Cité Descartes BP 99 93162 Noisy le Grand Cedex France
Backer: Hannu Makkonen Tutors of ISTM/ESIEE: Derek Mainwaring and Krys Markowsky
GPI project Innovation in food-processing
January 2007 Samuel Ahnine Clémentine Faisant Tiao Sayana Mahindhoratep Juliette Nou Olivier Sultan Julien Teyssier
Table of contents Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 5 1 - Description of food-processing sector in France...........................................................................6 1.1 - Segmentation of food-processing sector..............................................................................6 1.2 - Main French food-processing companies............................................................................6 1.2.1 - Danone....................................................................................................................... 6 1.2.1.1 - Turnover distribution in 2004.......................................................................... 7 1.2.1.2 - Growth distribution.......................................................................................... 7 1.2.1.3 - Financial Highlights......................................................................................... 8 1.2.2 - Lactalis.......................................................................................................................8 1.2.2.1 - Turnover distribution in 2005.......................................................................... 8 1.2.2.2 - Distribution of the production .........................................................................9 1.2.2.3 - Financial Highlights......................................................................................... 9 1.2.2.4 - Lactalis Group Strategy: an external expansion...............................................9 1.2.3 - Pernod-Ricard.......................................................................................................... 10 1.2.3.1 - Turnover distribution..................................................................................... 10 1.2.3.2 - Financial Highlights....................................................................................... 11 1.3 - Current economic evolution in food-processing sector..................................................... 11 1.3.1 - Commercial surplus in food-processing sector........................................................11 1.3.2 - Support exportations in 12 countries....................................................................... 11 1.3.3 - +0.9% turnover........................................................................................................ 11 1.4 - Tendency to food-processing group concentration............................................................12 2 - Models of innovation.................................................................................................................. 13 2.1 - Sequential models..............................................................................................................13 2.2 - Serendipitous models.........................................................................................................13 2.3 - Political models................................................................................................................. 13 2.4 - Summary of diffusion and adoption approaches............................................................... 13 3 - Methodology............................................................................................................................... 14 3.1 - Context.............................................................................................................................. 14 3.2 - Group organization and management tool.........................................................................14 3.3 - Study theories ................................................................................................................... 15 3.4 - The Black Box................................................................................................................... 15 3.4.1 - First version............................................................................................................. 16 3.4.2 - Second version.........................................................................................................17 3.5 - Contacts............................................................................................................................. 17 3.6 - Interviews.......................................................................................................................... 18 4 - Interviews.................................................................................................................................... 19 4.1 - Questionnaire.....................................................................................................................19 ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 4.2 - Interview of Yannick Le Gall............................................................................................ 20 4.2.1 - Did you invest in an innovation in your production process these last 5 years?..... 20 4.2.2 - Have you been directly involved in this investment choice?...................................20 4.2.3 - What were the problematic and the context around this investment?..................... 20 4.2.4 - About this problematic, have you others solutions?................................................ 20 4.2.5 - Which was the origin of the influences which brought to this investment:.............20 4.2.6 - In which way your different resources had an impact on this innovation adoption?... 20 4.2.7 - Which were other actors who were involved in this making decision? ..................21 4.2.8 - Who actually took the decision?.............................................................................. 21 4.2.9 - How long did take the innovation implementation?................................................21 4.2.10 - Appendix................................................................................................................21 4.3 - Interview of Eric Vouland from Diana Naturals............................................................... 22
4.3.1 - Presentation of the company.................................................................................... 22 4.3.2 - Have you invested in an innovation within your production process for 5 years? . 22 4.3.3 - Genesis of a project which implies an innovation?................................................. 22 4.3.4 - If you have several solutions for the same problem? ..............................................23 4.3.5 - Which was the origin of the influences which brought to this investment.............23 4.3.6 - In what your various resources did have an impact on the decision-making? ........23 4.3.7 - Which are the other actors who took part in the decision-making? ........................23 4.3.8 - What is the average term of a project (from the idea to the product) at Diana Naturals? .................................................................................................................................. 24 ...................................................................................................................................................... 24 4.4 - Interview of Isabelle Sultan from Danone France............................................................. 25 4.4.1 - May you introduce yourself?................................................................................... 25 4.4.2 - Did you innovate inside your company? .................................................................25 4.4.3 - Have you been involved in the choice of this innovation? ..................................... 25 4.4.4 - What was the nature of this innovation? .................................................................25 4.4.5 - What was the global context of this innovation?.....................................................25 4.4.6 - Were there different solutions proposed to enter in this market?............................ 25 4.4.7 - Between these solutions, which one was the best? Why has it been chosen? ........ 26 4.4.8 - Which influences did you have with this innovation?............................................. 26 4.4.9 - Who took the decision? .......................................................................................... 26 4.4.10 - How really make a decision in this case? Was it a collective decision?................26 4.4.11 - How long time does all this process take?.............................................................26 5 - Analysis....................................................................................................................................... 27 6 - Conclusion...................................................................................................................................29 References.......................................................................................................................................... 30 Annexes.............................................................................................................................................. 31
Acknowledgement We would like to thank the following people: ●
Hannu Makkonen, the backer of the project. He was helpful, pleasant and very present in spite of the distance.
●
Derek Mainwaring and Krys Markowsky, our tutors ISTM/ESIEE. They were present and available every week for meetings.
●
All our project management teachers. They taught us how to management a project.
●
The consultants. They brought us a professional view.
Introduction The ISTM (“Institut Supérieur de Technologie et Management”) is a Business School of technologies, where technology and management are very closed. ISTM is a member of French Business School, and delivers a Master degree. With its 10 years old, it appears that ex-students from ISTM are now high level executive managers. During the last year of studies at the ISTM, students (by group) have to deal with a project linked with innovation. This project is about 3 or 4 months long. It is proposed by an external person of ISTM. The project allows students to apply knowledge learned during their formation. From this project, students have to product a work including a high level analysis. This analysis has to be useful for the sponsor. So, we are 6 students to choose to deal with the subject “Innovation in food-processing”. This subject was proposed by Hannu Makkonen, from Turku School of Economics, Finland. Derek Mainwaring and Krys Markowsky, 2 teachers from ISTM/ESIEE (“École Supérieure d'Ingénieurs en Électronique et Électrotechnique”), have supervised us during this project. This project started in October 2006 and ended in January 2007. A presentation (in English), is scheduled the 29th January 2007. It presents our conclusions on the “Innovation and foodprocessing”.
GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
5 / 38
1 - Description of food-processing sector in France The food industry could be divided in three parts: ●
the upstream part: farm equipment, seeds, etc.
●
the central part: farmers, stockbreeders; there are producers of the material which will be transformed
●
the downstream = food-processing industry: all process which will transform the raw material
1.1 - Segmentation of food-processing sector The food-processing could be divided in 10 sectors: ●
distributors, importers and trade of food-processing products
●
crop products
●
dairy products
●
cattle and meat
●
fish and aquaculture
●
grocery and frozen products
●
organic products
●
outdoor restoration
●
equipment, packing and technology in food-processing
●
wines and liquor
1.2 - Main French food-processing companies 1.2.1 - Danone Date of creation
1973 by the merger between BSN and Gervais Danone
Sector position
N°1 worldwide in Fresh Dairy Products Nº 1 worldwide equally placed in Bottled Water (by volume) Nº 2 worldwide in Biscuits and Cereal Products
Major Brands ( €1 billion of Fresh Dairy Products: Danone, Actimel, Activia, Danonino and Vitalinéa (Taillefine, Vitasnella or Ser in certain turnover all over the world) countries) Bottled Waters: Evian, Volvic, Wahaha, Aqua Biscuits and Cereal Products: LU, Prince
GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
6 / 38
1.2.1.1 - Turnover distribution in 2004
Sales by business line:
Sales by region:
1.2.1.2 - Growth distribution ●
Growth in 2004 sales by business line
●
Growth in 2004 sales by region
GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
7 / 38
1.2.1.3 - Financial Highlights
Global Turnover (million Euro) in 2004
13,700
Workforce
88,184 people
1.2.2 - Lactalis
Date of creation
1933 by André Besnier
Sector position
1st Cheese-making European Group 2nd Dairy Group in the World 2nd French Food Group 1st Header in Europe 1st French Cheese Maker 1st Italian Cheese Maker
The group includes 110 factory sites including 35 in the international, 25,000 collaborators with a turnover of € 6.25 billion. 1.2.2.1 - Turnover distribution in 2005
Lactalis Group treats annually 6,8 billion litres of milk and produces a very broad range of dairy products with the most prestigious marks such as President, Lactel, Bridel, Roquefort Company, the Small one, Lanquetot, B' A, Sorrento, Salakis.
GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
8 / 38
1.2.2.2 - Distribution of the production
Productions Cheese
760,000 T
Liquid milk
1,500 million litres
Fresh products
620,000 T
Fat
153,000 T
Cream
118,000 T
Industrial products
634,000 T
Meat
32,000 T
1.2.2.3 - Financial Highlights
Turnover 2005
€ 6.2 billion
2006
€ 7.4 billion
2007
€ 9 billion
Turnover outside France (2005)
< € 3,4 billion (55%) Staff
2005
26,500 employees, 12,000 outside France
2006
30,000 employees, 13,000 outside France
Industrial sites
112 including 43 outside France
1.2.2.4 - Lactalis Group Strategy: an external expansion
Lactalis group based its expansion on the development of its marks and in particular of the GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
9 / 38
President mark and on a very active political acquisitions, both in France and abroad.
1.2.3 - Pernod-Ricard Date of creation
1975 and acquisition of Campbell distillers in Scotland
Sector position (especially for wines and liquors) N° 1 in Europe N° 1 in Asia Pacific N° 2 in Americas Major Brands
Ricard Ballantine’s Chivas Regal Kahlúa Malibu Beefeater Havana Club Stolichnaya Jameson Martell The Glenlivet Jacob’s Creek Montana Mumm Perrier-Jouët
1.2.3.1 - Turnover distribution
GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
10 / 38
1.2.3.2 - Financial Highlights
Turnover 2004-2005
€ 3,611 million
Turnover 2005-2006
€ 6,066 million
Production site
101 production sites
Number of employees
17,600 working in more than 70 countries
1.3 - Current economic evolution in food-processing sector 1.3.1 - Commercial surplus in food-processing sector On 11 months of 2006, this surplus is evaluated to € 8,095 billion so € 1 billion more than in 2005. During November 2006, exportations are around € 4,000 billion and importations are around 3,000 billion, both of them are increasing in comparison with November 2005. These good commercial results are mainly caused by drinks: +40% sales of champagne, +20% for wines. To also note the good results of alcohol exports such as vodka and the cognac in particular in the United States and in Asia, aromatic water and sweetens it. The sectors in retreat remains the poultry (- 27%), strongly penalized by the avian flu, the pet food (- 25%) and milk (20%).
1.3.2 - Support exportations in 12 countries A plan about food-processing export was enacted by the minister of the agriculture. This plan takes inventory 12 countries which would be a good area of development: Algeria, Germany, China, South Korea, Spain, USA, India, Italy, Japan, Poland, UK and Russia. In fact, this plan put forward a help to favour exportations in these countries. This help could be a financial help such as low custom duties.
1.3.3 - +0.9% turnover There is a global progression in this sector: ●
progression of 0.9% turnover of food-processing companies (in comparison with +2.5% for other sectors)
●
increasing of consumption: 1.1%
●
increasing of exportations: 3.4%
●
investments stability
●
decreasing of recruiting: -1.5% (5,000 employees)
GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
11 / 38
1.4 - Tendency to food-processing group concentration LACTALIS: Purchase of the Célia group CELIA has 740 employees and realizes a turnover of € 225 million of which is destinated to exportation. Main brands of “Célia: Chaussée aux Moines en fromage, Marin en beurre et Picot en lait infantile”, will join brand of LACTALIS: Président, Bridel, Lactel.
GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
12 / 38
2 - Models of innovation In the article of “Deciding on New technological investment” , Hannu S. E. Makkonen explains the possible approaches about innovation decision-making adoption. This article was the reference to more understand the subject of our study through the different theories.
2.1 - Sequential models In this model, adoption is seen such as a multi-level decision process which is composed of a series of sequential phases involved in different activities. Inside this model the number and the order of phases could be different but the fundamental idea is still the same.
2.2 - Serendipitous models The adoption is seen as a result of an organizational routine in respond to its environment. This innovation adoption could be done in certain context between the firm and its environment. In fact, this model is in opposition to the previous models because it does not see innovation adoption as linear and mechanistic.
2.3 - Political models This model could be compared with lobbying in political life. In fact, innovation adoption is the results of pressure from managerial decision-making level (such as financial department) which was convinced to adopt this innovation by technology advocates. This model takes in account the aspects of a company life as internal influences and external influences. To conclude, a firm, especially about innovation adoption, is not an unopened system.
2.4 - Summary of diffusion and adoption approaches Innovation adoption could have two different meanings. The first meaning consider innovation adoption as a choice. The second meaning shows that an innovation adoption is the result of an intra-firm decision-making process. “This perspective brings innovation adoption close to organizational behaviour and innovation adoption can be seen as an organizational action taken to somehow change the relationship into the organization and its environment” (Damanpour and Gopalakrishnan, 2001). In this perspective, there are three levels: intra-firm diffusion, implementation and organizational acceptance. But there is another concept, assimilation, which is involved in this innovation adoption concept. Assimilation enters in the global innovation adoption process before the implementation. The assimilation could be divided in three sub-processes: knowledge-awareness stage, evaluation choice stage and adoption implementation.
GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
13 / 38
3 - Methodology 3.1 - Context The project was being acted by Hannu Makkonen. He is a Ph. D. student in Turku School of Economics. He is studying how food companies make decision on a new technological investment. He has already written some theories about this subject and more generally on all companies. Also, we knew that some ESIEE students had already studied this subject but on statistical data. To begin our investigation, we started to contact the ESIEE group who had already worked on the subject. We found some documents about theories and essential contacts.
3.2 - Group organization and management tool For our internal organization, we decided to plan one meeting per week with Derek Mainwaring and Krys Markowsky. And one more with the group if it was necessary. These meetings help us to follow the project advancement and check if we were on the right way. Before going to the next stage, Hannu checked what we did and what we would want to do next. The communication with Hannu was done by e-mail. The internal communication was also done mostly by e-mail but sometimes it was necessary to meet us. After meetings we done a report. These reports were put online in the Dokeos tool. This tool is a content management system. It gives access to these reports by the web at http://tech.esiee.fr/ecampus. The access is just for team members and our tutors. To improve our efficiency, we have decided to split the group by task. We have chosen Clementine as a project chief to coordinate the group. We have shared tasks by role. For example Olivier was in charge of communication with Hannu, or Julien was in charge of design of a short study presentation, but the roles were not permanent. We wanted all the group could involve in the different phases of the project.
GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
14 / 38
To manage all tasks, we used a Pert diagram. This tool allowed us to define the deadline of each subpart and to check our advancement. Pert diagram shows all tasks that we had to do and how long time we should pass on them. The links between tasks show what we had to finish before beginning another task. Here is the Pert diagram:
The first task was to study all articles given by Hannu to understand what he meant about investment decision-making process.
3.3 - Study theories Firstly, we read the article “Deciding on a New Technological Investment” written by Hannu Makkonen. After a first reading, we decided to share the article by chapter. Each and every one brought what they had understood about the subject. We started a brainstorming to understand all theories about the decision making on a New Technological Investment. Secondly, Hannu checked what we had understood and what we wanted to do next.
3.4 - The Black Box Actually, we knew the theory but we didn’t know which part of French food companies makes decision and how they make it. We decided to use a management tool to understand who were the actors and what were the links they had with the decision-making process. The choice was to use the Black Box tool. The black box gives a global view of interaction with main trade or main enterprise department and the core of our system. Here, the system is what we want to understand. The reflection is very GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
15 / 38
interesting, it brings a thought process to devise the problem.
3.4.1 - First version Decision-maker : Chain of value
Economic intelligence
Information system
To make the decision concerning the project
Traditional solution :
Competing firm
- Cost - Time
Research center
- Technical nature - Risks
Patent licence
Regulatory plan
- Delay
System of technico-eco decisionmaking
Innovative solution
Solution innovantes : Strategy :
- Cost
- Profit
- Time
- Cost - Quality - Profit of share of market - Diversification
Project : Project team : - Present the project to the decision-maker - Must know the different solutions
- Organisational - Material - Technical - Human
- Technical nature - Risks - Delay - Degree of innovation - Competitive advantages
We made a first draft where we wanted to show all interactions with the system of technical-eco decision-making.
GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
16 / 38
3.4.2 - Second version « veille »
Dealing problematic
Strategical objective
Information system
Decisional process
Time
Human
Financial
Decision-maker
Potential solution of the project
Ressource of the society Organisational
Economic intelligence
Immateriel Materiel
We made a second version to regroup the interactions in smart boxes. The smart boxes are a regrouping of trades or processes in a coherent meaning. This diagram allow us to show a global view of the problem. That helped us to make guideline to lead our interviews with French food companies.
3.5 - Contacts The second part of our project was to realize some interviews. To do that we had to contact the French food companies. We lead two types of investigation to contact companies. The first was to contact companies by e-mailing and phoning. We made one short presentation to show quickly what was our project and why we wanted an interview. The second investigation was to use the relationship that we and the school had. This investigation was more successful.
GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
17 / 38
3.6 - Interviews The interviews were lead by the questionnaire. There were three interviews. We used different methodologies. Depended on the availabilities of the interviewer. The first one was a face to face interview. We used a microphone to record the interview. For the second interview, we could not lead a face to face interview. The interviewer had not enough time to come for our appointment. So, we decided to do interview by phoning conference. Also, we used a microphone to record the interview. The third interview was more complex. Neither the interviewer nor us could come. To face this situation, we used Visio conference with the tool Skype. This tool allowed to realize good online interview by Internet. The storing was done by the computer.
GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
18 / 38
4 - Interviews 4.1 - Questionnaire 1.
Presentation of the company and the manager
2.
Did you invest in an innovation in your production process these last 5 years?
Have you been directly involved in this investment choice? What was the nature of this investment? (innovation or not) 3.
What were the problematic and the context around this investment?
4.
About this problematic, have you other solutions?
5.
Between these solutions, which one was the best? Why has it been chosen?
6.
Which was the origin of the influences which brought to this investment:
External influences: ●
Who?
●
Forecasting?/ consultant?/ Suppliers?
Internal influences: ●
Who?
●
Executive managers ?/ R&D laboratory?/ consequences of a strategy or a reorganization?
7.
In which way your different resources had an impact on this innovation adoption?
●
Human resources
●
Financial resources
●
Material resources
●
Immaterial resources
8. Who were the other actors who were involved in this making decision? What was their decision power? 9.
Who actually took the decision?
●
Was it a collective or a single decision?
●
If single: which hierarchical position? function?
●
If a group: ●
hierarchical position of the group?
●
role/ function
●
composition of the group
●
different roles in the group
10. How long did take the innovation implementation?
GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
19 / 38
4.2 - Interview of Yannick Le Gall Company: Main French Milk company. Interviewed person: Yannick Le Gall. Previous occupation: In charge of the R&D department/ Cheese department (2002-2006). Date: 11/26/2006.
4.2.1 - Did you invest in an innovation in your production process these last 5 years? In 2003, our firm invested in an innovation which was a part of a line production transfer plan from a production site to another. This innovation allowed our production line to be more flexible. This flexibility increased our production range (shape, weight etc). This innovation corresponded to a € 3 million investment.
4.2.2 - Have you been directly involved in this investment choice? Yes, I did realize test on production line in collaboration with the industrial direction and industrial site (suppliers technological choice).
4.2.3 - What were the problematic and the context around this investment? Actually, there was not a real problematic because this innovation was submitted by one of our suppliers.
4.2.4 - About this problematic, have you others solutions? No.
4.2.5 - Which was the origin of the influences which brought to this investment: This innovation was suggested by two of our suppliers. In fact, the first supplier installs our line production and the second worked for the company before. Actually, it was not a customer need but a request from the marketing department. So this innovation was an opportunity offered during our line production transfer. But we did not do a real analyse about this innovation adoption. The supplier who suggested us this innovation offered us to rent the new machine and if we was agreed to invest in this innovation we were suppose to be furnished by them.
4.2.6 - In which way your different resources had an impact on this innovation adoption? I did not feel direct pressure from financial department (in fact, there was not financial manager at any meeting about this innovation adoption) but it is obvious that financial department had influence mediate by the industrial direction. But the line production transfer was the result of the company strategy (human resources influence).
GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
20 / 38
4.2.7 - Which were other actors who were involved in this making decision? Interactions between the industrial direction, the R&D department and the marketing department.
4.2.8 - Who actually took the decision? Actually, the decision was taken by one person who were the chief executive. This man had a great technological knowledge.
4.2.9 - How long did take the innovation implementation? Total duration of adoption and implementation = 2 years. Questioning Phase about this innovation = December 2002. Essay Phase = February –August 2003. Implementation Phase = 1 year.
4.2.10 - Appendix Main problem about this project were: ●
Lack of time, we did not a real analysis but we made a choice of “the less bad” and not a choice of “the best”.
●
We did not have a real project manager about this project.
GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
21 / 38
4.3 - Interview of Eric Vouland from Diana Naturals Company: Diana Naturals. Interview: Eric Vouland. Work position: Director of “Innovation & Development” department.
4.3.1 - Presentation of the company Diana Naturals belongs to the international group Diana Ingredients. This group is composed of 3 divisions: ●
SPF: production of factors of craving for the industry of Pet Food or domestic animals (dogs & cats)
●
CAP: products intended for industries of meat, fish, pork-butchery: bards of pig + proteins of pig + sauces ready for use
●
Diana Naturals: ingredients for food/culinary industries (soups, seasonings, prepared dishes, drinks, baby food, nutraceutic, ice + yoghourt): concentrates and dehydrated containing fruits and vegetables, concentrated wine extracts, nutraceutic, etc.
Diana Naturals: ●
Turnover: € 90 million.
●
~ 430 employees.
●
75% of turnover to the export of which majority towards the countries of the EU (England, Germany, Italy) and the Eastern European countries + the USA (via a subsidiary company)
●
Export in Asia too: with sales offices in Bangkok and Shanghai and establishment in Japan, in China and Thailand
●
5 sites of production in France from which 4 own to Diana Naturals, and 1 Joint Venture
4.3.2 - Have you invested in an innovation within your production process for 5 years? Within the department “Innovation and Development” (team of 27 people), there is a portfolio of 40 innovating projects.
4.3.3 - Genesis of a project which implies an innovation? The origin of an idea can come from several poles but primarily from the sales department (i.e. in response to a customer request) and from service marketing. This proposal for an innovation can come from a bibliographical study, from a study carried out by a commercial or to be the fruit of the work of an intern when it relates to an accurate technical point. When an innovation is subjected to a study, it is carried out a practical debriefing which makes a first review of the feasibility and the type of application. Protocol in the adoption of innovation: ●
Delimit clearly and precisely the objectives of the project and designate a project leader
●
Delimit the composition of the project team: Commercial/ Purchase/ Production
GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
22 / 38
●
●
Evaluation of the feasibility of the project: ●
Competitive Position
●
Position compared to the market and the customers
●
Technical Feasibility
●
Estimate of the investment that it represents. This quantified study is planed between 2 and 3 years after the setting-up of the product (Turnover which can be generated: economic value of the project)
Evaluation of risks/opportunities: Given example: products containing chicken (avian flu).
4.3.4 - If you have several solutions for the same problem? The selection criteria are: ●
Is the innovating solution in agreement with the strategy of the group? Economic ?
●
Quality
Evaluation of the ratio quality/ price while paying attention to the real need for the market Given example: nutraceutic, product purified thanks to the extraction. The market does not need a purified product at 100%!
4.3.5 - Which was the origin of the influences which brought to this investment Interior influences: ●
System of marketing strategic intelligence (market and customers)
●
System of scientific strategic intelligence (competitors)
●
System of strategic intelligence on patents
●
Influence of the service of Production and the team I&D which propose innovating solutions
4.3.6 - In what your various resources did have an impact on the decision-making? ●
Financial resources: it is one of the essential criteria for the adoption of innovation. The portfolio must be in agreement with the strategy.
●
Material resources: it is the other determining criterion which makes it possible to evaluate a need or not to invest in material.
4.3.7 - Which are the other actors who took part in the decisionmaking? The decision is made by the Director of the department “Innovation and Development” if the project is of average scale (i.e. if the investment and the setting-up are not too heavy). But if the investment is much more important, it is the General Direction which gives the final decision.
GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
23 / 38
4.3.8 - What is the average term of a project (from the idea to the product) at Diana Naturals? There are 2 types of projects: ●
“Brief customer”, project on a new product or a new technology: do not require project management so a short term between ~1 week and 3 months.
●
Otherwise it is necessary to envisage at least 6 months even 1 year up to 18-24 months.
GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
24 / 38
4.4 - Interview of Isabelle Sultan from Danone France Company: Danone – Activia Cottage cheese. Interviewed person: Isabelle Sultan. Previous occupation: Senior product manager for Danone France – Activia. Date: 01/26/2007.
4.4.1 - May you introduce yourself? Isabelle Sultan, senior product manager for Danone France – Activia. I’m also in charge of the product family extension. I was responsible for initiate innovation projects with thinking about new concepts and to summit them to my chief.
4.4.2 - Did you innovate inside your company? Yes, especially on the “Activia Cottage cheese” project.
4.4.3 - Have you been involved in the choice of this innovation? Yes of course, I was the project manager and the initiator of this product.
4.4.4 - What was the nature of this innovation? It consists in two new products “fruits cottage cheese” in the Activia product family.
4.4.5 - What was the global context of this innovation? We needed to extend the Activia product family with other types of yoghurt. Here there are the sales of Activia: ●
55 to 60 %: white yoghurt
●
The rest is constituted of: ●
Flavoured yoghurt
●
Cereals yoghurt
●
Fruits yoghurt
The cottage cheese is an important source of potential business for the Activia brand. We wanted to copy the success of Activia cottage cheese observed on the Russian market to reproduce it in France.
4.4.6 - Were there different solutions proposed to enter in this market? Yes, I proposed 3 different concepts: ●
Cottage cheese nature “au bifidus” (basic concept)
●
Breakfast cottage cheese (breakfast concept)
●
Fruits cottage cheese (pleasure concept)
GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
25 / 38
4.4.7 - Between these solutions, which one was the best? Why has it been chosen? The best solution was the third: the fruits cottage cheese. It has been chosen with the help of a standard quantitative concept evaluation on a 100 to 200 consumer’s panel. This test helps us to determinate the value of the concept and the declared buying intention. This test gives a score that we can compare with other concepts in the database who are already on the market.
4.4.8 - Which influences did you have with this innovation? The influences principally came from Danone Russia where “Activia cottage cheese” was a great success.
4.4.9 - Who took the decision? It was the innovation Comity who decided. This comity is constituted with the CEO France and all the services directors. Each director decides for his domain and the CEO chooses between the different risks. In a first time I present the chosen concept and ask for human resources in different services to constitute the project team and try to achieve it. Then after the project had been deeply studied, the innovation comity decided if the product will be sold or not.
4.4.10 - How really make a decision in this case? Was it a collective decision? All the propositions came from the project team in which all services are represented. But finally it is the CEO who decides.
4.4.11 - How long time does all this process take? 10 months pasted between the concept presentation and the beginning of selling products.
GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
26 / 38
5 - Analysis
N°1 European dairy company Group strategy
Marketing department increase series of products
production reorganization
Supplier Innovative machine proposal
Financial department
Production department
R&D department
CEO
INNOVATION ADOPTION
Diana naturals Group strategy Gain market share
I & D Department Innovative proposals
Team project I &D Department
Sales Department
Purchase Department
Production Department
I & D Manager
Marketing Market study Low price High price
I & D Department
CEO
INNOVATION ADOPTION
GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
27 / 38
Danone Danone Russia Identified business source
Marketing Department Tested concepts
Innovation comity (CEO and all departments directors)
Human resources
Team project Marketing Department Logistics Department
Production Department Sales Department…
Feasibility study, gain evaluation, market study…
Innovation comity
INNOVATION ADOPTION There 2 kinds of management: ●
Familial organization: It's a centralized decision power
●
International organization: It's a normalized decision process
We distinguish different approaches of innovation: ●
Techno-push
●
Market-pull
●
Integrated (Techno-push and market-pull)
We have linked the firms with Makkonen’s models: ●
Diana naturals has a serendipitous and a sequential model
●
Danone has a political model
●
N°1 European dairy group has a familial model
GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
28 / 38
6 - Conclusion To conclude, we had some troubles with time management. At the beginning of the project, we wasted many time to precise the goals and the limits of the subject. Moreover, we suffered a lack of coordination that we set straight with frequent meetings with our tutors. Despite these difficulties, this project has brought us positive results. Firstly, we learned to use management tools such as the Pert diagram. Since the beginning everyone has found its own role in the team. We had a good communication between all members of the team thanks to the available tools. Dokeos was an interesting content management tool. Moreover we had a good team coordination and complementary skills. To define the limits of the project, we used the management tools (black box, brainstorming,etc.). The tools allowed us to have a professional approach. The project with a foreign person has provided us a multicultural view. Moreover, it has brought us English and management skills. It allows us to see the importance of innovation in the firms. The project has brought us a real vision on how a firm makes decisions on new technological investment. We understood that strategic decisions are very important and that they had a particular process. Throughout the project, we have contacted many professionals. We were lucky to have direct relations in food processing sector. So, it allowed us to interview three persons who are involved in decision making. This was a great occasion to create relationships with professionals of the sector. Finally, we enjoyed to satisfy our sponsor by fulfilling the initial objectives.
GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
29 / 38
References ●
“Deciding on New Technological Investment”, Hannu S.E. Makkonen
●
http://agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr
●
http://www.agroalimentaire.fr/669-actualite-entreprise-ECONOMIE-Excedent-commercialagroalimentaire.html
●
http://www.eurostaf.fr/fr/catalogue/etudes/sectorielles/industriebtp/agroalimentaire_industrie/resume.html?PHPSESSID=1h8h7mtupv2kap2dl9ar0gsvk7
●
http://www.danone.com
●
http://www.lactalis.fr
GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
30 / 38
Annexes Questionnaire- French version 1.
Présentation de l’intervenant
2. Avez-vous investi dans une innovation au sein de votre processus de production depuis 5 ans ? Avez-vous été impliqué dans le choix de cet investissement ? Quelle est la nature de cet investissement ? (innovation ou pas) 3.
Quelle était la problématique et le contexte entourant cet investissement ?
4.
Pour cette problématique y a-t-il eu plusieurs solutions proposées ?
5.
Parmi ces solutions, quelles étaient les plus pertinentes ? Pourquoi ont-elles été choisies ?
6.
Quelle a été l’origine des influences qui ont amené à cet investissement:
Influences extérieures: ●
les acteurs ?
●
veille interne ?/ consultant ?/ fournisseurs ?
Influences intérieures: ●
les acteurs ?
●
cadres supérieurs ?/ laboratoire de R&D ?/ conséquence d’une restructuration ou d’une stratégie ?
7.
En quoi vos différentes ressources ont eu un impact sur la prise de décision ?
●
ressources humaines
●
ressources financières
●
ressources matérielles
●
ressources immatérielles
8. Quels sont les autres acteurs qui ont participé à la prise de décision ? Quels étaient leur poids décisionnel respectif 9.
Qui a réellement tranché en faveur de la solution choisie ?
●
cette décision a-t-elle été prise par une personne ou un groupe
●
si une seule personne: position hiérarchique ? Fonction ?
●
si un groupe: ●
position hiérarchique du groupe ?
●
rôle/ fonction du groupe
●
composition du groupe
●
différents rôles au sein du groupe des principaux acteurs
10. Quelle a été la durée de mise en place de cette innovation ?
GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
31 / 38
Interview of Yannick Le Gall - French version Avez-vous investi dans une innovation au sein de votre processus de production depuis 5 ans ? Mon ancienne entreprise a investi en 2003 dans une innovation qui faisait partie d’un plan d’un transfert de ligne de production d’une ligne de production d’un site de production sur un autre. Cette innovation avait pour effet d’assouplir la ligne de production pour augmenter la gamme de production (forme, grammage…). Cette innovation correspondait à un investissement de 3 millions d’euros.
Avez-vous été impliqué dans le choix de cet investissement ? Oui, réalisation des tests sur la ligne de production en partenariat avec la direction industrielle et le site industriel (choix technique et technologique des fournisseurs).
Quelle était la investissement ?
problématique
et
le
contexte
entourant
cet
Pas de réelle problématique car cette innovation a été soumise par le fournisseur.
Pour cette problématique y a-t-il eu plusieurs solutions proposées ? Non.
Quelle a été l’origine des influences qui ont amené à cet investissement L’innovation a été proposée par le fournisseur qui a installé la ligne de production d’origine. Mais n’a pas été la conséquence d’une demande des clients mais du service marketing du groupe. Mais cette innovation a été le fruit d’une opportunité au moment du transfert de ligne de production. Mais cette adoption d’innovation n’a pas été l’aboutissement d’une analyse poussée. Elle a été proposée par le fournisseur qui a proposé un prêt ou location des machines le temps des tests et s’il y avait adoption de cette solution l’industriel devait se fournir chez eux.
En quoi vos différentes ressources ont eu un impact sur la prise de décision ? Pas de ressenti de pression directe par le service finance (jamais présent lors des réunions concernant ce projet) mais qui devait sûrement agir par l’intermédiaire de la direction industrielle. Mais la décision du transfert de ligne de production est le résultat de la stratégie du groupe (influence des ressources humaines).
Quels sont les autres acteurs qui ont participé à la prise de décision ? Interactions entre la direction industrielle, le service R&D et le service marketing.
Qui a réellement tranché en faveur de la solution choisie ? La décision a été prise par une seule personne qui était le Directeur Général du groupe qui avait une grande connaissance technique. GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
32 / 38
Quelle a été la durée de mise en place de cette innovation ? Durée totale de l’adoption et mise en place = 2 ans Phase de questionnement sur cette innovation = fin 2002 Phase d’essais = Février–Août 2003 Phase de mise en place = 1 an
Annexes Principal problème rencontré lors de ce projet : Manque de temps qui amène à ne pas faire une réelle analyse du problème mais faire un choix du « moins pire » et pas du meilleur. De plus, le manque de temps aurait pu être amélioré par une meilleure méthode de gestion du projet (pas de réel chef de projet).
GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
33 / 38
Interview of Eric Vouland from Diana Naturals - French version Présentation de l’entreprise Diana Naturals fait partie du groupe international Diana Ingrédients. Ce groupe se compose de 3 divisions : ●
SPF : production de facteurs d’appétence pour l’industrie du Pet Food ou animaux domestiques (chiens & chats)
●
CAP : produits destinés aux industries de la viande, du poisson, charcuterie: bardes de porc + protéines de porc + sauces prêtes à l’emploi
●
Diana Naturals : ingrédients pour les industries de l’agroalimentaire/ culinaire (soupes, assaisonnements, plats préparés, boissons, baby food, nutraceutiques, glace + yaourt): concentrés et déshydratés à base de fruits et légumes, extraits de vins concentrés, nutraceutiques, etc.
Diana Naturals : ●
CA: 90 millions d'euros.
●
~ 430 employés.
●
75% du CA à l’exportation dont la majorité vers les pays de l’UE (Angleterre, Allemagne, Italie) et les pays de l’Est + USA (via une filiale).
●
Exportation aussi en Asie: avec bureaux de ventes à Bangkok et Shanghai et implantation au Japon, en Chine et en Thaïlande.
●
5 sites de production en France dont 4 sont la propriété de Diana Naturals, et 1 Joint Venture.
Avez-vous investi dans une innovation au sein de votre processus de production depuis 5 ans? Au sein du département « Innovation et Développement » (équipe de 27 personnes), il y a un portefeuille courant de 40 projets innovants.
La genèse d’un projet qui implique une innovation ? L’origine d’une idée peut venir de plusieurs pôles mais essentiellement du service commercial (c'est-à-dire en réponse à une demande client) et du service marketing. Cette proposition d’innovation peut venir d’une étude bibliographique, d’une étude réalisée par un commercial ou être le fruit du travail d’un stagiaire quand cela porte sur un volet technique pointu. Quand une innovation est soumise à étude, il est réalisé un débriefing terrain qui fait un premier tour d’horizon de la faisabilité et du type d’application. Protocole dans l’adoption d’une innovation : ●
Définition claire et précise des objectifs du projet et désignation d’un chef de projet
●
Définition de la composition de l’équipe projet: commerciaux/ Achat/ production
●
Evaluation de la faisabilité du projet : ●
GPI project ISTM
Position concurrentielle
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
34 / 38
●
●
Position par rapport au marché et aux clients
●
Faisabilité technique
●
Montant chiffré de l’investissement que cela représente. Cette étude chiffrée se projette 2-3 ans après la mise en place du produit (CA qui peut être généré: valeur économique du projet)
Evaluation risques/opportunités
Exemple donné : les produits à base de poulet (grippe aviaire)
Si pour une même problématique, vous avez plusieurs solutions ? Les critères de choix sont: ●
La solution innovante est-elle en accord avec la stratégie du groupe ?
●
Economique
●
Qualité
Evaluation du rapport qualité/ prix tout en faisant attention au besoin réel du marché. Exemple donné : nutraceutique, produit purifié grâce à l’extraction. Le marché n’a pas besoin d’un produit 100% purifié !
Quelle a été l’origine des influences qui ont amené à cet investissement Influences intérieures: ●
Système de veille marketing (marché et clients)
●
Système de veille scientifique (concurrents)
●
Système de veille sur les brevets
●
Influence du service Production et de l’équipe I&D qui proposent des solutions innovantes
En quoi vos différentes ressources ont eu un impact sur la prise de décision ? ●
Ressources financières: c’est un des critères essentiels pour l’adoption de l’innovation. Le portefeuille doit être en accord avec la stratégie.
●
Ressources matérielles: c’est l’autre critère déterminant qui permet d’évaluer un besoin ou non d’investir dans du matériel.
Quels sont les autres acteurs qui ont participé à la prise de décision ? La décision est prise par le Directeur du département « Innovation et Développement » si le projet est de moyenne envergure (c’est-à-dire si l’investissement et la mise en place ne sont pas trop lourds). Mais si l’investissement est beaucoup plus important, c’est la Direction Générale qui donne la décision finale.
Quelle est la durée moyenne d’un projet (de l’idée au produit) chez Diana Naturals ? Il existe 2 types de projets :
GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
35 / 38
●
« Brief client », projet portant sur un nouveau produit ou une nouvelle technologie: ne nécessite pas de gestion de projet d’où une durée courte entre ~1 semaine et 3 mois
●
Sinon il faut prévoir au minimum 6 mois voire 1 an jusqu’à 18-24 mois
GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
36 / 38
Interview of Isabelle Sultan from Danone – French version Pourriez-vous vous présenter ? Isabelle Sultan, anciennement chef de produit senior Activia aux fruits et responsable de l’extension de la famille de produit Activia. J’avais la responsabilité globale d’initier des projets d’innovation en réfléchissant à de nouveaux concepts et de les soumettre à ma direction.
Avez-vous innové au sein de votre entreprise? Oui, notamment sur le lancement d’Activia Fromage blanc.
Avez-vous été impliqué dans le choix de cette innovation ? Oui, en tant que chef de l’équipe projet Activia fromage blanc
Quelle est la nature de cette innovation ? Elle consistait dans le lancement de 2 nouveau produits « fromage blanc aux fruits » sur une extension de la famille de produit Activia.
Quelle était la problématique et le contexte entourant cette innovation ? Etendre la famille de produit « Activia » à d’autres types de recettes. Répartition des ventes d’Activia : ●
55 à 60 % : yaourts blancs
●
Le reste est constitué de : ●
yaourts aromatisés
●
yaourts céréales
●
yaourts brassés aux fruits
Le fromage blanc constitue une source de business importante pour la marque. L’idée était de s’inspirer du succès d’Activia fromage blanc observé sur le marché russe pour le reproduire en France.
Pour cette problématique ya-t-il eu plusieurs solutions proposées ? Oui, il y en a eu 3 : ●
Fromage blanc nature au bifidus (concept basique)
●
Petit déjeuner aux céréales à base de fromage blanc (concept petit dejeuner)
●
Fromage blanc aux fruits (concept plaisir).
Parmi ces solutions, quelles étaient les plus pertinentes ? Pourquoi ont-elles été choisies ? La solution la plus pertinente était le fromage blanc aux fruits. Elle a été choisie sur la base d’une évaluation de concept quantitatif standard sur un panel de 100 GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
37 / 38
à 200 consommateurs qui permet de déterminer le l’attractivité du concept et l’intention d’achat déclarée. Cette évaluation donne un score que l’on peut comparer avec celles de concepts déjà lancés.
Quelle a été l’origine des influences qui ont amené à cette innovation ? Les influences proviennent essentiellement de la filiale Russe du Groupe où une recette « Activia fromage blanc » avait bien marché.
Quels sont les acteurs qui ont participé à la prise de décision ? Quels étaient leur poids décisionnels respectifs ? Comité d’innovation : présentation du concept pour une demande de ressources dans les différents services pour constituer l’équipe Projet pour essayer de mener à bien le projet. Ce comité d’innovation est constitué du DG France et des directions des différents services (directions industrielles commerciales, logistiques…). Chaque direction fait autorité sur son domaine d’intervention.
Qui a réellement tranché en faveur de la solution choisie ?Cette décision a-t-elle été prise par une personne ou un groupe ? Les propositions sont venues de l’équipe projet suite à l’étude effectuée par l’équipe projet constituée de collaborateurs des différents services Ce le Directeur Général France qui a pris la décision et effectue un arbitrage entre la rentabilité et les risques liés au projet.
Quelle a été la durée de mise en place de cette innovation ? Cette innovation a mis 10 mois entre la présentation des concepts et le lancement du produit à être mise en place.
GPI project ISTM
Innovation in food-processing sector January 2007
38 / 38
