ERP implementation at
Heineken:
improvements for information management?
Maarten van den Muijsenberg
Master Thesis
Technology Management
June 2009
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
Project Company
Heineken Netherlands BV
1
ERP implementation at
Heineken:
improvements for information management?
Maarten van den Muijsenberg
Master Thesis
Technology Management
June 2009
Project Company
Heineken Netherlands BV
Supervisor: Mr. A.M. Werring
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
Supervisor: prof. dr. H.G. Sol
Co-assessor: prof. dr. A. Boonstra
2
Preface
This report describes the research I conducted at Heineken for finishing the master
program of Technology Management at the university of Groningen. This research
was part of an internship at Heineken, which started Jan 2009 and lasted for six
months. The research was conducted in Zoeterwoude, where the Heineken
headquarters of the Netherlands are situated. This research was conducted at the
Horeca division of the Netherlands. The majority of the data used in this research was
gathered there.
First of all I would like to thank my supervisor at Heineken Loek Werring for giving
me the opportunity to conduct my research at the Horeca Division of Heineken. Also,
special thanks to Rico van Burgh for providing me with this specific assignment.
Furthermore, I would like to thank all the people within the HeiSale project team for
helping me during the project and providing information when asked for. I would also
like to thank all other employees at Heineken I visited for interviews or for discussing
various end products.
Also, many thanks to Henk Sol, my supervisor at the University of Groningen who
helped me develop ideas and structure my research.
Maarten van den Muijsenberg
Amsterdam, June 2009
3
Management summary
This report is the result of a research conducted at the Horeca division of Heineken
Netherlands. The Horeca division is preparing for an ERP implementation at the end
of 2009. Besides the ERP system, a BI solution and Every Angle are developed as
well. The systems that are being developed are not fully adjusted to the information
need of the Dutch Horeca organization. Because the systems that are being developed
are also going to be implemented in other European countries. Also, Heineken does
not know which manager needs what information.
The Horeca division wanted to know how the different tools could be used to satisfy
their information need. Therefore, the following research question is answered. How
should the Horeca division of Heineken NL use the different BI tools to ensure that
every manager is provided with appropriate information for the coming years?
During analysis of the current reporting situation, some problems concerning
reporting came about. After analyzing the current situation, I identified if the new
systems would solve any of the problems. The systems did not solve the problems
identified in the current situation. There are four causes to the problems identified at
Heineken:
- there is no control structure for reporting;
- information need of managers is not clear;
- many systems can be used to generate a report;
- employees do not always work according to work instructions.
After identifying possible solutions for overcoming the problems, the choice has been
made to work out a solution for overcoming the first three causes. A method is
developed that (when used strictly) makes sure only one department delivers a report,
only one system or data cube is used to generate that report and the information in the
report is information a manager can act upon.
4
Table of contents
PREFACE.............................................................................................................................................2
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ................................................................................................................3
1 INTRODUCTION HEINEKEN HEISALE ..........................................................................................6
1.1 COMPANY INFORMATION .............................................................................................................6 1.2 PROJECT INFORMATION ...............................................................................................................7
2 PROBLEM STATEMENT............................................................................................................11
2.1 PROBLEM DESCRIPTION..............................................................................................................11
3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY................................................................................15
3.1 DESIGN SCIENCE .......................................................................................................................15 3.2 SYSTEMS DESIGN ......................................................................................................................16 3.3 DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ............................................................................................................16 3.4 METHODS AND SOURCES ...........................................................................................................17
4 CURRENT SITUATION AT THE HORECA DIVISION.....................................................................20
4.1 DETERMINATION OF INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................20 4.2 THE WAY INFORMATION IS PROVIDED ...........................................................................................21 4.3 INFORMATION DELIVERED TO MANAGERS ......................................................................................24 4.4 CAUSES TO THE PROBLEMS .........................................................................................................29 4.5 PROBLEM SUMMARY.................................................................................................................31
5 TO BE SITUATION....................................................................................................................33
5.1 WORK PROCESSES ....................................................................................................................33 5.2 DEPARTMENTS.........................................................................................................................35 5.3 DO THE CHANGES SOLVE THE CURRENT PROBLEMS?.........................................................................36
6 OVERCOMING THE PROBLEMS................................................................................................38
6.1 PROBLEMS THAT MUST BE SOLVED ...............................................................................................38 6.2 EMPLOYEES WORKING ACCORDING TO WORK INSTRUCTIONS .............................................................39 6.3 APPROPRIATE INFORMATION AND KPI’S........................................................................................44 6.4 REPORTING STRUCTURE .............................................................................................................46 6.5 SYSTEM CHOICE........................................................................................................................50
7 PROPOSED SOLUTION.............................................................................................................52
7.1 INFORMATION APPROPRIATE PER MANAGER...................................................................................52 7.2 OWNER OF CONTENT, FREQUENCY, SYSTEM CHOICE, WHO DELIVERS REPORT ........................................54 7.3 REPORTS THAT ARE ACTUALLY DELIVERED ......................................................................................56 7.4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USING COORDINATION.XLS ......................................................................57 7.5 DOES COORDINATION.XLS SOLVE THE PROBLEMS?...........................................................................59
8 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................61
8.1 ANSWER TO THE MAIN RESEARCH QUESTION ..................................................................................61 8.2 GUIDELINES HEVNER.................................................................................................................62 8.3 SYSTEMS DESIGN BY DE LEEUW ...................................................................................................63 8.4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH................................................................................63
BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................................................65
SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE ............................................................................................................................65 DOCUMENTS .........................................................................................................................................66 INTERNET ..............................................................................................................................................66
APPENDICES.....................................................................................................................................67
5
APPENDIX 1: AS IS AND TO BE LANDSCAPE SYSTEMS .........................................................................68 APPENDIX 2: STRUCTURE HORECA DIVISION ......................................................................................69 APPENDIX 3: STAKEHOLDERS ..........................................................................................................70 APPENDIX 4: WORK PROCESSES CURRENT SITUATION ..........................................................................72 APPENDIX 5 BO BS DESCRIPTIONS .................................................................................................76 APPENDIX 6: COORDINATION.XLS ....................................................................................................83 APPENDIX 7: DATA TYPES/CATEGORIES IN BUSINESS WAREHOUSE ..........................................................91
6
1 Introduction Heineken HeiSale
In this chapter general information about Heineken and the Heisale project is
presented.
1.1 Company information
Heineken was founded in 1864 when Gerard Adriaan Heineken acquired a small
brewery in the heart of Amsterdam. Since then, four generations of the Heineken
family have expanded the Heineken brand and the company throughout Europe and
the rest of the world (Heineken Annual Report 2008).
Heineken has grown to a company that is present in many countries. Heineken’s most
famous brand is Heineken, but the group brews and sells more than 170 different
beers and ciders (Heineken.com).
In 2008, the average number of employees employed was 56,208 and the group beer
volume was 125.8 million hectoliters. Heineken NV made a net profit of 209 million
euro’s in 2008. This is less than the profit of 1119 million euro’s in 2007. This is due
to the acquisition of Scottish and Newcastle (Heineken Annual Report 2008 and
2007).
Heineken is active in many countries and within countries Heineken has many
business units. This research is conducted at the Horeca division of Heineken
Netherlands.
1.1.1 Horeca division
The Horeca division is responsible for distributing and selling beer and beer related
products to their corporate costumers (bars, restaurants, etc.). The Horeca division has
about 20.000 customers and consists of 9 regional sales units and 1 sales unit for
national accounts. The combined gross sales of those units are about 600 million
euro’s. A more detailed description of the Horeca division can be found in the project
information segment.
7
1.1.2 IT Strategy
The IT strategy of Heineken is based on four interdependent fundamental pillars:
foundation, information, innovation and organization. The HeiSale project is related
to the foundation pillar. The foundation pillar stands for automating business
processes in a standard way and for leveraging standard IT solutions. The goal is to
manage common business processes using common systems and shared services
(Heineken Intranet). The HeiSale system is such a common system for Heineken
Europe.
1.2 Project information
Heineken’s Horeca organization uses many information systems to support their
processes. This has resulted in a very complex system landscape (A description of the
TO BE and AS IS system landscape can be found in Appendix 1). Heineken Europe
decided to replace some of their legacy systems by a new SAP system; HeiSale. This
SAP system consists of an ECC (ERP Central Component, ERP stands for Enterprise
Resource Planning), CRM (Customer Relationship Management) and LEO (Logistics
Execution Optimizer) component. Heineken Netherlands is the first in Europe to
implement the new systems. After rollout in the Netherlands, the rest of Europe will
implement the systems.
1.2.1 Scope HeiSale
Figure 1 describes the Heineken organization of the Netherlands in a little bit more
detail. The Horeca organization is part of the commercial organization of the
Netherlands. Only the Horeca organization of Heineken NL is going to use the new
SAP systems. Retail, Marketing and all other entities are not involved in the project
and are not going to use the new systems.
H eineken N L
H eineken N L supp ly
C om m erc ia l o rgan ization
V rum onaH eineken N L
brew ery serv ices
H orecaR eta ilM arketing
Figure 1: Organization entities
8
The Horeca organization of Heineken consists of various entities. Except for the HR
(human resource) manager and the horeca secretary, every entity in figure 2 is going
to use the new systems. A more detailed description of the Horeca organization is
presented in Appendix 2.
Horeca Manager
Management Service
Organization (TSO)
National Sales Management
National Account Management
National Category
Management
National Trade Marketing
Management
Business Improvement
Manager
Horeca Secretary
ControllerHR Manager
Figure 2: Horeca Organization (Adapted from HNL organization v07.ppt)
National sales management is by far the largest department. HeiSale has its biggest
effect there. Within the responsibility of national sales management are the different
sales and logistical units in the Netherlands. The majority of the people work for those
units and the units are involved in the majority of the processes. In figure 3 and 4 the
responsibility areas of the different sales and logistical units are shown. The areas
responsible for sales and for the logistical operations are somewhat different.
Sales responsibility areas wholesale: 1.1 national: National Acc Mgt (NAM) 2.9 regions: Noord Nederland 3. Noord Holland (Alkmaar) 4. Amsterdam 5. Zuid Holland 6. Zuidwest Nederland 7. Utrecht 8. Oost Nederland 9. Zuidoost Nederland 10. Limburg 11.3 islands: Terschelling 12. Vlieland 13. Ameland
Figure 3: Sales responsibility area's ( Derived from: HNL sales & logistical organization 08 08 01.ppt)
D rach ten
A m ste rda m
D even te r
W est-B raban t
De lf landH outen
Heerlen
O ost-B raban t
A lkm aar
Zuid
UtZuid
9
Logistical resp. areas wholesale: 1.11 region DC Noord Nederland (Drachten) 2. Noord Holland (Alkmaar) 3. Amsterdam 4. Zuid Holland Rotterdam 5. Zuid Holland Wateringen 6. Zuidwest NL Etten-Leur 7. Zuidwest NL Hulst 8. Utrecht 9. Oost Nederland 10. Zuidoost Nederland (Oss) 11. Limburg 12.3 islands: Terschelling 13. Vlieland 14. Ameland 15. Centraal Magazijn (W’veen) 16.2 cellar beer Den Bosch 17. Wijlre
Figure 4: Logistical responsibility area's (Derived from: HNL sales & logistical organization 08 08 01.ppt)
1.2.2 Processes
Heineken Europe and ARIS consultants identified 6 major process groups for the
Horeca division. The HeiSale system is based on these process groups. Heineken NL
identified another process group (market to order) that was not stated in Europe. The
process groups HeiSale is based on are described below.
Market to Order: to make sure customers by the products of Heineken for a price
that corresponds with profit margin goals of Heineken.
Order to Cash: for effectively and efficiently acquiring and storing goods and
services against good conditions.
Purchase to Pay: for taking customer orders and fulfilling these orders logistically,
financially, administratively as efficient and effective as possible.
Record to Report: process for recording and reporting financial facts for external and
internal reporting and analysis.
Master Data Management: for on time, complete and consistent registering of
master data.
Customer Technical Services: for technical support for customers. For installing
installations and performing after sales services.
Drachten
Amsterdam
Deventer
West-Brabant
DelflandHouten
Heerlen
Oost-Brabant
Alkmaar
Zui Zuid
Ut
D
N
Zuid
10
1.2.3 Project planning
The project consists of two implementation waves. Not all departments are going to
be supported by the new systems simultaneously.
Wave 1
The first wave starts in the last quarter of the year 2009. In wave one HeiSale is first
implemented in the regional units and the islands, starting with Alkmaar. After roll
out in the units, HeiSale is implemented for Cellarbeer and the Central Warehouse.
All processes, except for customer technical services, are going to be supported at this
time. Finally, in wave 1, HeiSale is implemented for the technical service
organization. National account management is gradually adapted to HeiSale, because
national account management customers are not situated in a specific region.
Wave 2
Implementation wave 2 starts in the last quarter of 2010. After wave 2 activities
related to organizing events, making contracts and providing loans are supported by
HeiSale.
11
2 Problem statement
2.1 Problem description
Besides developing the HeiSale system for supporting their operational processes,
Heineken is developing a business intelligence (BI) solution based on the HeiSale
system. This business warehouse in combination with the transaction SAP system and
Every Angle (a SAP add-on for reporting) should support the information need of the
Horeca organization. It should provide employees with information that enables them
to monitor firm performance from day to day.
SAP, BI, and Every Angle must provide the following type of reports:
- operational reports;
- reports about process control, two important measurements are:
o On Time In Full
o First Time Right;
- strategic/tactical reports and KPI (Key Performance Indicator) reports.
Because the systems are developed for Heineken Europe they are not fully adjusted to
the information need of the Horeca organization of the Netherlands. The Horeca
division does not know how the systems being developed can be used to satisfy the
information need of the various managers in the organization. Also Heineken NL does
not have a process to determine which manager needs what information. One of the
symptoms is that definitions of KPI’s are changing every year.
2.1.1 Problem definition
The information need of managers at the Horeca division of Heineken NL is not clear
and it is unclear how the systems being developed can and will satisfy that
information need.
2.1.2 Research objective
Design the organization within the Horeca division of Heineken NL using the
different BI tools to provide managers with appropriate information for the coming
years.
12
2.1.3 Main research question
How should the Horeca division of Heineken NL use the different BI tools to ensure
that every manager is provided with appropriate information for the coming years?
2.1.4 Sub-questions
The following sub questions are constructed for answering the main research
question.
1. How are information requirements of managers determined and how is information
provided to managers in the current situation and what are the consequences for the
information delivered to the managers?
The first aim of this sub question is identifying how information requirements of
managers in the Horeca organization are determined. The second part of this question
is concerned with assessing how the Horeca division provides information to
managers. The departments involved in reporting and the systems used are identified.
Finally, the consequences for the information delivered to managers are described.
This sub-question is dealt with in chapter four.
2. What changes in the Horeca organization do the new systems enforce and what are
the implications for the way information is delivered to managers?
This questions aims to identify what changes take place in the Horeca division when
the systems are implemented. Identified is if work tasks change, if the departments
responsible for providing information stay the same and if possible changes resolve
the problems identified in the current situation. This sub-question is treated in chapter
five.
3. What are feasible directions for overcoming the problems related to reporting that
remain after the new systems are implemented?
In this sub-question is identified what the possible directions are for overcoming the
problems identified in the first two sub-questions. Based on the Heineken situation the
problems worth solving are identified. For the problems worth solving a feasible
direction is chosen for overcoming them. The answer to this sub-question is treated in
chapter six.
13
4. How should the departments responsible for reporting decide if information is
appropriate for a manager and make sure managers receive that information by using
the new systems?
By now, problems concerning reporting and feasible directions for overcoming those
problems are identified. When information is appropriate for a manager is also
defined. Now, the Horeca division must make sure that managers only receive
appropriate information. Answering this sub-question deals with that. Advice is given
for achieving this and for overcoming the other problems identified in previous sub-
questions. Chapter seven is concerned with answering this sub-question.
2.1.5 Scope
The scope of the research will be implementation wave 1 up till implementing
HeiSale for Cellarbeer. This affects the processes that are in scope and the managerial
entities that are in scope.
Organization
Horeca division of Heineken NL
Process groups
- Market to Order
- Record to Report
- Order to Cash
- Purchase to Pay
Managerial entities
- National Sales Management
- National Account Management
- National Trade Marketing
- National Category Management
Type of reports
Managers receive two types of reports; strategic/tactical (non-KPI reports) and KPI
reports.
14
2.1.6 Stakeholder analysis
Many groups are influenced by the introduction of HeiSale and many groups
influence the successful introduction of HeiSale. In other words, various stakeholders
can be identified. This corresponds with the definition of Freeman, who defines
stakeholders as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the
achievement of the organization’s objectives” (1984, p. 46). There are a lot of people
involved in the introduction of HeiSale and there are a lot of people who are going to
use the new systems. All of them are stakeholders, but I’m going to narrow them
down for scoping reasons.
Following the sub-questions, two groups of stakeholders must be identified. Sincet
here is no agreed method for identification of stakeholders (Heidrich et al., 2009), I
will narrow them down based on whether they have information needs or are (or
going to be) involved in reporting.
The first group of stakeholders are the managers of the Horeca division. They have
information needs that the new systems have to fulfil. The second group of
stakeholders are the managers involved in reporting. More specifically, the managers
who provide strategic/tactical and KPI reports. An overview of the stakeholders is
presented in Appendix 3.
15
3 Research design and methodology
This chapter presents the research approach chosen. Also the methods and sources
used for answering the sub-questions are presented.
3.1 Design science
Hevner et al. (2004) combine behavioral science to explain and predict phenomena
related to the business need and design science for building and evaluating artifacts to
meet that need. This research aims at identifying how appropriate information can be
provided to the managers of the Horeca division using the systems being developed
(the business need). To prevent confusion, the information need of managers is not
the business need. The business need is identifying how the systems being developed
can be used to provide managers with appropriate information.
An artifact must be created to meet the business need. According to Hevner et al.
(2004) an artifact can be a construct, model, method or instantiation. The artifact
created in this research is a method for using the BI tools. This method helps identify
if information is appropriate for a manager and how this information must be
provided. Therefore, this research can be characterized as design science as
formulated by Hevner et al. (2004); a method is developed to meet the business need
of the Horeca division of Heineken.
Hevner et al. (2004) established seven guidelines for effective design science research
(figure 5). For design science research to be complete these guidelines should be
addressed. In chapter 8 is evaluated if the guidelines of Hevner et al. (2004) are
properly addressed in this research.
16
Figure 5: Design-Science Research Guidelines (Derived from Hevne et al. (2004))
3.2 Systems design
According to De Leeuw (2002) a design should not only be a measure for solving the
problem, but should provide steering measures in changing circumstances. This
corresponds with the objective of this research: design the organization within the
Horeca division of Heineken NL using the different BI tools to provide managers with
appropriate information for the coming years. The coming years in the objective
implies that circumstances may change. The method developed in chapter 7 must be
applicable in changing circumstances. If this is true is also evaluated in chapter 8.
3.3 Development process
This research aims at providing the Horeca division with a design for using the
different BI tools to ensure that every manager is provided with appropriate
information for the coming years. It is sensible to use a development process when
designing something. Although this research does not aim at developing a physical
product, a design process still helps coordinating and planning the project (Ulrich &
Eppinger, 2003).
Ulrich & Eppinger (2003) describe a (six phase) generic development process for
development projects. Since it is generic, a description of the six phases for this
design project is presented.
17
Planning: during this phase the goal of the project and constraints are determined.
This is done in previous chapter.
Concept Development: during this phase the needs of the Horeca division are
identified. The specifications and features of the design are determined in this phase.
Next two chapters deal with this part of the development process.
System Level Design: includes decomposition of the product in subcomponents and
components and a definition of the product architecture. Here it entails the design of
the components of the proposed solution. This includes a description of the
information that is appropriate for various managers, systems that can provide that
information and who must provide the report containing that information.
Detail Design: for product design this phase includes specification of parts, materials
etc. In this paper it entails the detailed design of the general solution. However, the
distinction between this and previous phase is not made in this paper.
Testing and Refinement: in this phase the solution is presented to the managers
responsible for using the BI tools. Refinements and adjustments to the initial design
are made. The outcome of this phase is an accepted version of the design that is used
after implementation of HeiSale.
Production Ramp Up: implementation of the solution in the Horeca organization of
Heineken NL. The roll out of the HeiSale systems starts in the last quarter of the year
2009. This phase is therefore out of scope. However, when the stakeholders accept the
proposed solution, implementation is just using the solution.
3.4 Methods and sources
The methods and sources used for answering the research questions are described
below. The techniques used for information gathering are described.
18
1. How are information requirements of managers determined and how is information
provided to managers in the current situation and what are the consequences for the
information delivered to the managers? (Chapter 4)
How information requirements are determined is answered by interviewing both the
managers of the Horeca division and the managers responsible for delivering reports
identified in the stakeholder analysis. How information is provided to the managers is
also answered by interviewing managers of the Horeca division and the managers
responsible for reporting.
The last part of this sub-question is answered by interviewing the managers of the
Horeca division. These managers are asked which reports are delivered to them, what
KPI’s are presented in these reports and which other information is presented in these
reports. They are also asked what measures they can take to influence the content of
these reports. The theory for effective control of De Leeuw (2002) is used to identify
the problems with the information currently delivered to the managers.
The managers of the Horeca division and the managers responsible for reporting
presented in figure 6 were interviewed for answering the different parts of the sub
questions. The column ‘information requirements’ describes who was interviewed for
determining how information requirements are gathered. The next to columns show
who was interviewed for identifying how information is provided to managers and
what information is delivered to managers in the Horeca division.
Part sub-question Information requirements How is information provided Information deliveredReporting managersHead of control X XLogistics controller XNational accounts controller XBusiness analysis managers X XInformation management managers X XFinancial services managers XHoreca ManagersRegional sales managers X XNational logistics manager X XNational account managers X XNational category managers X X XNational trade marketing manager X X X
Figure 6: Interviewed managers
19
2. What changes in the Horeca organization do the new systems enforce and what are
the implications for the way information is delivered to managers? (Chapter 5)
This sub question is answered by interviewing employees in the project team
concerned with the implementation of the new systems and analyzing documents
about the project. Also the Heineken Intranet is used to identify what processes
currently exist in the Horeca division. The results of these interviews and the analysis
of the project documents are compared with the current situation. Identified is if the
current problems will be solved due to changes enforced by the systems.
3. What are feasible directions for overcoming the problems related to reporting that
remain after the new systems are implemented? (Chapter 6)
Based on the outcome of previous sub-questions, directions for overcoming the
remaining problems are given by exploring existing literature on the problems and
when no literature exist, by using common sense. The directions identified where
discussed with the managers of control, business analyses, information management
and the HeiSale project team for feasibility.
4. How should the departments responsible for reporting decide if information is
appropriate for a manager and make sure managers receive that information by using
the new systems? (Chapter 7)
Based on knowledge gained for overcoming the problems in sub-question 3, a method
is presented for ensuring that employees receive appropriate information and for
identifying how it should be delivered. This method helps overcome the problems
identified in previous sub-questions. For identifying which systems can generate
reports about certain information types, functional designs of the systems being
developed were analyzed.
20
4 Current situation at the Horeca division
This chapter aims at answering the first sub-question “How are information
requirements of managers determined and how is information provided to managers
in the current situation and what are the consequences for the information delivered
to the managers?”. First, the way information requirements are determined is
described. Subsequently, the way information is provided to managers is identified.
Next the information that managers receive is evaluated using the theory and models
of De Leeuw (2002). Finally, the identified problems are related to the way
information requirements are determined and the way information is provided to
managers.
4.1 Determination of information requirements
The two types of reports managers of the Horeca division receive are reports about
KPI’s and non-KPI reports (strategical/tactical reports).
4.1.1 KPI reports
KPI reports contain information on the KPI’s of managers of the Horeca division. The
management team of the Horeca division and the Horeca controller determine the
KPI’s each year. The management team of Horeca consists of the head of Horeca and
the heads of the departments national sales management, national account
management, national category management and national trade marketing
management. They determine the KPI’s based on the KPI’s they get from the board of
directors of Heineken NL. The board of directors of Heineken NL determines KPI’s
based on the KPI’s they get from the board of directors of Heineken Europe.
4.1.2 Non-KPI reports
For determining the information stored in KPI reports a process can be identified. For
non-KPI reports no such process exists. Every manager of the Horeca division can ask
various people and departments for reports. They can ask the controllers of their
departments for reports. They also can ask the departments information management
and business analyses to produce a report. There is no process for deciding which
manager should get what information.
21
4.2 The way information is provided
In figure 7, the reporting structure within the Horeca division is described. The units
responsible for reporting are described, the reports delivered are described and the
units receiving reports are described. This picture is a simplification of the situation at
the Horeca division. In reality more departments, systems, reports and relationships
exist. The most important departments and systems are mentioned.
Horeca Manager
National Sales Manager
Regional Sales Managers
Regional Logistics Managers
National Logistic Manager
National Category Management
National Account Management
National Trade Marketing
IM
Horeca Organization
Detail reports for Horeca organization, reports depend on
demand in organization
Reports on promotions, reports from StarBusiness (Promotool,
StarBusiness)
Business Analyse
Reports on volumes,cashflows, profit and losses (general ledger)
Proost, WMS, Dolfijn, EDI, Marketmaker, LotusNotes, MXP, Fieldvision, Enorm,
Powerplay, SAP BW, Excel
Reports on suppliers (HBDW)
Financial Services (accounts recievable)
Business ControlProost, Rems, Floris, Consist, Onquard
Overdue Payment Reports
Reports on suppliers (SAP, Proost, MarketMaker, Onquard)
Proost, SAP TM1, Heyperion and most other systems
Financial Services (accounts payable)
Reports on matching, workload, not processed payments
BasWare, SAP, Proost
Adjusted reports, reports
depending on need
management
Figure 7: Reporting Structure Horeca Division
22
The light blue boxes are departments that produce reports, the yellow boxes contain
the systems used for reporting and the green box is the Horeca organization that
receives reports. Business control is also made green, because it both receives and
provides reports. The organizational units identified in the picture are described
below.
4.2.1 Horeca organization
The Horeca organization of Heineken consists of the departments national account
management, national sales management, trade marketing management, category
management. Appendix 4 presents the processes that can be identified in the Horeca
organization. Various departments deliver reports; the Horeca organization itself can
even be a reporting source. This is because every department has its own controller.
Controllers produce reports for the departments they work in and adjust reports made
by other departments.
4.2.2 Financial services accounts receivable
They spread information through the organization about overdue payments and the
amount corresponding with those overdue payments. These reports are provided
monthly and contain information per region. This information goes to the legal
department, unit controllers, regional sales managers, business control, etc.
4.2.3 Financial services accounts payable
They spread reports about matching, workload and not processed invoices to logistical
departments. They upload their reports on the intranet.
4.2.4 Information management (IM)
Information management provides reports about volumes, Kikkers, logistics etc.
These reports contain detailed figures. Managers within the Horeca division can ask
for a certain report and IM decides if they will produce that report. If so, they make
the report and spread it through the organization periodically.
4.2.5 Business analyses (BA)
Business analyses provides reports about volumes, profit & losses, balance
statements, logistics and cash flows. They spread these aggregated reports through the
23
Horeca Organization. Managers in the Horeca organization can ask business analyses
to produce reports.
4.2.6 Business control
Defines KPI’s together with the management team and controls the Horeca
organization based on values of those KPI’s. They adjust reports delivered by other
departments and make own reports.
4.2.7 Systems
As can be seen, many systems are in use and there are even more systems that are not
shown in figure 7. A description of these systems is outside the scope of this research.
Important to remember is that different systems can be used to produce reports. The
data in the various systems is not consistent. The systems are often not related to each
other and data entered in one system is not automatically processed in other systems.
4.2.8 Comments on reporting structure
As explained at the beginning of this paragraph, the reporting structure presented
above is not complete. All relevant organizational units are identified, but not all
reports and relationships. For a general idea about the reporting structure and
problems associated with the current structure, figure 7 is sufficient.
What can be seen is that reports can come from many sources; various organizational
units are responsible for building and distributing reports. Many departments were
mentioned that deliver reports to the managers of the Horeca division during
interviews with those managers.
There is no control structure for reporting and information spreading. Nobody knows
exactly what reports are made and by whom. Even managers of the departments
responsible for reporting do not always know what reports other departments make.
For example, a manager of business analyses did not know that information
management made reports as well.
24
What also can be seen from the figure above is the large number of systems that are
used for reporting. Reports on KPI’s and other information can be generated by
multiple systems and made by multiple departments.
4.3 Information delivered to managers
This section first describes on which two aspects the information delivered to
managers is assessed. The aspects are identified by using the theory on effective
control of De Leeuw (2002). Subsequently, the information delivered to managers is
assessed on those aspects. Finally, the KPI’s used at the Horeca division are analyzed
in more depth.
4.3.1 Aspects the information delivered to managers is assessed on
The managers within the Horeca division control certain areas of the Horeca division.
They each control parts of the Horeca organization. The manager and the area he
controls can be represented by the BO BS model of De Leeuw (2002) presented in
figure 8. Where BO is the control system (the manager in this particular case) and BS
the system he controls (a part of the Horeca organization). The model represents the
information going to the control systems (indicated by the left arrow), the measures
from the control system to the controlled systems (indicated by the right arrow) and
the control (BO) and controlled system (BS) themselves.
BO
BS
Figure 8: BO BS model
According to De Leeuw (2002), a control system should obey 5 conditions for it to be
effective.
25
1 Goal
A system should have a goal and a mechanism to measure attainment of that goal.
2 Model of controlled system
For control of the controlled system, you should know the effect of measures, be
aware of causality.
3 Information about environment and state of the system
For a measure to be effective one should know the state of the system and the
environment.
4 Sufficient steering measures
The variety of steering measures should be at least as big as the variety of disruptions
of the system.
5 Capacity of information processing
Information needs to be processed, so the control system needs to have sufficient
capacity to do that.
The information managers receive is assessed on two aspects based on the five
conditions above. The first aspect is if the information managers currently receive is
sufficient to know the state of the system they control (condition 3 of De Leeuw
(2002)). The second aspect is if the KPI’s and information managers receive is
relevant to the controlled area of a manager (combining condition 2, 3 and 4 of De
Leeuw (2002)). In other words, if the information or KPI presented in reports can be
influenced by steering measures a BO (manager) can take. Because when managers
cannot influence the values of KPI’s and information in non-KPI reports they should
not get those KPI’s or reports. Analysis on the aspects is done by analyzing the BO
BS configurations using the attributes below. Descriptions of the attributes are
obtained by interviewing managers of the Horeca organization.
Description BO Description of control system
Objective Objective of control system
Description BS Description of controlled system
26
Information from BS Information received by BO (manager)
KPI KPI’s used by BO
Steering measures Measures the BO (manager) can take.
Figure 9 graphically presents the BO BS configurations that can be identified in the
Horeca division of Heineken. In Appendix 5, the majority of the BO BS
configurations are described using the attributes above. The reason for not describing
all entities and relationships is because it was not possible to interview every manager
of the Horeca division.
B S H o re c aO rg a n iza tio n
H o re caM a n a g e r
B O
N a tio n a l tra d eM a rk e tin g M a n a g e r
T ra d e M a rk e t in g
B O
B S
N a tio n a l A c co u n tM a n a g e m e n t
N a tio n a lA c o o u n ts
B O
B S
N a tio n a l C a te g o ryM a n a g e m e n t
S a le sp ro d u c tca te g o rie s
B O
B S
N a tio n a lS a le s
M a n a g e r
B O
B S N a tio n a lS a le s
R e g io n a l S a le sM a n a g e r
R e g io n a l S a le s
B O
B S
N a tio n a lL o g is t ic sM a n a g e r
B O
B S N a tio n a llo g is tic s
R e g io n a l L o g is tic sM a n a g e r
R e g io n a l L o g is tic s
B O
B S
Figure 9: Control structure Horeca division
27
4.3.2 Scores on the two aspects
Information sufficient for knowing state of the system?
During interviews with managers from the BO’s a number of problems related to
information delivered to them came about. One should keep in mind that not all
managers experienced the problems described below. Still it is important to mention
them, because these problems indicate that the information presented to managers of
the Horeca division is not always sufficient to know the state of the system they
control.
Some managers mentioned getting too little information; regional sales management
does not get reports on costs, commercial costs (which they can influence directly)
and profit. Category management does not get information about suppliers for
example. They need this information to choose suppliers that score good on OTIF (on
time in full deliverances) and charge the lowest prices. Also logistics does not get
information on OTIF of their warehouses. National account management does not get
information about profitability per customer.
Also, reports do not always come on a regular basis; some months, managers get a
report, the other month they do not (regional sales management). Some managers get
multiple reports on the same KPI with different values on that KPI. For example, a
volume sold report made by business analyses showed a 10 % difference on volumes
sold compared with the same report made by a controller. Business analyses used
SAP and the controller used the Proost system for producing the report. The SAP
report considered volumes leaving the factory as volumes sold, while Proost
considered volumes delivered to the customer as volumes sold.
Another problem mentioned was that information and values on KPI’s are sometimes
experienced as unreliable (regional sales manager, trade marketing, category
management).
Is information presented to managers relevant to their controlled area?
Information presented to managers cannot always be influenced by measures those
managers can take. Information that managers get is not always information on which
28
they can take action, because the information is not relevant for their department. For
example, category management gets reports and KPI’s on volumes per channel, which
is impossible to influence by them. Trade marketing managers have KPI’s on Kikker
activities (activities for acquiring sales points for new concepts or products). But for
getting the targets corresponding with that KPI, he needs to be able to control
salespersons, which he can’t. KPI’s and information managers get are not always
based on measures that manager can take. The KPI’s used at the Horeca division are
analyzed in more depth in subsequent section.
4.3.3 KPI’s used at the Horeca division
The KPI’s used at regional sales units of the Horeca division can be found below. To
show the changes in KPI’s each year, the KPI’s for a regional sales unit in 2008 and
2009 are given. Still there are more KPI’s. Logistics has its own KPI’s, even as trade
marketing and category management. Logistics has KPI’s on costs per coli, trade
marketing on the success of Kikker activities (measured by sales points), and category
management on volumes, margins and sales. The KPI’s for the sales units are best
documented and used for explanation purposes.
KPI’s 2008 KPI’s 2009
Volume tap beer concern ATL / BTL (commercial costs)
Revenue incl. discounts Revenue
Volume non-alcoholics Volume non-alcoholic
Fit 2 Fight: (reducing costs) Discounts on tap beer
EBIT regional office Discounts on non-beer
DSO (days sales outstanding) DSO (days sales outstanding)
Overdue payments Overdue payments
Kikker: sales activities Visits to clients
Amstel voetbal: sales activity Capex Loans (niet EHF)
KIT: sales activity Capex tap installations
Jillz: sales activity Fixed Expense (incl. energy)
GSA:sales activity Invoiced services to client
29
Comments on KPI’s used at the Horeca division
Parmenter (2007) defined seven key characteristics of KPI’s. One of them is that a
KPI should be a non-financial measure. A KPI is a result indicator when you put a
dollar sign on it. The majority of the KPI’s of 2008 and 2009 are result indicators.
They are costs (bonuses, investments, expenses), income or income related KPI’s
(DSO, overdue payment). Only ‘visits to clients’ is no result indicator. Also, all KPI’s
are past indicators, measuring results and events in the past. They do not predict
(except for visits to clients maybe) performance in the future.
Furthermore, regional sales managers cannot influence all of their KPI’s. When
volumes or revenues decline, there is no measure a manager can take to overcome
declining volumes and revenue. Volume and revenue highly depend on external
factors like the economic situation (credit crunch) and rules and regulations (smoking
ban). Paying more visits to customers does not increase volumes. The customers of
the Horeca division depend on the willingness of people to spend their money in their
pubs and restaurants. A regional sales manager is unable to influence that. Another
example of a bad KPI is overdue payments. Regional sales units do not handle
payments; this is done by financial services accounts receivable.
Managers should have KPI’s and get information that is relevant to their controlled
area. They should be able to influence values of KPI’s and information in reports by
measures they can take within their controlled area. Then, they can act upon the
information they receive. At this moment, they cannot influence all KPI’s and
information presented to them in reports.
4.4 Causes to the problems
The interviews with managers of the Horeca division revealed many problems related
to reporting and information. This section relates the problems to the way information
requirements are determined and the way information is delivered to the managers.
4.4.1 Problems related to information requirement gathering
The cause of managers receiving too little information or information that is not
relevant to their controlled area is that there is no good process for determining which
30
information is appropriate for a manager. The departments responsible for reporting
are not aware which information is relevant for various managers. The KPI’s used in
the Horeca division are not always based on measures managers can take, but follow
from KPI’s stated by higher management.
4.4.2 Problems related to the way information is provided
The cause of multiple reports with conflicting values on KPI’s being delivered and
reports not being delivered on a regular basis is because there is no control structure
for reporting. The various departments are not aware if reports made by them are also
made by other departments and how often reports should be provided. Also, multiple
systems can be used to make the same report which can lead to conflicting values in
different reports.
4.4.3 Cause of unreliable information
Unreliable information in reports cannot be related to the way reports are delivered or
information requirements gathered. This is due to another reason. This is because
employees do not always work according to work instructions and enter data the
wrong way. This is explained by the following two examples.
When visiting a customer for Kikker activities (activities for acquiring sales points for
new concepts or products), a sales person must process the result of the visit in
MarketMaker (CRM system) and Proost (Administration System). The result can be:
new sales point, no new sales point or no decision made yet. This result must be
processed directly after a visit. For a number of reasons this does not happen.
Some salespersons register a new sales point after the first order is made instead of
after the sales agreement. Some salespersons do not specify were the visit was about
(for which Kikker) or describe the visit badly. Other salespersons do not register a
sales point or visit at all. A reason mentioned was that some salespersons drink a few
beers with the customer, it gets late and they just forget to register the sale. Other
salespersons underestimate the value of entering the data, because they never worked
that way and their supervisor never worked that way as well. The consequence of this
is that data about sales and client visits in reports gets distorted.
31
The second example is about sales points won and lost; salespersons immediately
register won sales points, but are not that fast with registering lost sales points. This
distorts data as well.
4.5 Problem summary
For clarification, the problems and their underlying causes identified in this chapter
are clustered below.
Problem 1
Managers mentioned that they get too much information. Other managers mentioned
getting too little information. For some decisions managers have to take, there is no
information available at all (profitability per customer). Another problem is that the
information in the reports is not always information about the control area of
managers. Managers cannot always influence KPI’s and the information presented to
them in reports.
Cause of problem 1
There is no process for determining which information is appropriate for managers.
KPI’s and information managers receive are not always based on measures a manager
can take.
Problem 2
Also, not all reports are provided on a regular basis, some reports are not provided
every month. Other problems occur because the information they get is conflicting;
different reports on the same KPI’s can show different results.
Causes of problem 2
There are two related causes to this problem. The first cause is the various
organisational units responsible for reporting, without a control structure for
reporting. Departments responsible for reporting are not aware of reports made by
other departments than their own. Furthermore, there are a many systems in use;
reports made with one system differ from reports made with other systems.
32
Problem 3
Management cannot always make decisions based on the reports they get, because
information in the reports is unreliable.
Cause of problem 3
Information in reports can be unreliable, because data is not entered correctly by
salespersons. Employees do not always work according to work instructions; this
leads to unreliable data.
33
5 To Be situation
This chapter aims at answering the sub-question “What changes in the Horeca
organization do the new systems enforce and what are the implications for the way
information is delivered to managers?”. First it is identified if work tasks change due
to the new systems. Next, it is identified if the existing departments in the Horeca
division and the departments responsible for providing information change. Finally, it
is determined if those changes solve any of the problems identified in previous
chapter.
5.1 Work processes
The work processes presented in figure 10 are the processes on which the SAP
systems being developed are based. These processes are going to be implemented at
the Horeca division together with the implementation of the SAP systems in 2010.
Figure 10: Work Processes TO BE situation (derived from HNL processen v02.ppt)
34
ARIS consultants defined the work processes for the To Be situation. ARIS
consultants have defined common processes for Europe based on best practices within
Europe. Below the new work processes are compared with the processes that can be
identified in the current situation. The processes in the current situation are described
in appendix 4. This comparison is only made for the 4 process groups that are in
scope; market to order, purchase to pay, order to cash and record to report.
5.1.1 Market to order
The processes in market to order highly correspond with the commercial work
processes in the current situation (appendix 4). The processes are generally the same,
but category management processes are added as well. This is a different process
group in the current situation.
Departments involved in the process group
- National category management
- National trade marketing
- National sales / National account management
5.1.2 Purchase to pay
The processes within purchase to pay consist of part of the logistical work processes
and part of the financial work processes (accounts payable) in the current situation.
The difference with the current situation is that processes for formulating contracts
with supplier are added. The assortment definition processes are also added.
Departments involved in the process group
- National category management
- Logistics
- Financial services accounts payable
5.1.3 Order to cash
The processes within order to cash consist of a part of the logistical work processes
and telesales work processes of the current situation. The financial processes
described in the To Be situation are not described in the current situation. They are
operations within the department financial services accounts receivable.
35
Departments involved in the process group
- Telesales
- Logistics
- Financial services accounts receivable
5.1.4 Record to report
The processes within record to report are not described in the current situation. It are
processes for external and internal financial reporting. They are described in section
4.2. The roles do not change in the To Be situation.
Departments involved in the process group
- Business Control
- Business Analyse
- Shared Financial Services
- Information management
5.1.5 Result of changed processes
The process groups of the current situation do not longer exist. Category management
work processes, financial work processes, logistical work processes, telesales work
processes and commercial work processes are replaced by the process groups market
to order, purchase to pay, order to cash and record to report. The general work
processes do not change, but the allocation of the processes to process groups is
somewhat different.
Although the general processes stay the same, work instructions can differ due to the
ARIS descriptions. Work descriptions will be different due to using the new systems.
The Heisale project team is going to formulate the new work descriptions. Those
detailed work descriptions are not ready at the moment. Work descriptions in the To
Be situation will change, although the general work processes are still the same.
5.2 Departments
Responsibilities and departments do not change in the To Be situation. No decision on
what the reporting structure needs to look like has been made yet. Up till now it seems
36
that the reporting structure will not differ from the current situation. The only thing
that needs to be determined, according to the Horeca division, is which reports are
needed and how the new systems can deliver those reports. No serious effort has been
made though. The To Be reports are identified by taking the reports used in the
current situation as input for the tools and systems that are being developed. Only
some minor adjustments have been made.
5.3 Do the changes solve the current problems?
For the new situation, new work tasks are defined based on the new systems. Work
descriptions will be formulated that differ from the way work is performed in the
current situation. In previous chapter was identified that employees at Heineken do
not always work according to work descriptions. They do not enter data as they are
supposed to do. When employees at Heineken do not work according to the work
descriptions in the new situation, the data stored in the systems stays unreliable.
It would be better for the Horeca division to work with systems based on how work is
performed in the current situation. When it is impossible to capture the content of
work in standard work processes, you have to account for that. Steering measures will
not have any effect, or a different effect as intended, when they are based on
processes that are not being followed. You lose steering possibilities when using a
system based on non-existing work processes. Then you are in exactly the same
situation as before implementation of HeiSale. Measurements on KPI’s and other
attributes will not contain reliable information. The effect of employees deviating
from the work processes on which the SAP systems are based on values of KPI’s and
other measurements needs to be taken into consideration. This problem has become
more relevant in the new situation, because the work descriptions will change.
An advantage of the new systems is that they can provide information on profitability
per customer and On Time In Full measurements (at least, the functional designs of
the BI solution show this), which is not possible in the current situation. More
information can be provided by the new systems. But, working with the SAP systems
does not solve the other problems identified in the current situation. Fewer systems
can be used for reporting (appendix 1 shows the changes). But still, there are various
37
systems available for reporting, at least HeiSale BI, HeiSale and Every Angle. And
there are also the other problems left that are not going to be solved by the HeiSale
systems. Summarizing:
- employees are not likely to work according to work instructions;
- the information need of different managers is still not known and KPI’s are
still not based on what can be controlled by a manager;
- there are still various departments responsible for reporting without a control
structure for overcoming problems associated with it;
- different views on the data are still possible, this means values on KPI’s can
be different depending on the view or system that is chosen.
When continuing like this, the systems developed will not be any improvement on the
current situation at all. Without a solution for overcoming the problems identified in
the current situation, the BI effort is doomed to fail.
38
6 Overcoming the problems
This chapter aims at answering the sub-question “What are feasible directions for
overcoming the problems related to reporting that remain after the new systems are
implemented?”. The inputs for this chapter are the problems identified by answering
the first two sub-questions. In this chapter, directions for overcoming the four causes
to the problems at the Horeca division are presented. Based on the situation at the
Horeca division it is determined which problems are worth solving and which
solutions are feasible to implement. Based on that outcome a solution for overcoming
the problems is proposed in the chapter 7.
6.1 Problems that must be solved
HeiSale will not solve the problems identified in the current situation. When HeiSale
is implemented, consistency in data will be better because of fewer systems.
However, various systems (HeiSale BI, HeiSale or Every Angle) and different views
on data can still be used when making reports. Furthermore, using fewer systems does
not make sure reports are consistent, delivered in a timely manner and contain
appropriate information. Also, reports still can come from various departments. A
clear vision on reporting is still needed. For solving the problems a solution must be
developed that makes sure that:
- employees work according to work instructions: to make sure data in the
systems is correct and reliable (paragraph 6.2);
- managers only get the information on which they can take action, in other
words, information they can influence (paragraph 6.3);
- there is a reporting structure with clear responsibilities and tasks: to make sure
reports come from one source; no multiple values on KPI’s or other attributes
are presented to managers (paragraph 6.4);
- a clear view on the data is chosen and communicated throughout the
organization: to makes sure one system is used for generating certain reports
(paragraph 6.5).
Possible directions for achieving the above are presented below. When no relevant
literature exists, common sense is used for identifying possible directions.
39
6.2 Employees working according to work instructions
6.2.1 ERP adoption
Employees working at the Horeca division must accept the new work processes and
the impact on their daily work enforced by the new systems. Overcoming resistance to
change is necessary for a successful implementation of an ERP system. Resistance to
change can be due to perceived job risk and resistance due to habits (Sheth, 1981). At
Heineken the resistance is primarily due to habits: ‘we have always done it this way’.
There is still no good way for overcoming that resistance. ERP literature is still
evolving and has not build a theoretical base to overcome resistant to change
(Aladwani, 2001).
Aladwani (2001) combines marketing and ERP implementation strategies for
successful ERP implementation. The ERP field can benefit from the marketing
perspective, because of similarities between the two perspectives: overcoming
consumer (user) resistance to new products (ERP systems). Since the implementation
at Heineken is an ERP implementation and the reporting tools extract data from the
ERP system, his findings can be useful for Heineken. When the ERP system is not
accepted, the reporting tools lose all value.
Therefore, his findings are projected on the Heineken situation. For adoption of the
systems, the activities/strategies described in the framework in figure 11 must be
performed properly.
40
Figure 11: A model of successful ERP adoption (derived from Aladwani, (2001))
The project team has begun communicating the benefits of the ERP system to the
organization. Not to all levels yet, because the project is still in progress, but
everybody will be informed during this year. Communication of the general
operations has not begun, because there is no system to show to people yet.
Minimizing adoption costs has not been considered. Individuals and groups are
involved in the introduction: key users, business process owners, managers and other
employees.
Enhancing interface quality has not been done, because the system is developed
outside the organization and nobody has seen the system yet. A training program is
being developed for all users. Securing the support of opinion leaders is not fully
covered. The project team sees key-users as opinion leaders; these groups however
are not necessarily the same. Timing is also an issue the project team cannot take into
consideration. A date for the final introduction in Alkmaar is set, no matter if the
people have accepted the system or not. Also top management commitment and
support depends on the first results of Alkmaar. Commitment and support exists at the
moment, but according to a Heineken employee, is also easily lost when the first
results are negative.
41
Problem areas are:
- minimizing adoption costs of the project;
- securing opinion leaders support, no real opinion leaders have been identified;
- a date for introduction is set, no matter what happens;
- top management commitment and support is easily lost when the first results
are negative.
The focus will not be on the problem areas above. The project is on its way and the
project team is aware of above issues. Priorities are not with those issues and the
project team feels it has done everything in its power to make sure employees are
going to adopt the new systems and the new work instructions associated with the
systems.
6.2.2 Dirty data
When the above issues are addressed, there is still another issue to take into
consideration. Although the ERP system might have been accepted and the
implementation might have been successful, wrong usage of the system might lead to
dirty data. Dirty data are inaccuracies or inconsistencies within a collection of data.
Dirty data within a data source makes it difficult or unwise to use the data for analysis
(Vosburg & Kumar, 2001).
When not working according to the work descriptions forced by the ERP system –
HeiSale BI and Every Angle data is loaded from the ERP system- data gets dirty and
becomes unreliable. Reports are of no value when using that data. Incomplete or
incorrectly entered data is dirty data. This problem already exists in the current
situation; data is not always entered correctly in the systems. There is also the
possibility at Heineken that dirty data is due to unwillingness to work using the new
work descriptions. Either way, dealing with dirty data must be addressed. Otherwise
the reports generated by the systems are of no value.
Vosburg & Kumar (2001) give some guidelines for successful implementation of ERP
systems and dealing with dirty data. Some of the guidelines correspond highly with
those of Aladwani (2001). The guidelines not addressed by Aldawani (2001) and
dealing with dirty data are presented below.
42
- Migrate and clean dirty data from the legacy systems.
- Work performed by external consultants must be understood, for example
structures and data definitions. It must be documented for future use.
- Ensure that every stakeholder understands responsibilities with respect to
maintaining data integrity. Develop shared understanding and importance of data.
Overcome comments like “we have always done it this way”. It takes time for
users to comprehend and use integrated data; care should be taken to ensure that.
- Test for all possible user groups in all possible situations, also test entering bad
data before implementing ERP. Implement the system in phases.
- Maintaining data integrity is an ongoing process and does not stop with
implementation. On-going training, before and after implementation of the ERP
system is needed. Experiences must be exchanged between users from the same
work environment.
- After implementation: data audits should include daily integrity checks and
regular audits performed by user groups. Tools for auditing are needed. Problems
uncovered within audits must be shared (Kikker example). Employees must see
their role in context of the business.
The first guideline has been taken into consideration. Data is cleaned or enriched
when certain data fields within the various systems do not correspond. However, there
is no detailed plan for migration of data, due to uncertainties about which systems
disappear or stay and the exact specifications of the SAP system.
The second point is the responsibility of the international business process owner
(IBPO). He knows which requirements every country has. The data definitions and
rules are documented in detail. When a consultant wants to deviate from the
standards, he has to discuss that with the IBPO. Those changes are also documented.
IBPO’s check if consultants are building the systems according to the standards.
The third guideline is not addressed properly up till now. End users are not aware of
the systems currently in use and thus the benefits for data integrity with the new
system. A problem is that part of the management is aware of the importance of data,
but does not act accordingly. Sales activities always have priority; time for data
43
maintenance is not made available easily. On higher management levels, the
importance and impact of data integrity is not fully acknowledged everywhere.
On lower levels, understanding of the importance of data is even worse. The benefits
of disciplined working are hard to identify for them. Most of the time, benefits on
individual levels are not even there, benefits only occur on higher levels. A driver
does not care if the customer data is correct; he still knows where to go. Business
process owners (BPO) working in the project are responsible for stressing the
importance of data to individual users, but no plans for achieving this have been made
though. No serious attempt or plan has been made for informing and convincing the
end users of data importance.
The fourth guideline is addressed, although the testing period is too short to cover all
testing. Also, although the importance of testing bad data is acknowledged, it is not
sure there is sufficient time for ‘negative testing’. Implementation is done in phases,
first Alkmaar, and then the other parts of the Netherlands.
The fifth guideline is only partly addressed. There is a master data manager (Gert van
Zanten) responsible for data integrity and the BPO’s are responsible that employees
use the systems appropriately. Also, employee training has been planned for. The
duration of the training depends on the time and budget that is still available. Planned
training time is 4 to 6 weeks. Also, the HeiSale team wants to test the employees
using exams, if not passing exams has consequences is not clear yet. How this training
needs to be done and how experiences between users can be shared is not specified.
The master data manager is responsible for continuous data audits after
implementation. But how to share results of those audits and how users can see their
role in the context of the business is not known.
6.2.3 What needs to be done?
- Stressing the importance of data integrity to all levels of the Horeca division
(from management to users).
- Train users in using the systems and show them the impact of wrong data
entrance for other users of the system. Plans have been made for training.
44
- Planning for after implementation training, evaluation of system use, data
auditing and communicating results throughout the organization.
Just as with ERP acceptance issues, the focus is not on the issues above. The project is
on its way and plans have been made for addressing above issues. Not all issues have
been addressed, but the project team is aware of them and has the intention to address
them. Therefore, the final solution will be focused on the other three problem areas. A
solution developed for those problems has to be used when the organization is using
the systems already.
6.3 Appropriate information and KPI’s
The analyses in chapter 4 revealed that information delivered to managers and KPI’s
used at the Horeca division are not always based on measures a manager can take. An
alternative for the KPI’s used at the Horeca division is described below.
6.3.1 Alternative for KPI’s used at the Horeca division
The difficulty with stating good KPI’s for the Horeca division of Heineken is the
nature of the business. It is not just selling beer to customers, but helping clients sell
beer, beer related products and non-alcoholic drinks to their customers. The business
has grown to providing clients with a “total horeca concept”. This consists of
providing high quality, a diversified product assortment, loans and helping clients
with the interior design of their bars, pubs, hotels and restaurants. Furthermore, the
Horeca division helps clients with promoting and organizing events, promotion
outside the bar (neon lights) and provides new (product) concepts like Extra Cold and
GoegGetaptBier. The products must also be delivered in a timely manner,
installations must be cleaned and the relationship with the client must be a good one.
Also the image of Heineken plays a big role in wetter a client chooses to buy
Heineken or another beer. The KPI’s used at Heineken do not reflect these activities.
The performance indicator tying the activities above together is the total number of
clients that choose Heineken as the provider of all these things. This is not only a past
indicator of activities; it also predicts revenue in the future. When you perform all the
above activities in a good manner, clients are willing to choose Heineken as their
supplier.
45
Thus, a key performance indicator could be a combination of
• Total number of clients
• Won clients
• Lost clients
Since not all clients buy the same volumes and provide the same income for
Heineken, you could weigh them according to volumes or income.
For example:
Volume < 50 HL a year: factor 1
50 HL < Volume < 250 HL factor 2
Volume > 250 HL factor 3
A survey could reveal the reason why customers choose Heineken as their
provider/supplier. Controllers should be aware of these factors and intervene when the
number of clients KPI goes down. Also lost clients can be interviewed on why they
left Heineken. This indicates what goes wrong when customers leave or do not choose
Heineken as their supplier.
The number of clients KPI should not stand on its own, profitability and revenue (per
customers, unit and Horeca as a whole) should be taken into consideration as well.
Supplying beer for free will result in lots of won customers, but it is easy to see that
this is not the way to do business.
6.3.3 Feasible alternative?
Using the alternative KPI’s described above means less reporting on KPI’s is
necessary and some of the current departments involved in reporting can disappear.
Therefore, it also fits structure 1 described in the following paragraph. In this
reporting structure, reporting responsibility is with the controllers at the various units
and departments. Controllers have to be aware of what might lead to decreasing
number of clients. Using the number of clients KPI does not mean that the KPI’s used
in 2008 and 2009 are not being measured/followed. The controller must keep an eye
on those attributes as well; they are just not key performance indicators.
46
The alternative described above is not feasible, the Horeca division wants to use the
KPI’s of 2009. Another complication is that KPI’s change very often and the Horeca
division must use those KPI’s. Because the solution proposed in subsequent chapter is
not going to be used before 2010, KPI’s have changed by then. They just keep
changing. The solution proposed in subsequent chapter has to be a generic solution. It
must be determined who delivers information on which KPI. Since the KPI’s change
each year, the solution should be flexible enough for changing KPI’s. So it should be
determined what the types of information are within KPI’s based on the KPI’s of 2008
and 2009 and who in the Horeca organization can influence the value of these
information types.
So far, only KPI’s are discussed in this paragraph, but managers also get other
information than information about KPI’s. Not all reports delivered to managers are
KPI reports; reports can also contain non-KPI information. This information should
also be based on what a manager can influence. The solution proposed in chapter 7
takes KPI reports and non-KPI reports into account. Both have to contain information
a manager can influence. Only when a manager can take measures to influence the
values in those reports, he should get the report. How to make sure only those reports
are delivered to managers is described in chapter 7.
6.4 Reporting structure
The reporting structure in the current situation is one of the causes to the identified
problems. Three alternative reporting structures are described below. These structures
can help overcome the problems related to the current reporting structure. After
describing these alternative reporting structures, the structure is chosen that is feasible
for implementation at Heineken.
6.4.1 Structure 1
Reporting responsibility is with the controllers at the units and various departments at
the Horeca division. They know what the problems and issues within a unit or
department are and what needs to be tracked. There are just a few KPI’s (identified in
the previous section) that need to be monitored. There is no department responsible
for reporting, there is just a department needed for support. This department is
47
involved in training users and identifying how reports have to be made. When using
only a few KPI’s that stay the same over time, you also make sure everybody is
talking about the same data. Individual managers and controllers are free in using the
systems and analyzing whatever they want as long as they have good results on the
KPI’s. This also corresponds with the work culture at Heineken. People have freedom
in achieving their goals, without having to obey lots of criteria and KPI’s. This
structure requires that departments disappear or departments losing a lot of their
responsibilities.
6.4.2 Structure 2
Reporting responsibility is with one central department. This department should be
responsible for reporting on KPI’s and delivering non-KPI reports. This department
should deliver reports on a structural basis, on time and to the appropriate
stakeholders containing the right amount of information. Reports come from one
department, which resolves the problems associated with multiple reporting
departments. Just one value on KPI’s and other attributes is presented to the
managers. This structure also requires that departments disappear or lose
responsibilities.
Controllers and other users
Controllers of the various departments and other users within the Horeca division are
the ones using the analytical capabilities of the systems. They are the ones that have to
be instructed on how to analyze the data presented to them in reports. Users have the
freedom of playing with data and using the analytical capabilities of the systems in
use, but must do this according to a general acknowledged composition of KPI’s and
other attributes. They can make reports composed in other ways, but they know that
information does not correspond with the way information and KPI’s are composed in
reports made by the central reporting department. This makes sure everyone is
looking at the same data.
6.4.3 Structure 3
With this solution departments stay intact and responsibilities stay the same as well.
Also, the role of controllers does not change from their role in the current situation.
There is a coordination structure added that helps determine who makes reports and
48
who gets reports. This coordination structure must make sure information and reports
are provided by one department, although multiple reporting departments still exist.
When this coordination functions properly, employees within the Horeca division
receive only one value on KPI’s and other attributes. This coordination structure
should also determine who gets what information. Controllers and other users of the
systems can use the systems as described in structure 2.
6.4.4 Appropriate structure for the Horeca division
Structure 1 and 2 are preferable over structure 3. When you choose structure 1 or 2
you make a clear choice for either decentralizing or centralizing responsibilities for
reporting. Structure 1 is preferable over structure 2 because it corresponds with the
work culture at Heineken. Furthermore, the sales and logistical units in the
Netherlands can have different information needs due to the characteristics of the area
in which they operate. Decentralized controllers can fulfill does needs better.
Structure 3 is less favorable, no clear choice is made for centralizing or decentralizing
reporting responsibilities. The coordination structure can help overcome the problems
associated with reporting, although it is a somewhat more complicated structure.
Although being the least favorable structure, structure 3 is going to be implemented at
Heineken. The reason structure 3 is chosen is described below.
In section 6.2, two types of resistance to change were mentioned; resistance due to
perceived job risk and resistance due to habits. When discussing the alternative
reporting structures, a third reason for resistance to change came about: resistance
because of internal politics and possible loss of power within the Horeca division.
Those groups stress values such as the importance of existing power and authority
structures, which may be jeopardized by the new ERP system (Hultman,1979). This
was exactly what happened when discussing new reporting structures with the
departments involved in reporting. Although -for BI to become effective- there is a
necessity for changes in the unstructured way reports are delivered, the willingness to
give up power and authority was not there. Although clear benefits for reporting
within the Horeca division can be obtained by rearranging the reporting structure,
managers involved in reporting want to hold on to the current situation.
49
You have to take this into account, it is easy to say that managers should look beyond
their own interests, but accomplishing it is another thing. Forcing new structures is
not the way to proceed, because it can lead to failure of the entire project. An example
of such a failure is presented by Markus (1983). In this case a system was developed
that resulted in a power balance change that lead to failure of the project. Solutions
developed for the reporting structure should take these changes in power balances into
consideration and proceed carefully with initiatives that involve those changes.
Therefore the structure that is feasible for the Horeca division is structure 3 (figure
12), it is the only solution that the involved managers accept at the moment.
Departments do not disappear; the only change is an added coordination structure.
Managers
Controllers
BusinessAnalyses
InformationMangagement
Coordination
Figure 12: structure, reporting solution 3
Controllers
Controllers within units and departments. Controllers produce and adjust reports.
Managers
Managers that have certain information needs.
Business Analyses
Business Analyses delivers reports to managers and controllers
Information Management
Information Management delivers reports to managers and controllers.
50
Coordination
Coordinating facility between the various departments. This coordination must make
sure that values within reports come from just one department. Also reports that are
no longer necessary need to be identified and removed. Furthermore they need to
make sure managers receive information they can act upon. They should meet once a
month for example. The coordination structure should consist of a representative from
business analyses (Rijk Detiger), information management (Eltjo Edzes) and control
(Stijn de Vries), because they have the biggest role in reporting. Financial services is
not taken into consideration for this control structure, because they only deliver a
small amount of reports that do not change over time (days sales outstanding and
overdue reports).
Before such a coordination structure is formed, it must be determined what
appropriate information for various managers is. Appropriate information is
information managers can influence by measures they can take. What this means for
the managers in the Horeca division is described in chapter 7.
6.5 System choice
For every report that must be delivered, the system used for generating the report
must be chosen. This systems can be a cube of HeiSale BI, Every Angle or another
system when those two systems cannot provide the information.
Based on the type of information that is needed in a report and how often reports need
to be delivered, a system must be chosen for delivering the report. From then on this
system must be used to generate every report containing that type of information. You
have to be consistent in using that system to prevent that differences in values in
reports arise. This way, everyone uses the same data and controllers and employees
know which system to use to analyze data.
At the moment only the reporting capabilities of HeiSale BI are documented in
functional designs. The reporting capabilities of HeiSale and Every Angle are not
clear yet. The final functionality of HeiSale BI is also not clear yet. For now, HeiSale
BI can be the leading system for reporting. Since the focus is on strategic/tactical
51
reports (non-KPI reports) and KPI reports that are produced mostly every month,
HeiSale BI can be the leading system for reporting. HeiSale BI contains aggregated
month information that should be sufficient for delivering monthly reports. In the next
chapter is identified if HeiSale BI can deliver the needed reports.
52
7 Proposed solution
This chapter aims to answer the sub-question “How should the departments
responsible for reporting decide if information is appropriate for a manager and
make sure managers receive that information by using the new systems?”. A solution
is proposed for solving the problems related to reporting. It is a method for deciding
which information is appropriate for managers and determining how this information
should be delivered. In paragraph 6.4.4 is described that a coordination structure is
needed for reporting. A representative of business analyses, information management
and control should coordinate reporting. The solution aims at helping the
representatives of those departments coordinate reporting at the Horeca division.
The document coordination.xls developed in this chapter helps decide if a manager
should get a certain report, which department must deliver that report, with what
frequency a report needs to be delivered and which system must be used to generate a
report. It also helps identifying which reports are being made at the moment.
Before coordination.xls can be used, 4 steps have to be taken:
- identifying which information is suitable for an employee (7.1);
- identifying which department must deliver reports, with what frequency
reports must be delivered, what system should be used and who determines
how KPI and non-KPI information is measured (7.2);
- identifying what reports are made at the moment (7.3);
- actual use of coordination.xls (7.4).
The first two steps have been taken. Rijk Detiger (business analyse) and Eltjo Edzes
(information management) have started taking the third step. Actual use of the
document starts when the systems that are being developed are in use.
7.1 Information appropriate per manager
In the KPI’s of sales, category management, trade marketing and logistics of 2008 and
2009, 7 general information types can be found. KPI’s about incomes/volumes, costs,
profit, actions (for example Kikker activities), DSO/Overdue, quality and efficiency
53
can be identified (figure 13). This information is stored in the excel document
coordination.xls.
Sales:Log Horeca National Regional Salesperson TM CM
Income/Volumes OK OK OK OK OK OKCost OK OK OK OK OK OK OKProfit OK OK OK OK OKActions OK OK OK OK OK OKDSO/Overdue OK OK OK OKQuality OK OK OK OK OKEfficiency OK OK OK OK
Figure 13: Information types (from coordination.xls)
As stated before, managers should only get information when they can influence the
information by measures in their controlled area. Per information type is determined
who can influence the value of that information type. An OK in the table indicates
that a department or person within a department can influence the value of an
information type. More detail is provided when you zoom in on the information types.
For example, a sales person cannot influence the profitability of the Horeca
organization, but he can influence profitability per customer. Hence, he should only
get information or KPI’s on profitability per customer. Profitability per customer is a
component of the profitability of the Horeca division. I have determined this per
information type for logistics, sales (horeca total, national sales, regional sales,
salesperson), trade marketing and category management. National account
management is treated as a regional sales unit, because of similarities between the two
departments. A salesperson is treated as a manager.
Figure 14 describes in more detail who is able to influence values on income/volumes.
A green box indicates that a department or person within a department can influence
the value of an information type. Appendix 6 contains all information/tables stored in
coordination.xls.
54
Income/Volumes
Horeca National Regional Salesperson TM CM LogProductcategoryTotal Beer/Vrumona
CustomerSales PersonDepartmentTotal Horeca
KikkersPromotions
Supplier BonusIncluding Discounts
Figure 14: table describing who’s able to influence certain information types (derived from coordination.xls)
Ideally, employees should only get KPI’s and reports on income and volumes when a
box is green.
7.2 Owner of content, frequency, system choice, who
delivers report
Four more things for the various information types are determined. Who decides how
information types must be measured and what the content of the reports is. How often
reports about the various information types must be delivered. Who must deliver
reports about the various information types and which system can deliver reports
about the various information types. This has been done in consultation with the
representatives of business analyses and information management (Rijk Detiger and
Eltjo Edzes). Figure 15 presents this for income/volumes.
Owner of content Frequency delivered Who makes report System used Productcategory W. Fijnaut Weekly BA BI:19 Total Beer/Vrumona W. Fijnaut Weekly BA BI:19
Customer W. Fijnaut Monthly BA or Controller? BI:19 Sales Person W. Fijnaut Monthly BA or Controller? BI:19 Department W. Fijnaut Monthly BA BI:19 Total Horeca W. Fijnaut Monthly BA BI:19
Kikkers A. Reijnierse Weekly IM ? Promotions J. Corver Weekly IM BI: 19/BI: 40
Supplier Bonus W. Fijnaut Monthly IM BI: 16 Including Discounts W. Fijnaut Monthly BA/IM/Co BI: 17
Figure 15: Table showing owner of content, frequency delivered, who makes reports and system used per information type (derived from coordination.xls)
55
7.2.1 Owner of content
The “owner of content” column describes who decides how information types must be
measured. When uncertainties about how to measure information types arise, the
representatives of information management, business analyses and control know who
they should contact.
7.2.2 Frequency delivered
The “frequency delivered” column describes if reports about information types should
be provided, monthly or weekly. This way departments receiving reports know how
often a report must be provided and can be provided. Departments making the reports
know how often they must deliver the report.
7.2.3 Who makes report
The “who makes report” column describes who has to provide reports about the
various information types. The final content of this part of coordination.xls can be
different. Discussion between information management and business analyses about
responsibilities is still progressing.
7.2.4 System used
The “system used” column describes which system must be used to generate a report
about the various information types. Based on the information type and how often
reports about the information type need to be delivered, a system is chosen.
Depending on the information stored in the systems and how often this information is
updated you can check if a system can be used to generate a certain report. If for
example a system is updated every month, it is not suitable for generating weekly
reports.
For now, the BI system is chosen as the leading system. Per information type I have
identified (by analyzing the functional designs) if there is a cube that can deliver
reports about the information type. Eventually it is possible that HeiSale BI will not
be the leading reporting system. This depends on the functionality of HeiSale BI and
the other systems. At the moment, the systems are still being developed.
56
BI: 19 means BI cube 19 (overview BI cubes in Appendix 7). For some information
types it is not clear yet if the BI system can provide it. This is indicated by a question
mark. The next step is filling in the tables to show what reports are actually being
delivered to employees.
7.3 Reports that are actually delivered
This step must be taken to determine which reports are actually being delivered to the
employees within the Horeca division. The representatives of information
management, business analyses and control are going to do this. The reports that are
delivered are KPI reports and non-KPI reports. Figure 16 present an example of the
reports that are actually delivered on income/volumes. This is just an example; the
reports mentioned in the table are not reports made in reality. It is for explaining how
coordination.xls can be used.
Income/Volumes
Horeca National Regional Salesperson TM CM LogProductcategory KPI rp 1.1Total Beer/Vrumona Report 2.1
Customer Report 2.2Sales PersonDepartment Report 2.1 KPI rp 1.1 KPI rp 1.1Total Horeca KPI rp 1.3
Kikkers KPI rp 1.4 KPI rp 1.4 KPI rp 1.4Promotions KPI rp 1.5
Supplier BonusIncluding Discounts KPI rp 1.4 KPI rp 1.4 KPI rp 1.4
Figure 16: Reports that are actually delivered (from coordination.xls)
KPI rp 1.1 is made for the regional sales managers, who have KPI’s on volumes per
product category for their departments. Information about that KPI is provided in the
report called KPI rp 1.1. Report 2.1 is a report about total volumes of Beer and
Vrumona per department for the national sales manager. It is not a KPI of the national
sales manager. KPI rp 1.4 is a report about a KPI on volumes sold per Kikker activity,
including discounts. Multiple departments have that KPI and get the same report.
What can be seen from figure 22 is that KPI rp1.2 is made for a salesperson. This
means he has a KPI on total incomes for his department, but he only has little
57
influence on that KPI. This is indicated by the grey box in the table. This means the
KPI is not a good KPI. Because the management decided it is a KPI for the
salesperson, the report must be delivered nonetheless.
Report 2.2 contains information about income/volumes per customer. This is not
something the national sales manager can influence, so there is no need to provide
that report. Since it is no KPI, the representatives of information management,
business analyses and control can decide to stop making that report. This should be
done in consideration with the national sales manager.
Also, when the table indicates that two reports are made that contain the same
information, the representatives of information management, business analyses and
control can decide to make just one of those two reports.
How coordination.xls should be used when the tables are filled in is treated in the
following paragraph.
7.4 Recommendations for using coordination.xls
When all the tables are filled in to show what reports are being made, the document is
ready to be used. The document should be used for dealing with information request
of employees and for coordinating reporting.
7.4.1 Information requests from employees
Reports on KPI’s determined by management have to be made, also when employees
cannot influence the value of the KPI. And it is possible that in the future a KPI is
chosen that employees are unable to influence.
But, besides getting KPI reports, employees have other information needs.
Coordination.xls helps determine if an information request of an employee should be
granted. It helps determine if an employee is allowed a report containing certain types
of information, based on if he can influence the value of the information type.
When an employee is allowed the report, you can look up if that report already exists.
If it already exists, he should get the existing report. If it does not exist, the report
58
should be made. Then you can look up how often it should be provided, which system
should be used and who has to provide the report.
So, when someone asks information management or business analyses for a report,
they can look up if they are allowed to get that report and if they should provide the
report. When they are not allowed to provide it, they should go to the department that
is allowed to make the report. This way reports are consistent and made by one
department.
For example, a salesperson is allowed to get a report on volumes per product
category. This report should be made with HeiSale BI, cube 19 (overview BI cubes in
Appendix 7). This report should be provided weekly by business analyses.
7.4.2 Coordination structure
Since KPI’s keep changing and employees request information and reports, the
reports change over time in number and composition. Therefore coordination.xls
should be adjusted to keep it up to date. The managers of the departments responsible
for reporting (information management, business analyses, and control) should meet,
for example every month, to adjust it.
During these meetings they should check which reports are currently produced and
are no longer necessary. They should also check if multiple departments make the
same report and if multiple reports exist that contain the same information types. They
should also check if departments receive reports containing information they cannot
influence. If so, they should decide if they should stop making that report for that
department.
7.4.3 Communicating how reports are generated
How a report is composed must be communicated in the report. The system used, the
day the information or KPI is obtained and how the KPI or information is obtained
must be communicated to the employees receiving the KPI or information. This way
everybody is talking about the same data and knows how values in reports are
measured. Also, when employees know how reports are composed, they know if
reports made with other systems make sense.
59
7.5 Does coordination.xls solve the problems?
By using coordination.xls problems identified in the current situation related to
reporting can be overcome. When business analyses, information management and
control use it strictly and meet occasionally to adjust the document, employees only
receive information from the reporting departments that they can influence. There are
two exceptions, when employees have KPI’s they cannot influence they will get a
report about that KPI. And since coordination.xls is already discussed with the
managers of business analyses and information management the criterion that
managers must be able to influence the information is not obeyed as strictly as it
should be. Opinions on what can be influenced by managers differ. Using it strictly
does make sure one system is used to generate a certain report and just one
department delivers that report.
However, the final content and use of the document is not clear. This is because there
still are a lot of uncertainties. The systems are not going to be used until 2010/2011,
the systems are not ready yet and the policy of the Horeca division can change. The
departments business analyses and information management have started filling in the
tables. Therefore, the content of the document is still changing at the moment.
7.5.1 Strengths of coordination.xls
- Helps overcomes the problems, except for employees not working according
to work descriptions, identified in this paper.
- It is easy to use; it takes no more than an hour to understand the model.
- The model is generic and can be easily adjusted.
- Rijk Detiger (business analyses) and Eltjo Edzes (information management)
have begun using coordination.xls to identify what reports are being made at
the moment.
- The solution is suitable for changing KPI’s, because it does not take KPI’s as
its basis, but the information stored in KPI’s.
7.5.2 Weaknesses of coordination.xls
- It does not provide a solution for employees not working according to work
descriptions.
60
- It is not going to be used until 2010/2011; the situation at Heineken might
have changed by then.
- The systems on which the model is based are not fully developed. It is
possible that the systems identified for making certain reports cannot deliver
them. However, this can be adjusted in the document.
61
8 Discussion
This chapter covers the answers to the main research question and the sub-questions.
It also aims to evaluate the execution of the research and the research approach
chosen. Finally, suggestions for further research are put forward.
8.1 Answer to the main research question
Before answering the main research question, answers to the different sub-questions
are presented.
1. How are information requirements of managers determined and how is information
provided to managers in the current situation and what are the consequences for the
information delivered to the managers? The management team of the Horeca division
determines KPI’s based on KPI’s they receive from the board of directors. Nobody is
responsible for determining information requirements per manager. Various
departments are responsible for providing reports to the managers in the Horeca
division. There is no control on who provides what information and employees can
request information to various departments. This leads to the problems identified in
chapter 4. Information delivered to managers is not sufficient to know the state of the
system they control and information delivered to the various managers is not always
based on what managers can influence. A problem related to employees not working
according to work descriptions was also identified when answering this sub-question.
2. What changes in the Horeca organization do the new systems enforce and what are
the implications for the way information is delivered to managers? Work tasks will
change when the new systems are implemented. Also, fewer systems can be used for
reporting and the systems can provide more types of information. However, the
problems identified in previous sub-question are not solved by implementation of the
new systems.
3. What are feasible directions for overcoming the problems related to reporting that
remain after the new systems are implemented? For the various problems identified at
the Horeca division, suggestions for overcoming the problems were presented in
62
chapter 6. Based on the Heineken situation feasible solutions were identified. Among
other things, what a control structure for reporting must look like was identified.
4. How should the departments responsible for reporting decide if information is
appropriate for a manager and make sure managers receive that information by using
the new systems? Appropriate information is information that can be influenced by
measures a manager can take. Chapter 7 presents a method for identifying which
information is appropriate for a manager and for overcoming the other problems
identified at the Horeca division.
The main research question combines the answers to the sub-questions.
How should the Horeca division of Heineken NL use the different BI tools to ensure
that every manager is provided with appropriate information for the coming years?
By using coordination.xls presented in previous chapter. When used strictly, it makes
sure that one system is used for producing a report and one department delivers the
report and the report contains information that the manager can influence.
8.2 Guidelines Hevner
At the beginning of the paper seven guidelines of Hevner et al. (2004) have been
presented that must be followed for effective design science research. In the following
section is determined if this research has taken the guidelines into account.
Guideline 1: Design as an artifact. A viable artifact is produced in the form of an
method. The method uses coordination.xls.
Guideline 2: Problem Relevance. It is a technology-based solution, using various
information systems, for overcoming an important and relevant business problem.
Guideline 3: Design Evaluation. This guideline is addressed. Evaluation starts after
use during the monthly meetings of information management, business analyses and
control.
Guideline 4: Research Contributions. Contributions are that the research shows which
problems can occur with reporting in large organizations and how those problems can
be overcome.
63
Guideline 5: Research Rigor. Rigorous methods have been used.
Guideline 6: Design as a search. Desired ends are reached while satisfying
constraints in the problem environment.
Guideline 7: Communication of research. This research can be understood by
technology as well as management-oriented audiences.
8.3 Systems design by De Leeuw
The solution developed is a control system that provides steering measures in
changing circumstances. The solution (ccordination.xls) provides measures for every
possible report or information request, now and in the future. Thus, the solution
corresponds with the definition of De Leeuw.
8.4 Recommendations for further research
Three directions for future research are put forward below.
8.4.1 Employees working according to work instructions
One of the causes to the problems identified in this paper has not been taken into
consideration in the proposed solution. How to make sure employees follow work
instructions must be identified. This is important for data reliability. There are many
employees within various departments, especially the regional sales and logistical
units, responsible for data entrance. These departments are all relative autonomous.
How all these departments can achieve that employees work according to the new
work instructions needs to be determined. Further research need to be conducted on
how the Horeca organization of Heineken can achieve this.
8.4.2 Reporting structure
Next, the model I presented is not an optimal solution. A much more simplified
reporting structure is preferable. What this structure could look like is described
briefly in this paper. Further research needs to be conducted how one of these
structures can be obtained. Employees of Heineken, preferably those involved in the
reporting departments, must do so. Eventually, the structure of the departments and
the number of departments responsible for reporting should be evaluated and adjusted.
The solution developed can still be used. Only adjustments to the departments that
deliver reports have to be made.
64
8.4.3 KPI’s used
Also the Horeca division should look closely at the KPI’s they are using at the
moment and what information is really necessary to perform a job. In my opinion it
would be wise to use other (and maybe less) KPI’s than they do at the moment.
Furthermore, changing KPI’s every year is not the way to proceed.
65
Bibliography
Scientific literature
Aladwani, A. M. 2001. Change management strategies for successful ERP
implementation. Business Process Management, Vol. 7, Issue 3
De Leeuw, A.C.J. 2002. Bedrijfskundig management. Primair proces, strategie en
organisatie. Koninklijke van Gorcum, Assen
Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman, Boston
Heidrich, O., Harvey, J., Tollin, N. 2009. Stakeholder analysis for industrial waste
management systems. Waste Management, Vol. 29, Issue 2
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Jinsoo P., Ram, S. 2004. Design Science in information
systems research. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28 Issue 1
Hultman, K. 1979. The Path of Least Resistance: Preparing Employees for Change.
Learning Concepts, Austin
Markus, M. 1983. Power, politics, and MIS implementation. Communications of the
ACM, Vol. 26, Issue 6
Parmenter, D. 2007. Key performance indicators: developing, implementing, and
using winning KPIs. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken
Sheth, J. 1981. Psychology of innovation resistance. Research in Marketing, Vol. 4,
Issue 3
Ulrich, K.T., Eppinger, S.D. 2003. Product design and development. Third edition,
McGraw Hill, Boston
66
Vosburg, J. & Kumar, A. 2001. Managing dirty data in organizations using ERP:
lessons from a case study. Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 101, Issue 1
Documents
HB Hoe komen we tot een geintegreerde oplossing.ppt
Heineken Annual Report 2007
Heineken Annual Report 2008
HNL organization v07.ppt
HNL processen v02.ppt
HNL sales & logistical organization 08 08 01.ppt
Overzicht proceseigenaren v 0.9.xls
Internet
Heineken.com
Heineken Intranet
68
Appendix 1: AS IS and TO BE Landscape systems
Figure 17: AS IS landscape (derived from HB Hoe komen we tot een geintegreerde oplossing.ppt)
Figure 18: TO BE landscape (derived from HB Hoe komen we tot een geintegreerde oplossing.ppt)
WMS/W
SC/OCR
COIN
PCF
Proost
MXP
JDEdwards
STARCHAIN R/3 (retail)
MMKWH
SAP BW/BPS
HBWD FVS
LaptopConsist
GLM
REMS Floris
EDI
Interpay
Enorm
APT
SAP Portal
SAP HR AD LotusNts
TM1
CarGo
EBP
KoReMCredit Management tool
WebSites
WMS/W
SC/OCRPCF
Integrated Backbone MySAP ERP 2005
CRM
SAP BW/BPS
EDI
Identity Manager
SAP Portal
SAP HR AD Documentum
CarGo
EBP
KoReMCredit Management tool
Mobile Sales
Mobile ServicesEvent
add-on
REMS
WebSites
APT
69
Ap
pe
nd
ix 2
: S
tru
ctu
re H
ore
ca
div
isio
n
HR Manager Controller
Business ImprovementManager
HorecaSecretariaat
ManagementAssistente
CommercieelAssistent
GroepsleiderVerk Binnendienst
HorecaVertegenwoordiger
Account ManagerHoreca
VertegenwoordigerSpeciaal Bier
AccountmanagerLeusure & Event
Key accountManager
Vertegenwoordiger
Sales Manager
Verkooptelefoniste
GroepsleiderVerkooptelefonie
Regional Sales Manager
AdviseurHoreca Support
Landelijk LogistiekManager
CommercieelAssistent
Sakes ManagerBrouwketel
National Sales Manager
CommercieelAssistent
VerkoopBinnendienst
ManagementAssistente
Sales ManagerNational Accounts
Account Manager Vertegenwoordiger
National Account Manager
Category Developm.Manager
Trade Marketeer
Projectleiders
MedewerkerUitvoering
Groepsleider
ManagerHBES
Tekenaar interieuradviezen
Interieur Adviseur
Manager InerieurAdviezen
National TradeMarketing Manager
KwaliteitsManager
MonteurHTD/ HTS/ Project
ManagerTaptechniek
MedewerkerPlanning & werkv
ManagerPlanning & werkv.
Ass. Man. supplConsultants HT
Medew. Magazijn
Managersupply chain
ManagerService Organisaties
Loyalty & promotionsManager
Ass. CategoryManager
CategoryManager
Ass. CategoryManager
CommercieelManager
Brouwketel
CategoryManager (bier)
Business DevelopmentManager
National CategoryManager
Horeca Manager
Fig
ure
19:
Hor
eca
Org
aniz
atio
n H
eine
ken
(der
ived
fro
m H
NL
org
aniz
atio
n v0
7.pp
t)
70
Appendix 3: Stakeholders
Two groups of stakeholders can be identified.
Group 1: managers of the Horeca division.
The first group that can be identified are the managers of the Horeca division. They
have information needs. From the organization structure of Horeca these managers
can be identified.
Horeca Manager
Management Service
Organization (TSO)
National Sales Management
National Account Management
National Category
Management
National Trade Marketing
Management
Business Improvement
Manager
Horeca Secretary
ControllerHR Manager
Figure 20: Organization structure Horeca division (Adapted from HNL organization v07.ppt)
The following managers are stakeholders of the project considering the scoping
decisions.
- Horeca Manager (W. Fijnaut): all managerial/organizational entities
identified earlier are his responsibility.
- National Sales Manager (JJP Huijsmans): responsible for organizational
entities Sales and Logistics of all the regional units (also Cellarbeer: not in
scope).
- National Account Manager (Eric Schuckink Kool): responsible for
organizational entity National Account Management.
- National Trade Marketing Manager (Arjen Reijnierse): responsible for
organizational entity National Trade Marketing.
- National Category Manager (Jeroen Corver): responsible for organizational
entity National Category Management.
71
Within the responsibility area of these managers more stakeholders can be identified.
- National Sales Manager
- Regional sales manager: Responsible for sales of a HBV
o Sales manager
- Landelijk Logistiek Manager
o Logistiek Manager
- National Account Manager
o Sales Manager National Accounts
o Account Manager
Group 2: managers involved in reporting.
The second groups of stakeholders are the employees involved in reporting.
Employees of the following departments are involved in reporting.
- Business Analyses (Rijk Detiger): responsible for reporting.
- Information management (Eltjo Edzes): responsible for reporting.
- Controller (Stijn de Vries): responsible for reporting. Also controllers of units
and departments are responsible for reporting on that department.
- Financial services (Lars Ponsen): relatively small role in reporting.
72
Appendix 4: Work processes current situation
The main goal of the Horeca division is selling and delivering company and non-
company products to their customers through a number of sales units in the
Netherlands. Horeca does not produce the products, but buys them from HNS
(Heineken Nederland Supply) and non-Heineken companies. It is a commercial
organization focused on selling as much as possible and maximizing profit. The
following process groups in the Horeca division are defined (figure 21):
Cu
sto
mer
Cu
sto
mer
Category Management Work Processes
Financial Work Processes
Commercial Work Processes
TelesalesLogistics
Sales
TelesalesWork Processes
LogisticalWork Processes Central Warehouse
Cellarbeer
Figure 21: Horeca Work Processes (derived from Heineken Intranet)
The following main process groups existing in the current situation are within scope
of the research:
- Category Management Work Processes;
- Commercial Work Processes;
- Telesales Work Processes;
- Logistical Work Processes;
- Financial Work Processes.
73
Category management work processes (CMWP)
No formal processes are defined for Category Management. Category Management
(CM) is responsible for choosing suppliers of the various products the Horeca division
sells. They decide which products Horeca sells and what the price of those products
must be. They are also responsible for promotions and they have a sales-
responsibility. Everything besides Heineken, Amstel and Brand on the tap is the
responsibility of CM. There are 4 categories: wine, distilled drinks, special brand
beers (bottled and canned) and non-alcoholic drinks, food and non-food.
Departments involved in CMWP
- Category Management
Commercial work processes (CWP)
The general commercial work processes can be characterized as follows. First, action
plans for the coming year are defined. These plans are based on KPI’s, targets and
visiting frequency policy. Also plans for acquisition of new clients are made. Based
on those plans clients are visited. The results of these visits have to be processed.
Results can be won clients, lost clients, changes in discount agreements, credit
agreements, payment agreements or just changes in client information. Master Data
Management, the department responsible for registering master data, has to process
this data.
There can be two more inputs for visiting clients: ad-hoc visits or visits based on
marketing plans made by trade marketing. Marketing plans made by trade marketing
can also result in contacting a client by telephone. This is not for selling products, but
for extending the number of products a client buys from Heineken. An overview of
the main commercial work processes is presented in figure 22.
74
Creating ActionPlans
ActionPlans
Selection of SalesPoints
(by salesperson orby telesales)
KPI reportPOS
DefinedKPI's
Telesales (notselling)
Visiting client
Closing client visit
Mutation clientdata
Masterdata
Acquisition ofclients
MarketingPlan
AquisitionPlans
Targets
VisitingFreqeuncy
Figure 22: Commercial Work Processes
Departments involved in CWP
- National sales
- National account management
- National trade marketing
Telesales work processes (TWP)
Processes for handling phone calls and order acceptance related to existing and
potential customers. This is not described in detail.
Departments involved in TWP
- Telesales
Logistical work processes (LWP)
All the processes that play a role in ordering products and delivering products to the
customer. This involves many tasks and people, explaining this in detail goes beyond
the focus of this research. The general structure is presented below in figure 23.
75
Cu
sto
mer
Cu
sto
mer
Ordergoods
Allocategoods
Recievegoods
Telesales
Plantrucks
Processorder
Processorder & place slowmover
Collectorder in
warehouse
Administrativeprocessingof goods
Delivergoods
Receipt ofreturn cargo
Processcomplaint
barrels
Return cargoslowmover
Processpackings
CheckStocks
Randomtest
packings
Randomtest
return cargo
Figure 23: Logistical Work Processes (derived from Heineken Intranet)Engels
Departments involved in LWP
- National account management
- National sales
- Category management
Financial work processes (FWP)
Within FWP there are two main process groups: processes within accounts receivable
and processes within accounts payable. Accounts receivable is responsible for
collecting payments of customers. They have several procedures for customers who
do not pay in time that are described in detail. Accounts payable is responsible for
payments of the Horeca organization of Heineken and has several procedures for
making payments. These descriptions are not of interested for this paper. “Financial
services accounts receivable” and “financial services accounts payable” are service
organizations within Heineken as a whole.
Departments involved in FWP
- Financial services accounts receivable
- Financial services accounts payable
76
Appendix 5 BO BS descriptions
The descriptions are based on interviews with various managers within the Horeca
division. It is a summary of the information gathered in the interviews.
1. BO Horeca Manager – BS Horeca organization (not interviewed)
Horeca Manager
HorecaOrganization
BO
BS
Figure 24: BO Horeca Manager – BS Horeca organization
Description BO
Horeca Manager is responsible for the Horeca organization of Heineken.
Objective
Description BS
The Horeca organization of Heineken can be characterised as a wholesale
organization. It purchases products from suppliers and sells them to customers in the
horeca segment. It is a organization responsible for selling products to customers and
maximizing profit
Information from BS
KPI
EBIT, DSO (days sales outstanding), volumes, succesfull implementation HeiSale and
Jillz.
Steering measures
77
2. BO National Sales manager – BS National Sales (not interviewed)
National SalesManager
National Sales
BO
BS
Figure 25: BO National Sales manager – BS National Sales
Description BO
National sales manager is responsible for national sales and the various regional sales
and logistics managers.
Objective
Description BS
Sales organization of the Horeca division, all sales and logistical units are his
responsibility.
Information from BS
Information on KPI’s and targets.
KPI
EBIT, sales, volumes, DSO, overdue payments, kikkers (special actions/products)
Steering measures
78
3. BO Regional Sales Manager – BS Regional Sales (Ber Pas and Gaston Goossens)
Regional SalesManager
Regional Sales
BO
BS
Figure 26: BO Regional Sales Manager – BS Regional Sales
Description BO
Responsible for sales of a sales unit in the Netherlands.
Objective
Getting targets set by higher management. Selling as much as possible.
Description BS
Sales within a certain region, salespersons and telesales sell products to clients.
Information from BS
Lots of information, no structure in information, reports differ in time, reliability and
relevance. No standard reports, reports differ per sales region. Ber does not get
information on costs, commercial costs and profits. Gaston mentioned he gets
information on nearly anything.
KPI
Volumes, turnover, Fit2Fight, EBIT, DSO, Overdue payments, Kikker, KPI’s
change every year.
Steering measures
Visit frequencies to customers, telesales activities, acquiring new customers. Both by
salespersons and telesales.
79
4. BO National Logistics Manager – BS National Logistics (Charlie Rabelink)
5. BO Regional Logistics Manager – BS Regional Logistics
I combined these two stakeholders, because of great similarities between the two.
National LogisticsManager
National Logistics
BO
BS
Regional LogisticsManager
Regional Logistics
BO
BS
Figure 27: BO's BS's National logistics
Description BO
National logistics manager, responsible for logistics at the Horeca division (10 units).
Regional manager is responsible for one unit.
Objective
Balance between reliability and costs of the logistical operations (quantity vs.
quality).
Description BS
10 units, all units have a physical distribution centre, which is responsible for
distribution in a logistical area.
Information from BS
Physical distribution measurements of expedition and warehouse. They get
information on KPI’s; collo/warehouse hours, logistical costs/collo p&l. They do not
get information on OTIF of their warehouses (on time in full).
KPI
Collie / man hours warehouse, collie man / hours expedition, logistical costs / collo,
OTIF, Fit2Fight.
80
Steering measures
Changing capacity, fewer cars, and employees. Changing layout of units, change
internal and external routing. Influence order pattern of customers. They can only
change quantities.
6. BO National Account Management – BO National Accounts (Eric Schuckink Kool)
National AccountManagement
National Accounts
BO
BS
Figure 28: BO National Account Management – BO National Accounts
Description BO
Dealing with regular customers bigger then two units and investors (hotel chains,
Schiphol, Catering, etc.). No logistics.
Objective
Maximizing volumes, income and profits for their accounts
Description BS
Big clients active in multiple regions.
Information from BS
Volumes, debtors, costs, kikkers, clients won/lost. They do not get information on
profitability per customer. The reports lack consistency.
KPI
Cash, capex, dso, overdue, vrumona.
Steering measures
On commercial costs, and on salespersons.
81
7. BO National Category Management – BS Sales product categories (Marc Tromer,
Jeroen Corver)
National CategoryManagement
Salesproductcategories
BO
BS
Figure 29: BO National Category Management – BS Sales product categories
Description BO
Responsible for choosing suppliers of products the Horeca division sells. They decide
which products Heineken sells, prices, promotions, and have a sales-responsibility..
Objective
Maximizing profit and turnover.
Description BS
Suppliers and responsible for sales of different categories It concerns everything
besides Heineken, Amstel and Brand on the tap, which is the responsibility of trade
marketing. There are 4 categories: wine, distilled drinks, special brand beers bottled
and canned, and non-alcoholic drinks food and non-food.
Information from BS
They get reports about StarBusiness (points granted, contesters), sales, margins,
volumes per channel (restaurants, bars). Again they get lots of information. They also
need information about suppliers, which they do not get at the moment. Marc Tromer
mentioned he sometimes did not use reports because he got to much information.
KPI
Did not have KPI’s recent year. Other KPI’s were: volumes, margins, sales, bonuses
from supplier side, StarBusiness indicators, promotion efficiency. There is a new
manager (Jeroen Corver) who is determining which KPI’s are important.
82
Steering measures
Changing product assortment, promotions, new concepts, changing supplier.
8.BO National Trade Marketing Management – BS National Trade Marketing (Arjen
Reijnierse)
National tradeMarketing
Management
National TradeMarketing
BO
BS
Figure 30: BO National Trade Marketing Management – BS National Trade Marketing
Description BO
Trade Marketing knows how to get visibility at point of sales and know how to
communicate externally and how Horeca concepts can be used for more turnover
(IceCold, Goeg Getapt Bier, Innovations). 6.5 people work for Trade Marketing. They
get inputs from marketing, sales, Heineken international, ongoing activities.
Objective
Acquiring sales point and sales for the different new concepts or product categories.
Description BS
Sales persons from national sales, horeca market and own department.
Information from BS
Information about Kikkers: visits, sales, goals. On three levels: national, regional, per
salesperson. Data in reports can be unreliable and sometimes there is to little data.
KPI
Goal attainment Kikker activities. Visits, sales.
Steering measures
Advising sales on paying more visits to customers.
83
Appendix 6: Coordination.xls
In this appendix all sheets of coordination.xls can be found.
Sales:Horeca National Regional Salesperson TM CM Log
Income/Volumes OK OK OK OK OK OKCost OK OK OK OK OK OK OKProfit OK OK OK OK OKActions OK OK OK OK OK OKDSO/Overdue OK OK OK OKQuality OK OK OK OK OKEfficiency OK OK OK OK
Figure 31: Information types
84
Income/Volumes
Horeca National Regional Salesperson TM CM LogProductcategoryTotal Beer/Vrumona
CustomerSales PersonDepartmentTotal Horeca
KikkersPromotions
Supplier BonusIncluding Discounts
Owner of content Frequency delivered Who makes report System used Productcategory W. Fijnaut Weekly BA BI:19 Total Beer/Vrumona W. Fijnaut Weekly BA BI:19
Customer W. Fijnaut Monthly BA or Controller? BI:19 Sales Person W. Fijnaut Monthly BA or Controller? BI:19 Department W. Fijnaut Monthly BA BI:19 Total Horeca W. Fijnaut Monthly BA BI:19
Kikkers A. Reijnierse Weekly IM ? Promotions J. Corver Weekly IM BI: 19/BI: 40
Supplier Bonus W. Fijnaut Monthly IM BI: 16 Including Discounts W. Fijnaut Monthly BA/IM/Co BI: 17
Figure 32: Income/volumes in more detail
85
Cost
Horeca National Regional Salesperson TM CM LogCustomerSalespersonDepartmentColloHLKikkerCAPEX
Owner of content Frequency deliveredWho makes report System used
Customer W. Fijnaut Monthly Controller P 25Salesperson W. Fijnaut Monthly BA P 25Department W. Fijnaut Monthly BA P 25Collo W. Fijnaut Monthly BA P 25HL W. Fijnaut Monthly BA P 25Kikker W. Fijnaut Monthly IM P 25CAPEX W. Fijnaut Monthly BA BI: 32
Figure 33: Costs in more detail
86
Profit
Horeca National Regional Salesperson TM CM LogCashflowEBIT HNLEBIT HorecaEBIT HBVCustomerProduct Margins
Owner of content Frequency delivered Who makes report System usedCashflow W. Fijnaut Monthly BA BI:38EBIT HNL W. Fijnaut Monthly BA BI:33EBIT Horeca W. Fijnaut Monthly BA BI:33EBIT HBV W. Fijnaut Monthly BA BI:33Customer W. Fijnaut Ad-Hoc IM BI:39Product Margins W. Fijnaut Monthly BA BI:12/ BI:39
Figure 34: Profit in more detail
87
ActionsHoreca National Regional SalespersonTM CM Log
Product introductionsKikker Activities: Activity
RegionLoaylty and promotions
Owner of content Frequency delivered Who makes report System used
Product introductions A. Reijnierse Monthly IMKikker Activities: Activity A. Reijnierse Monthly IM BI:26?
Region A. Reijnierse Monthly IM BI:26?Loaylty and promotions A. Reijnierse Monthly IM StarBusi
Figure 35: Actions in more detail
88
DSO/Overdue
Horeca National Regional Salesperson TM CM LogCustomerSalespersonRegionNational
Owner of content Frequency delivered Who makes report System usedCustomer W. Fijnaut Monthly FS BI:37/BI:42Salesperson W. Fijnaut Monthly FS BI:37/BI:42Region W. Fijnaut Monthly FS BI:37/BI:42National W. Fijnaut Monthly FS BI:37/BI:42
Figure 36: DSO/Overdue in more detail
89
Quality
Horeca National Regional Salesperson TM CM LogCSOQuality of service log.
Owner of content Frequency delivered Who makes report System usedCSO W. Fijnaut Monthly Wim Koel ?Quality of service log. W. Fijnaut Monthly IM ?
Figure 37: Quality in more detail
90
Efficiency
Horeca National Regional Salesperson TM CM LogPromotionsNon-product impl.CWP High Issue AuditColli
Figure 38: Efficiency in more detail
Owner of content Frequency delivered Who makes report System usedPromotions W. Fijnaut Ad-Hoc IM BI:19/BI:40Non-product impl. W. Fijnaut Monthly IMCWP W. Fijnaut Monthly BIMHigh Issue Audit W. Fijnaut Monthly Internal AuditColli C. Rabelink Monthly ? WMS
91
Appendix 7: Data types/categories in business
warehouse
The following functional designs can be identified for the data warehouse:
Functional designs Stream In Scope
1. Call Center Overview: CTS No
2. CTS Assets CTS, RTR Yes
3. CTS Organization CTS No
4. Installed Base Overview CTS No
5. Material Quality CTS No
6. Service Contract Overview CTS No
7. Service Order Overview CTS No
8. Service Order Service Level CTS No
9. Volume Installation Report CTS, OTC Yes
10. Warranty Claims CTS No
11. Service Quality CTS No
12. Price List Calculation PTP Yes
13. Forecasting PTP Yes
14. Inbound Movements PTP Yes
15. Vendor Evaluation PTP Yes
16. Vendor Overview PTP Yes
17. Discounts, Rebates and Free Goods OTC Yes
18. Logistic Performance OTC Yes
19. General Sales Performance OTC Yes
20. Credit Control OTC Yes
21. Diversification Analysis Report OTC Yes
22. Order Creation OTC Yes
23. Quotations OTC Yes
24. Outbound movements OTC Yes
25. Plant Stock and Movements PTP Yes
26. Contact Management OTC Yes
27. Customers Lost & Won OTC Yes
28. Market Share Analysis OTC Yes
29. Stock Overview PTP Yes
30. Cost Centre Accounting RTR Yes
31. Fixed Assets RTR Yes
32. GL CAPEX RTR Yes
33. GL Economic Net Profit RTR Yes
34. GL Working Capital RTR Yes
35. Internal Order Accounting RTR Yes
92
36. Profit Center Accounting RTR Yes
37. Business Overview RTR Yes
38. GL Managerial Cash Flow RTR Yes
39. Profitability Analysis RTR Yes
40. Daily Sales Performance OTC Yes
41. GL Accounts Statement RTR Yes
42. Credit Management RTR Yes
Figure 39: BI functional designs
In the figure below a short description can be found about which reports the different
functional design can generate.
Functional designs Description
2. For reporting on asset value and depreciation
9. For evaluating customers on sales and services
12. For overview on conditions negotiated with vendor
13. Tool for taking MRP data from ECC
14. Reports on quantities and values of purchased and recieved goods
15. For evaluating vendors on On Time In Full KPI's
16. Reports on quantities purchased from vendor and pricing measures
17. Overview of discounts, rebates and goods given to customer
18. For evaluating performance indicators in area of deliveries
19. To evaluate sales performance per customer on monthly basis
20. To deliver information on credit limits and orders that exceeded the limit
21. To compare product categories bought by customer with average
22. Information about sales orders created in HeiSale
23. Reporting area related to quotations (granted products)
24. Information on outflow of goods from the warehouse
25. For insight in stock quantities levels and movements in warehouse
26. For information on different type of contacts already fulfilled or planned
27. Reports about lost and won customers, incl. quantities
28. For comparing customers and potential customers
29. Information about stock availability in quantities and values
30. Information on balance amounts in cost centers
31. Information on purchase of fixed assets
32. Information on capital expenses
33. Information on profit and losses
34. Reports on managerial working capital
35. Reporting on budgets of small projects
36. Information on credit, debit and balance amount of profit centers
93
37. Sales and profitabilitiy information per sales representative
38. For grouping account data on managerial level
39. Information on P&L per customer, product, brand, etc.
40. For evaluating sales performance on daily basis
41. For delivering account information from General Ledger
42. For information on payment history
Figure 40: Report description