1. Effective Product Launch Vendor Integration Inga Broerman Black Belt Marketing - Corporate

2. 2 Project Definition: Round 1 IKON’s poor integration with our vendors causes us to not launch replacement products concurrent to the vendor, resulting in lost revenue due to slow ramping of new product. We need to define our processes and where we can improve them to effectively launch products on the same day as the vendor. The metric for the project is the days past vendor launch and days to achieve ‘replacement volume’ and the assumed benefit is the revenue we gain from additional days of sale during a products lifecycle.

3. 3 But When Data on Replacement Engines Came in… Combined total of discontinued ir330 and newly introduced ir3300, plus competitive placements Limited impact from delayed ramp of replacement product

4. 4 Where’s the Benefit? n The Process Owners & Subject Matter Experts Concurred n Initial interviews suggested that: n Accelerating launch of replacement products may not result in a $250K in new revenue, based on revenue already captured by competitive products or the ‘replaced’ product n The biggest opportunity for net new revenue would be for new products in new market spaces where we did not have a strong presence. But….. Looking at all launches would not be significantly more difficult, as both replacement and new product used the same process

5. 5 Back to the Drawing Board: Project Definition, Round 2 IKON’s poor integration with our vendors causes us to not launch replacement products concurrent to the vendor, resulting in lost revenue due to slow ramping of new product. We need to define our processes around the Product Marketing Launch Process and where we can improve them integrate more closely with the vendor to obtain launch information in a sufficient timeframe to effectively launch products on the same day as the vendor for our primary Vendors, Canon and Ricoh. The metric for the project is the days past vendor launch and days to achieve ‘replacement volume’ and the benefit is the revenue we gain from additional days of sale at full volume during a products lifecycle.

6. 6 Two Ways to Impact Revenue from New Product Launch Factors that effect moving Curve to the left: (Product Launch Date) n Product Marketing Launch Process n Vendor Integration n No Inventory of product being replaced n Product Available Factors that effect increasing the ramp curve: n Product Available n Service Trained n PS Readiness n Good information to the right people n Sales Training Introduce the product x days earlier, Achieve full ramp x days earlier Introduce product earlier, plus Increase the speed to full ramp Incremental Revenue

7. 7 Why Focus on Product Marketing, Not Vendor Integration in Total? Every Y has Vendor Integration as an X

8. 8 How Important is this to IKON? Current Sales New Sales Additional Revenue: $28.8 Million For all Products Launched In FY2003… If we had launched the same day as the Vendor…..

9. 9 DPMO & Z st (or, Where Are We Now?) BUT DPMO (not quite 1million, but pretty darn close)

10. 10 Which Factors are Relevant? No Statistical Significance

11. 11 Product Family? No Statistical Significance

12. 12 Type of Launch? No Statistical Significance

13. 13 New Technology? No Statistical Significance

14. 14 Trend: Improvements Made July 02-Jan 03: 49 Days Past Vendor Launch Feb 03-Jul 03: 19 Days Past Vendor Launch Process = Problem

15. 15 Why Map All These Processes? n Mapping Primary Process and all contributing subprocesses to: n Establish inputs required – what information do we need from our vendors to launch a product? n Establish timeline setbacks – when do we need to the information from the vendor in order to launch and what is the critical path n What re-work loops are in the process that specifically involve IKON going back to the vendor for more information? n Identify data to collect on X’s on a go-forward basis n Establish Master “List” of Items that we need from the vendors n Provide list to vendor and negotiate to receive information based on IKON’s timeline, not the vendor’s

16. 16 What is an Effective Launch for IKON? ID the component parts of the launch Process to learn the input requirements

17. 17 Process Map – High Level Process Map to Determine the Input Setbacks

18. 18 Data Collection for X n Historic: n Data provided not able to be reproduced by Product Marketing or by Vendors n Data needed to be validated by vendor according to defined standards n Develop Tracking System for Launch Dates, with Definitions & Processes n Date of Initial Notification n Date of Receipt of Final Product Information n Turnaround of Internal IKON processes (about 40 separate checkpoints) n No more than three products will be tracked over the coming three months n Test Definitions with Process Owners with Hypothetical Launches

19. 19 So How Do We Prioritize What Factors into Launch Date? n Limited Data at the Process Level n Large, complex process n Many people involved in each process and subprocess n The formal communication structure across the main process and the sub-process areas is immature n Some process requirements around information required from the vendor are not clearly understood across the process in total n Team Knowledge, Experience and Opinion n Clear understanding of the timelines required behind our processes n Fishbone to understand the identified issues n Cause and Effect Matrix to rank and measure the inputs n FMEA to understand our potential points of failure and how they impact launching products on time

20. 20 Project Team n Black Belt – Inga Broerman n Champion – Steve Poole, Kim Castagnetta n Financial Analyst – Jason Henson n Process Owner n Annette McCrary, Director, Product Marketing n Mike Dane, Director, Product Marketing n Key Team Members: n Tim Bach,, John MacDonald, Dana Nakaya, Product Marketing - Data n Keith Audit, Product Marketing – Pricing Process n Brian Bennett, Elaine Chacko & Randy Kring, Common Coding n Dale Hoff, Product Development n Eric Dettman and Meghan Toomey, Marketing Communications - Collateral n Dan Nero and Don Kenney, Professional Services n Don Hebert, Field Service Training n Mike Woodard, Field Service n Michele Dyer, Law Department n Master Black Belt – Bob Conrad

21. 21 Next Steps n Finalize Project Charter Amendment n Validate Process Maps, Product Launch Input Requirements and Setbacks with Team n Create / Validate Fishbone Diagram and Cause & Effect Diagram with Team to prioritize inputs from Vendor n Generate FMEA n Map inputs, dependencies and timing setbacks for meeting with vendors n Meet with Vendors to determine their ability to meet IKON’s Launch Requirements