and contributing to relationship value. This is usually expressed as a percentage number (e.g. 35% = 35/100) Overall ScoreThe average of all the CSF scores for a particular partner (e.g. ABC Overall Score 65% means that ABC scored 65/100 averaged across all 52 CSF scores for the relationship in question.). Page  27

28. Not Applicable / Not Known AcronymExplanation Not Known or No Knowledge Index (NKI)The ‘Not Known’ Index expressed as a percentage of those questions that were answered as ‘Not Known’ or ‘No Knowledge’ expressed as a percentage of the total questions answered. (e.g. 3 ‘Not Known’ answers out of 52 would produce a NK Index of 3/52 *100 = 5.77%). Not Applicable Index (NAI)The ‘Not Applicable’ Index expressed as a percentage of those questions that were answered as ‘Not Applicable’ expressed as a percentage of the total questions answered. (e.g. 6 ‘Not Applicable’ answers out of 52 would produce a NA Index of 6/52 *100 = 11.54%). Page  28

29. Data Integrity AcronymExplanation Data Integrity Index (DII)There are a number of control questions used in the ABP questionnaire. This means that if the score to one question is high then it is extremely unlikely that the answer to a corresponding other ‘control’ question would be low. This index is an expression of the degree of the data integrity expressed as a percentage. (e.g. 100% = excellent data integrity which can be absolutely relied on. 0% data integrity = data which is badly flawed and cannot be relied on). Similar Score Index (SSI)This is the number of times a particular score appears in the questionnaire expressed as a percentage of the total number of questions answered. (e.g. 10 questions with the same score out of 52 = 10/52*100 = an SSI of 19.23%). Page  29

30. Alignment / Misalignment AcronymExplanation AlignmentThe degree to which the two parties scored the same for a particular CSF or combination of CSFs. Alignment is usually defined as equal to or less than 5% difference. MisalignmentThe degree to which the two parties differed in their scoring of a CSF. Misalignment is usually defined as equal to or greater than 50% difference. Page  30

31. Strengths / Weaknesses AcronymExplanation StrengthA score of equal to or greater than 75 out of 100 (75/100). This can sometimes be expressed as =>75%. WeaknessA score of equal to or less than 25 out of 100 (75/100). This can sometimes be expressed as =<25%. Page  31

32. High Impacters and Low Impacters AcronymExplanation Low ImpactersThose CSFs which have an immediate impact on results (usually visible within 90 days of adoption). High ImpactersThose CSFs that take time to impact results (usually visible 12 – 18 months from adoption). Page  32

33. Revenue and Relationship CSFs AcronymExplanation RevenueThose CSFs that will have a direct impact on Revenue and Commercial factors in the relationship. RelationshipThose CSFs that will have an indirect impact on the revenue factors in a relationship but will enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the relationship leading to a beneficial effect over time. (These factors are usually considered for business sustainability reasons and to extend the useful life of the relationship. Page  33

34. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) FAQAnswer Where have the 52 Critical Success Factors come from? The 52 critical success factors have been derived from examining over 27,000 international strategic alliances from 1989 – 2007. This research is ongoing. Are the Best in Class (BIC) and World Class (WC) benchmarks theoretical or actual? All benchmarks used in the reports are actual relationships that have been examined within the last 5 years. How big is the Alliance Best Practice database? The ABP database currently has 43,000 entries of the identified critical success factors in action. Page  34

35. Control Relevance Importance TermExplanation ControlThe degree to which the control is under the control of the two relationship managers (one from each partner). Usually expressed as a percentage (e.g. 100% = fully under control, 0% = not under control at all. RelevanceThe degree to which the CSF in question is relevant to the two partners concerned having regard to the stage of the relationship, its relative maturity and its primary intent. Usually expressed as a percentage (e.g. 100% = fully relevant, 0% = not relevant at all. ImportanceThe degree to which the CSF in question is important to the two partners concerned. Usually expressed as a percentage (e.g. 100% = Critical, 0% = unimportant. Revenue Potential CalculatorThe factors above are usually used in a tool called the RPC which calculates the actual revenue possible from a relationship.. Page  35

36. Further Details For further details please contact; Mike Nevin Managing Partner Alliance Best Practice Ltd Web: www.alliancebestpractice.comwww.alliancebestpractice.com Office: +44 (0)1675 442490 Mobile: +44 (0)7766 752350 E Mail: mike.nevin@alliancebestpractice.com mike.nevin@alliancebestpractice.com