Appendix 1 – Product Y Overview
Appendix 2 – External Questionnaire and the Results
Naam respondent: ...
Functie respondent: ...
Bedrijf: ...
1) Hoeveel werknemers (uitgedrukt in FTE’s) heeft uw onderneming ongeveer?
o 1-10 o 11-25 o 26-50 o 50-100
o > 100 namelijk ...
2) Hoeveel PC’s zijn er ongeveer aangesloten op uw computer netwerk?
o 1-10 o 11-25 o 26-50 o 50-100
o > 100 namelijk ...
3) Wat was ongeveer uw totale jaaromzet in de afgelopen 3 jaar?
2004: €...
2003: €...
2002: €...
4) Hoe kan uw bedrijf gekarakteriseerd worden?
o Wetenschappelijke uitgever
o Educatieve uitgever
o Uitgever van vakbladen
o Uitgever van publiekstijdschriften
o Literaire uitgever
o Anders, namelijk ...
5) Opereert uw bedrijf landelijk of internationaal?
o Landelijk (Ga verder naar vraag 8)
o Internationaal
6) In welke regio’s bent u actief? (meerdere antwoorden mogelijk)
o Nederland o België o Scandinavië
o Britse eilanden
o Overige West-Europese landen
o Oost-Europa
o Noord-Amerika
o Anders, namelijk: ...
7) Welk percentage van uw omzet is behaald door activiteiten binnen de Benelux in het afgelopen jaar?
... %
8) Welk percentage van uw jaarlijkse omzet wordt er begroot voor IT investeringen?
... %
In vraag 8 wordt er gevraagd naar de tevredenheid over uw huidige Product Y situatie. De volgende schaal zal hierbij gelden, waarbij u het betreffende cijfer dient te omcirkelen.:
1 2 3 4 5
9) Zou u voor elke onderstaande functie aan willen geven welke Product Y leverancier u heeft, in welk jaar de Product Y is geïmplementeerd en omcirkelen in welke mate u tevreden (in het algemeen) bent met de Product Y voor deze functie. Indien u gebruik maakt van intern ontwikkelde Product Y wordt u verzocht dit aan te geven door de term ‘intern’ in te vullen in het vak van de leverancier.
Functie Leverancier Jaar van
Implementatie
Tevredenheid
Customer Relationship
Management 1 2 3 4 5
Planning
1 2 3 4 5 Productie
1 2 3 4 5 Promotie/Marketing
1 2 3 4 5 Verkoop
1 2 3 4 5 Distributie
1 2 3 4 5 Rechtenacquisitie
1 2 3 4 5 Royalty Management
1 2 3 4 5 Advertentie
Management 1 2 3 4 5
Anders, namelijk:
1 2 3 4 5 Heel
Tevreden Tevreden
Neutraal Ontevreden
Heel Ontevreden
10) Wanneer u al de bovenstaande functies samen neemt, in welke mate bent u tevreden met uw algehele huidige Product Y situatie?
o Heel ontevreden
o Ontevreden
o Neutraal o Tevreden o Heel tevreden
__________________________________________________________________________________________
In de vragen 11 t/m 13 zullen het belang van bepaalde eigenschappen van de Product Y zelf, de leverancier, het implementatie project en de achterliggende redenen voor de keuze om tot implementatie over te gaan gemeten worden. De volgende schaal zal hierbij gelden
1 2 3 4 5
11) Zou u aan willen geven hoe belangrijk u de volgende eigenschappen van de Product Y zelf vindt, bij een eventuele keuze voor een nieuw Product Y pakket:
Eigenschap Mate van belang
Betrouwbaarheid
1 2 3 4 5 Bruikbaarheid
1 2 3 4 5 Veiligheid
1 2 3 4 5 Prestatie
1 2 3 4 5 Onderhoudbaarheid
1 2 3 4 5 Gebruiksvriendelijkheid
1 2 3 4 5
‘Fit’ met bedrijfs strategie
1 2 3 4 5 After sales support
1 2 3 4 5 Homogeniteit van Product Y systeem
(m.a.w. één leverancier i.p.v. meerdere) 1 2 3 4 5 Compatibility met het huidige systeem
1 2 3 4 5 Anders, namelijk:
1 2 3 4 5
12) Zou u aan willen geven hoe belangrijk u de volgende eigenschappen van een Product Y leverancier vindt, bij een eventuele keuze voor een nieuw Product Y pakket:
Eigenschap Mate van belang
Kwaliteit van R&D capaciteiten
1 2 3 4 5 Kwaliteit van implementatie capaciteiten
1 2 3 4 5 Kwaliteit van service capaciteiten 1 2 3 4 5
Heel Belangrijk Belangrijk
Neutraal Onbelangrijk
Heel Onbelangrijk
Kwaliteit van consulting service
1 2 3 4 5 Kwaliteit van training support
1 2 3 4 5 Goede financiële situatie van leverancier
1 2 3 4 5 Goede algemene reputatie van leverancier
1 2 3 4 5 Groot klantenbestand van leverancier
1 2 3 4 5 Geografische nabijheid
1 2 3 4 5
‘Klik’ tussen managers van het eigen bedrijf en de
leverancier 1 2 3 4 5 Grote industrie expertise
1 2 3 4 5 Grote proces expertise
1 2 3 4 5 Goede financieringsmogelijkheden
1 2 3 4 5 Bestaande relatie met leverancier
1 2 3 4 5 Anders, namelijk:
1 2 3 4 5
13) Zou u aan willen geven hoe belangrijk u de volgende eigenschappen van een Product Y implementatie project vindt, bij een eventuele keuze voor een nieuw Product Y pakket:
Eigenschap Mate van belang
Totale kosten
1 2 3 4 5 Transactie kosten
1 2 3 4 5 Implementatie kosten
1 2 3 4 5 Implementatie tijd
1 2 3 4 5 Verwachte voordelen van het project
1 2 3 4 5 Verwachte risico’s van het project
1 2 3 4 5 Anders, namelijk:
1 2 3 4 5
14) Wanneer u alle factoren uit vraag 11 t/m 12 in beschouwing neemt, welke 3 factoren vindt u het belangrijkst bij een eventuele keuze voor een nieuw Product Y pakket?
I. ...
II. ...
III. ...
15) Zou u aan willen geven hoe belangrijk u de volgende factoren vindt als reden om eventueel een nieuw Product Y pakket te implementeren binnen uw bedrijf? (gebruik makend van dezelfde schaal als bij vraag 11 t/m 13)
Eigenschap Mate van belang
Kostenbesparing door verhoogde efficiëntie
1 2 3 4 5 Verhoogde productiviteit
1 2 3 4 5 Lagere operationele kosten
1 2 3 4 5 Geïntegreerd informatie systeem
1 2 3 4 5 Snellere informatie stroom
1 2 3 4 5 Mogelijkheid om beter in te springen op externe
gebeurtenissen 1 2 3 4 5 Toename in de flexibiliteit van het productie proces
1 2 3 4 5 Toename in de transparantie van het productie proces
1 2 3 4 5 Anders, namelijk:
1 2 3 4 5
16) Zou u aan willen geven hoe belangrijk u de volgende factoren acht als reden om niet over te gaan op de eventuele aanschaf van een nieuw Product Y pakket?
Eigenschap Mate van belang
De noodzakelijkheid om processen te herstructureren
1 2 3 4 5 Financieel risico
1 2 3 4 5 De noodzakelijke training van het personeel
1 2 3 4 5 De relatieve afhankelijkheid van de Product Y
producent 1 2 3 4 5 Anders, namelijk:
1 2 3 4 5
17) Wanneer u de voordelen uit vraag 14 en de nadelen uit vraag 15 naast elkaar legt, welke van de onderstaande stellingen is van toepassing:
o Gezien de voor- en nadelen lijkt de aanschaf van een nieuw Product Y pakket binnen de organisatie mij een verstandige keuze
o Gezien de voor- en nadelen lijkt de aanschaf van een nieuw Product Y pakket binnen de organisatie mij een onverstandige keuze
o Gezien de voor- en nadelen kan ik geen goed oordeel geven of het verstandig is om over te gaan op de aanschaf van een nieuw Product Y pakket
18) Zou u in de onderstaande lijst de twee voornaamste informatiebronnen, die u zou gebruiken bij de informatievergaring van een nieuw Product Y pakket, aan willen kruisen?
o Direct contact met de verschillende leveranciers
o Professionele contacten
o Beurzen / conferenties
o Vakbladen
o Anders, namelijk ...
19) Zou u in de onderstaande lijst de twee voornaamste interne ‘influencers’, die de grootste invloed zouden hebben tijdens de algemene besluitvorming van de aanschaf van een nieuw Product Y pakket, aan willen kruisen?
o CEO o CTO o CFO
o Toekomstige gebruikers van het Product Y pakket
o IT managers
o Anders, namelijk ...
__________________________________________________________________________________________
De literatuur verwijst naar een zestal ‘rollen’ die invloed hebben op het koopproces van organisaties. Zou u in vraag 20 t/m 25 aan willen geven wie er binnen de organisatie (bijvoorbeeld CEO, CFO, hoofd IT etc.) welke rol zou vervullen bij een eventueel koopproces van een nieuw Product Y pakket?
20) Rol: Initiator – herkent de behoefte en initieert het koopproces
Functie(s): ...
21) Rol: Beslisser – neemt het finale besluit om te kopen
Functie(s): ...
22) Rol: Koper - plaatst de bestelling
Functie(s): ...
23) Rol: Beïnvloeder - beïnvloedt het koopproces of levert belangrijke informatie
Functie(s): ...
24) Rol: Poortwachter - bewerkt de infomatie of beschikt over bepaalde expertise
Functie(s): ...
25) Rol: Gebruiker - gebruikt het product
Functie(s): ...
Namens de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Company X B.V. en mijzelf dank ik u voor het invullen van deze enquête. Mocht u een samenvatting van de resultaten per email willen ontvangen dient u uw email adres hier in te vullen:
Email adres: ...
Questionnaire Results (answered by publishing houses)
The results of the questionnaire which was send to the publishing houses are presented below. Out of the 69 publishing houses within the market segment, 20 Dutch (out of 49) and 12 Belgian (out of 20) publishing houses responded. The percentages are rounded to the nearest percent. Accuracy plays a larger role for the answers to the questions where the respondent was asked to score on a scale of five. Therefore these will be rounded to the nearest tenth.
1) Employees
1 - 10 7%
11 - 25 13%
26 - 50 7%
50 - 100 13%
> 100 66%
No response 1 publishing house
2) Number of PC’s
1 - 10 7%
11 - 25 13%
26 - 50 13%
50 - 100 7%
> 100 66%
No response 1 publishing house
3) Average annual turnover
2004 315,083,416 (49.2 million excluding Sanoma)
2003 388,200,043 (48.1 million excluding Sanoma)
2002 427,500,041 (45.9 million excluding Sanoma)
4) Type of publishing house
Scientific publisher 13%
Educational publisher 19%
Publisher of trade magazines 6%
Publisher of magazines 25%
Literary publisher 13%
Other 25%
No response 0 publishing houses
5) Local or international
Local 40%
International 60%
No response 2
6) Regions in which the publishing houses who answered ‘international’ to question 5 are active
The Netherlands 44%
Belgium 44%
Scandinavia 6%
British Islands 13%
Other West-European countries 13%
Eastern Europe 13%
North America 6%
Other 13%
No response 10 publishing houses
7) Percentage of turnover obtained outside the Benelux
12 Publishing houses did not respond to this question. 18 publishing houses answered 100% or nearly 100% (the lowest being 85%) Only 2 publishing houses gave a significant percentage of 8% and 17%.
8) Percentage of turnover budgeted for IT investments
8 Publishing houses did not respond to this question. Two publishing houses responded that they did not have a set budget for IT investments. The other publishing houses responded as follows:
Less than 1% 22%
Between 1% - 3% 33%
Between 3% - 5% 22%
Greater than 5% 42%
The numerical values in the following questions are the average rating which was provided on a scale of 1 to 5.
9) Level of satisfaction with Product Y vendor
Function Satisfaction Customer Relationship Management 4.02
Planning 3.83 Production 2.82 Promotion/marketing 3.82
Sales 3.96 Distribution 3.29
Acquisition of rights 3.72
Royalty management 3.65
Advertising management 3.44
10) General level of satisfaction
Very dissatisfied 0%
Dissatisfied 14%
Neutral 29%
Satisfied 43%
Very satisfied 14%
No response 4 publishing houses
11) Importance of selected characteristics of the Product Y package
Characteristic Importance NL Importance BE
Reliability 4.15 4.25
Usability 4.3 4.42
Security 4.05 3.85
Performance 3.85 4
Maintainability 4.05 4.08
User friendliness 3.85 4
A 'fit' with the customers' strategies 4.15 4.08
After sales support 3.6 3.58
Compatibility with different systems 4.8 4.67
Security 4 3.92
Performance 3.89 4
12) Importance of selected characteristics of the Product Y vendor
Vendor Characteristic The Netherlands Belgium
1. Financing possibilities 2.75 2.67
2. Quality of implementation 4.15 4.42
3. Quality of service 4.15 3.67
4. General reputation 3.85 3.58
5. Quality of training support 3.9 3.58
6. Quality of consulting service 3.7 3.5
7. Quality of R&D 3.85 3.75
8. Large industry expertise 3.05 4
9. Good financial situation 4.1 3.83
10. Large process expertise 4 3.75
11. ‘click’ between managers 3.45 3.33
12. Large customer file 3.45 3.08
13) Importance of selected characteristics of the Product Y implementation process
Characteristic Importance NL Importance BE
Total costs 4.15 5
Transaction costs 3.9 4
Implementation costs 3.9 4.6
Implementation time 4.3 4.3
Expected advantages of the project 4.55 4.6
Expected risks of the project 4.3 4.4
14) 3 most important factors from question 11-13
The response to this question was very diverse. The following factors were named more than one time:
Reliability 6 times
Total Costs 6 times
Usability 3 times
Process Expertise 3 times
15) Reasons to implement a new Product Y package
Characteristic Importance Nl Importance BE
Cost saving due to an increase in efficiency
4.4 4.3
Increased productivity 4.15 4.3
Decreased operational costs 4.35 4.2
Integrated information system 4.15 4.1
Faster information flow 4 4
Possibility to react better to external events
3.95 3.7 Increased flexibility of the
production process
4 4
Increased transparency of the 4.25 3.6
production process
16) Reasons not to switch to a new Product Y package
Characteristic Importance NL Importance BE
Necessity to restructure processes 3.32 3.08
Financial risk 3.6 3.75
Necessary training of the personnel 2.45 2.67
Relative dependence on the vendor 3 3.25
17) Would switching to a new Product Y package be wise?
Wise choice 21%
Unwise choice 49%
Neither wise nor unwise 21%
18) Two most prominent sources of information during information gathering on new Product Y packages
NL BE
Direct contact with vendors 62 % 55 %
Profesional contacts 67 % 60 %
Conferences 12 % 21 %
Trade magazines 15 % 17 %
Other IT consultant (1 time)
19) Two most prominent internal influencers during the decision making process of the purchase of a new Product Y package
CEO 75%
CTO 59%
CFO 18%
Future users of the Product Y package 43%
IT managers 22%
Other 0%
Since questions 20-25 were open questions the responses which were named a significant number of times will be presented.
20 – 25) Function within an organization which is responsible for each of the six ‘rolls’ that influence the buying process in organizations.
Role Function
Initiator IT manager (9)
CEO (12)
Final user (6)
Decider CEO (24)
Buyer IT manager (22)
Influencer IT manager (8)
Final user (6)
CFO (12)
Gatekeeper IT manager (24)
User Final user (27)
Appendix 3 - Internal Questionnaire and the Results
Name:
Function:
The following questions inquire about the level of satisfaction of various aspects of the Company X system. The following scale will be used:
1 = Very unsatisfied 2 = Unsatisfied 3 = Neutral 4 = Satisfied 5 = Very satisfied
1) Would you please indicate to what extend you believe the customers are satisfied with the functionality of the following components within the Company X system?
Component Level of satisfaction
CCM PPM BSD JSD JEM ASM
2) Combining the components of question 1, to what extend do you believe the customers are generally satisfied with the Company X system?
Level of satisfcation:
3) Would you please indicate to what extend you believe the customer is satisfied with the following characteristics of the Company X system:
Characteristic Level of satisfaction
Reliability Usability
Security
Performance Maintainability User friendliness
A 'fit' with the customers' strategies After sales support
Compatibility with different systems
4) Would you please indicate to what extend you believe the customers are satisfied with Company X as a company?
Characteristic Level of satisfaction
High quality of R&D capacities
High quality of implementation capacities High quality of service capacities
High quality of consulting service High quality of training support Good financial situation Good general reputation Large cutomer file
Good 'click' between Company X managers/consultants and the customers Large industry expertise
Large process expertise
Good financing possibilities for the customers
5) Would you please indicate to what extend you believe the customers are satisfied with the following advantages of the Company X system?
Characteristic Level of satisfaction
Cost saving due to an increase in efficiency Increased productivity
Decreased operational costs Integrated information system Faster information flow
Possibility to react better to external events Increased flexibility of the production process Increased transparency of the production process
Questionnaire Results (answered by publishing houses)
The following are the results of the internal questionnaire:
1) The level of satisfaction with the functionality of the components:
CCM 4 PPM 3.5 BSD 3.3 JSD 2.8 JEM 3.2 ASM 3 2) The total level of satisfaction with the Company X system is: 3.6
3) Level of satisfaction with the Company X system
Product Y Characteristic Company X
1. User Friendliness 3
2. Usability 3.13
3. Maintainability 3.13
4. After sales support 3.25 5. General Performance 3.38
6. Compatibility 3.39
7. Reliability 3.5
8. Security 3.5
9. Strategic ‘fit’ 3.63
4) Level of satisfaction with the Company X company
Vendor Characteristic Company X
1. Financing possibilities 2.4 2. Quality of implementation 3
3. Quality of service 3.13
4. General reputation 3.17
5. Quality of training support 3.33 6. Quality of consulting service 3.38
7. Quality of R&D 3.5
8. Large industry expertise 3.63 9. Good financial situation 3.63 10. Large process expertise 3.5 11. ‘click’ between managers 3.88 12. Large customer file 3.83
5) Level of satisfaction with the advantages provided by the Company X system
Advantages provided by Product Y Company X 1. Increased flexibility of the production process 3.5 2. Possibility to react better to external influences 3.5 3. Decreased operational costs 3.71 4. Cost savings due to increase in efficiency 3.75
5. Increased productivity 3.75
6. Faster information flow 3.75
7. Increased transparency of the production process 3.88 8. Integrated information system 4
Appendix 4 – Competitor Overview
In order to make sure the important aspects are all looked at the competitor profiling method as proposed by Porter will be used (Biemans, 2004). This method looks at the goals of the competitors, the presuppositions of the competitors towards the own company in relation to the other parties active on the market, the competitors’
strategies, and their competences. Since competitors tend to be hesitant to provide detailed information to other competitors various information gathering methods have been used. First of all the competitors have been approached with a request to fill out a questionnaire. Of the six competitors, two responded positively initially, but eventually denied the request. Other sources of information include the websites of the competitors, information provided by the chamber of commerce, annual reports and brochures which were acquired during the National Publishing Day. Given the limited amount of interaction available between the competitors and the researcher certain information was not obtainable.
Centric Solutions for Publishers
In February 2003 Centric acquired Bestmate. Together they have over 20 years of experience in the publishing and IT industries and now produce the product Centric Solutions for Publishers (CS Publish). This solution is produced by Centric Bestmate, which is only one component of the much larger Centric organization.
Competences
The Centric company provides the experience in consultancy, IT solutions, Product Y engineering, e-business, systems integration, managed ICT services and training. Bestmate provides the specific expertise on the publishing market which is necessary for this particular solution. CS publish is a standard Product Y package which supports all business processes for all different types of publishers. Centric is also in a very healthy financial situation.
Goals
Centric Bestmate is striving for expansion into Belgium with CS Publish.
Strategy
Centric is traditionally a company with a lot of public clients. They are actively trying to balance this with private companies as clients. This is mainly done by entering new markets through acquisitions, concentrating on the more promising market sectors. The acquisition of Bestmate is one example of this.
Presuppositions
Centric believes that the ICT market is slowly but surely recovering.
(sources: www.centric.nl, annual report, company brochure)
Zeno/II
Competences
The Zeno/II system is a standardized product produced by Socho/IT and supports the entire publishing process for all types of publishing houses. In addition the company provides the possibility for non-publishers, such as the cable company Tiscali, to buy custom-made Product Y for their specific business processes. The company is currently active on both the Dutch and Belgian market.
Goals
To make the product available for the relatively smaller publishers active on the market.
Strategy
To expand by supplying the relatively smaller publishers, and by providing (potential) customers with custom- made Product Y where necessary.
Presuppositions
The company believes that the smaller publishers need to be served in order to generate an optimal profit.
VDA
VDA is a producer of media solutions, meaning they do not only focus on publishers but also other fields within the media such as television and radio. For the publishing field they are a value-added reseller of the Zeno/II product.
Competences
VDA has very broad expertise of the entire media branche and combines this with a broad product portfolio. The specific publishing expertise is attained through their partnership with Socho/IT. The company is currently only active in the Netherlands.
Goal
VDA want to grow and excel through a focus strategy
Strategy
To achieve the goalVDA wants to focus on the fincial, project based and content related processes of the (potential) clients.
Presuppositions
VDA wants to offer a solution to all media companies, using partnerships with other companies to compensate their own expertise where necessary.
mySAP Media
mySAP Media is part of the SAP cooperation. With 12 million users, 91,500 installations, and more than 1,500 partners, SAP is the world's largest inter-enterprise Product Y company and the world's third-largest independent Product Y supplier overall (www.sap.com).
Competences
The competences of mySAP Media primarily lie in the fact that the product combines the years of experience of the mySAP.com product and its crossindustry capabilities, with specific tools designed specifically for the media industry. The company is active worldwide.
Goal
SAP’s long-term goal is to build on their leadership and, together with their customers, to
redefine the technology landscape with their powerful vision of a service-enabled business process platform.
Strategy
The success of the company is based on two key factors: a sharp focus on
the customers and a winning product portfolio based on a solid road map for the future.
Presuppositions
“Experience, Knowledge, and Technology for Maximizing Business”
Atex Media Command (AMC)
Competences
AMC operates out of three different regions, namely the Americas, Europe, and Asia Pacific. The product is intended for publishers of newspapers and magazines. AMC delivers innovative solutions and has a strong financial base.
Goal
The goal of AMC is “…to become the partner of choice to media companies, develop and nurture our customer relationships by providing best-in-class professional services, support and training, and expand our market share through growth or acquisition.”
Strategy
AMC uses a focussed business strategy on the newspaper and magazine market to maintain their competitive position and continue to deliver innovative solutions to the customers.
Presuppositions -
VISTA
VISTA's Mission is to be a strategic, worldwide knowledge partner to the publishing industry, by providing services and solutions that enable the achievement of business visions and goals through:
Market Leadership on Industry Issues
World Class Business Solutions
Value Added Business Services
Lifetime Business Support
Vista’s activities are in North America, Europe and the Asia-pacific region.
Appendix 5 – Interviews
Formal interviews were one source of information used during this research project. The interviews were semi- structured and conducted with the following people:
Company X BV
Titia de Bie Office Manager 16/12/2004
Ruud Gerritsen Senior Consultant/ Project Supervisor
01/11/2004 22/11/2004 13/12/2004 Ernst Lopes Cardozo Managing Director Company X
Benelux
22/11/2004 14/12/2004
Rein Lopes Cardozo IT Consultant 14/12/2004
Jeanette Keizer Consultant 15/12/2004
Jeroen Schouten Consultant 15/12/2004
John Spinhoven Accountant 16/12/2004
Wim Tersteeg IT Manager 11/01/2005
Ton Tersteeg Product Y programmer 11/01/2005
Company X GmbH
Ulrich Company X von Glowczewski
Founder/ Chief Executive Officer 20/12/2004 Inge Wilmes Chief Operation Officer Europe 21/12/2004
The National Publishing Day and the Customer Information Day provided an opportunity to speak with parties active on the market. The interviews were informal due to the informal nature of the events. Representatives of the following companies provided information for this research:
National Publishing Day (17/11/2004)
Centric In2Media
Media Business Press Socho
VDA
Customer Information Day (26/05/2005)
Wolters Noordhoff VNU
Audax
Wolters Kluwer Liber
Ten Hagen & Stam
Appendix 6 – Respondents to the Questionnaire
Publishers The Netherlands
BDU uitgeverij
Bohn Stafleu van Loghum Boom Uitgevers
De Dordtenaar De Stentor BV Die Keure NV Erdee Media Groep Harlequin Holland Jongbloed
Malmberg
Sanoma Uitgevers BV ThiemeMeulenhoff Uitgeverij Equipe VNU
Publishers Belgium Aurex
Intersentia NV Roularta Media Groep Uitgeverij Averbode NV Uitgeverij UGA
Wolters Kluwer Belgie
