Understanding IPM
IPM
Structure
Process
Support
People
• IC’s
• GTM’s
• SU’s
• General Board Stages
Gates
• Idea
• Feasibility
• Capability
• Launch preparation
• Post Launch Evaluation
• Roll-out contender
• Charter
• Contract
• Launch
• On shelf in first market
• Roll-out
• Gatekeepers
• Champions
• Portfolio managers
• Project Leaders
• Project Teams
• Training
• Manuals
• Inoplan
• IT
Understanding IPM
Date: August 2004
Author: A.M. van Niel Studentnumber: 1064169
University: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Faculty: Bedrijfskunde
Coaches University: Prof. Dr. Ir. F.P.J. Kuijpers Dr. R.T.J.A. Leenders
Research Organisation: Unilever Research and Development Home and Personal Care Europe
Management Summary
Problem Description
Unilever has designed and implemented an Innovation Process Management in order to assist Unilever in managing the generation of big, bold consumer relevant innovations and to roll them out fast. A lot of users are not using IPM as supposed to by HPCE. IPM was tend to be used as a process that intensively and solely supported innovation management. No other support systems should be used and the integrated IPM should replace all other old systems/processes. A project team should use IPM as their working place, their communication place and their guide to accomplish innovations. Some users are really keen about using IPM, but also some users have some kind of resistance to IPM. HPCE supposes that when the user satisfaction increases, the use of IPM will also increase and maybe even in reversed order.
Facts and Findings
To increase user satisfaction and use, interviews showed that both dream and future users need to have a better understanding about IPM. There are differences about the understanding though. All users value IPM mostly as a working and communication place. The added value of the 'guide' (clarity, comparison, overview, speed) on the other hand, isn't valued very well and these advantages need to be communicated to all users for it should be relevant to do their jobs. Most of the problems related to the added value are about InoplanT. This could mean that InoplanTT is strongly related to the perceived value of IPM. Most mentioned things to improve are extra tools and information, better access, more clarity and more simplicity. This would add value to all three parts of the ideal added value. Users need more information about IPM in general, why to work with it and why it's better for them and Unilever. To achieve this, they need to know a lot more about InoplanT.
Conclusions and Recommendations
InoplanT training should be done to learn about where to find what information and how to access that. Furthermore users will need information about InoplanT as a guide. They will then need the manuals and guides and a good database whith all information linked. The champion is very important, but users also need a lot of ‘hardware’ for simple checks.
Unilever should concentrate on InoplanT, treat all users the same and they shouldn’t concentrate on training alone as a way of informing the users. Furthermore it’s recommended that a good helpdesk is always available.
Preface
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
And that is why the preface will be in English too.
After six years in Groningen, with five real years of studying, time has come to graduate on the study Bedrijfskunde at the university of Groningen. Therefore I had to complete the final phase: executing research in practice. The final phase is ambiguous. Of course it’s great to complete the final phase and to go on with new things, but on the other hand, it’s also the end of a great student life.
This thesis describes my research project, performed during my internship at Unilever Research and Development, Home and Personal Care. I couldn’t have done it without the help and feedback of a lot of persons. That’s why I would like to use this opportunity to thank several people.
At first I would like to thank Hans Couvreur, Mariella Pastori and Ingrid Smeets from Unilever. I would like to thank them for their help and enthousiasm during the whole process.
Furthermore I would like to thank all other people within Unilever who helped me, but I don’t have to chance to thank you all personally.
Furthermore, I would like to thank my coaches from the university for their valuable advices and their help, to complete this thesis and to make it what it is now.
Last but not least, I would like to thank my family and friends for their understanding, thinking along the sideline and their support. Let’s write Chapter 11 now!
Have fun reading this thesis,
Sandra van Niel Wezep, July 2004
Table of Contents
Management Summary 3
Preface 4
Table of Contents 5
Chapter 1 Introduction 7
1.1 Unilever 7
1.2 Home and Personal Care Europe (HPCE) 7
1.3 Innovation Centre 9
1.4 Innovation Process Management 10
Chapter 2 Research Design 13
2.1 Introduction 13
2.2 Research objective 13
2.3 Conceptual model 16
2.4 Main Research Question 17
2.5 Subquestions 17
2.6 Delimitation 18
2.7 Data Collection 19
Chapter 3 Theoretical Framework and Methodology 21
3.1 Introduction 21
3.2 Exploration of the theory 21
3.3 Solvable problems 22
3.4 Exploration of the Methodology 23
3.4.1 Exploration phase: interviews 23
3.4.2 Specification and Reduction Phase: Coding 25
3.4.3 Integration phase 26
Chapter 4 Understanding 26
4.1 Introduction 26
4.2 Ideal understanding 26
4.3 Current user understanding 27
4.3.1 Analysis 28
4.3.2 The WHAT of IPM 28
4.3.3. The WHY of IPM 32
4.3.4. The HOW of IPM 35
Chapter 5 Added Value 39
5.1 Introduction 39
5.2 Ideal Added Value 39
5.3 Current Added Value 40
5.3.1. Analysis 41
5.3.2 Dream Users 41
5.3.3 Future Dream Users 43
5.3.4. The Questionnaire 46
Chapter 6 Problems Added Value 49
6.1 Introduction 49
6.2 The interviews 49
6.2.1. Analysis 49
6.2.2 Areas of Improvement 50
6.2.3 IPM Changes 51
6.2.4 Available Information 51
6.3 The questionnaire 53
6.4 Problems Chapter 5 54
6.4.1 Dream users problems 55
6.4.2 Future dream user problems 55
Chapter 7 What Information 58
7.1 Introduction 58
7.2 Problems Understanding IPM 58
7.2.1 The what of IPM 58
7.2.2 The why of IPM 60
7.2.3 The how of IPM 62
7.3 Problems added value IPM 62
7.3.1 IPM as a working place 62
7.3.2 IPM as a communication place 63
7.3.3 IPM as a guide 63
Chapter 8 How to offer Information 65
8.1 Introduction 65
8.2 The information that should be offered Error! Bookmark not defined.
8.3 How to fill in InoplanT Error! Bookmark not defined.
8.4 Communication and Information Management
Error! Bookmark not defined.
8.5 Stages and Gates
Error! Bookmark not defined.5
Chapter 9 Conclusions and Recommendations 686
9.1 Conclusions 68
9.2 Recommendations 71
Chapter 10 Reflection 731
Consulted Literature 753
Appendix A Error! Bookmark not defined.4
Appendix B Error! Bookmark not defined.5
Appendix C1 Error! Bookmark not defined.6
Appendix C2 79
Appendix C3 Error! Bookmark not defined.1
Appendix C4 Error! Bookmark not defined.4
Appendix D 86
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Unilever
‘At Unilever we are dedicated to meeting the everyday needs of people everywhere.’
That is Unilever’s mission. In addition Unilever states to the corporate purpose: Unilever anticipates the aspirations of her consumers and customers and responds creatively and competitively with branded products and services, which raise the quality of life.1 Every day, around the world, people reach for Unilever products. In fact, 150 million times a day, someone somewhere chooses a Unilever product.2 Brands like Knorr, Magnum, Dove, Persil, Omo, Calvin Klein, Cif, Lipton and Bertolli are only a small selection of the complete brand portfolio.
But of course it didn’t start all that big. Unilever was created in 1930 when the British soapmaker Lever Brothers merged with the Dutch margarine producer, Margarine Unie. At the time, an international merger was an unusual move. But the owners of the two companies could see that bringing together complimentary businesses with strong global networks would create new opportunities. Both companies were competing for the same raw materials, both were involved in large-scale marketing of household products and both used similar distribution channels.
The entrepreneurial spirit of the founders and their caring approach to their employees and their communities remain at the heart of Unilever's business today. Today Unilever is employing 265,000 people and has two parent companies - Unilever NV and Unilever PLC – which, despite being separate businesses, operate as a single unit with the same board of directors. The corporate centres are London and Rotterdam.3
1.2 Home and Personal Care Europe (HPCE)
Unilever is divided in two divisions; Foods and Home and Personal Care (HPC). Home and Personal Care, Europe (HPCE) is the European part of Unilever's worldwide HPC operations
1 Unilever Annual Review 2002
2 www.unilever.com/company/ourpurpose
3 www.unilever.com/company/ourhistory
with well-known consumer brands such as Dove, Axe/Lynx, Rexona, Impulse, Organics and Signal in Personal Care and Omo/Persil/Skip, Coral, Cif, Sun and Domestos in Home Care.
Lever Fabergé manages eight Home Care and Personal Care categories: fabric cleaning, fabric conditioning, deodorants, oral care, household cleaning, personal wash, hair care and machine dish wash.4 HPCE is responsible for setting out a strategy for all of her European brands and is divided into three groups. The first group is the Go-to-Market Company’s (GTM). For example this is Lever Fabergé in the Netherlands or Elida Fabergé in Portugal.
These are responsible for marketing and selling their brands to their markets. The second group is the Sourcing Units (SU). Their responsibility is to manufacture the products. The third group is the Innovation Centres (IC). They’re responsible for all new brand innovations and roll out projects and for preparing a new product for launch. The Innovations Centres are also divided into two groups, which are the Brand Innovation Centres (BIC) and the Global Technology Centres (GTC). An overview of this structure is provided in Figure 1.1. This research is accomplished for Innovation Centre Vlaardingen.
Figure 1.1
Food
Go-to-Market Company (GTM)
Sourcing Unit (SU)
Brand Innovation Centre (BIC)
Global Technology Centre (GTC) Innovation Centre
(IC) Home and Personal Care
Europe (HPCE) Home and Personal Care
(HPC) Unilever
1.3 Innovation Centre
In HPCE most original innovation projects will be driven by the Innovation Centres who will manage such projects in consultation with their clients through the IC funnel (figure 1.2). An Innovation Centre is a business unit, normally an operating company, which has been assigned specific responsibility for brand innovation in a category on behalf of a business group where the category is of strategic importance. As such it will contain the critical mass of some of the best category marketing and development managers in the business group.
ICs are ordinarily responsible for creating and maintaining the category and brand strategies for the business group and for leading the generation of the business group consumer understanding. They will also facilitate other business group networking as well as representing the business group in global networks.
ICs will undertake many of the business group’s original projects in order to deliver increased NPS and profit for the business group. They will usually also have the responsibility of recommending roll out projects and the 8 Quarter Activity Plan for their category to other companies in the business group. In other words, an IC normally has the responsibility to develop global projects, recommend roll out’s, facilitating regional projects and guarding the brand strategies.
Figure 1.2
1.4 Innovation Process Management
Innovation is paramount within the Home and Personal Care markets in order to maintain a strong market position.5 In order to assist Unilever in managing the generation of big, bold consumer relevant innovations and to roll them out fast, Unilever designed and implemented Innovation Process Management (IPM). IPM is the Unilever method of managing innovation activity. It is also the mechanism for driving best practice in innovation across the projects they manage. It is facilitated by the IPM Central Team and covers both the tools and processes that support innovation, and the training offered to aid effective use of these tools.
IPM is used throughout all business units by which every unit has her own implementation. In HPCE, IPM consists of a common set of process disciplines, skilled people, innovative structure and supporting tools like InoplanT, an IT Toolset that supports IPM, and is especially designed to embrace all brand innovation activities. 6
Unilever uses a funnel derived from the development funnel of Weelwright and Clark. The funnel uses a set of principles like gatekeepers, multi functional project teams, authorised project teams, IPM Champions (drives the process innovation and implementation in his/her company or IC) and an Eight-Quarter Activity Planning (8QAP).
The funnel has to be filled with practical ideas from Innopad, directly from a Go-to-Market or a roll out from a successful original project. Then the first phase starts, which is the ideas phase. Here the originator provides some consumer evidence of merit and business relevance.
Before the project can move to the feasibility phase, a gate has to be passed. This is the Charter gate. Here the idea should have proved to have consumer merit and relevancy to the business strategy and there need to be resources to explore its feasibility.
The second phase is the feasibility phase, where the consumer interest, technical feasibility and commercial robustness are checked. Before a project team can move on, it has to pass the Contract gate. Here the project team has to demonstrate that the project has a sufficient level of merit and practicability to confidently invest serious resources and/or capital to execute it.
product optimization job is complete, that the project met its action standards and that it can move into operational execution. The brand mix is complete, robust and ready for launch.
The mix elements, pipe line filling and support plan are all fine tuned in the Launch
preparation phase. The product is then launched. Evaluation takes place in the next phase and here the market performance and consumer reactions are evaluated. Then the project goes into the Toolbox, which is called the roll-out contender phase.
InoplanT
InoplanT is the IT-tool associated with Innovation Process Management. There are seven databases within InoplanT7:
1. Innopad: the facility for capturing new ideas
2. Teamwork: where project teams create and manage projects
3. Archive: a store for information on abandoned or completed projects
4. Learnings: contains key project descriptions and summary information about project learnings
5. Portfolio: where authorized viewers may see the aggregate picture of projects 6. Toolboxes: a repository of information about successful products
7. Info & Feedback: quick reference database that provides you with guidance in all aspects of IPM
InoplanT is for most users the visualised part of IPM. Most users also think IPM and InoplanT are the same or they’ll use it like it is the same. The most used part in InoplanT is the teamwork database directly followed by the portfolio database. In the teamwork database project teams can manage their projects and create gatedocuments. It’s a place to communicate to each other and to share documents and visions. Portfolio managers mostly use the portfolio database, where they can produce all kind of charts and information in order to manage their portfolio.
Problem Description
Unilever has designed and implemented an Innovation Process Management in order to assist Unilever in managing the generation of big, bold consumer relevant innovations and to roll them out fast. A lot of users are not using IPM as supposed to by HPCE. IPM was tend to be used as a process that intensively and solely supported innovation management. No other support systems should be used and the integrated IPM should replace all other old
7 http://marketingacademy.unilever.com
systems/processes. A project team should use IPM as their ‘working’ place, their communication place and their guide to accomplish innovations. Some users are really keen about using IPM, but also some users have some kind of resistance to IPM. Based on previous questionnaires, FAQ’s, Info and Feedback and conversations with users HPCE supposes that the resistance must have something to do with specific parts in the process, the training, or the mentality of the management. HPCE also supposes that when the user satisfaction increases, the use of IPM will also increase and maybe even in reversed order.
Chapter 2 Research Design
2.1 Introduction
This chapter will attend to the design of the research. This design will consist of a research objective (why research it), a main question with subquestions (what to investigate), a conceptual model (visual reproduction of how to achieve the objective), delimitations (restrictions of the research) and the data collection framework (how to investigate).8 These are the aspects that will guide the research to a satisfactory result.
2.2 Research objective
The research objective is used to assign the contribution of the research to the problem and also indicates the relevance of the research.9 The IPM group of HPCE is the group that asked for this research and they formulated the following research assignment:
Investigate on the innovation process management (IPM) and on the basis of these data bring solutions to improve or simplify the concept (especially the information concept) in order to increase the use of IPM and to increase the user satisfaction.
The use and user satisfaction of IPM need to increase. This is because IPM is used to little according to the statistics. People should use it for every project and team communication, but they don’t. This means that IPM contains less information than it should. Questionairres showed that the user satisfaction is low and this should increase to increase the use of IPM and for the Innovation Team want people to like working with it. They wouldn’t like to
‘force’ people to use something that they don’t like to use. To increase that, the perceived added value of IPM should be better then it is now, for people will use IPM more and like it better when they feel it can help them to achieve something. Since this research will only be about the aspects support and people, these are the the only two aspects of IPM that can be influenced. Without changing the ‘hardware’ of IPM and the structure, changes need to be made within people’s minds. That is why knowledge is needed about what people think of IPM, what they expect from IPM and what they think they need from IPM. With this knowledge, gaps between the current and ideal situation can be investigated and taken away when possible, so users think it’s more valuable to work with IPM.
8 Verschuren, 1999 p.25
9 Verschuren, 1999 p.25
Based on the research assignment and the explanation, the following research objective can be stated:
Investigate on the information need of users about IPM in order to increase the user understanding, the added value and thereby the user satisfaction and investigate on a way of offering this information.
Specification of users:
IPM has four different users. A matrix can describe these. One axis consists of the Go-to- Market company (GTM) and the Innovation Centre (IC), while the other describes the projects and the portfolio. Visualised, it is de following matrix:
Projects Portfolio
Go-to-Market User 1 User 3
Innovation Centre User 2 User 4
Figure 2.1
All different users will be treated the same concerning this research. That is because the basic understanding and usage of IPM is the same for all users. They all have to use the same concept as implemented and found by Unilever. For this research the users will consist of:
Project teams of GTM’s and IC’s (members and leaders), portfolio managers and overall a gatekeeper, who decides whether a project is allowed to go to the next stage. This person, normally, is the chairman of the board of the concerning GTM or IC.
Specification of IPM
IPM as a concept consists of several elements. The four main aspects are structure, process, support and people. Structure is the organizational structure of HPCE, which contains all units that are related to IPM. Process is the development funnel through which innovation is structured. Support is all tools that support the user at using IPM and People are the relevant persons who have to deal with IPM. An overview of the IPM concept is visualized in figure 2.2
IPM is not an isolated concept. It has an environment which is very important for making it
Figure 2.2
Not all of the above aspects are investigated in this research. The structure and the process are taken for granted and will be used as a fact. This is because Unilever spent a lot of money and time to create the Structure and the Process. They developed it according to well known theories and they believe in that. It is also very hard to change these two aspects, while People and Support are easier to change with fewer costs. The IPM Group, wants to change things when possible, starting with the things they can influence the most and where, they think, the most improvement is possible. Furthermore, these are the only aspects that can be directly changed under their supervision, because the rest is implemented Unilever worldwide. As matters to Support and People, this research will conduct all people and be specified to the content of information. Among all support tools, information is chosen for its relation to user satisfaction, its possibility to investigate and redesign in half a year and its attribute to user ease of IPM. Unilever asked for a concentration of this research on the information aspect.
They think users need special information about IPM and the supposition is that good information about IPM will increase satisfaction and use, because users need a practical guide of how and why to work with IPM to understand its added value. When users know why and how to work with IPM (the extra and/or better information), they will experience what’s in it for them and they will get better results from IPM, which will help them to to their innovation job better and faster. When they have to do less work to get better results, they will value it better, which will increase their satisfaction and usage.
IPM
Structure
Process
Support
People
• IC’s
• GTM’s
• SU’s
• General Board Stages
Gates
• Idea
• Feasibility
• Capability
• Launch preparation
• Post Launch Evaluation
• Roll-out contender
• Charter
• Contract
• Launch
• On shelf in first market
• Roll-out
• Gatekeepers
• Champions
• Portfolio managers
• Project Leaders
• Project Teams
• Training
• Manuals
• InoplanT
• IT
Information should be seen as all various kinds of ways to inform people. This can be training or manuals, but it could also contain information sheets or supportive websites. It’s all kind of information that could help and train a user to work with IPM.
2.3 Conceptual model
Based on the above description, the conceptual model of how to achieve the objective, can be seen in figure 2.3
Figure 2.3
Explanation of the model:
Users need to expand their understanding of IPM. This can be done by increasing the knowledge of the ‘what’, the ‘why’ and the ‘how’ of IPM. The extra understanding of those aspects will lead to an increased added value of IPM to those users. The increased added value will lead to increased use of IPM and to increased user satisfaction. The extra information should be communicated to the users. That’s why all ‘extra’s’ need to be within the delimitation of communication. Information that can not be communicated will not be included in this research.
Definitions Added Value
The added value of IPM is how users feel that IPM is contributing to their innovation jobs.
It’s also about how they feel that IPM is adding value with regard to their old system/concept.
IPM could add value as a working place by making it easier to get the latest information and
Users Why IPM
User satisfaction Communication
How IPM
Added Value
Use IPM +
+
+
+
+
+ What IPM
The how, why and what of IPM
The how, why and what of IPM is actually about the mission statement of IPM by Unilever.
How should it work, why is Unilever working with it and what should it contain and do for users.
2.4 Main Research Question
In order to achieve the research objective stated above, the following main question needs to be answered:
Which information will help users to understand IPM and use the added value of IPM in order to increase user satisfaction and how should this be offered?
This main question could be divided into two parts. The first part is the ‘what’ question and is concerning the diagnostic part of the research. In this part the kind of information the training should contain is investigated. The second part is the ‘how’ question and is concerning the design phase of the research. The data obtained in the first part are used to bring a solution to offer the information to the users.
2.5 Subquestions
Diagnostic phase
1. What do users understand by the concept of IPM?
Do users understand by IPM what is meant by it? Do they know all the different parts of the concept and do they know how to use it? The answers to all these kind of questions will lead to an entry for the training. Users will use IPM more and better when they understand the concept and know how and why to use it. At the same time, understanding of the concept will probably lead to more user satisfaction. Knowledge about what IPM should do and help with compared to what IPM really does, is more balanced, so there will be less difference and unusual expectations.
2. In what way do users use IPM related to their job/function and what is the relevance of IPM by doing their job?
Do users need IPM for communication or is it just a storage place. Are the support tools helpful? Is the stage-gate model helping to structure the innovation job? Do users only use parts of IPM? The answer to this subquestion will lead to the relevance of IPM to users. When the relevance is low users won’t like to use IPM. Also, when IPM is not helping them to do their job the satisfaction will be low. This question can also compare the intended value of
IPM with the current value. When there is a gap, the reasons should be investigated and, if possible, solved by better information and training.
3. What current problems are related to the added value?
This question will give an overview of the problems that will have an influence on the added value of IPM to the users. The problems that can be solved by training or information will be sorted and solving these problems will increase the added value.
4. What information should be offered to increase use and user satisfaction with IPM?
After investigating all problems, way of usage and user understanding there is now an opportunity to explore those results. What information should be offered to increase the user understanding and the added value of IPM? What information do they need to recognise the opportunities, so they will make more use of IPM?
Design Phase
5. How should the information been offered to the users?
After the investigation of the information the users need, now is the question in what way it should be offered. Do they need a step-by-step training, multiple training sessions and/or a training guide? Should that be internally or externally offered? Do they need web-based support or do they need personal support. Is information by itself enough or does it need to be communicated. How should the information be presented? The results of this design question will be one way to achieve the research objective.
2.6 Delimitation
The delimitations will bind the research to a couple of restrictions. This is used to determine the scope and the manageability of the research. For this research the following delimitions are exercised:
• The research needs to be completed within six months.
• The research only contains the European Business Units for Home and Personal Care.
• The research is restricted to the themes people and support of IPM and the redesign is limited to training.
• The research has to satisfy the organizational demands of Unilever and the scientific demands of the university.
2.7 Data Collection
The previous paragraphs contain the research questions needed to achieve the research objective. To investigate on these research questions, several data sources are needed to obtain the requisite information. This paragraph will explain which data collection method is needed for which subquestion.
The first research question investigates the user understanding of IPM. This question is used to get an understanding of the user awareness. Problems and gaps in current understanding vs.
ideal understanding will be investigated. To gain an answer to this question, structured interviews will be held with all different users (which means of all categories and functions).
A secondary source is a theory of de Leeuw that divides problems into three subcategories.
All problems will be divided into those categories to check which of them can be solved by information/training.
The second question deals with the usage and relevance of IPM. Interviews are used to investigate on problems and gaps of usage and relevance versus the ideal usage and relevance.
The result will be the usage of IPM and relevance to users, which will be of a mayor influence on the added value. By the theory of de Leeuw, gaps and problems will be filtered that can be improved/solved by info/training. Secondary sources will also be used. This is a questionnaire about InoplanT, which just has been finished in May 2003. Here users could state what they liked and disliked about InoplanT and how they made use of it. Some of these answers will also apply to IPM (the concept).
The third question is about the current problems with IPM and their relation to the added value. The interviews and the questionnaire will be used to investigate all problems and to filter those related to the added value. Then they will be filtered again on de Leeuw problems so solvable problems will appear.
The fourth question is used to investigate the information that is needed to generate increased user satisfactions and use. To achieve this goal, the answers of question one, two and three are needed as primary sources. First, all problems and gaps that can be trained will be investigated. Then the ‘should be’ situation will be explored. The result will be information to solve the trainable problems and gaps. This information should solve the ‘understanding gap’, the ‘usage gap’ and the ‘added value gap’, so it will increase use and user satisfaction. This research question will also use the questionnaire for additional information about the information needs of users.
The fifth and last question is the design question. The information found in question four has to be offered to the users. This has to be done in a certain way, which is suitable for the different users. As a secondary source literature about communication and information will be used to decide the best way of presenting the information.
Diagram 2.1 can be used for a clear view of the sources that will be used to gather information per research question.
Research Question Primary Sources Secondary Sources
What do users understand bythe concept of IPM?
Structured interviews with all different users
De Leeuw In what way do users use IPM
related to their job/function and what is the relevance of IPM by doing their job?
Structured interviews
Questionnaire about InoplanT
De Leeuw
What current problems are related to the added value?
Structured interviews
Questionnaire about InoplanT Findings question 2
De Leeuw
What information should be offered to increase use and user satisfaction with IPM?
Answers of question 1, 2 and 3 Questionnaire about InoplanT
How should the information been offered to the users?
Literature about communication and information.
Diagram 2.1 Sources of data collection related to research questions
Chapter 3 Theoretical Framework and Methodology
3.1 Introduction
This chapter will explore the theoretical framework and the methodology needed to answer the research question and subquestions. On all subquestions a gap analysis will be made. Most of the time this gap will be a difference between a current and an ideal situation. The gaps can be considered as problems. Those problems need to be solved and the results need to be communicated.
To distinguish solvable problems out of all problems a theory of de Leeuw will be used. De Leeuw divides problems into three subcategories. These are reality problems, perception problems and target problems. Solvable problems are problems that can be solved by communicating to the users. For example this can be a training, a website, e-mail or personal contact.
Furthermore the methodology needed to answer the subquestions will be explored. First the concept of the interviews will be explained and then the way of analysing the answers and interviews will be explored.
3.2 Exploration of the theory
To get an understanding of the theory, the concept will be described below. This is especially useful to understand and follow the steps in this research. By this theory all problems will be assorted.
First of all, the theory assumes that problems occur by an interaction between perception, targets and reality. Second, it takes the view that every problem has a problem owner. To prevent the situation that every person should be analyzed, problem owners can be reduced.
This can be done in several ways, but in this research is chosen to search for correspondence between the users.
Correspondence between users can be done in several ways, but important is that they should be in line with each other, especially with relation to perceptions and targets. The first problem owner is the IPM group of HPCE and the second group is the users. This is because the users experience problems with IPM and HPCE wants those problems to be solved. The users group can be divided in to subgroups. The first subgroup is the dream users, who like to
work with IPM and experience a lot of added value, but who can also have some problems.
The second group is the future dream users (or current nightmares) who have some kind of resistance to IPM, which is likely to be a result of experienced problems.
As said before, problems can be divided into three categories of problems. To understand the differences between those problems, the definitions are given below.
Reality problems are problems that should be solved by changing the reality by itself. The problems occur ‘in the real world’ and are not caused by misperceptions or a wrong target setting.
Perception problems can be described by problems that can be solved by changing a person’s perception. They occur when someone has a problem and a misrepresented image of the reality.
Target problems can occur when people have unfeasible and unrealistic desires. Business experts are often confronted with target problems, when people have insufficient insight in the matter, so a person tries to realize something that is impossible or brings along so many other problems, that it’s better to change the target. Target problems are problems that can be solved by changing the targets of the problem owner.
3.3 Solvable problems
All problems described above can be solved in their own way, but in this research ‘solvable problems’ mean that the problems can be solved by informing and/or communicating to the users. In order to the definitions above these are the perception and target problems for reality problems should be handled by the problem owner himself. Perception and target problems are also problems that should be solved by the problem owner in the end, but the solution can be initiated and triggered by information and communication.
Systematic problem solving consists of three phases. The diagnostic phase, the design phase and the realization phase. This research will only follow the first two phases. The realization
3.4 Exploration of the Methodology
This part of the research will explore the methodology of the research. Since semi-structured interviews are used, it is basically a qualitative research. This means that there is no operationalisation or construction of themes on forehand10 (Wester, 1995). Qualitative research consists of four phases and dataprocessing should be done by systemizing around keywords. The four phases are:
1. exploration fase 2. specification fase 3. reduction fase 4. integration fase
3.4.1 Exploration phase: interviews
The first phase is the interview phase and the first part of the analysis. The research units are determined, the data are collected and a first analysis will be made, with an open coding, till there is a saturation of the terms used and there is no information with great added value anymore. This is a very extensive phase and it will be descibed below, how this took place for this research.
For this research about 20 interviews were done to get more user insight about IPM. HPCE identified that the user satisfaction and use of IPM still can be improved. Therefore investigation was needed about the important aspects of IPM and the likes and the dislikes.
Within the group of interviewed users a distinction can be made between dream users and future dream users. Dream users are supporters of IPM and use it relatively often. Future dream users (also known as current nightmares) are resistant to IPM and use it almost never.
Questions
Unilever provided the interview questions, because the same interviews were done throughout Unilever globally. These questions, plus an additional one, were reviewed in co-operation with Customer Research. The additional question was always asked, but it turned out to be that the answers could be divided among the other questions. This was done to make the analysis simpler.
Selection
When the questions were set, a selection of the users had to be made. This was done by using the database of InoplanT. The database generated a user list of the last year. On this Excel sheet one could see in what databases and how many times someone used InoplanT. Also
10 Wester, F., Strategieën voor kwalitatief onderzoek, 1995
details were given about the users country, category and function. An overview is given in Appendix D. Out of this overview 30 users were selected to take part in the research, with an estimated participation of 15-20 persons. Users were selected on a few specific aspects to get a broad range of different users. The aspects that were used for this distinction are:
• User kind (dream and future user)
• Job/role (Marketing manager, Development Manager, Brand manger and other functions with category specific responsibilities, like financial or supply chain manager)
• Business Unit (Innovation Centre or Go-to-Market)
• Country (all European countries)
For this research a division of countries was made, although the United Kingdom is represented more. This is because it’s a big country for Unilever and it represents all disciplines and a lot of categories.
Invitation
After selecting the users, they needed to be invited to co-operate with the research. This was done by an e-mail to let them have some time to think about it and to give them the opportunity to come forward with some convenient data. The e-mail contained an introduction of the interviewer, the reason why this research is being done and an invitation to think about the subject. Out of 30 people 23 replied to the invitation and 20 were willing to co-operate. The users that didn’t respond were from all from different country’s and functions ánd dream and future users. Almost all interviews, except three, were done by telephone, because the users work all across Europe.
Results
While interviewing the users, answers were written down on paper and typed out directly after. Then the answers were all put in one file divided among the questions. The questions and answers were color-coded, so a distinction could be made between answers and questions for dream and future users.
Analysis
With those results, an analysis can be made about the critical aspects of IPM. This was done by coding all answers to keywords (sensitizing concepts). This means that one answer can
should be communicated are those aspects that would take away the dislikes and give more likes in return. The data are also needed to look at the current view of IPM and see whether they need more understanding and to explore the user satisfaction and use.
3.4.2 Specification and Reduction Phase: Coding
After the first coding, the keywords were analysed. They were categorized into new (and less) keywords (or key themes). Most important was to look for keywords that could be used for further analysis and that were core themes. After that, selective coding was used, to extract the important keywords for this research. This was done by color coding they keywords into the four key aspects of IPM: Structure, Process, Support and People. Out of those four aspects, the two researchable aspects, support and people, are selected. This is because the structure and process are taken for granted in this research (see chapter 2: Research design) and so are eliminated before further analysis. All aspects that remain are now divided into the three subcategories of problems of de Leeuw. Again, two categories are selected, because reality problems don’t belong to the context of this research. This leaves us with all solvable and researchable problems. The overview of this elimination is given in figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1 Problem selection
All records (answers)
Structure Support People Process Keywords
Reality problems
Perception problems Target problems
Solvable and researchable problems Relevant Questions
Green = selection
3.4.3 Integration phase
The integration phase is basically the conclusion of the research and consists of a draw up the concept, the answer to the main question, reflection, conclusion and recommendations.
Chapter 4 Understanding
4.1 Introduction
Users have a different understanding of the concept IPM. This could be because IPM is a complex concept or because users work differently with IPM. Important to know is, whether there is a gap between the user understanding and the ideal understanding.
Therefore the objective of this chapter will be to answer the subquestion:
‘What do users understand by the concept of IPM?’
By structured interviews (see chapter 3) an overview will be given of the current user understanding of IPM. This will be compared to the ideal understanding. The understanding of IPM can be divided into three categories. According to the conceptual model, this is the
‘what’, ‘why’ and ‘how’ of IPM.
4.2 Ideal understanding
The ideal understanding is not knowing everything about IPM. It is about understanding the concept. It is a for a user sufficient knowledge to use IPM in the right way and to gain an added value. They should know what IPM is about, why they should use it and how they should use it.
The ‘what’ of IPM: IPM is a concept to manage brand innovations within Unilever. It is the Unilever method to improve their innovation paths and has only a few mandatories or golden rules. IPM is also the mechanism for driving best practice in innovation across the projects they manage and covers both the tools and processes that support innovation, and the training offered to aid effective use of these tools. IPM is used throughout all business units world- wide to stimulate learning from each others innovations and to fasten the innovation process
should be used to generate better and bigger innovations and third to capture learnings, to learn from each other and from former innovations. Those reasons can be transformed to reasons that are more understandable for users. The first reason will be the same. Unilever needs to be first or at least very quick on the market. When the process is slow, competitors will be faster and be the first on the market. It also costs a lot of money when the process is long. Second, they should use it to improve the capability of Unilever to come up with better and bigger innovations. This is also very useful for a user, because they need to achieve their targets and want to be the best. Third aspect for a user is to capture their learnings. By doing this they aid others to be better and faster, they can learn from their own mistakes and successes and others can benefit from this. The users can also benefit from these profits in the reversed way.
The ‘how’ of IPM: How IPM should be used is the most difficult issue. This because it can be different per user. The main issue here is that IPM shouldn’t just be used as a system where you have to put information in. Users should use it as a process and a supporting system to help them innovate. They should use InoplanT to put their information in it, to stimulate group work and to get an overview of their process development. It is meant as an interactive tool to support the process. Furthermore they should use the concept of IPM as a way to manage their development process. The way of how to achieve the innovation is clear for every team member and IPM provides a checklist to support the innovation process.
4.3 Current user understanding
This paragraph will explore the current understanding of users. Important is whether they have the right understanding about the ‘what’, ‘why’ and ‘how’ of IPM and if not, what the differences are. Those possible differences need to be solved to create the right understanding, so users can make optimal use of IPM and a better appreciation. To answer this question, structured interviews are used (see appendix A, B and C). The users are divided in two groups;
the dream users and the future dream users. Dream users are those users that appreciate IPM and like to work with it. Future dream users (or current nightmares) are those users that have some kind of resistance to IPM. This is done to (hopefully) learn from the dream users how to make the future dream users appreciate IPM. Note to this division is that people who are dream users don’t necessarily have the right understanding of IPM and people that are future dream users don’t necessarily have a different understanding of IPM.
To explore this issue, question one, two three, four and ten are used from the dream users questionnaire and question one, two, three, four and seven from the future dream user questionnaire. These are the following questions:
Dream Users
1. What do you understand by IPM?
2. What inspires you most about IPM?
3. How does IPM add value to your work/role?
4. What IPM benefits can you describe top of the mind?
10. Do you think IPM is bureaucratic/complex/too time consuming? If yes, why/what makes it this way?
and
Future Dream Users
1. What do you understand by IPM?
2. Have you ever used IPM? Why/Why not?
3. What do you like about IPM?
4. What don’t you like about IPM?
7. Do you think IPM is bureaucratic/complex/too time consuming? If yes, why/what makes it this way?
4.3.1 Analysis
After all interviews were taken, all answers were transformed into keywords and the methodology descibed in chapter 3.4 will be used. After the first elimination, 79 different records, in 17 different keywords in two categories are left (see Appendix C1). All aspects that remain are now divided into the three subcategories of problems of de Leeuw. Again, two categories are selected, because reality problems don’t belong to the context of this research.
This leaves us with all solvable and researchable problems (see Appendix C2).
4.3.2 The WHAT of IPM
What do users understand by IPM? That is one of the three subcategories of the understanding
Half of the Dream users understand by IPM a process for managing a project. This can be seen as the aspect of process of IPM. The other half reckons it as an information sharing and informing tool which can be done by several databases. These aspects are more likely to be put in de support theme. One third of the future dream users reckons IPM as a process and a structure with stages and gates, which corresponds to the process aspect. Almost two third thinks it’s a database with some helpful tools, which is related to the support theme.
Remarkable is that five future users think that IPM is InoplanT, compared to none of the dream users (mentioning it). Also one future users mentioned in addition that IPM was about the team. This aspect will come under the People category.
Dream users have little to say about bureaucracy, which is concerning the process of IPM.
One thinks it isn’t bureaucratic and one thinks it is for a reason. Future users have more to say about bureaucracy. Half of all future users think it’s useful and that the bureaucracy is needed.
It’s also professional. Negative aspect is that the bureaucracy is time-consuming, because the people to whom it’s addressed won’t read it. Dream users also think it’s time consuming, but in a different matter. They talk about the system that is slow and that it’s not clear what to fill in. Half of those dream users think that at the end it’s worth the time, because you’ll get great value. The rest of the future users is divided. Most of them think InoplanT (support) is complex and bureaucratic, because you have to fill it in and it’s twice the work and inflexible, but some don’t think it’s complex or time consuming, because it’s a structured process. One future user addresses this question to People and says literally that it’s all about people, they make or break IPM.
When now the aspects Structure and Process are eliminated, there are 15 records about the first question. Five from dream users (DU’s) and the other ten from future dream users (FU’s).
These records can be divided in 5 different keywords: Information sharing (3x DU), InoplanT (1x DU, 6x FU), Tools (1x DU, 2x FU), Storage place (1x FU) and Team interaction (1x FU).
The last keyword is also the only one that is about People instead of Support.
Interesting about this is that only dream users think of IPM as an information sharing concept and that more than half of the future users think of IPM as InoplanT. Only one user, a future user, thinks IPM is about people and the team interaction.
Eightteen records are found when the aspects Structure and Process are eliminated from the second question. Seven are from dream users and eleven are from future dream users. Those
records, although there is asked for three keywords, can be divided into six keywords. Eight people think IPM is time-consuming, five dream users and three future dream users. Three people from whom one is a dream user mention complexity. Three people, who are all future dream users, also mention bureaucracy. Flexibility and clarity are both mentioned once. The first by a future dream user and the second by a dream user. The last keyword is user understanding and is mentioned twice by future dream users. One of them is about the People aspect and that is also the only one.
The most interesting part is that five out of seven dream users mention that IPM is time- consuming. This is a clear majority and especially notable, because the future dream users are kind of divided.
Now it’s time to compare the results with the ideal understanding of the ‘what’ of IPM. This is done by taking all the different keywords mentioned in those two questions and compare them to the ideal situation. When there is a difference, a gap analysis will be made and the problem will be assigned to one of the de Leeuw problems. Summarized, all users together mention the following when they are asked to the ‘what’ of IPM.
Keywords DU FU Ideal Understanding
Information sharing X Information sharing
InoplanT X
Tools X X
Storage place X
team interaction X team interaction
time consuming X X
complexity X X
bureaucracy X
flexibility X
clarity X clarity
user understanding X
This means that users mentioned much more about IPM then the ideal understanding should be. This is caused by negative keywords, that are (of course) not mentioned in the ideal understanding. All the keywords are the gaps in understanding for some of them shouldn’t be there and others are a gap by one of the two specified users.
or communicating to the users. What is left are the perception problems. They will be described below.
InoplanT is mentioned because they think IPM is just a database. This is a perception problem, according to de Leeuw. InoplanT is a helpful tool to achieve good IPM, but not IPM in itself.
Tools is also a perception problem for users think IPM is just a toolbox with risk management, and portfolio tools. Same applies here. Also very helpful and part of making IPM work, but it is not what IPM is about.
Storage place is almost the same as InoplanT, except for when this is mentioned, users don’t even work with it as a database, but just to save their files on the system.
Flexibility as it is mentioned here, is a perception problem, because they think it’s an inflexible system. IPM isn’t really that inflexible, because it’s not all about the system. What IPM is about, is rather flexible.
User understanding is the last perception problem. It is about the understanding of the users about the stages and gates and it can be changed by changing the person’s perception by informing and training him.
The last three are the most important for it they also belong to the ideal understanding. Future users don’t understand two important things about IPM that they should understand and Dream users miss one of the apects.
Information Sharing is one of the most important aspects, for it’s the basis of IPM. Only dream users mention it when they’re asked to the ‘what’. This means that Future users really should be informed about the importance of information sharing and about what is in it for them.
Team interaction is also an important part of IPM for there are a lot of teams that work globally and don’t get to see each other every week. This is something only future users mention, but only one of them. So it’s important to inform all users that this is one of the main things about IPM and hopefully change their perception about it.
The last one is clarity and only mentioned by one dream users. IPM should be used for it’s clarity about the progress of a project for example and what other countries are doing. That is also one of the main things what IPM is about.
4.3.3. The WHY of IPM
Why is IPM introduced and why should users use it? That is the second part of the understanding of IPM. To explore this part, four questions are used from the interviews. Two from the dream users ‘What inspires you most about IPM?’ and ‘What IPM benefits can you describe top of the mind?’ and two from the future dream users ‘What do you like about IPM?
and ‘What don’t you like about IPM?’ These are used to research why people use it and why not. When all answers, themes and aspects are included, the following statements can be made about those questions.
DU’s have a divided opinion about the inspiring thing of IPM. One third thinks it’s about the Process and mentions the rigor, the framework and the funnel and 8QAP process.
The other two third thinks the Support is inspiring and talks about the system, which they think is easy to understand, a great source of information and a good place to update people.
Most of the benefits of IPM are found in the Process part. They like IPM because it’s structured and simple. It helps you to manage your projects and information and it saves time.
It also helps to approach the project in a different view. About Support they say that it helps to have access to a lot of things and that all the data are in one place.
FU’s value the aspects Process and Support the most. What they really like about the Process is the structure of IPM. They like the stages, the gates and the clarity. Besides that they think the common use, the customer understanding and the process overview are good things.
FU’s are also single minded about Support. They think it’s great to have a shared information place, were it’s easy and quick to find information and they’re keen about the portfolio reviews and the user ease and clarity of InoplanT.
What they don’t value is the Support aspect. They think the output is never used, the system is
The inspiring thing of IPM was only asked to the Dream Users. There are 7 records found.
Four people, which is a clear majority, think Information Sharing is the inspiring thing of IPM.
User Understanding and User Ease are mentioned once. All records are registered in the Support theme.
Just two records are found when asked to benefits of IPM (only DU’s). This is because a lot of people mentioned the Process part and this is excluded from this research The records found are Access and Information Sharing. Again, all answers are about Support.
Future users were asked what they liked about IPM. After exclusion there are 8 records left that are all in the Support theme. Four people mention Information sharing, which is 50% of the records. The other four are user ease, user understanding, clarity and overview.
Fifteen records are found when was asked about their dislikes of IPM. Clearly, they have a lot to say about this concerning Support (12 times) and People (3 times). About people, quality is mentioned once and usage twice. Concerning Support, access is mentioned three times, usage, interface and slowness twice. User understanding and Clarity are both mentioned once.
The Why of IPM consists of 26 records when the four reality problems are excluded. These are, perception, target and non-problems.
Again, a gap analysis will be made of differences between user understanding and ideal understanding and differences will be assigned to ‘de Leeuw’ problems.
Keywords DU FU Ideal Understanding
Information Sharing X X Information Sharing
User Understanding X X
User Ease X X
Access X X
Clarity X Clarity
Overview X Overview
Interface X
Slowness X
Quality X
Usage X
Some people think the interface of IPM and the documents are not good. The presentation can’t be used to updated stakeholders. This is a perception problem with two sides. First, the users should get used to the new interface instead of their old ones and second, the
stakeholder should do that too. They should help with the integration of IPM and not asking for a different look of the presentation with exactly the same information.
Slowness is about the support, for they think that InoplanT is too slow. Indeed InoplanT isn’t very fast. It takes about 10 seconds to view something and that is slow for a computer.
But…when you had to do it all by yourself, it would take hours. Compared to that, IPM is very quick. Therefore it’s clearly a target problem. It’s an unrealistic desire to expect a database to generate information from over a few thousend data in 3 seconds. It’s just an irritation factor that can be solved by informing the people. Let them be aware of the difference between before and now. Why IPM is used, is also because it should be a fast way to share and generate info, and it is. But all compared to the manual way before.
Usage is about People. This is for it’s the people that don’t use IPM in the way it should be used. Mentioned are that the databases aren’t used and that people don’t fill in the data. This is categorised as a perception problem, for it’s partly caused by misinterpretation of the reality.
Most people use it the way it should be used. The way the system works is OK, but the users should use it more. That can improve the sharing of information, what is why IPM is used.
User ease is only a perception problem, for it’s not why IPM is used. Again, this is not really a problem, but obviously users value the ‘wrong’/less important things. It should be clear and valued why IPM is used and hopefully his can be solved by training/informing the users.
User understanding is one of the best examples of a perception problem. The remark is dat users expect that IPM solves all problems, but that it obviously never does that. This is completely true. The expectations about IPM should be changed and more the same to the reality. It should be more clear what IPM can do and what not and why it is used.
Access is mentioned twice. Once in a positive way and one in a negative. Positive was that you gain access to a lot of things, so this isn’t a problem, but on the negative side is mentioned that it’s hard to get that access. This is a target problem, for it shouldn’t be accessible to all people, so it’s a pretty unfeasible desire.
involve an upgrade of the quality of the data in itself. Quality of the data is important for the why of IPM for it’s the basis of information sharing. The input should be good to generate data for better and faster innovation.
The last two gaps are again the most important ones, for they belong also to the ideal understanding. Information Sharing is the only one that is mentioned by both and a lot of times.
Clarity will be explained because all mentioned reasons are negative instead of positive and dream users don’t mention it at all. The process and what to put in should be clear, for this is a very important factor of information sharing. When people put in different kind of things when the same sort of data are expected, the process of innovation will be slowed down instead of fastened. Therefore clarity is categorised as a perception problem. This is because IPM is very clear, when the users are good informed. They can be teached where to find what and what to put in. Why IPM should be used, should also be very clear and can be communicated.
Overview is important for it is one of the reasons why they introduced IPM and why IPM should be used. Clear overviews of all projects should be used to fasten the innovation, for a better understanding of the progress of the project and to get an overview of the whole portfolio. Only Future users mentioned this about the understanding of IPM. This means that dream users have to be informed about the generation of overviews, why this is important and why this can be of use.
4.3.4. The HOW of IPM
How should IPM be used? That is the third and last part of the understanding of IPM. To explore this part, two questions are used from the interviews. One from the dream users ‘How does IPM add value to your work/role?’ and one from the future dream users ‘Have you ever used IPM? Why/Why not?’ These are used to research how people use it and why not. When all answers, themes and aspects are included, the following statements can be made about those questions.
DU’s thinks that IPM adds value to their work in two ways; Process and Support. About the process, they think the common format is a great way to get overviews and to manage the projects (deadlines, meetings etc.). It also gives you a lot of information. The Support helps to
find the information you need easy and quick, to do some pre-work and to save space from the computer.
FU’s use IPM for two reasons, Process and Support. Most of them used IPM because of the Process. Half of them say that you’re required to use it and to put information in. The others say that they use it for summaries and analysis, updates for management and because IPM drives the project and the quality of work. They used IPM for Support to fill out the forms and to use the portfolio. Most of the time, they don’t use it because they don’t have enough access.
Now when Process is eliminated, there are seven records about the added value of IPM. Four of them are about Information Sharing, which is a clear majority and storage place, overview and user ease are all mentioned once.
Also seven researchable records are found about the use of IPM. Future Users use IPM for several reasons. Three people mention they use it because they’re forced to and the other ones mention overview, communication, globalisation and information sharing.
When we remove reality problems, globalisation will be removed. This is for it’s about global access. Not all people do have that and that is something that occurs in the ‘real world’.
The gap analysis between the user understanding and the ideal understanding shows the following:
Keywords DU FU Ideal Understanding
Forced X
Information Sharing X X Information Sharing
Storage place X
Overview X X Overview
User ease X X User ease
The how of IPM shows 13 researchable records with 9 non-problems. This shows us, that most users know how to use IPM and that it is the closest to the ideal understanding. It’s the only one where all ideal understanding issues are mentioned by both groups. The two remaining problems that are solvable will be described now.
