CORPORATE

HEADQUARTERS
Developing value adding capabilities to
overcome the parenting advantage paradox
Munich, April 2013
 2

Our new study reflects the study design of previous years and further
investigates organizational trends and capabilities of modern
corporate headquarters

Corporate headquarters study, 1999-2013

1999 Management concept and size of corp. HQs

2002 Management concept, size of corp. HQs and trend toward centralization
2005 Management concept, size of corp. HQs and trend toward centralization
+ Germany as an attractive location for HQs
2008 Management concept, size of corp. HQs and trend toward centralization
+ Changing view of HQ's role
2010 Management concept, size of corp. HQ and trend toward centralization
+ Comparison of European countries as locations for HQ

2013
201313 Management concept, size of corporate headquarters and
trend toward centralization
+ Development of centralized control and decentralized management
+ Shift in the center of gravity
+ New organizational structures: Project and process orientation

Source: Roland Berger Roland_Berger_Corporate_Headquarters_Short_version_20130502.pptx

 3

86 companies of various size, industry and management concepts

took part in the study

Study participants (n=86) by key attribute [%]

SIZE [employees] INDUSTRY SECTOR MANAGEMENT CONCEPT
>50,000 Trade

CLUSTERS FOR
Integrated

THE ANALYSES
25,000 to Services Strategic holding
11% 8% headquarters
50,000 0 to 5,000 30%
13% 41% 28% 43%
5,000 to 65%
25,000 35% 27%
Producing and manufacturing Operational holding

SIZE [sales in EUR m] NUMBER OF OPERATIONAL UNITS COUNTRY OF ORIGIN

Rest of world
>5,000 >6 1 to 3
27% 23% Germany
34% 30% 37%
13% 60%
2,500 to 0 to 2,500
36% 41%
5,000
4 to 6 Europe (excl. Germany)

Source: Roland Berger study "Corporate Headquarters" Roland_Berger_Corporate_Headquarters_Short_version_20130502.pptx

 4

In our new study on corporate headquarters, we highlight the concept

of value adding capabilities and ways of developing them

Study overview: corporate headquarters

Questionnaire focused on role and Results include specific approaches and good
value contribution of corporate HQ practice examples for modern headquarters

Basic information, incl. location of production, sales &

CONCEPT OF
support functions today and 2020 (center of gravity) VALUE ADDING
CAPABILITIES
Quantitative part:
> FTE in CHQ and SSC per function
> Degree of centralization per function
> Degree of outsourcing per function ACTION MAP
> Costs of CHQ (and SSC) functions
Qualitative part:
> Role of CHQ (e.g. major roles today and 2020,
approaches to add value)
> Internationalization of CHQ (e.g. perceived necessity
for internationalization)
> Project and process orientation (e.g. methods to lead
decentralized units; major challenges in leading
them)
➨ 86 participants GOOD PRACTICE EXAMPLES

Source: Roland Berger Roland_Berger_Corporate_Headquarters_Short_version_20130502.pptx

 5

Modern corporate headquarters need to focus on value adding

capabilities to overcome the parenting advantage paradox

Corporate headquarters need to show all stakeholders that they create value by "parenting" the
businesses that they own and thus justify their existence

Headquarters must permanently minimize costs but add more value at the same time, leaving the center with what
we call the parenting advantage paradox

Increasing complexity in the business environment adds new challenges for the center and requires additional
approaches to value creation

Our study reveals a new view on headquarters: Five capabilities that truly add value beyond the traditional
cost and efficiency focus

An action plan with approaches and good practices shows how modern corporate headquarters build value
adding capabilities and solve the parenting advantage paradox

Source: Roland Berger Roland_Berger_Corporate_Headquarters_Short_version_20130502.pptx

 6

HQ costs represent between 2% and 7% of sales – Although shared

services and outsourcing are important cost levers, HQs are not
expected to shift to other geographies

The cost of corporate headquarters is a significant burden. The average cost of headquarters ranges between
2% and almost 7% of sales depending on management concept and industry cluster

50% of companies exploit economies of scale using shared services, with IT being the most frequent
shared service center function. Most shared service centers are still located in Europe (80%). Offshoring to Asia/Pacific
expected to speed up – from 4% today to 10% in 2020

Outsourcing remains on 2010 levels at approx. 30% – The IT function is most frequently outsourced by the study
participants

HQ locations are not following the shift in sales markets and production footprint towards Asia –
80% even expect to step up their headquarters' capacity in Western Europe

Consequently, 60% of the participants think they need to further internationalize their headquarters. For most
companies this means involving HQ in international projects and transferring international employees to HQ.
Only 14% are planning to internationalize by relocating functions abroad

Source: Roland Berger Roland_Berger_Corporate_Headquarters_Short_version_20130502.pptx

 7

The need to have more international HQs shows that virtual

collaboration is becoming more important – The role of HQ is
changing and its value creation is considered in a new light

Almost all study participants will have more virtual collaboration. The objective is to enhance collaboration
across departments and to ensure proximity to the business

Study participants are well aware of the challenges presented by more collaboration. The key problems mentioned are
poor communication and failure to align strategies and goals

Today, HQ's primary role is that of Manager (40%) and Law Guardian (25%) – 55% of study participants expect
their HQ to play a stronger Business Partner role in the future. This overall shift sheds new light on the way
HQ creates value

Source: Roland Berger Roland_Berger_Corporate_Headquarters_Short_version_20130502.pptx

 8

Corporate headquarters are facing a paradox:

They are expected to achieve more with less

Parenting advantage paradox > The corporate headquarters in

its "corporate parent" capacity
must justify its existence
Corporate > To do so, the parent should be
Headquarters able to demonstrate that its
("the parent") businesses perform better in
aggregate than they would as a
series of individual, stand-

!
alone entities (avoid
1 conglomerate discount of
capital market evaluation)

> In reality, HQs often lack the

ability to show they add real
Associated companies, business value. They are consequently
units, geographies (regions, sites) 2 reduced to a cost burden that
must meet contradictory
expectations

Cost of Value- Parenting 1 COST CUTTING

CHQ add advantage

2 INCREASING VALUE
ADDING REQUIREMENTS
Source: Roland Berger; Campbell, A., Goold, M. & Alexander, M. (1995) Corporate Strategy:
The Quest for Parenting Advantage, Harvard Business Review,Roland_Berger_Corporate_Headquarters_Short_version_20130502.pptx
March - Apri
 9

1 COST CUTTING

When companies look at their corporate

headquarters, they rarely consider it more than
simply a cost burden

Cost of corporate headquarters > Costs differ significantly by

management concept and
PRESS RELEASES, 2010-12 HQ COSTS, % OF SALES, 2005-12 industry – a systematic
benchmarking allows the cost
By management concept By industry sector base to be challenged
Chile's Codelco cuts more than 100 HQ staff
9.7% > Very few companies publish
HQ costs as % of sales in their
annual reports (e.g. Adidas
Siemens wants to 7.3%, Telekom 3.1%)
J.C. Penney Co Inc
dismantle bureaucracy
cuts 1000 jobs at 6.6%
and remove duplicate > Cost transparency is the basis
Headquarters
functions for cost saving efforts and
4.6% helps raise cost awareness

Merck Pharma closes Swiss HQ, 3.2% > In addition to the tangible cost
cuts 580 jobs 2.0% 2.1% of the HQ itself, it can create a
1.6% 1.5% lot of additional admin for its
1.2% 1.0%
0.3% 0.2% businesses. In the worst case,
Telekom Around 700 jobs at it even causes real harm by
is planning to cut Canadian retailer setting the wrong strategic
1,300 further jobs at Loblaw could be cut as Integr. Oper. Strat. Ser- Produc. Trade course, etc.
its Bonn head- it plans to make its HQ
quarters by 2015 "leaner" and "more
HQs holding holding vices &
efficient" manuf.
Median 1st quartile

Source: Roland Berger Press Research, Roland Berger Benchmarking Database

Roland_Berger_Corporate_Headquarters_Short_version_20130502.pptx
 10

1 COST CUTTING

Companies are trying to cut overhead, and

specifically HQ costs, in a number of ways

Typical levers and approaches to reducing overhead cost > Overhead cutting efforts
usually use three generic
levers
Cumulative savings potential [%] – Efficiency increase
– Economies of scale and
synergies
60 Outsourcing – Labor arbitrage

50 Offshoring > In most cases, overhead cost

Plus cutting efforts build on each
40 up to 20% other – savings are therefore
cumulative
30 Shared service centers Plus
up to 15% > To reduce the cost of the HQ,
20 Bundling of entities this logic was applied in two
ways
Process optimization – Centralization to achieve
10 Spans & layers optimization Up to 20% savings through the
Service level reduction headquarters (bundling,
0 shared services)
– Efficiency improvement
and relocation to reduce
Efficiency Economies of Labor Cost savings the cost of the HQ
increase scale & synergies arbitrage potential (efficiency increase, labor
arbitrage)
MAIN LEVER

Source: Roland Berger Roland_Berger_Corporate_Headquarters_Short_version_20130502.pptx

 11

1 COST CUTTING – BACKUP

50% of companies exploit economies of scale

using shared services – IT is the most frequent
shared service center function

TREND IN TOP10 > Bundling support functions in

shared services has become a
SHARED SERVICE CENTERS (SSC) SHARED SERVICE FUNCTIONS 2012 standard way of cutting
overhead cost

CC IT 37% > Shared service usage differs

by function – IT, Accounting
SSC and Human Resources
Accounting 32%
represent the highest
BU BU BU Human resources 28% proportion of functions that are
transferred to SSCs (albeit
Purchasing and procurement 26% usually only to some extent)

General services 19% > In addition to exploiting

CENTRALIZATION/BUNDLING economies of scale and
Share of companies with shared service units Controlling 18% synergies, SSCs are expected
to deliver higher service
Marketing and sales 17% process quality and standards
2008 2012
2005 2010 Quality management 14%

38%
49% 42% 48% Finance
Occupational safety and
13%

environment protection 13%

Source: Roland Berger study "Corporate Headquarters" 2005/2008/2010Roland_Berger_Corporate_Headquarters_Short_version_20130502.pptx

 12

1 COST CUTTING – BACKUP

Labor arbitrage through outsourcing remains on

2010 levels –
IT function most frequently outsourced

Prioritization/rationalization > The share of companies that

have outsourced corporate
TREND IN OUTSOURCING TOP10 OUTSOURCED FUNCTIONS 2012 functions has declined in the
past five years

IT 18% > Today, 1/3 of the survey

CC External participants use outsourcing as
service Legal 14% a lever for reducing labor costs
providers Communications 14% > IT, Legal and Communications
BU BU BU represent the highest
Taxes 10% proportion of functions (partly
or entirely) performed by
PRIORITIZATION/RATIONALIZATION Insurance 10% external vendors
Share of companies that have
outsourced corporate functions Human resources 9%
Auditing 8%
2005 2008
2010 2012 Patents and licenses 8%
53% 44%
General services 8%
32% 33% Mergers & acquisitions 8%

Source: Roland Berger study "Corporate Headquarters" 2005/2008/2010Roland_Berger_Corporate_Headquarters_Short_version_20130502.pptx

 13

2 VALUE ADDING REQUIREMENTS

Increasingly complex business environments require higher value

creation plus the skills and resources to achieve it

SHIFTING CENTERS OF GRAVITY: INTERNATIONALIZATION:

20% expect the highest share of total sales and 59% think their CHQ should
production to be generated outside Europe and become more international
North America – 80% expect HQ not to follow the internally (more cross-border
shift but step up their capacity in Western Europe projects, more international
employees at HQ)

VIRTUAL COLLABORATION: ROLE SHIFT:

53% expect a (very) strong increase in virtual 55% see a stronger
and location independent working in the future business partner role for their
headquarters in the future

DECENTRALIZED FUNCTIONS: VARIETY OF TASKS:

69% see difficult or incomplete 77% see that tasks of
communication as major challenge corporate headquarters are
in managing decentralized support becoming more
functions – 51% lack strategic alignment numerous/diverse

Source: Roland Berger Roland_Berger_Corporate_Headquarters_Short_version_20130502.pptx

 14

2 VALUE ADDING REQUIREMENTS

To cope with the challenges at hand, corporate

headquarters are expected to grow and further
centralize tasks and responsibilities

Trend in centralization/decentralization > Overall, the trend toward

centralization of headquarters
functions seems to continue
Relative size of corporate headquarters Trend in centralization
[employee ratio1) in %] > Employees working at
corporate headquarters
"What basic trend do you see regarding functions now represent an
5.6% centralization/decentralization?" average of more than 5% of
the entire workforce
Increasing centralization, i.e. the
4.5% scope of tasks and responsibilities > Including capacity allocated to
of corporate headquarters will 57% shared services units,
increase centralized support functions
account for more than 7% of
3.0% 2.8% total employees
No major change 27%
2.3%
Increasing decentralization, i.e. > Almost 2/3 of the study
the scope of tasks and participants expect that the
0.9% responsibilities of corporate 8% scope of tasks and
headquarters will decrease responsibilities of their HQ will
further grow
No answer 8%
1999 2002 2005 2008 2010 2012

1) Avg. no. of FTEs in the corporate headquarters as a share of total FTEs in company; all companies; corporate center only, i.e. excl. shared services

Source: Corporate Headquarters Study 1999-2012 Roland_Berger_Corporate_Headquarters_Short_version_20130502.pptx

 15

A new view on corporate headquarters:

Value adding capabilities go beyond
traditional roles and capabilities

Provide strategic
direction
Capabilities of corporate headquarters

Exploit Manage Manage

synergies & complexity

1
Ensure portfolio
PURPOSE & IDENTITY execution economies
1 "Raison d'être" and unique
of scale
Purpose Provide
"DNA" of the company financing
Report &
corporate identity
activities Corporate

2
FUNDAMENTAL CAPABILITIES governance Work in
2 Focus is on resource allocation and
global
networks
compliance with legal requirements Strengthen

3
innovation

VALUE ADDING CAPABILITIES

3 Partner to the business to
enable high performance

Source: Roland Berger; see also "Corporate Headquarters 2010" Roland_Berger_Corporate_Headquarters_Short_version_20130502.pptx

 16

1 PURPOSE & IDENTITY

Corporate headquarters help shape corporate

identity by promoting a common culture and
shared values

Value created by corporate headquarters > Corporate headquarters

significantly contribute to
building an individual or
"Corporate headquarters must create value. collective sense of identity by
How does your corporate headquarters do this?"1) establishing artifacts of a
corporate culture based on a
… promotes a common company culture and commonly shared set of values
company values (fostering identity) 59% 29% 88%
> Main effects of a common
… provides expertise/best practices or coordinates corporate culture and shared
the pooling of expertise/best practices 51% 37% 88% values are typically
– Better identification with
… forms powerful units and initiates or manages the company
projects (e.g. corporate office, compliance, etc.) 31% 57% 88% – Common objectives
– Clear value proposition to
… offers internal services all employees
22% 55% 77% – Greater employee
retention
… manages and coordinates internal and – Greater mobility between
external service providers 18% 49% 67% entities

… fosters networked operations and provides > Although culture cannot be

infrastructure (promoting virtual teams, etc.) 14% 49% 63% shaped directly, several factors
can be influenced by HQ in
I fully agree I agree somewhat order to develop a favorable
culture, e.g. HR instruments,
1) Multiple answers leadership structure etc.
Source: Roland Berger; see also "Corporate Headquarters 2010" Roland_Berger_Corporate_Headquarters_Short_version_20130502.pptx
 17

2 FUNDAMENTAL CAPABILITIES

Fundamental capabilities are consistent across all

companies – HQ composition can differ
significantly by function

Fundamental capabilities and frequent functions > The fundamental capabilities of

an HQ reflect the basic tasks
the center needs to perform for
FUNDAMENTAL CAPABILITIES COMPOSITION OF HQs the group itself and on behalf
Top 10 functions by frequency of the business units

Manage portfolio: Diversification, divest- > Whereas all companies have a

Company management 100% dedicated centralized company
ments and optimization of existing portfolio management function, the
Human resources 95% other "classical" centralized
Provide financing: Financing at best possible Controlling 90% support functions are not
terms and risk management as key tasks necessarily located at the
Legal 86% center
Corporate governance: Best practice shapes > The allocation of support
Communications 81%
company's structures, systems and people functions to the HQ or to
Accounting 81% decentralized units reflects the
Report corporate activities: Main task to overall management model of
fulfill external requirements and to deliver Finance 81% the company and the role of
the center
meaningful management accounting IT 78%
Exploit synergies: Focus changed from Auditing 76%
transactions to end-to-end processes Purchasing and procurement 72%

Source: Roland Berger Roland_Berger_Corporate_Headquarters_Short_version_20130502.pptx

 18

3 VALUE ADDING CAPABILITIES

We have identified five value adding capabilities that

characterize outstanding headquarters

Outstanding value adding capabilities

CAPABILITIES BEST PRACTICE1)
PROVIDE 1. Set and communicate strategic priorities 2)
STRATEGIC 2. Provide resources to achieve clearly defined goals
DIRECTION

MANAGE 1. Balance centralized and decentralized interests 2)

COMPLEXITY (steering approach, degree of freedom, etc.)
2. Understand contradicting goals and help to solve resulting conflict
STRENGTHEN 1. Provide expert knowledge (e.g. on trends, tools, etc.) 2)
INNOVATION 2. Share best practices
3. Foster joint development of new (client) solutions
WORK IN 1. Support collaboration across functions and organizational units (e.g. 2)
GLOBAL infrastructure)
NETWORKS
2. Promote virtual teams/communities of practice/steering bodies
ENSURE 1. Drive change and foster implementation of global initiatives 2)
EXECUTION 2. Establish incentive/sanctioning mechanisms
3. Provide program management approach and tools

1) Based on Roland Berger expert survey 2) Detailed as best practice example in comprehensive version of study

Source: Roland Berger Roland_Berger_Corporate_Headquarters_Short_version_20130502.pptx

 19

3 VALUE ADDING CAPABILITIES

The "CHQ ACTION MAP" provides specific advice for building value
adding capabilities

VALUE ADDING ROLE STRUCTURE & SIZE SYSTEMS & PEOPLE

CAPABILITIES: PROCESSES TOOLS

PROVIDE Set role(s) of CHQ to match Define management concept Allocate/Balance resources Define KPIs and ambition Build competency
company strategy (business and corresponding CHQ to strategic priorities level and specific targets framework and career
STRATEGIC requirements) functions; define/prioritize (capacity/cost) framework that
DIRECTION business, management and reflects/support strategic
support processes in line with priorities and apply in HR
operating model processes and instruments

MANAGE Articulate mutual Follow stringent/consistent Balance spans & layers Eliminate conflicting Create transparency on
expectations (CHQ vs. organizational design prin- incentives (incentives existing capabilities in the
COMPLEXITY Business) ciples/criteria (first level seg- aligned to KPIs) – simplify organization and support/
mentation); establish holistic contribute to global
end-to-end process view succession management

STRENGTHEN Act as partner to the Define "opportunity seeking" Systematically allocate Establish knowledge sharing Foster centralized-
business to orchestrate process and moderate it; set resources to prioritized fields platforms/systems decentralized and cross-
INNOVATION innovation process up centers/communities of of innovation functional job rotation/
practice to integrate experts staffing

WORK IN Establish connections within Promote virtual teams/ Free up resources for Provide modern Identify talent and establish
and beyond the organization communities of practice/ sharing and working in (technological) infrastructure global talent pools;
GLOBAL steering bodies networks professionalize expatriate
NETWORKS management within HR
function

ENSURE Act as engagement Balance decision authority Allocate dedicated Install (centralized) program/ Empower managers to
manager to obtain (centralized vs. resources to implementation project management tools become "true leaders" and
EXECUTION commitments and ensure decentralized); apply management (monitor achievements) to take ownership; train
they are met sanctioning mechanisms in a project management skills
stringent way (corporate
governance, compliance)

Source: Roland Berger HR Management Roland_Berger_Corporate_Headquarters_Short_version_20130502.pptx

 20

We have the right set of methodologies to support analyses and

safeguard sustainable implementation (1/3)

STRUCTURE &
OVERALL ROLE PROCESSES

1 3 5 7
Organization audit Framework for CHQ roles proDacapo (ABC) Innovation management
approach

2 4 6 8
Corporate Center Health Check Templates for role descriptions RB Profiler for functions Process optimization toolbox
1 REDUCTION 2 REDESIGN 3 AUTOMATION

Relocation

1 3 4

Elimination 1 5 6 7

3 4
Initial process Integration Automation
1 2 5 6 7
1 4
3 4 1 3 4
Outsourcing 1 5 6 7
1 2 5 6 7 1 5 6 7
1 3 4

1 5 6 7
Synchronization

4
1
3
1 5 6 7

Source: Roland Berger Roland_Berger_Corporate_Headquarters_Short_version_20130502.pptx

 21

We have the right set of methodologies to support analyses and

safeguard sustainable implementation (2/3)

SIZE SYSTEMS

9 11 13 15
BigBen/orga benchmarks Sizing tool Business planning/cases RBpoint – Implementation
management
2014 Sales target sizing

Role Properties 2014 Proposal

Total cost per
Tier Reports to Layer Band Level Sales Group 1 Sales Group 2 Sales Group 3 Sales Group 4 Europe Total Quantity role, USD
Field Sales
Group Sales Director 2 VP Sales Europe 5 V European 0 0 0 0 4 4 1,039,675.1
Sales Specialist Director 2 VP Sales Europe 5 V European 0 0 0 0 0 0 No role/quantity
Sales Manager 3 Group Sales Director 6 IV In-country 6 4 7 5 0 22 3,266,757.5
Sales Representative 4 Sales Manager 7 III In-country 51 26 64 38 0 179 14,929,359.3
Sales Specialist 4 Sales Specialist Director 7 III In-country 8 5 9 7 8 37 3,831,044.8
Total 242 23,066,836.6
Direct Sales
Direct Sales Director 2 VP Sales Europe 5 V European 0 0 0 0 1 1 259,918.8
Direct Sales Manager 3 Direct Sales Director 6 IV Hub/Satellite 1 1 1 0 0 3 467,082.9
Direct Sales Representative 4 Direct Sales Manager 7 III Hub/Satellite 8 6 12 7 0 33 1,852,083.3
Resellers 4 Direct Sales Director 7 III Hub/Satellite 1 1 1 1 0 4 420,185.0
Total 41 2,999,270.0
Export Group
Export manager Select Tier Select Position Select LayerS elect BandSelect Level 0 0 0 1 0 1 108,808.8
Export account manager Select Tier Select Position Select LayerS elect BandSelect Level 1 0 2 1 0 4 303,254.5
Total 0 5 412,063.3
Industry Team
Industry Segment Director 0
Pharma/Bio 2 VP Sales Europe 5 V European 0 0 0 0 1 1 259,918.8
Industrial 2 VP Sales Europe 5 V European 0 0 0 0 1 1 259,918.8
Academic 2 VP Sales Europe 5 V European 0 0 0 0 1 1 259,918.8
IDIR 0
Pharma/Bio 3 Industry Segment Director 6 IV European 1 0 1 2 2 6 844,115.5
Industrial 3 Industry Segment Director 6 IV European 0 0 0 0 6 6 831,194.9
Academic 3 Industry Segment Director 6 IV Hub/Satellite 2 1 2 2 1 8 1,172,665.9
Business Developer 3 Industry Segment Director 7 IV European 0 0 0 0 2 2 277,065.0
Total 25 3,904,797.6

10 12 14 16
SG&A database Spans & layers Functional task analysis proDacapo (BSC)
benchmarking/test

Source: Roland Berger Roland_Berger_Corporate_Headquarters_Short_version_20130502.pptx

 22

We have the right set of methodologies to support analyses and

safeguard sustainable implementation (3/3)

PEOPLE

17 19
HR Excellence HR health check/Talent
management audit
HR STRATEGY
1 > Fit between business and HR strategy
> Strategic framework
> Strategic tools
STRUCTURE 1
> Governance model
2 > Organization
> Roles & responsibilities
> Process Management and policies 5 Questionnaire 2excerpt "Competency model"
SYSTEMS
Questionnaire excerpt "Talent assessment"
3 > Integrated tools and systems
> Data architecture
> Web 2.0 applications Questionnaire excerpt "Level of standardization"
COST, SIZE AND CAPABILITIES TM issue C entralization Scoring Decentralization

4 > Cost according to benchmarks

HR targets from global HR targets from local needs
HR business plan
> Size of HR function Plann in g
> Capabilities & competencies 4 3 Homogenous target groups Heterogeneous target
groups
EXCELLENCE IN EXECUTION Standardized planning (Region) specific
framework adaptations
5 > HR Business Partner role
> Adherence to external targets Annual process Process on a demand/
needs basis
> Reflection of internal targets
Global recruiting (CoE, Local recruiting (HR
Target Actual So urcin g Shared Service) representatives)

Global employer marketing Local recruiting initiatives

approach

Global staffing Local staffing

Assig-
nment
Integration with annual Individual process (per
performance process employee/demand)

Standardized evaluation
Evalu- frameworks

18 20
atio n

Change management toolbox Transfer matrix For further information on

Ready–Willing–Able:
Pour cha cune des affirma tions suivante s, quel est votre degré d’a pprobation?
Tout à fait
Cultural Audit:
Pas du tout
Roland Berger tools &
methodologies don't hesitate
d'accord d'accord

1. Le personnel a une vision claire des objectifs et de la transformation nécessaire 5 4 3 2 1

2. Je supporterai personnellement le changement
3. Dispose des approches, méthodes et outils nécessaires La direction a les incitants appropriés pour encourager 5 4 3 2 1
au changement 5 4 3 2 1
4. Le personnel administratif et de support a une vision claire des objectifs 5 4 3 2 1
5. Le personnel est prêt à revoir son rôle et ses responsabilités 5 4 3 2 1
6. La direction veut lancer un vrai programme de changement
7. Des pressions externes poussent à changer 5 4 3 2 1
8. La direction a l’expérience et les compétences pour réussir le changement et y participer 5 4 3 2 1
9. Le personnel a une vision claire des objectifs, des priorités et de la transformation nécessaire 5 4 3 2 1
10. Le personnel administratif et de support est prêt à initier le changement et y participer 5 4 3 2 1
11. La direction est prête à revoir son rôle et ses responsabilités 5 4 3 2 1

to contact the authors of the

12. Je sais en quoi la société doit se transformer
13. Des pressions internes poussent la société à changer 5 4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2 1

KULTURAUDIT
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

UNTERNEMENS- ... ...

ZIELE
... ...

study.
PERFORMANCE ... ...
MANAGEMENT
... ...

ORGANISATION ... ...

... ...

Temperature Check
... ...

FUNKTIONEN & ... ...

PROZESSE
... ...

... ...

... ...

Zielkultur AUnternehmen A B
Unternehmen B

Source: Roland Berger Roland_Berger_Corporate_Headquarters_Short_version_20130502.pptx

 23

Comparing apples with apples – Our overhead benchmarking

approach is based on five key success factors

Overhead benchmarking approach

1 Quality of data
Base analysis of consistent and accurate database

2 Clear scoping
Define homogenous benchmarking units

3 Focus
Concentrate on few significant parameters (2-3 max.)

4 Meaningful panel
Select benchmarking partners carefully (industry, across industries)

5 Step further
Use benchmark as starting point to ask the right questions

Source: Roland Berger Roland_Berger_Corporate_Headquarters_Short_version_20130502.pptx

 24

For each specific benchmark analysis, we refer to

our database of more than 350 companies

Data origin and customization > More than 350 companies

across all industries based on
projects and studies

> Customization by cluster

– Size (headcount)
– Industry
– Management concept

> Benchmarking of individual

functions
– Distribution by corporate
Roland Berger center and shared services
– Consideration of the degree
benchmark of centralization
– Consideration of the degree
database of outsourcing
– Addition of a "detailed view"
at the level of subfunctions

Source: Roland Berger Roland_Berger_Corporate_Headquarters_Short_version_20130502.pptx

 25

Benchmarking against a carefully selected panel

and further discussion to estimate top-down
potential

Sample company benchmark METHOD

> Function specific benchmark-
ing based on full time
Median1) equivalents (FTE)

1st quartile1) > Fine-tuning of the panel

selection as essential key for
Company X appropriate benchmarking
values

Function
Organizat. Dev./Consulting

Occupat. Safety/Env. Prot.

Strategic Plan./Corp. Dev.
Company Management

RESULT
Mergers & Acquisitions

Human Resources
> Rough estimate of top-down
Investor Relations
Communications

potential
Accounting
Controlling

> Focus functions define

Insurance
Auditing

Finance

starting point for further

Taxes
Legal

analysis

Category Strategic/corporate functions Finance functions HR & supp.

1) FTE adjusted to total employees "Company X" Focus for further analysis
Source: Roland Berger Roland_Berger_Corporate_Headquarters_Short_version_20130502.pptx
 26

Report of the Corporate Headquarters Study 2012

Authors

Dr. Tim Zimmermann

Partner CONTACT
Roland Berger Strategy Consultants
Dr. Tim Zimmermann, Senior Partner
Fabian Huhle Roland Berger Strategy Consultants GmbH
Mies-van-der-Rohe-Str. 6, D-80807 München, Germany
Principal Phone +49 89 9230-8362, E-Mail:
tim.zimmermann@rolandberger.com

Roland Berger Strategy Consultants

Please cite the report as follows:
Zimmermann, T; Huhle, F. 2013: Corporate Headquarters
Study 2012 – Developing value adding capabilities to
overcome the parenting advantage paradox
Fabian Huhle, Principal
Roland Berger Strategy Consultants GmbH
Mies-van-der-Rohe-Str. 6, D-80807 München, Germany
Phone +49 89 9230-8486, E-Mail:
fabian.huhle@rolandberger.com

Roland_Berger_Corporate_Headquarters_Short_version_20130502.pptx
Roland_Berger_Corporate_Headquarters_Short_version_20130502.pptx 27