ERP implementation at Heineken: improvements for ...

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?


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.


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



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


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.


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.



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



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.


- 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


- 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.


- 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.



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.


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.


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.



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

67

Appendices

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


Sakes ManagerBrouwketel

National Sales Manager


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 Category

Management


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

ERP implementation at Heineken: improvements for ...

Documents

Transcript of ERP implementation at Heineken: improvements for ...