a

CONCEPT PAPER

Accelerating Infrastructure Preparation in Southeast Europe

Roland Berger GmbH
Heiko Ammermann, Yvonne Ruf, Markus Kaufmann, Jan Heinze

January 2017
2 CONCEPT PAPER
Accelerating Infrastructure Preparation in Southeast Europe

Executive Summary

There is a considerable need for infrastructure investments in Southeast Europe in the

coming years and efforts to prepare projects are being made: Governments have defined their
infrastructure priorities, the EU Commission and regional multilateral bodies are supporting and
monitoring infrastructure preparation, development banks offer financial instruments for project
finance, private finance seeking reliable returns is largely available and donor organizations provide
funding for technical studies.

Despite these efforts, progress on infrastructure delivery in the region still lags behind. We
see two key hurdles that slow down implementation:
1. Project bankability: Many projects are delayed due to unclear commercial viability or
financing risks which public banks and financial market actors do not absorb.
2. Capacity gap: Organizational capacities on the public project developers' side to prepare and
bring projects to the bankability stage are limited.

While hurdle 1 is being addressed in other studies (e.g. Roland Berger Study on Cost-Effective
Financing Structures for Mature Projects of Common Interest (PCIs) in Energy), this paper
explores the capacity gap and introduces an innovative approach to closing it.

It is not primarily a lack of financing that slows down projects, but rather a lack of capacities
to prepare projects that would attract adequate amounts of public funding and private
finance, as our discussions with public project developers, banks, donor organizations and our
project experience in the region have shown. While there often are technically focused feasibility
studies available and financing for bankable projects is obtainable, the lack of capacities on the
project developers' side slows down projects. This most critically concerns skills to design and
validate studies, ensure alignment with national policy objectives, de-risk the business case,
establish the legal and regulatory framework, design a sustainable public-private partnership model,
structure project financing and interact with investors.

Capacity development is a key success factor to de-bottleneck the phase between feasibility
and financing. We suggest an innovative approach that systematically develops technical,
managerial and functional skills for infrastructure development and enables the beneficiaries to
directly apply the acquired skills while working in an integrated team with experts to promote a
specific infrastructure project. The skills development plan is directly linked to the phases of project
preparation and the required tasks that need to be performed to prepare the project. This approach
goes beyond providing technical assistance as the involved experts deliver technical advice (incl.
studies, etc.) while directly involving the project owners and developing their skills. The objective is
to transfer know-how for infrastructure project preparation that can be applied in other large
investment projects in the involved countries.

More support for capacity building accelerates infrastructure development and increases
regional ownership as well as the effectiveness and efficiency of public funding. While there
are numerous support programs and facilities available to contribute to the feasibility stage, there is
much less support available to develop capacities for managing infrastructure projects in the critical
planning and financing stage. De-bottlenecking this stage would not only accelerate implementation
but also increase the efficiency of public funding as project preparation time would be reduced,
feasibility studies could be streamlined and processed faster and the amount of grants required for
project implementation could be reduced due to improved financial engineering and de-risking.
3 CONCEPT PAPER
Accelerating Infrastructure Preparation in Southeast Europe

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 2

1. Introduction – Progress on infrastructure delivery in Southeast Europe is lagging behind........... 4

2. Challenges – The lack of organizational capacity is a significant bottleneck ................................ 7

3. Concept – Capacity development should transfer skills while realizing projects ........................ 10

4. Outlook – Governments and donors should work together to close the capacity gap ................ 13

5. Contacts ...................................................................................................................................... 14
4 CONCEPT PAPER
Accelerating Infrastructure Preparation in Southeast Europe

1. Introduction – Progress on infrastructure delivery in

Southeast Europe is lagging behind

In the coming years, large amounts of investment in energy, transport and broadband
network infrastructure are required in Europe. The European Investment Bank (EIB) estimates
that the EU may need up to EUR 2 trillion in investments in the period up to 2020. Investment needs
generally tend to be high in peripheral EU member states as well as EU neighboring states. Looking
at the energy sector for example, the European Commission has compiled a long list of 195 PCIs in
energy in the EU and Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) countries. Many PCIs are
located in these countries (see figure 1 below for examples of investment needs in PCI projects)
and the respective public project developers often face very challenging tasks as the projects tend
to be larger and more complex than their usual projects.

Geographic distribution
Figure 1 – PCI intensity of the
– Geographic distribution of the195 PCIs,
195 PCIs, 10andPECIs
10 PECIs andEurope
10 PMIs across 10 PMIs across Europe

Very strong energy project exposure

PCI, PECI and PM
≤ 10.00 PCIs per 1m inhabitants, 10 PECI/PMI
≤ 1.00 (19)
Strong energy project exposure
≤ 2.00 PCIs per 1m inhabitants, 10 PECI/PMI

Moderate energy project exposure

≤ 1.00 PCIs per 1m inhabitants, 19 PECI/PMI

Sources: Regulation (EU) No 2016/89 amending Regulation (EU) No 347/2013; Attachment Recommendation of the
Source: Regulation (EU) No 2016/89 amending Regulation (EU) No 347/2013; Attachment Recommendation of the Ministerial Council
Ministerial Council,
Recommendation Recommendation
No. 2016/../MC-EnC No. 2016;
of 14 October 2016/../MC-EnC
Roland Berger of 14 October 2016; Roland Berger No of PCIs per million inhabitants v2

Support for project development is available from donors, multilateral banks and regional
facilities, mostly in four forms: grants, public financing, technical assistance, as well as support in
cross-border coordination and alignment, for example:

> The EU Commission has set up comprehensive support programs to accelerate infrastructure
development and increase connectivity, e.g. the Connecting Europe Facility budget for 2014-
5 CONCEPT PAPER
Accelerating Infrastructure Preparation in Southeast Europe

2020 is now EUR 30.4 billion (EUR 24.1 bn for transport, EUR 5.35 bn for energy and EUR 1
bn for telecommunications).
> International financing institutions (IFIs) such as the EBRD, the World Bank, the EIB as well as
national development banks offer public financing instruments for commercially viable and,
thus, bankable projects.
> Regional donor supported facilities such as the Western Balkans Investment Framework or
other EU supported infrastructure facilities offer technical assistance to produce necessary
project documentation, e.g. feasibility studies.
> Multilateral bodies, such as the South East Europe Transport Observatory (SEETO) and the
Energy Community support and monitor infrastructure project preparation and actively develop
the EU neighbors' transport and energy infrastructure together with the respective
governments.

Furthermore, regionally targeted initiatives, such as the Connectivity Agenda and the Western
Balkan Conferences have been advanced to accelerate infrastructure projects in the region.

Summits Critical achievements

Paris Balkans Summit 2016 EU co-financed almost EUR 100 m for three new
railway projects, in addition to financing from IFIs
and WB national budgets. Progress on
implementation of "soft measures" presented

Western Balkans Summit Vienna 2015 EU provided the first EUR 200 m for 10 priority
projects, mainly in transport and power transmission
interconnectors

2014 Conference of Western Balkan States, Decision taken to provide a framework for the next
Berlin four years and to meet annually for the following
four years to support integration of the Western
Balkan states

Despite the efforts, a large number of infrastructure projects are delayed compared to the
originally planned commissioning date. For example, the 2015 PCI progress report issued by the
Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) revealed significant delays, finding that
"slightly more than half of the PCIs are behind the original schedule as planned in 2012/2013".
Officials in national ministries as well as international organizations confirm that it frequently takes
up to 5 years from feasibility until the beginning of construction.

We see a capacity gap on the public project developers' side that poses hurdles for
infrastructure project delivery. There is a bottleneck at the crucial stage-gate between technically
focused validation of feasibility and financing decision. Despite numerous existing project studies,
reaching the bankability stage is a challenge.
6 CONCEPT PAPER
Accelerating Infrastructure Preparation in Southeast Europe

We see two key hurdles here:

1. Project bankability: Many projects are delayed due to unclear commercial viability or risks
which public banks and financial market actors do not absorb. Hence, obtaining financing is
difficult.
2. Capacity gap: Organizational capacities on the public project developers' side to prepare and
bring projects to the bankability stage are limited.

Hurdle 1 and ways to overcoming it are being discussed in other reports and studies (e.g. Roland
Berger Study on Cost-Effective Financing Structures for Mature PCIs in Energy).

This paper aims at better understanding the capacity gap and introducing an innovative
approach to develop the organizational capacities needed on the level of the public project
developers, e.g. ministries, transmission system operators (TSOs) and government transport
authorities or agencies. We argue that it is not primarily a lack of funding, but a lack of capacities to
prepare projects that would attract adequate amounts of public funding and private finance that
slows down infrastructure projects. Furthermore, donor-funded support programs are largely geared
to producing studies or securing project finance, rather than to capacity development for the crucial
planning and de-risking phase. Capacity development increases the management capacity of the
project developers, fosters regional ownership, and greatly increases the efficiency and
effectiveness of ongoing public funding for infrastructure in the region. Our insights stem from
interviews with numerous public project developers (ministries, government agencies, transmission
system operators and transport organizations, etc.), banks, donors and regional organizations.
Furthermore, our learnings from projects in the region are reflected.

The learnings in the paper are relevant for all public (or quasi-public) infrastructure
developers in the region. The authors are fully aware that the challenges of preparing bankable
projects vary for infrastructure projects in different sectors, e.g. transport, energy or digital. In
energy, falling energy prices have been one of the greatest recent challenges as they reduce
commercial feasibility and decrease the internal rate of return for investors. In transport projects,
financing can be very challenging as it more often depends on the state budget, e.g. where there is
no revenue model. However, we find the learnings on the capacity gap and the capacity
development approach to be generally very viable for project developers in all sectors. Naturally,
the general approach we introduce would need to be tailored to the specific role, challenges and
capacity needs of the respective institution as well as their specific infrastructure projects.
7 CONCEPT PAPER
Accelerating Infrastructure Preparation in Southeast Europe

2. Challenges – The lack of organizational capacity is a

significant bottleneck

The lack of organizational capacities is perceived as one of the greatest bottlenecks for
infrastructure development in the region. From the discussions with project developers (e.g.
national ministries, electricity and gas transmission system operators, transport authorities), and
intergovernmental organizations, the following reasons for delay appear most acute (in descending
order): lack of public sector capacities to manage project implementation end-to-end, lack of
financing, viability of business cases, legal and regulatory issues, difficulties in securing right of way
and/or land acquisition, contractor performance issues, environmental and social impact
assessment (ESIA) and permitting hurdles, technical difficulties and project complexity.

The lack of capacity is most apparent in areas where infrastructure management skills are
required. When asked about the precise stage in the project lifecycle at which the capacity gap is
most acute and hence creates obstacles for swift project delivery, stakeholders most often point to
the following (in descending order): obtaining financing, project set-up and de-risking, project
definition and concept, detailed design and construction, as well as development (engineering,
1
surveying, permitting). Sector development strategy and project identification as well as feasibility
studies, technical and commercial validation appear to be less of a challenge, suggesting that
inherent capacities and/or international support at these stages are available to a certain extent.

Officials frequently point to a lack of qualitative human resources (i.e. individual technical
and managerial capacities) as well as the overall professionalization and de-politicization of the
civil service. Staffing in mere numbers is less of an issue, so are systems, IT, etc. The skills sets
that are missing comprise both technical and managerial elements: (1) commercial, engineering
and environmental know-how to challenge and validate feasibility studies (also commercial
evaluation capacities), (2) financing know-how, donor and IFI relations, and (3) project
implementation know-how. Technical capacities regarding tendering processes and investor
handling are often insufficient as well. However, levels of expertise in policy formulation, sector
strategy development, needs assessments as well as sector-specific technical know-how (road, rail,
ports, electricity, gas, etc.) are considered to be higher, both by the donor community and the
developers themselves.

Regarding managerial skills, stakeholders commonly point to alignment and coordinating

capacities of various kinds as being most critical and lacking, i.e. within the ministry/developer,
across ministries or other government entities as well as with other countries. In terms of cross-
border collaboration, the most relevant obstacles appear to stem from different
legislation/regulation, whereas joint work at the technical level actually progresses quite well. For
example, this is also reflected by the intensified cross-border cooperation in the transport sector of
Western Balkan countries aiming at harmonizing the regulatory framework and standards (so called
"soft measures") to increase connectivity.

1
Nine stages have been considered (front-to-end): (1) sector development strategy and project
identification, (2) project definition and concept, (3) feasibility studies, technical and commercial
validation, (4) project set-up and de-risking, (5) obtaining financing, (6) development (engineering,
surveying, permitting), (7) detailed design and construction, (8) commissioning, (9) operations.
8 CONCEPT PAPER
Accelerating Infrastructure Preparation in Southeast Europe

The capacity gap spans all levels of hierarchy. Finally, when asked at which level in the
organization the capacity needs are most acute, most of our interviewees did not make significant
distinctions between heads of departments, heads of teams or the working level.

In summary, there exists an organizational capacity constraint to maturing infrastructure

projects and bringing them from feasibility to a bankability stage, including preparing and
validating commercial as well as technical project proposals, adapting the legislative framework,
permitting, preparing the administrative preconditions, structuring financing models, defining public-
private partnership models, negotiating with investors and/or financiers, etc. The capacity gap
includes technical and managerial know-how and it is most apparent in the stage between
preparation (incl. feasibility) and the final investment decision. Hence, the actual bottleneck is
currently not so much a lack of funding but rather a lack of capabilities on the developers' side.

Figure 2 – Infrastructure development phases and identified capacity gaps (schematic)

Phase I – Preparation Phase II – De-risking/financing Phases III – VI – Implementation

> Origination > Planning > Implementation
> Strategy > De-risking > Operation
> Commercialization and feasibility > Financial model > Optimization
> Permit and engineering > Sale/transfer

Funding/support Funding/support
available Capacity constraints and gap available
of funding/support

"Go"/"no go" decision Final investment

decision
Capacity gap for end-to-end management

The lack of capacity not only slows down project implementation, it also results in a lack of
true regional ownership and puts the effectiveness and efficiency of public funding at risk.
Often, a large number of donor-funded technically very detailed studies on the feasibility of
infrastructure projects are available. Sometimes, the level of technical detail in such studies well
exceeds the level of analysis validating commercial feasibility in the first place. Furthermore, some
international investors bring forward high-level unsolicited proposals to national ministries/agencies,
suggesting the implementation and often financing of infrastructure. Our experience and the
interviews show that project owners are often too overburdened with managing, validating and
processing the studies/proposals to get to actual project implementation and reach a bankability
stage. Often, there is also a lack of know-how to adequately engage with investors. In effect, this
can result in a strong push by donors or regional/multilateral institutions or investors, possibly
weakening regional ownership on the one hand and putting at risk the adequate prioritization and
efficient allocation of resources on the other.

There seems to be less donor funding available to support closing the capacity gap than for
technical studies and project financing in implementation phases. Most of the programs as
well as the facilities to support infrastructure development in the region focus on studies or project
financing. There are fewer programs available for capacity building in the area of infrastructure
project preparation and management capacities.
9 CONCEPT PAPER
Accelerating Infrastructure Preparation in Southeast Europe

To help close the capacity gap, a more comprehensive and sustainable approach to
developing capacities is needed. Firstly, a larger amount of public funding for infrastructure
capacities development can greatly contribute to closing the gap. Secondly, capacity development
requires an innovative approach that develops capacities in a job environment in which the learning
can be directly applied while working on realizing a project or a portfolio of projects. In contrast to
technical assistance that delivers specific products and does the actual work for the developer to
process (e.g. studies, legal opinions, commercial due diligence, financial engineering, etc.),
innovative capacity development goes beyond that by delivering technical expertise while
implementing a project in a joint team with the beneficiaries.
10 CONCEPT PAPER
Accelerating Infrastructure Preparation in Southeast Europe

3. Concept – Capacity development should transfer skills while

realizing projects

While capacity development is not a new concept, our approach is innovative in that it links
two overarching goals pursued simultaneously and reinforcing each other: Firstly, we develop
sustainable capacities to bring infrastructure projects from feasibility to bankability stage and bridge
the commonly prevalent gap to achieve full project readiness for implementation. Secondly, we
enable the swift realization of strategically relevant regional infrastructure projects. The integration
of both objectives allows the beneficiaries of the capacity development programs to firstly develop
skills, and secondly, to apply them immediately on a specific project, strengthening the learning
experience and ownership of the project. We integrate the training plan systematically with the
immediate needs required for project realization in each phase, thereby enabling the project teams
to practically exercise theoretically applied knowledge. Our approach delivers technical assistance
products (partly produced together with staff from the beneficiary institutions) and it develops the
skills as well as tools for the staff to work on other investment projects after the international experts
leave.

The core guiding principle in all of these measures is to create individual and organizational
sustainability and ensure long-term impact, e.g. by improving processes and organizational
structures, establishing standards, developing templates, tools and instruments, etc. for future use.
The approach builds on the idea that international experts work together on a daily basis with the
beneficiaries, i.e. with local experts from ministries, transport authorities, TSOs, etc. on concrete
day-to-day tasks involved in preparing infrastructure projects for financing and implementation.

We see capacity development as a process through which individuals and organizations

obtain, strengthen and maintain the capabilities to set and achieve their own development
objectives over time. It has two dimensions:
1. Organizational capacity building: internal policies, processes, structures and strategies that
enable an organization to operate and achieve its goals
2. Individual capacity building: skills and knowledge vested in individuals, communities and
groups

On the organizational dimension, the key is to create an anchor point for capacity building
via a dedicated unit at a higher level, e.g. with the Prime Minister's Office, in line ministries or in a
public agency. Infrastructure project development centers on a strategic Project Management Office
(PMO). It is formed by an integrated team of seconded officials from different departments,
ministries, agencies and public companies directly involved in the specific infrastructure project
working together on a daily basis and learning in a peer environment. The staff can remain part of
their "home institutions". More specifically, they should perform the role of link and single point of
contact to these institutions on the working level, ensuring that the specific contribution of these
institutions to the infrastructure project is being made. To be successful, this unit should be
mandated by the highest possible level of government. It coordinates all the activities for
infrastructure project preparation and ensures swift progress. Furthermore, it designs and
implements the organizational processes, structures and strategies necessary for implementation.

On the individual dimension, we develop capacities in two key areas: technical know-how as
well as managerial know-how. Technical capacities to be developed encompass the skills
required for the preparation of specific infrastructure projects in a specific sector and environment.
11 CONCEPT PAPER
Accelerating Infrastructure Preparation in Southeast Europe

They include, for example, policy analysis, strategy development, cost-benefit analyses, financial
business planning and modeling, fiscal impact analyses, knowledge of the EU regulatory
framework, ESIA and permitting standards, EU procurement framework and international tendering
standards, operational licensing standards, infrastructure financing models, design of public-private
partnerships, incl. sovereign guarantees and risk sharing models. Managerial capacities mainly
entail general project management skills for large and complex projects, e.g. scheduling, budgeting,
monitoring, reporting, cross-institutional coordination, communication skills and negotiation skills.

Figure 3 – Overview of capacity building for infrastructure development

Develop capacities
Technical skills:
Prepare De-risk/finance Implement
> Policy analysis > Regulatory framework > Tendering standards Infrastructure
> Cost benefit analysis > De-risking > Operating management
> Commercial validation > PPP design > Optimization projects
> Fiscal impact analysis > Financing model > Transfer accelerated
> … > … > …
Sustainable
Managerial skills: Project management, budgeting, coordination, negotiation, etc.
capacities
developed
PMO (local staff + experts)
Regional
ownership
Involved institutions strengthened
Efficiency of
Prepare De-risk/finance Implement
> Commercial and technical > Business case de-risked, > Project successfully
public funds
feasibility secured PPP model negotiated, implemented and operation increased
financing secured optimized

Apply skills on infrastructure project

The tailor-made formats we apply follow a common, overarching idea: To integrate

theoretical learning with immediate application in practice by closely aligning both the time and
the content of training with the respective needs for a given project preparation phase. Our most
widely applied formats include:
> Training on the job by working in integrated teams with international experts: We follow a task-
driven approach depending on the project phase, activities and challenges at hand that basically
supports the staff in tackling their workload for the specific project, rather than adding extra
workload detached from their daily duties.
> (Offsite) joint training sessions: These can be group workshops, executive education sessions,
interactive training, lectures, etc. on the key aforementioned technical capacities (technical skills
and topical expertise) and managerial capacities.
> Mentoring for government officials with international experts: The idea is to offer tailor made one-
on-one support that caters to the individual needs of selected staff. It includes an individual kick-
off session to determine the areas for support, as well as an individual action plan, training and
regular exchange on progress.
> Temporary externships/secondments: We offer to facilitate visiting sessions or field trips for
specific staff with the objective of learning by being exposed to another working environment in
their specific field, e.g. energy regulation, public transport management, etc.
12 CONCEPT PAPER
Accelerating Infrastructure Preparation in Southeast Europe

Systematically developing individual and organizational capabilities is but one lever to

enhance the organizational performance of project developers. Others include, for example:
> Increasing staffing, number of experts/officials in key departments/teams
> Improving and growing the systems, tools, IT, etc. at hand
> Improving recruitment and talent retention

All aspects need to be taken into consideration as capacity building will only have a positive long-
term effect if the various areas are applied in an integrated manner.

The comparatively low retention rate of staff in the public sector in the region is a key
challenge. However, to ensure sustainability as far as possible, we implement a set of
activities aimed at increasing institutional memory as well as retention. For example, we promote
the anchor unit as a "circle of excellence" in the government by targeting high potentials and
offering a broad learning experience. Furthermore, we provide tools, templates, manuals and
materials that can be applied after international experts have left and develop an extensive and
accessible file sharing system with on-boarding and hand-over manuals that support the systematic
exchange of staff involved.

The success factors for sustainable capacity development in infrastructure encompass

mainly the commitment of beneficiaries and involved staff as well as the technical expertise
of the international experts involved. Functional knowledge of capacity building and general
methodologies are important. However, bringing on board the "hard skills" of infrastructure
preparation, validation, financing and implementation are key success factors for realizing a
complex and large investment project that really creates an impact and serves as a lighthouse case
for other investors. Our capacity development approach works on national as well as regional level.
The general methodology and logic that is guided by one anchor unit whose participants form a
direct link to the other involved institutions, is valid on both national and regional levels. The
composition of the unit is crucial for its success. Naturally, the general capacity development
approach outlined here will need to be tailored to the specific needs of the infrastructure project at
hand, the beneficiaries' capacity level as well as the environment they operate in.
13 CONCEPT PAPER
Accelerating Infrastructure Preparation in Southeast Europe

4. Outlook – Governments and donors should work together to

close the capacity gap

In conclusion, we see that a capacity gap with respect to effectively and efficiently managing
infrastructure projects exists with public project developers in the region, which hampers the
systematic preparation and implementation of infrastructure projects. While the pressure to deliver
on the projects continues and the EU, donors and public banks allocate funding to infrastructure
development, the capacity gap puts the speed of delivery, the ownership of infrastructure projects
as well as the most efficient use of public funding at risk.

An innovative approach to capacity development and increased donor support in this area
would help address these risks, accelerate infrastructure delivery and increase the
effectiveness and efficiency of public funding. The approach should transcend "classic"
technical assistance projects by combining the benefits of technical assistance to drive consistent
implementation with systematic capacity development on the job that ensures a sustainable transfer
of technical and managerial know-how to public project developers in the Southeast European
region. Certainly, capacity development cannot and should not replace technical assistance, as
procuring very specific skills for project preparation will always be more efficient than providing them
in-house, e.g. for specific studies, engineering design, etc. However, effective capacity building can
vastly improve and accelerate the management process of project developers and increase the
efficiency of project financing. Especially improving the viability of project financing as well as
public-private partnership models can greatly contribute to swift and efficient infrastructure
development in the region. Capacity building would also enhance the project developers'
engagement with investors who submit unsolicited proposals for infrastructure development.

National ministries, public project developers, donors and multilaterals should work
together to close the gap, identifying priority areas for capacity development. The process
should ideally be spearheaded by countries themselves and supported by donors. Some countries
have already set up extensive capacity building programs for large infrastructure development. For
example, the Albanian Ministry of Energy and Industry as well as the Swiss State Secretariat for
Economic Affairs (SECO) are implementing a project on "Capacity Building for Large Gas
Infrastructure in Albania". Such projects and the results that are being achieved together in
integrated teams with local staff and international experts clearly demonstrate the immense
potential benefits of capacity building to deliver on infrastructure projects and to build know-how
internally.
14 CONCEPT PAPER
Accelerating Infrastructure Preparation in Southeast Europe

5. Contacts

If you would like to learn more about our approach to support public project developers in
infrastructure project preparation, please get in touch. We welcome your questions, comments and
suggestions.

Heiko Ammermann
Roland Berger GmbH
Senior Partner
+49 69 29924 6237
heiko.ammermann@rolandberger.com

Yvonne Ruf
Roland Berger GmbH
Principal
+49 160 744 6334
yvonne.ruf@rolandberger.com