This report focuses on Michelin’s fleet solutions (MFS) activity and the way the company has dealt with the transition from product provider to service provider so far. It sums up some major strategic and business-environmental reasons for making services a core business, even though the results have not been as convincing as expected. It identifies the key elements of the company’s business model that should be strengthened and innovated upon for Michelin to build its service activity as a successful complement to tyre sales. Finally it details the impact of the suggestions on the cost structure and revenues streams, and the challenges associated with the proposed innovation.

1. FRONTERE Noémie
Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry
28/06/2013
Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry
June 2013
1

2. FRONTERE Noémie
Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry
28/06/2013
Michelin: Business Model Innovation
Executive summary: This report focuses on Michelin’s fleet solutions (MFS) activity and the way the
company has dealt with the transition from product provider to service provider so far. It sums up some
major strategic and business-environmental reasons for making services a core business, even though the
results have not been as convincing as expected. It identifies the key elements of the company’s business
model that should be strengthened and innovated upon for Michelin to build its service activity as a
successful complement to tyre sales. Finally it details the impact of the suggestions on the cost structure
and revenues streams, and the challenges associated with the proposed innovation.
Contents:
Introduction: MFS and its strategic importance ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Part 1: Analysis of the Business Model components to strengthen ...................................................................................................... 4
1.
Redefining the value proposition ............................................................................................................................................. 4
1.1.
1.2.
2.
Service at the core of the value proposition .................................................................................................................. 5
How to define the right price and the impact on the revenue structure ..................................................................... 5
How to manage resources in line with the new value proposition ........................................................................................ 6
2.1.
2.2.
3.
Managing human resources: the culture shift............................................................................................................... 6
The need for a separate MFS business unit ................................................................................................................... 7
New activities to conduct in line with the new value proposition.......................................................................................... 8
3.1.
Innovating marketing and customer relationship ......................................................................................................... 8
3.2.
International management of R&D and innovation ...................................................................................................... 8
3.3.
The need to decentralise the new MFS business unit ................................................................................................... 9
4.
Managing the key partners: integrating the distribution network ....................................................................................... 10
5.
Summary: Suggested innovations represented on the Business Model Canvas © ............................................................. 11
Part 2: Evaluation of the financial and strategic impacts of BM innovation ....................................................................................... 12
1.
Financial value of the business model innovations for Michelin .......................................................................................... 12
1.1.
1.2.
Impact on the cost structure ........................................................................................................................................ 12
1.3.
2.
Impact on the revenue structure ................................................................................................................................. 12
MFS valuation after innovations .................................................................................................................................. 13
Strategic advantages of the new business model ................................................................................................................. 14
Conclusion and challenges of the new approach ................................................................................................................................. 15
References .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 16
2

3. FRONTERE Noémie
Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry
28/06/2013
Introduction: MFS and its strategic importance
Over the past decade, Michelin, a traditional tyre manufacturer, has been experimenting with a radically
new service and customer-centric approach to maintain its leadership. Michelin Fleet Services (MFS),
also nicknamed the TK business model (Ton-Kilometre), first started in 2001. The concept is innovative:
tyres are not sold but rented to large companies; Michelin takes care of the maintenance of the fleet and
reduces the oil consumption and CO2 footprint by choosing the right products for the customer.
Michelin’s first step towards a different approach was taken in 2001 with TK services targeted at the
trucking industry. The modern version of MFS (post 2011) is targeted at all fleets large enough to require
a significant maintenance effort (trucks, buses, construction/mining equipment etc.). However this
model has for the present failed in providing Michelin with a strong secondary source of revenues: the
customer basis is lower than expected and profitability is disappointing (see Figure 1).
Three strong arguments are generally given by the literature in favour of the transition from products to
services:
1) There is statistical evidence that services provide a profitable and a more stable source of
revenues (Quinn, 1992)
2) Across a wide range of industries customers are outsourcing more activities to concentrate on
their core business, therefore generating opportunities to be seized (Lojo, 1997)
3

4. FRONTERE Noémie
Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry
28/06/2013
3) From a strategic point of view services are a source of enduring competitive advantage, because
they necessitate a complex internal organisation and a special business model than competitors
will find difficult to replicate (Heskett et al., 1997)
In addition to these considerations, it seems that Michelin’s functional economic approach is a perfect
solution given the evolution of the industry’s external environment: environmental norms play an
increasing role in recycling policies (rubber) and push Michelin’s large clients to control their CO2
emissions more tightly: this is easier to do with the new MFS services. Other benefits of MFS for Michelin
will be detailed and quantified in part B of the report.
However the case highlights the difficulty of the transition from providing goods to providing services:
the business model has to be significantly modified to allow such a change in strategy. This paper thus
focuses on some of the major elements of Michelin’s business model that should be strengthened (in
addition to what has already been done) to allow the company to take advantage of this new source of
revenues.
Part 1: Analysis of the Business Model components to strengthen
If Michelin is the first player in the tyre industry to attempt a move towards services, it is not the first
company to be confronted to challenges in designing the right business model for its new service
activities.
The following paragraph draws on existing literature and examples from different industries (particularly
automobile, equipment manufacturers and technology) to provide Michelin with suggestions to improve
its existing MFS business model and make services a core of its business. It first highlights the
clarification in the value proposition that Michelin should undertake and subsequently the different parts
of the business model that should be innovated upon.
1. Redefining the value proposition
Michelin has been confronted to serious difficulties in designing and defining its new value proposition
(Lehrangebot 2011). Currently, in internal and external communication, the company still positions itself
as a tyre manufacturer which emphasizes on high-tech and quality products supported by intensive R&D
(see ‘Mission’ section in Annual Report 2012).
Figure 1 highlights the gap between the current size of MFS’s customer basis and the company’s 2005
expectations. It proves that clients are not fully convinced of the interest of the new service offer. The
intangibility of services, compared to products, makes it difficult for them to estimate the value of MFS
(Lehrangebot 2011). Therefore a new – and clear – definition of Michelin’s value proposition is required.
4

5. FRONTERE Noémie
1.1.
Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry
28/06/2013
Service at the core of the value proposition
First, Michelin’s innovative value proposition should position the product as part of the offering only, as
opposed to being in the centre. The value proposition would therefore involve more customization: as
opposed to tyre sales which are largely standardized (and quickly becoming commoditized, according to
Young 2008) a higher mix of services tends to require higher levels of customization (Brown 2012). For
instance most maintenance and service providers establish service modules to deliver unique solutions
to customers (Gillai and Yu 2013).
Second, if Michelin is responsible for maintenance of fleets there will be an incentive to develop
products with longer lifespans: in terms of R&D the new activity will presumably reinforce the premium
segment which will also have an impact on product offering. Selling premium tyres has always been a
priority for Michelin: in the early 2000s the company transferred all non-premium product lines to
affiliated brands (BFGoodrich, Kleber) and kept only the highest quality lines under the Michelin brand
which represented 83% of sales in 2012 (Annual Report 2012). The premium segment is the most
profitable and fastest growing in the global market, in line with tougher environmental norms (see Figure
2). As the company becomes involved in MFS services it should focus even more on product lines that
offer longer lifespans, better security and save energy (thus oil and CO2).
1.2.
How to define the right price and the impact on the revenue structure
In the case of MFS prices are negotiated per kilometre on a contract-per-contract basis. While prices
were raised in 2011 because many fleets under the fleet solution contract were believed to be
unprofitable, on the contrary many customers considered the price of the service was too high
(Lehrangebot 2011). Therefore Michelin has to work on its pricing system to convince more customers to
completely outsource their tyre maintenance while making services an economically viable activity in the
medium term.
5

6. FRONTERE Noémie
Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry
28/06/2013
Oliva and Kallenberg (2003), who have analysed the transition from products to services of a large
sample of machine manufacturers1, underline an important factor that explains many product-to-service
transition failures: companies have to make sure prices of services are established, even at the very
beginning, ‘on the basis of equipment availability, and not based on the provider’s cost of monitoring
the equipment, and performing scheduled maintenance and emergency repairs’. The customer has to be
able to evaluate straight away the value created for him by the new service offering. This will allow a
larger customer base and therefore a great database: more experience and information on maintenance
costs for the company. Once enough data has been collected prices can be raised for certain customer
segments because the company will have new evidence to convince them that outsourcing maintenance
is profitable for them. Short term profitability has to be sacrificed for the sake of medium and long-term
success.
In the case of Michelin, prices have been raised early on because of fears that the activity was
unprofitable (Lehrangebot 2011). There is no reason why Michelin’s services activity should not be
economically viable in the long term. As a tyre manufacturer the company possesses many advantages
over traditional maintenance companies: lower customer acquisition costs, lower knowledge acquisition
costs and lower capital requirements. However over-pricing contracts today for the sake of short-term
profitability is not the best alternative. Michelin has to assess properly tyres wear rates in different
environments and usage conditions before defining an optimal pricing system. This assessment requires
not only time and a large customer base but also new skills and activities, particularly information
gathering and data processing, which are still underdeveloped as we will see later on.
2. How to manage resources in line with the new value proposition
2.1.
Managing human resources: the culture shift
Michelin is traditionally a very product-centric organisation, which translates in its external and internal
communication. The most recent internal newsletter (April 2012) and the company’s 2012 Annual Report
highlights new product development as a key to future success, but services are only mentioned twice in
the annual report (no mention of MFS).
In an interview given to CEO Forum (2011) Alan Hyde, MD of NEC Australia and New Zealand, explains
how services have come to play a significant role in NEC’s current strategy and the importance of
resources management in an effective transition. If services are to have a place in future strategy
employees and managers have to be convinced that those services are more than add-ons designed to
showcase the product. For instance they should not be given out for free to facilitate a sale. Hyde further
emphasizes the need for employees in the service sector to be empowered, to ‘quickly anticipate and
respond to the needs of customers’ with whom they will work in close contact.
1
The machine manufacturing industry is similar to the tyre industry in many aspects, especially its maturity (slow market
growth, slower technological innovation and commoditization)
6

7. FRONTERE Noémie
Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry
28/06/2013
This new attitude has to be translated directly in Michelin’s general HR management – not only in the
MFS branch – to promote the concept of services. Concerning MFS specifically, due to the complexity of
the new services, special competencies have to be developed through new recruitment policies and staff
dedicated to MFS need to be more entrepreneurial and ‘pro-active in engaging with customers’ at every
level (i.e. not only employees working in sales or directly in the client’s premises). The need for a
different corporate culture calls for a business unit specially dedicated to MFS.
2.2.
The need for a separate MFS business unit
MFS possesses presently dedicated resources (sales force and marketing) but is not an independent unit.
Lehrangebot (2011) underlines the impact of conflicting interests on the ‘failure’ of MFS. Competition
between the traditional tyre sales department and the new MFS dedicated sales force has been
detrimental to the MFS activity. It is not surprising that the product sales force has more influence inside
the organisation (96% of Michelin’s revenues in 2012) and the power to shape other activities (R&D) to
achieve the highest sales of new tyres possible. Meanwhile, the objective of MFS is to increase the
lifespan of those tyres.
According to Oliva and Kallenberg (2003), a success factor at this stage is to create a new business unit
totally dedicated to the service offer. This unit should be run as a profit centre, with not only its own
sales force but IT, HR, R&D etc. This requires duplicating some resources but will empower the new unit
which will have higher chances to thrive and eventually become a second pillar of the organisation. As
well as new resources, Michelin also needs new performance indicators to monitor service activities and
incentives (pay schemes used to interlink departments) in order to reduce sabotage of the service
activities by the product teams.
Making MFS a new profit centre will also involve reconfiguration of systems, for instance the information
system. The increased amount of invoices sent to the central server by MFS (over one third of Michelin’s
total volume of invoices2, Young 2008) should be handled directly by a team inside the MFS business
unit. This will allow better data processing and make the pricing system progressively more efficient
thanks to a deeper understanding of the specific maintenance required for different types of customers.
Finally it is interesting to note that the idea of making MFS a stand-alone subsidiary had been discussed
internally as early has 2006 but dismissed by product division managers on the basis that the two
separate Michelin offers could blur the company’s image in the eyes of its customers: Michelin would
not be identified clearly as a tyre company any longer (Young 2008). This argument reveals the productcentricity and the need for an internal culture shift that have already been discussed. It is obvious that
top management should be involved in the transition and support MFS if they believe in the concept of
services and not only product.
2
Each work on a tyre by a service provider generates a new invoice (Young 2008)
7

8. FRONTERE Noémie
Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry
28/06/2013
3. New activities to conduct in line with the new value proposition
3.1.
Innovating marketing and customer relationship
As discussed previously the economic performance of the company depends on the ability to get access
to data concerning tyres wear rates and usage by customers. There is a need to understand in details
how the customer uses the product and what his needs and business model are. Information gathering
requires stronger customer relationships therefore specific external marketing efforts and time. Business
development today is carried on by Michelin managers from the product divisions based on their existing
contacts (Lehrangebot 2011). However selling a ‘solution’ requires the company to develop new contacts
inside potential customer’s organisation and to talk to more senior executives.
MFS’s marketing and business development teams should thus have a different profile. The company’s
marketing program itself has to be re-designed to ‘reposition the company’s brand in the mind of current
and potential customers’ (Oliva and Kallenberg 2003). Michelin should not be pictured solely as a tyre
manufacturer.
3.2.
International management of R&D and innovation
In terms of innovation, it would be interesting for Michelin to draw on the example of NEC. NEC operates
in a different industry more exposed to technological change (see Figure 3) however it has been
confronted to similar problems as Michelin when changing its value proposition.
8,2%
7,6%
7,7%
NEC
5,7%
3,0%
2008
3,4%
2009
3,0%
2010
Michelin
5,3%
2,9%
2011
2,9%
2012
According to MD Alan Hyde, organisations willing to succeed in the transition have to change their
approach to innovation and R&D (CEO Forum 2011). Unlike innovation in a product centred organisation
which is focused on technical R&D, innovation in services is interlinked with the organisation’s internal
processes and structure, in accordance with customer needs. For Hyde, process innovation plays a major
role and involves IT systems, logistics and Human Resources. Innovation is therefore ‘more internal in
scope’. It is also more international and requires flexible innovation management structures.
8

9. FRONTERE Noémie
3.3.
Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry
28/06/2013
The need to decentralise the new MFS business unit
The two activities described above emphasis the need for local responsiveness, flexibility, adaptability,
entrepreneurship in the marketing, innovation and maybe even pricing of fleet services.
Furthermore most of MFS’s potential customers are regional or local. For instance, in Europe MFS’s key
accounts are five major road transporters (Schenker, DHL, TNT, Geodis, Norbert Dentressangle), with
strong regional operational integration. However, 80% of transportation companies operate the local
level (Lehrangebot 2011). In China or India domestic and local players also play a major role in road
transportation (Euromonitor 2010). Most bus companies also operate at the local or national level: many
MFS clients are local transportation companies like TFL (London Buses). Diversity of infrastructure
conditions and specific regulations are additional pressures for the local adaptation of fleet solutions.
Decentralisation of decisions and localisation of MFS services are bound to happen if teams work in close
contact with clients and front-office activities become more important than back-office ones (Lasserre
2012). However the existing organisational structure of Michelin is centralized and functional: each
product division has its own marketing, development, production and sales forces (Annual Report 2012).
All product managers regularly report to the French HQ (Lasserre 2012). If the MFS business unit is to be
separated as suggested above this structure cannot be replicated. The new unit could be divided
according to geographic areas or follow a customer portfolio approach.
9

10. FRONTERE Noémie
Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry
28/06/2013
In any case the organisation should be given local autonomy. The best structure is probably transnational
(see Figure 4). In the new decentralised organisation IT back-office functions and data processing could
be outsourced to avoid trouble and costs (for instance in India).
4. Managing the key partners: integrating the distribution network
The creation of a global services network will also involve a close coordination of third-party service
providers: Michelin’s current distributors and maintenance contractors. The question of the
management of those key partners is a principle agent problem. Michelin’s reputation is at stake if the
quality of services rendered by the different partners is lower than expected.
Monitoring dealerships can determine the success or failure of service activities. For instance, when Ford
attempted in the 1990s to enter post-sales services, it failed because of the structure of its network of
independent dealers (Economist 2001). Indeed, creating the right service network able to respond locally
to customer’s needs is difficult, especially across wide geographic areas.
As for Ford, creating a global service infrastructure is a challenge for Michelin due to the current
situation of its fragmented dealership agreements. For instance, in Australia alone, more than 300
independent dealers sell Michelin tyres and provide end-users with MFS and traditional maintenance
(Michelin Australia release 2012).
10

11. FRONTERE Noémie
Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry
28/06/2013
Michelin should try and integrate further its largest networks of dealerships (Figure 5), both for quality
standards, reputation and information gathering purposes. This would also benefit its tyre sales
activities. Standard IT systems should be provided to dealers in order to gather data that will be
necessary to control maintenance costs and adapt service offers. To be able to work with the
independent dealers the company should develop adapted KPI reporting and new accreditation
programs. In Australia for instance, the only accreditation available to dealers today is the traditional
OH&S program (Michelin Australia release 2012) which is not specific to MFS. In exchange for closer
monitoring the company provides the small dealers with improved and stable revenue streams from
maintenance.
Finally the degree to which third-parties can customize services has to be clear: given that large
customers operate regionally some services have to be transferable between geographic areas.
5. Summary: Suggested innovations represented on the Business Model Canvas ©
11

12. FRONTERE Noémie
Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry
28/06/2013
Part 2: Evaluation of the financial and strategic impacts of BM innovation
1. Financial value of the business model innovations for Michelin
1.1.
Impact on the revenue structure
Based on Figure 6, business model innovations will have two different impacts on the revenue stream:
direct (MFS sales), and indirect (better understanding of customer needs).
The following figure presents a ten year forecast of MFS fleet and revenues. Revenues per vehicle have
voluntarily been set to 2008 levels, not including the recent price increase.
The indirect benefits – for the product divisions - stem from:
-
Deeper understanding of the needs and profile of customers of replacement tyres;
Closer integration and monitoring of the network of dealers.
They are difficult to monetize but could guide R&D efforts of the whole company.
1.2.
Impact on the cost structure
Given duplication of certain organisational functions and the forecasted increased revenues generated
by MFS the number of employees and associated cost is given in the table below.
12

13. FRONTERE Noémie
Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry
28/06/2013
Integrating the distributor and maintenance networks through new IT and data gathering services will
also affect operational expenses, especially in the short term, however there will be synergies with
existing structures. As suggested previously certain IT services could be outsourced to lower cost
countries.
1.3.
MFS valuation after innovations
Projected cash flow and NPV of MFS independent unit
in € million
*initial data
2012* 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Operational parameters
Revenue (€/vehicle)
933
Increase in revenue/vehicle
Vehicles under contract (K)
345
Fleet growth rate
980
5%
397
15%
1029
5%
456
15%
1080
5%
525
15%
1134
5%
603
15%
1191
5%
694
15%
1251
5%
798
15%
1313
5%
918
15%
1379
5%
1055
15%
1448
5%
1214
15%
1520
5%
1396
15%
1596
5%
1605
15%
Revenues
322
389
469
567
685
827
998 1205 1455 1757 2122 2562
OPEX
866 1022 1212 1434 1712 2042
290
408
493
539
616
732
Operating margin
Op. margin variation
EBITDA
tax rate
10%
-5%
-5%
5%
10%
32
33%
-19
33%
-23
33%
28
33%
68
33%
12%
15%
95
33%
13%
15%
132
33%
15%
15%
183
33%
17%
10%
243
33%
18%
10%
323
33%
19%
5%
410
33%
20%
5%
520
33%
CF
22
-19
-23
19
46
64
88
123
163
217
275
348
Discount rate (inflation deducted)
NPV (€ million)
10%
557
13

14. FRONTERE Noémie
Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry
28/06/2013
The table above presents a rough ten year valuation of the MFS business unit, which is estimated around
500 million euros. This is non-negligible for a company which itself is valued 6.5 billion euros (market
capitalisation 2013).
2. Strategic advantages of the new business model
Along with the advantages already listed, by strengthening the position of MFS inside Michelin, the
business model innovations will have the following effects:
-
-
At the corporate level, balancing two activities with different risks profiles and revenue dynamics
(revenues from punctual tyres sales vs. regular monthly revenues from three to six years MFS
contracts) while enjoying operational synergies,
Integrating – and thus better controlling – the value chain by engaging more closely with
distributors and performing after-sales services (maintenance),
Reducing the overall sensitivity to the price of raw materials and especially rubber,
Establishing a lasting competitive advantage over other international players through an
innovative business structure and new capabilities difficult to replicate.
14

15. FRONTERE Noémie
Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry
28/06/2013
Conclusion and challenges of the new approach
The following table sums up the business model components that should be
operational challenges3 the new approach involves.
Business model
Current
Suggested
Expected
component
management
management
positive impact
Product performance Service at the core
Larger MFS
Value
of the offer
revenues with no
proposition and at the core of the
value proposition
negative impact on
customer
Customization of
the revenues from
relationship
Standardization of
services
Key activities
(1) marketing
MFS priced
according to
product availability
(customer centric)
‘Culture shift’: need
for entrepreneurial
and pro-active
attitude
Better customer
relationship,
flexibility and
adaptability
Need to recruit new
profiles
Little contact with
customer apart from
sales force
MFS managed as a
product division
inside a centralized
corporate structure
More contact with
customer at all
levels
MFS managed as an
independent profit
centre
Better MFS
performance and
development
Internal
acceptability
MFS marketing team
supports product
marketing teams
Marketing to
reposition the
company as a
service provider
Management of HR
‘product-centric’
Service as an add-on
Key activities
(2) R&D and
innovation
Key partners
(distributors)
Internal
acceptability (by
product divisions)
product sales
Supervision at home
Key resources
(2) structure
Operational
Challenges
services
MFS priced according
to Michelin costs
Key resources
(1) HR
strengthened and the
Approach to
innovation is
technical = product
R&D
Fragmented
dealership
agreements (low
monitoring)
Closer customer
relationship
Product R&D and
service and process
innovation
Integrated network
of dealers (through
accreditation
programs and
improved reporting
systems)
Information
gathering
Management of the
interface between
MFS and other units
Internal fear that
Michelin’s image
could be ‘blurred’
Understanding of
customer needs
Flexibility and
innovation
required by new
service approach
Data gathering (for
MFS and
Michelin’s other
purposes)
Quality of service
Acquisition of the
required capabilities
(internal innovation
management etc)
Dilution of some of
Michelin’s
operational ratios
Time needed to
diffuse knowledge
and good practices
3
Because the biggest challenge is ability to accept innovation, it is worth noting with Young (2008) that Michelin is famous in
the industry for continuously questioning its economic model and developing new approaches to the traditional tyre business.
15

16. FRONTERE Noémie
Business Model Innovation in the tyre industry
28/06/2013
References
Brown, S. 2012 “Moving from Products to Services: The Six Big Challenges”, 16 February, W.P. Carey
School of Business Marketing Review
CEO Forum 2011, “From products to services: Interview with Alan Hyde, Managing Director of NEC
Australia and New Zealand”, viewed 20 June 2013, < http://www.ceoforum.com.au/articledetail.cfm?partner=rss&cid=12405&t=/Alan-Hyde/From-products-to-services>
Economist 2001, “The shake-up at Ford”, 1 November, viewed 25 June 2013,
<http://www.economist.com/node/842705>
Euromonitor 2010, “Regional Focus: Investments in transport infrastructures expected to grow in Asia
Pacific”, 6 July, Viewed 20 June 2013
Gillai, B. and Yu, T. 2013 “B2B Managed Services: Business Value and Adoption Trends”, Stanford Global
Supply Chain Management forum, March
Heskett, J. Sasser, W. and Schlesinger, L.1997, The Service Profit Chain, Free Press, New York, NY
Lehrangebot, 2011, “Michelin Fleet solutions, a new sales strategy”, viewed 5 June 2013
<http://www.slideserve.com/mercedes/michelin-fleet-solutions-a-new-sales-strategy>
Lasserre, P. 2012, Global Strategic Management (Third Ed), Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire
Lojo, M. 1997, “Contracting of high-technology industrial services”, Sloan School of Management
Cambridge, MA
Michelin Australia release, 2012, “New structure for Michelin Fleet Solutions”, viewed 20 June 2013
<http://transport.michelin.com.au/Home/News-Promotions/News/TB-News/node_1746>
Michelin, 2012, Annual Report, released January 2013, Paris, viewed 20 June 2013,
<http://www.michelin.com/corporate/finance/documents>
Michelin, 2013, “Newsletter Avril 2013: Produits et Innovations”, released 10 April, Paris
Oliva R. and Kallenberg, R. 2003, “Managing the transition from products to services”, International
Journal of Service Industry Management, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 160-172
Quinn, J. 1992, Intelligent Enterprise, Free Press, New York, NY
Young, L. 2008, From Products to Services: insight and experience from companies which have embraced
the service economy, John Wiley & Sons, London
16