IN THE FIELD OF TECHNOLOGY DEGREE PROJECT
DESIGN AND PRODUCT REALISATION AND THE MAIN FIELD OF STUDY MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2020,
Measuring and Visualizing
Business Performance Indicators in Corporate Accelerators
CAROLINE FORSBERG MARIKA DALEKE
KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
SCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT
Measuring and Visualizing Business Performance Indicators in Corporate
Accelerators
Marika Daleke Caroline Forsberg
Master of Science Thesis MMK TRITA-ITM-EX 2020:414 KTH Industrial Engineering and Management
Machine Design SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM
Examensarbete MMK TRITA-ITM-EX 2020:414 Mätning och Visualisering av
affärsresultatsindikatorer i företagsacceleratorer
Marika Daleke Caroline Forsberg
Godkänt
2020-06-17
Examinator
Sofia Ritzén
Handledare
Sofia Ritzén
Uppdragsgivare
Ericsson ONE
Kontaktperson
Matilda George
Sammanfattning
Företagsacceleratorn Ericsson ONE i det multinationella nätverks- och telekommunikationsföretaget Ericsson med huvudkontor i Sverige är uppdragsgivaren för detta examensarbete. Inom organisationen fanns ett behov av ett mätsystem för att indikera hur Ericsson ONE utvecklas och för att se vilken framgång som sker. Syftet med denna uppsats var att hitta lämpliga ramar och metoder för att utveckla ett anpassat mätsystem till en företagsaccelerator. Målet var att för Ericsson ONE identifiera relevant mätbar data utifrån lämpliga ramverk samt att visualisera och kommunicera denna data för användarna.
Denna kvalitativa studie har genomförts genom att representanter från olika delar av Ericsson ONE har intervjuats på ett semistrukturerat sätt. Även representanter från ytterligare ett acceleratorprogram har inkluderats. Projektet har följt en trestegsmetod för att utvärdera och utveckla ett mätsystem på ett strukturerat sätt. Detta resulterade i att en mockup för en dashboard har utvecklats där data och mätindikatorerna kan samlas ihop och visualiseras. För att säkerställa att alla viktiga områden och perspektiv i organisationen täcks, användes strategihanteringsverktyget Balanced Scorecard.
Keywords: Corporate Accelerator, Business Performance Measurements, Business Performance Measurement Frameworks, Balanced Scorecard, Dashboard.
Master of Science Thesis MMK TRITA-ITM-EX 2020:414
Measuring and visualizing Business Performance Indicators in Corporate Accelerators
Marika Daleke Caroline Forsberg
Approved
2020-06-17
Examiner
Sofia Ritzén
Supervisor
Sofia Ritzén
Commissioner
Ericsson ONE
Contact person
Matilda George
Abstract
The corporate accelerator Ericsson ONE, at the multinational networking and telecommunications company Ericsson headquartered in Sweden, is subject to this master thesis research. Within the organization, there was a need for a new business performance measurement system for indicating the performance and success of Ericsson ONE. The objective of this research was to find suitable frameworks and methods that can be applied when developing a customized business performance measurement system for a corporate accelerator. The goal was then to identify relevant measurements and Key Performance Indicators for Ericsson ONE to use and to visualize that data to communicate it to the users.
This has been a qualitative study with ten conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews with representatives from different departments at Ericsson ONE. Additionally, interviews were also made with representatives from an external accelerator program. The study has been following a three-step method for assessing and developing a business performance measurement system in a structured way. It resulted in a mockup of a dashboard where data for the new business performance measurements both can be collected and visualized. To ensure all important areas and perspectives of the organization are covered, the strategy performance management tool Balanced Scorecard was applied.
Keywords: Corporate Accelerator, Business Performance Measurements, Business Performance Measurement Frameworks, Balanced Scorecard, Dashboard.
FOREWORD
Here the acknowledgment to the people who have been helping with assistance, inspiration, and cooperation during the project is presented.
At the end of the master’s program Innovation Management and Product Development at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), we have conducted our master thesis project. There are people who have helped us along the way, providing us with guidance, support, and knowledge that we would not have made it without.
We would like to thank our astonishing supervisor Matilda George at Ericsson ONE that first gave us the opportunity to work on this project, and second, provided us with guidance throughout the whole duration of the project. She provided invaluable input, feedback, and knowledge, always putting us in the right direction.
Our supervisor at KTH Sofia Ritzén has been helping us find the right direction for the research and giving us great insight and guidance in the field of Business Performance Measurements.
We would also like to show our gratitude towards the interviewees, that without their insight and expertise, we would not have been able to reach our results.
Worth mentioning is also that conducting this project during such an uncertain and unpresidential time as COVID-19, and still reaching our final goals within the planned time frame is something that makes us very proud of ourselves.
Caroline Forsberg & Marika Daleke Stockholm, June 2020
TABLE OF CONTENT
INTRODUCTION 1
Background of the study 1
Purpose 2
Delimitations 2
FRAME OF REFERENCE 3
Corporate Accelerators 3
Corporate Accelerator Benefits 3
Business Performance Measurement 4
Variations of Measurements and Indicators 4
Issues with Business Performance Measurements 5
Business Performance Measurement Frameworks 5
Implementation of a Balanced Scorecard 8
Measuring Innovation 9
Pitfalls when measuring innovation 10
Dashboards – Visualization of data 11
The Purpose of a dashboard 11
Stakeholders 11
Visualizing data 11
Customer Satisfaction 12
Research gap 13
METHOD 14
Qualitative research 14
Case study 14
Interviews 14
Interviewees 15
Role Descriptions of Interviewees 15
Analysis method 17
User-Centered Design 17
Subjectivity 17
Risk Analysis 18
RESULTS 19
Ericsson 19
Ericsson ONE 19
Ericsson ONE Innovation Pipeline 20
Current Measurements 21
Mapping and assessing the current measurement practices 22
Monthly Reports 23
Low Insight into other hubs 23
Fragmented measurement system 23
Features 24
Operational and Executive Perspectives 25
Developing new measurement practices 26
Applying BSC to CA 27
BSC Applied to Ericsson ONE 28
Dashboard 30
Features 31
Operational and Executive Perspectives 33
KTH Innovation 33
Measurements at KTH Innovation 33
DISCUSSION 35
BSC applied to CA 35
Method for Measuring Innovation 36
Collecting and Visualizing Data 38
CONCLUSION 40
Applying BSC to CA 40
Method for Measuring Innovation 40
Collecting and Visualizing Data 40
Future Work 41
REFERENCES 42
APPENDIX 1
Appendix A: Ericsson ONE Interview Guide 1
Appendix B: KTH Innovation Interview Guide 2
Appendix C: Feedback Survey 3
Appendix D: Risk Analysis 5
1. INTRODUCTION
This section presents the background and purpose of the study. It also covers the delimitations of the study.
1.1. Background of the study
Organizations and firms struggle and have a hard time measuring business performance and its indicators. Having a developed measurement system could help an organization in pinpointing or monitoring progress in certain strategic areas and plays a crucial part when translating strategy into results (Lingle 1996). In the case of Corporate Accelerators (CA), it is even harder since they only depend on ex-ante information to predict their overall performance. Meaning they have no direct data showing on their success, but rather only base their predictions on forecasts and potential revenue.
To add to this, it is also relevant to discuss how these performance indicators should be visualized and communicated to different stakeholders of the organization. To indicate the status of the business performances, a system with a holistic perspective that contains Key Performance Indicators (KPI) can help executives and managers to keep track of it. One solution to such a system is to implement a dashboard, but when doing this there are different aspects and perspectives to consider. In the case of executives, they will make decisions that require capabilities to do multi-dimensional analysis, trend analysis, and to look at different market perspectives. The dashboard, therefore, has a need to be customizable for managing these different tasks required by different stakeholders (Hung 2003).
Ericsson ONE is a corporate accelerator and incubator unit at the telecom company Ericsson where the mission is to: Create game-changing businesses by unlocking intrapreneurs and innovators, shaping the future together. Employees at Ericsson send in ideas to Ericsson ONE were the ideas are rated and evaluated. If the idea is accepted by Ericsson ONE, it will become a part of the Ericsson ONE 5i Innovation Process. The 5i Innovation Process is the framework that teams in Ericsson ONE follow when taking an idea from a conceptual phase to a business. By using the 5i Innovation Process, the goal is to launch one major game-changing new business per year and to build a strong pipeline of great ideas and become a toolbox for pioneers.
Ideas come from employees at Ericsson around the globe and are uploaded to the idea management platform Idea Drop. The ideas are then assigned to one of the three different hubs, depending on where the idea-carrier is located. There is currently a lot of data generated from Ericsson ONE's operations and about its startups. At the same time, it is difficult to report success and profitability as it is not certain which factors and parameters to use to indicate this. In addition, there are various factors that must be presented depending on who the recipient is.
1.2. Purpose
The objective of this research is to find suitable frameworks and methods that can be applied when developing a customized business performance measurement system for a corporate accelerator. The objective is then to create a proposal for how Ericsson ONE can visualize and communicate the most important and relevant measurements and Key Performance Indicators.
A proposal of how the data can be visualized will be created, and this will present the measurable data points, factors, and parameters that indicate performance and profitability for Ericsson ONE. This is supposed to be the new way for the organization to present and track Key Performance Indicators, business performance indicators and it will include the different perspectives needed for the different stakeholders at Ericsson.
1.3. Delimitations
The project is limited to look at business performance within Corporate Accelerators. This specific limitation is made to customize the project to fit the company situation. The department for the case study is only working with projects within the company and are not including external projects, therefore this thesis is focusing on the corporate accelerators. The business performance is investigated since it has been a request by the company that they would like to improve this area.
Regarding the deliverables for this project, it will be limited to finding a framework for setting up measurements in this type of situation based on the case. Together with the framework, a mockup will be included with a proposal of measurements that could be used and how these could be visualized. How to deploy and implement the new measurement system created in this work is not included in the scope of this thesis.
As a benchmark for the case study, KTH Innovation which is an accelerator at the academic unit at KTH, is selected due to multiple reasons. Since the start in 2007, they has been at the forefront of measuring its organizational performance. Even though KTH Innovation is a non-profit driven organization at an academic institution, the processes and the need for measurements are similar to the Ericsson ONE case.
KTH Innovation has tried to benchmark their own organization and process. One insight made from their benchmarking was that accelerators in general are very difficult to compare to one another. The reason being that accelerators often use slightly different processes and are defining their terminology when measuring. This adjusted the plan after the interviews with KTH Innovation to continue focusing on developing a measurement system for Ericsson ONE, instead of including additional organizations for benchmarking.
2. FRAME OF REFERENCE
This chapter presents the frame of reference that is being used. It is divided into the areas of Business Performance Measurement, Business Performance Measurement Frameworks, Implementation of Balanced Scorecard, Measuring Innovation, Corporate Accelerators, and information about Dashboards.
2.1. Corporate Accelerators
To be able to generate innovations, one must do so outside of the existing modern corporation’s boundaries. Startups are a big driving force when it comes to major innovations that are replacing existing technologies and business models (Chesbrough 2003). This is why companies are building structured acceleration programs to capture entrepreneurial power (Mocker 2015).
Corporate Accelerators are described as an interface between corporations and startups that provides corporations a chance for long-term growth and corporate renewal. It is a promising way for established organizations to be innovative and expand their corporate innovation efforts. Established CA offers “the scale and scope of large, established corporations and the entrepreneurial spirit of small startup firms” as explained by Kohler (2016).
2.1.1. Corporate Accelerator Benefits
For the organizations to implement a successful CA, their strategic intent must be clarified. In most cases, CA is employed with the intent of closing the innovation gap. The reason is that established organizations are less likely to pursue disruptive concepts and other growth initiatives and therefore implement CA to catch and coordinate ideas that fall outside the scope of the already existing business units. Being exposed to the latest technology also improves the chance to expand into new markets and catch more new market opportunities (Kohler 2016).
Startups within the organization have easy access to the corporate resources, assets, and capabilities that they would not have outside the CA. They can interact and learn from the company’s experts and executives which deepen the business knowledge that helps to build and scale up the startup. Being a part of bigger corporations also increases the startup’s credibility and visibility and broadens access to other markets. On top of this, the startups will get funding from the corporations that have, unlike institutional ventures, intentions of growing and learning and not just pursuing financial objectives (Kohler 2016).
2.2. Business Performance Measurement
To alter patterns regarding organizational activities, Business Performance Measurement (BPM) processes are applied. These measures help businesses to periodically set business goals and track and communicate the progress towards these goals (Kellen 2003). Having a developed measurement system could help an organization in pinpointing or monitoring progress in certain strategic areas and plays a crucial part when translating strategy into results (Lingle 1996).
Measurements are mostly related to process performance, human performance, or market conditions and are directly related to a company’s strategy and its execution. The measures that are directly related to strategy are called Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). Systems for BPM need to provide an insight into different levels of details in different areas of an organization. This can, in turn, be applied to business units, support or functional units, teams, or individuals to help align the analysis of the whole organization. This will help the organization improve overall performance since it enables synergies between every business unit (Kaplan and Norton 1992).
The reason why BPM is being used varies. Companies could use it to monitor and control, to drive improvement, to maximize the effectiveness of the improvement effort, to achieve alignment with organizational goals and objectives, or to reward and to discipline (Bititci et al. 2002). Simmons (2000) describes BPM to be a tool for a firm to balance five major tensions. These tensions to balance are; a) profit, growth, and control, b) short term results against long-term capabilities and growth opportunities, c) performance expectations of different constituencies, d) opportunities and attention, and e) motives of human behavior.
2.2.1. Variations of Measurements and Indicators
Measurement systems consist of multiple measures or metrics, which is a quantitative value that is used for comparison (Simmons 2000). These specific measures are compared to themselves over time, to a specific target, or evaluated together with other measures. Since the purpose is for comparison, the measure does not require an absolute value (Kellen 2003).
Measures can be objective and subjective, where an objective measure can be independently measured and verified while the subjective can not. Measurements can also be leading or lagging indicators, where leading gives an indication of future performances and forecasts while lagging indicators are based on feedback from past performances (Kellen 2003).
An indicator is a measured value with information about a certain phenomenon. Two common characteristics are “hard” and “soft” indicators. Hard indicators are quantitative and soft are qualitative in nature (Dziallas & Blind 2018).
2.2.2. Issues with Business Performance Measurements
BPM is a broad and diverse subject and could be applied to almost any organization and line of business that all have their own independent adaptation. This means the measurements have to be adapted to each organization since every organization differs in terms of goals and processes. To be able to communicate and benchmark between organizations, the measurements must be standardized. Although, if measurements are standardized, they lack the flexibility to be adaptable to different specific environments. Fast-changing markets have a high need for flexibility to handle rapid changes (Bassen 2006).
Along with this comes the issue with fuzzy objectives as explained by Lingle (1996). To develop a functional BPM it is required that the goals and objectives are defined with precision. A common mistake is that organizations do not invest the time and resources needed to develop this precision and thus make the goals and objectives “fuzzy”. This is especially hard when it comes to values, culture, innovation, and other “soft” measurements.
When implementing new BMP systems, organizations encounter “entrenched measurement systems” as explained by Lingle (1996). Meaning their existing measurement systems are already in place and that when trying to implement new or improved measurements, employees can strongly resist the new ways of working. It is not only about developing new measurement systems, but it is also about successfully implementing them.
2.3. Business Performance Measurement Frameworks
When measuring performance, there are different methods and frameworks that can be used for making sure that all perspectives and angels are covered. One of the most recognized frameworks for measuring business performance is the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) which divides the measurements into four different perspectives and connects each measurement to the strategic goals. Another framework that covers financial measurements is the Economic Value Added, which is used to measure corporate performance. By calculating the difference between net operating profit after tax and the cost of capital for equity and debt, the managers can use it as an incentive and make decisions that create shareholder wealth. Another financial performance indicator is Activity-based Costing, which is a framework for turning indirect costs to direct costs. This costing method provides an overview of how the costs that the product or service consumes (Kellen, 2003).
Financial measurements are commonly used when it comes to measuring business performance, but there are other types of frameworks and measurements for indicating business performance as well. Quality Management is a framework that goes beyond financial measurements and looks at goals to improve customer satisfaction. By overseeing all activities that enable an overview of how they are performing and what is being generated, the idea is to improve the offering and to maintain it. Another way of looking at the business is to apply Customer Value Analysis, which investigates customer satisfaction at the same time as making a comparison of the competitor into account. The framework analyzes the
market share and the relationship between the price and quality of the product to investigate and indicate customer satisfaction. A final framework is the Action-Profit Linkage model, which in similarity with the Activity-based Costing, is looking into the collection of activities performed by the company. The difference is that the Action-Profit Linkage model takes multiple stakeholders into account where the behavioral linkage is included (Kellen, 2003).
2.3.1. Balanced Scorecard
One of the most commonly used frameworks for measuring Business Performance is the Balanced Scorecard. The Balanced Scorecard was founded in 1992 and offers the possibility to be customized to any organization. According to Frigo and Krumwiede (2000), 40% of the Fortune 1,000 companies have been adopting the Balanced Scorecard into their operations.
One of the reasons for its success is the direct connection to the firm’s strategy. Additionally, the measures are based on showcasing leading indicators (input-oriented measurements) instead of the lagging indicators (output-oriented measurements) (Kellen 2003).
The Balanced Scorecard is a framework used to make sure that all necessary perspectives for managers and executives are covered within the organization when measuring performance.
There is no single measure that can indicate the performance alone, therefore the Balanced Scorecard can be used as a tool to ensure a broad perspective on the measurements. It is often the financial perspective that is considered when performance is measured. To only take this perspective into account was something that worked fine during the industrial era. However, to only look at financials e.g. Return on Investment can give a misleading view when looking at the innovation capabilities at a company (Kaplan and Norton 1992).
The basic concept of the Balanced Scorecard is to take four different perspectives into account when deciding on the performance indicators that should be used. The perspectives are covering Financial, Customer, Innovation & Learning and Internal Business perspective which will be further explained in following sections. For each perspective, the goals for the organization within that area are defined and then measurements are linked to the goals. This enables the measurements to relate directly to the firm’s strategy. By doing this you make sure that only relevant measurements are included. An example of how a Balanced Scorecard can be divided including the four perspectives are presented in Figure A.
Figure A: Balanced Scorecard perspectives including goal and measure [Kaplan and Norton 1992].
2.3.2. Balanced Scorecard - Customer Perspective
Analyzing the customer perspective in the Balanced Scorecard, the goal is to find out how the customer perceives the value that the company creates. Measurements to investigate the customer perspective can be summarized into four categories: lead time, quality, performance
& service, and cost. By looking at the lead time, the measurement could be the time from the order until it is shipped or the time it takes to deliver the product to the customer. The quality of the product or service could be, for instance, the number of defects perceived by the customer. To make the Balanced Scorecard successful, the goals from these four categories should be translated into specific measurements. By doing this, you make sure to measure factors that actually matter for the customer and creates value in the end (Kaplan and Norton 1992).
2.3.3. Balanced Scorecard - Internal Business Perspective
To be able to increase customer satisfaction, not only the factors related directly to the customer can be considered. The purpose of the Internal Business Perspective in the Balanced Scorecard is to consider the operations run by the company that improves customer satisfaction. There are multiple factors that can be considered in this perspective and it depends on what service or product that the company offers. Examples of factors are employee skills, quality, and productivity in the company, but it can also be to look at the core competencies, market leadership, and special technology the company possesses. When selecting the measurements for this section, one should strive to choose factors that have the
highest impact on the end-customer (Kaplan and Norton 1992). For the measurements particular for the internal business perspective, Kaplan & Norton (1992) highlight the importance of having an information system with an overview of the performance. The purpose of the information system is to track the goals in real-time to enable them to take action before it is too late.
2.3.4. Balanced Scorecard - Innovation and Learning Perspective
The Customer Perspective and the Internal Business Perspective are focusing on what to do in the company to make it stay competitive. However, since the competitive environment constantly is changing, the role of the Innovative and Learning Perspective is to prepare the company for the future and to make sure that the company has the ability to adapt to changes.
The core when it comes to creating company value is the ability to innovate, improve, and learn, and it is these three areas that this perspective should cover. One way of measuring this is to look at the sales numbers of new products launched and check the success compared to previous launches. When setting the goal for this perspective it could either be to create stability in producing new products or it could be to focus on improving existing products (Kaplan and Norton 1992).
2.3.5. Balanced Scorecard - Financial Perspective
The purpose of the Financial Perspective in the Balanced Scorecard is to reflect the profitability, growth, and shareholder value that the company brings. Typical measurements for the financial part is to look at cash flow and sales growth. However, the challenge when creating the measurements and goals for the Financial Perspective is to find a clear connection between the operations and the financials. By translating improved quality, response time, and productivity into improved sales and market shares, it gives the executives a clear view to look at. There is criticism against financial short term goals with the argument that it is backward-looking measurements and has an inability to reflect on value-creating activities. By choosing the right goals and measurements, the Financial Perspective can give a heads-up to executives and activities that increase revenue can be identified (Kaplan and Norton 1992).
2.4. Implementation of a Balanced Scorecard
There are multiple advantages when implementing the Balanced Scorecard as a framework for finding the right business performance indicators. Firstly, the information overload on executives and managers are minimized. Additionally, the information presented to these people is focused on the most critical parts which decrease the measuring of everything that is possible to measure (Kaplan and Norton 1992). Important to keep in mind when implementing the Balanced Scorecard to an organization or business is that the scorecard has to be customized for each individual case since the framework is goal-related. Due to the
goal-related approach, it is recommended that senior management is involved when customizing the scorecard (Kaplan and Norton 1992).
Although the Balanced Scorecard has helped a lot of companies and it is described to have few limitations, criticism against the framework has arisen. Rompo (2011) is especially emphasizing problems related to the design and creation of the Balanced Scorecard. When creating the scorecard, it is difficult to include the proper amount of measurements, since both too many and too few measurements will cause problems. With lots of measurements the possibility to find the relevant relations between data might be affected. If there is a lack of data instead, it may cause misalignment between different perspective i.e. lagging and leading indicators. Another highlighted issue by Rompo (2011) is if the strategy of the company is changed, the Balanced Scorecard also has to be updated. If this update does not occur, the measurements fail to represent the strategy. However, this risk is more related to small businesses since they are more likely to change their strategy more frequently.
There is limited research about applying the Balanced Scorecard to CA. Bassen et al. (2006) have applied the Balanced Scorecard to Corporate Venture Capital (CVC) which CA falls under. The authors state that the Balanced Scorecard in CVC provides a framework for the relevant performance measurements were it shed light on different management perspectives.
To have different management perspectives is important for reflecting the stakeholder perspectives. Another advantage of using the Balanced Scorecard for CVC is the ability it gives to monitor both strategic and financial results and by constantly updating and developing the scorecard, the learnings can easily be captured, which is crucial for CVC in order to improve the organization.
Bassen et al. (2006) have come up with a suggestion on the four perspectives that could be used when applying the Balanced Scorecard to CVC organizations: Financial, Collaboration, Process, and Knowledge Perspective. The Collaboration Perspective implies the quality and quantity of collaborations between the projects and ventures while Process Perspective focuses on five parts; deal generation, deal evaluation, deal structuring, venture nurturing, and exit management. The Knowledge Perspective is related to knowledge in what investments should be done. However, when applying the Balanced Scorecard, there is no standardized way to do it, therefore it needs to be customized for each case.
2.5. Measuring Innovation
Innovation is a top managerial priority for most companies and organizations and for measuring innovation, quantitative performance indicators are used (Adams et al. 2005). The indicators can differ between measuring results, outcomes, input, processes, or portfolios, but the key managerial challenge is not to find these measures, it is to understand the underlying problem the measurements should solve. When finding the underlying problem, the design and implementation of a complete innovation measurement framework can start. For this, managers need to understand the existing innovation challenges, what is currently being measured and how well existing measurements help decide whether the existing practices
help or hinder achieving goals (Brattström et al. 2017). To improve innovation measurement practices, there is an iterative three-step framework to create a virtuous circle that continuously improves these practices:
1. Asses innovation measurement practices
To thoroughly create a mapping of the current situation before starting is a key factor in creating successful innovation measurement practices. This will help companies avoid unnecessary dead-ends and activities that produce data points with no meaning. By mapping existing measurement practices helps to give an overview of the organization that could help find areas that are not measured. Focus in this phase is to understand if the current practices help or hinder the company’s ability to achieve goals and to see to what extent these goals are aligned with the company’s overall strategy.
2. Develop core innovation measurement practices
When the mapping is complete, the next step is to update existing measurements or create new measures. The aim is to identify and develop, to then select suitable measures and indicators. The mapping should have provided a holistic overview that in this phase should not be forgotten. It is common that only individual parts are put in focus since stakeholders have different foci. The measurement practices fail to balance what different stakeholders need, the company risks ending up with a fragmented and inconsistent measurement system.
3. Deploy new innovation measurement practices.
The last phase includes the implementation of the new measurements practice to ensure it is actually being used. This includes setting new routines with setting realistic targets for each of the measures that have been identified and under what circumstances these should be reviewed. As this is an iterative process, the company should also plan how often this should be revised (Brattström et al. 2017).
2.5.1. Pitfalls when measuring innovation
Organizations struggle with measuring the right things and some mistakes are more common than others. Three common traps in innovation management and when measuring performance indicators are; 1) overestimating or underestimating what innovation measurement can do; 2) measuring parts but not including the overall perspective; 3) overlooking the political power of innovation measures (Brattström et al. 2017).
The first trap is commonly seen whereas companies tend to either measure too much or too little. A common saying is “not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted”. The second trap is when companies fail to formulate a holistic overview of the organization and only focus on individual bits and pieces of innovation. The last trap is mostly considering the company’s political implications of making changes.
Changing what is being measured ultimately changes the way of working because “what gets measured is what gets done” (Brattström et al. 2017).
2.6. Dashboards – Visualization of data
To indicate the status of the business performances, a system for collecting Key Performance Indicators and the holistic view can help executives and managers to keep track of it. One solution to such a system is to implement a dashboard, but when doing this, there are different aspects and perspectives to consider.
2.6.1. The Purpose of a dashboard
There are several advantages by collecting a number of relevant measurements on a dashboard for executives and managers. By having the performance collected in the same place, it facilitates decision making for the executives. Since the decisions that are made, often include high complexity, a holistic view of different business areas needs to be considered i.e. marketing in relation to finance. In addition to this, the dashboard increases the availability of data which enables executives and managers to use it more frequently (Resnick 2003).
Having a holistic overview of the performance also facilitates the identification of problems at an early stage. The executives can then act before it is too late to solve the problem (Resnick 2003). Sutcliffe & Weber (2003) explains that conclusions drawn by executives from solely raw data rarely is explanatory. The consequence of this will both impact the decision making as well as the possibility of identifying problems.
2.6.2. Stakeholders
The first step when creating a dashboard is to decide which data points should be shown.
When doing this the stakeholders that will use the dashboard needs to be identified. Firstly, different stakeholders have different needs, both in terms of single data points as well as how the data will be used. In the case of executives, they will make decisions that require capabilities to do multi-dimensional analysis, trend analysis, and to look at different market perspectives. The dashboard, therefore, has a need to be customizable for managing these different tasks required by different stakeholders (Hung 2003).
2.6.3. Visualizing data
When designing the interface of the dashboard there is a common mistake that the design is based on cognitive engineering principles. The problem with this is that the end-user is forgotten about. The interface should be easy to use and be created from a user’s point of view (Resnick 2003).
Resnick (2003) is recommending to use Ecological Interface Design (EID) when evaluating which data to display for an Executive Dashboard. The EID is recommended due to its focus on the knowledge-based structure that suits the executive decisions. The opposite of EID is
the User-Centered Design (UCD) coined by Norman (1986) which is more common. The UCD is an iterative process where the user is involved during the development. Regarding the interfaces, the focus lies in creating intuitive interfaces were tasks are simplified and the aesthetic of the interface is not in first priority (Norman 1986).
2.7. Customer Satisfaction
The Net Promoter Score (NPS) is a way of measuring how the company and employees are performing by looking at customer satisfaction. The method is based on one question that is asked where the answers are consolidated into a total score. The question asked to the customer is:
How likely is it that you would recommend [company X] to a friend or colleague?
The response from the customers is given by grading one-to-ten based on the likelihood of a recommendation by the person. The scale is presented in Figure B, where the Promoters and Detractors are identified from the grading. Thereafter, the percentage of Prompters is subtracted by the percentage of Detractors which gives the final NPS (Reichheld 2003).
Figure B: NPS calculations.
By using this scoring to measure customer satisfaction, feedback is quickly provided in real-time. Furthermore, it has been found that the result of the NPS in some cases follows the growth-trend of the company. By using the most enthusiastic people in combination with the least pleased people, the neutral people considered to be satisfied are avoided which often infect regular customer-satisfaction surveys (Reichheld 2003).
However, there is research that has pointed out the weakness of using NPS. Firstly, the NPS does not describe what you should do in order to improve the score. Since the score itself does not provide any data on what you are doing right or wrong it is only an indication of how you are doing.Secondly, the competitiveness is not reflected since the willingness to buy and the willingness to recommend not always are proportional towards each other (Fisher 2019).
Due to the difficulties of knowing what to improve, the founder of the Net Promoter Score introduced the Net Promoter System. The Net Promoter System basically says that follow up questions should be asked to the customers that are not the Promoters. Despite this, the NPS (both acronyms) are criticized due to the fact that it might be too late to when they already are dissatisfied (Fisher 2019).
2.8. Research gap
There are many contributions to the field of Business Performance and Business Performance Measurements and practical and implementation tools to integrate practices at larger firms (Kaplan and Norton 1992; Lingle 1996; Simmons 2000; Bititci et al. 2002; Kellen 2003;
Adams 2005; Bassen 2006; Rompho 2011). There are, however, research gaps when it comes to Business Performance at specifically Corporate Accelerators and other organizations that base their measurements on ex-ante predictions and are pre-revenue.
3. METHOD
This part of the report describes the approach and method used to find the answers to the research question.
3.1. Qualitative research
The research will be based on a qualitative research approach since each case and organization is unique which requires a customized solution. The research will be done by interviewing key employees and by looking at the problem from the organization’s perspective.
3.2. Case study
The foundation of this research is based on a case study. Since a customized solution needs to be developed, there is a need for a deep understanding of the situation and problems the company is facing. Every Corporate Accelerator (CA) has its own way of working which makes it necessary to investigate this specific CA with the case study approach.
As a part of the Innovation Measurement Practices mentioned in 2.3.1 Methods and Frameworks, this study followed the three steps of 1) Assessing the innovation measurement practices, 2) Developing the core innovation measurement practices, and finally, 3) Deploying the new innovation measurement practices. Before the first step of Assessing the innovation measurement practices, a mapping of the current measurements was made and this was extracted from the conducted interviews with the different stakeholders at Ericsson ONE.
3.2.1. Interviews
To investigate the research question in a qualitative manner, interviews have been conducted with a semi-structured approach. To get an insight into the organization and to identify the need, a selection of people at Ericsson ONE was chosen for interviews. The range of people was chosen to get a broad perspective from different areas in the organization and both at the manager- and project levels. For all interviews with employees at Ericsson, the same interview guide was used to easier be able to compare and analyze the answers. This interview guide can be found in Appendix A.
The interviews were conducted before the pandemic of COVID-19 was a fact. Therefore the interviews was made face-to-face with the people that were located in Stockholm (seven out of ten interviews). The rest of the interviews were made online. The representants were interviewed one by one either in English or Swedish depending on what they were most comfortable with.
To get an external perspective on the topic, representatives from the academic accelerator KTH Innovation was interviewed as well. Another interview guide was used in this case which can be found in Appendix B. The interviewed persons at KTH Innovation have been a part of the organization since the beginning and have worked with setting the goals and measuring the performance for the organization.
During all interviews, an open mind approach as interviewers has been applied by following the structure of the interview guide, but also by adapting the questions to the conversation. In each interview guide, the purpose of the interview was stated at the beginning, followed by the questions. During the interviews, the interview guide was not strictly followed, to gain a natural flow of the conversation. However, for all interviews, it was made sure that the specified purpose of the interview is fulfilled.
3.2.2. Interviewees
The people interviewed all have different roles to include a broad range of perspectives. From Ericsson, one person was selected from each hub representing the project level and then one Head of a hub. In addition, the interviews included the people reporting the progress of Ericsson ONE to the Ericsson board as well as the finance and marketing executives.
From KTH Innovation, two people that were a part of building the accelerator from the beginning were chosen. One person with a more overviewing position and one specialized in tracking and documenting the progress and measurements for KTH Innovation.
3.2.3. Role Descriptions of Interviewees
Each person that has been interviewed is presented with position and company together with a brief role description. The title and role description of the interviewees are presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Title and role descriptions of the interviewees.
Title Role Description
Business Controller - Ericsson ONE
Responsible for the finances at Ericsson ONE and has a broad role related to quality assurance as well as supporting function in terms of IPR and logistics.
Head of Ericsson ONE - Ericsson ONE
In 2017 the Head of Ericsson was driving the process to create what now is Ericsson ONE. Therefore, he has been a part of this since the beginning. At the time, the role was named Global Head of Innovation but was removed since innovation is happening on all kinds of levels. The main goal for the Head of Ericsson ONE is
to establish enough incitements for making talented people stay at the company and become intrapreneurs for building their ideas within Ericsson.
Head of Marketing - Ericsson ONE
This role has only been a part of Ericsson ONE for four months (when the interview was conducted) which makes it very new. The work includes making strategic decisions regarding internal marketing for bringing new ideas into the pipeline.
Performance Manager - Ericsson ONE, Sweden Hub
The Performance Manager is working on a project level with processing the ideas that come into the Sweden Hub. This includes contacting them and investigate the possibility of making the ideas into real projects included in the pipeline. In addition to this, the Performance Manager has the main responsibility for the Ambassador Community.
Master of Innovation &
Execution - Ericsson ONE, Beijing Hub
The main responsibility in this position is to attract new ambassadors and maintain the already converted ambassadors for the Beijing area. The Master of Innovation & Execution also works with processing incoming ideas.
Head of Ericsson ONE Sweden - Ericsson ONE
In the role of Head of Ericsson ONE Sweden includes having an overview of everything that is happening inside the Sweden Hub and make sure everything is going as it should. Also, the coordination with support between the other two hubs is included.
Senior Product Manager - Ericsson ONE, Silicon Valley Hub
By coaching the ideas and projects the goal is to grow them on all levels such as the technology, market, and business area. In the daily work analyses and data is extracted for prioritizing the projects and to know what to do.
Head of ONE Operation - Ericsson ONE
Working together with the Head of Ericsson ONE and has been a part of Ericsson ONE since the beginning. Is the head of operations and communicates the status and progress of Ericsson ONE both internal within Ericsson ONE and external to executives and upper management in the company. Statuses and performance are also used when making strategic decisions at Ericsson ONE.
Business Coach &
Process Strategist - KTH Innovation
In the role of Business coach, the daily work includes involvement in the incoming projects and help new businesses to move forward.
The person was one of the first three people in the team that started KTH Innovation. As a Process Strategist, the responsibility has been to set up the processes and to know how to define the goals and find precise measurements for it.
Business Coach &
Process Strategist - KTH Innovation
In the role of Business Coach, the daily work includes involvement in the incoming projects and help new businesses to move forward.
The person was one of the first three people in the team that started KTH Innovation. As a Process Strategist, the responsibility has been to set up the processes and to know how to define the goals and find precise measurements for it.
3.2.4. Analysis method
All interviews were recorded and then transcribed into notes in bullet points. These notes were then gathered and compiled into the following four categories: Person, Required Indicators, Required features of a measurement system, and Insights.
The measurements that each interviewee was using in their daily operations that were mentioned during interviews were gathered. To not miss out on any obvious data points that were not mentioned during interviews, a comparison to the already existing measurements was made. Both new and existing data points were gathered and were thereafter clustered into segments to be able to start the mapping of the current measurement practices.
3.3. User-Centered Design
Following the method by Norman (1986) for UCD, the design of the new measurement system for measuring Business Performance Indicators was created through an iterative process where the users were frequently involved during the development. The goal was to create intuitive interfaces that would be easy to use and follow, before putting the focus on the aesthetics of it. The measurement system was tested on users and after the feedback session, faults were found that could be corrected, for better user experience. The users were people within the Ericsson ONE organization, both on project, hub and executive level.
Feedback was retrieved through a survey, which can be found in Appendix C.
3.4. Subjectivity
Since this is qualitative research, the results depend on different people, situations, and perspectives that could be influenced by subjectivity. To make sure that our personal
judgment is not influencing the result there is a need to manage the subjectivity. To deal with it, we have utilized the fact that we are two people on this project. The different interpretations of the interviews and meetings have been discussed in each case between the two of us.
3.5. Risk Analysis
At the start of this master thesis, a risk analysis was made which can be found in Appendix D.
The main risks highlighted were that interviews would extend the time plan or that GDPR would stand in the way of showing the data points preferred. Never could the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic be predicted. During spring 2020, the COVID-19 virus caused quarantines and isolation of people worldwide including both KTH and Ericsson, which impacted the world economy and the way people work. However, we have been able to conduct the interviews as planned.
4. RESULTS
This section of the report presents the results from the conducted interviews that were held with the people mentioned in the previous section. It starts with information about Ericsson, Ericsson ONE and current measurement practices. The main problem with the current measurement system that was found during the interviews is then presented together with how the new measurement system is created and implemented. The findings from the benchmarking interview are found at the end.
4.1. Ericsson
Ericsson is a multinational company providing Information and Communication Technology to service providers. By being one of the leaders on the market, they work with creating technology and services that will have a game-changing effect on the market. The aim of all their offering is that the solutions should be easy to use, adapt, and scale which will enable the customers to experience a fully connected service. Examples of products Ericsson provides is Internet Protocol (IP) equipment, mobile broadband, cable television, and video systems among many other services. Ericsson is headquartered in Stockholm with around 13,000 employees with over 100 different nationalities in all of the operation areas such as research, development, sales, production, and administration. Worldwide the company has around 99,000 employees and has customers in 180 countries. There are five Market Areas within Ericsson that are focusing on selling and delivering customer solutions. In addition to these Market Areas, there are three Business Areas (BA), that have responsibility for;
maintenance of product and services, development of offering, and secure delivery capabilities.
4.1.1. Ericsson ONE
At Ericsson, innovation has always been at the core of the company and they aim to have a positive impact on the future in all sectors of society. This is the focus of the Business Area (BA) Technologies and New Businesses (BTEB) and is done by creating intelligent technologies that drive the changes that will shape the future of communication. The goal with BTEB is to find profitable growth beyond connectivity to capture the value created by IoT applications. This is done through their Corporate Accelerator Ericsson ONE where the mission is to: Create game-changing businesses by unlocking intrapreneurs and innovators, shaping the future together.
Employees at Ericsson send in ideas to Ericsson ONE were the ideas are rated and evaluated.
If the idea is accepted by Ericsson ONE, the person who sent it becomes an intrapreneur. The intrapreneur is then given the opportunity to continue developing the idea and become a part
of the Ericsson ONE 5i Innovation Process. An intrapreneur in Ericsson ONE can be described as a person who develops new business or ideas within a company and often has a mind of an inventor, pioneer, explorers, and problem solver. The 5i Innovation Process is the framework that teams in Ericsson ONE follow when taking an idea and intrapreneur from a conceptual phase to a business. By using the 5i Innovation Process, the goal is to launch one major game-changing new business per year and to build a strong pipeline of great ideas and become a toolbox for pioneers.
4.1.2. Ericsson ONE Innovation Pipeline
To collect the ideas that the employees at Ericsson have, the idea management platform Idea Drop is being used. Depending on what geographical location the intrapreneur is located in, the ideas and intrapreneurs are assigned to one of Ericsson ONE’s three innovation incubation hubs; Silicon Valley Hub, Sweden Hub, and Beijing Hub. The Sweden Hub covers the ideas that are dropped from Europe, Africa, and the other areas that are marked with orange in Figure C. The Silicon Valley Hub cover ideas coming from North and South America, India and Oceania, and the Beijing Hub covers ideas from Asia. The overall strategy is focused on fulfilling two main goals; to build a strong pipeline of ideas, and;
become a toolbox for pioneers.
Figure C: Areas that each hub is representing.
The 5i Innovation Process consists of five phases; Initiation, Ideation, Incubation, Ignition and Incorporation, as demonstrated in Figure D. Between every phase, there is a pitch session where managers and experts from different parts of Ericsson evaluate and rate the ideas to decide whether the projects will pass and go through to the next phase or not.
Figure D: The five phases of the 5i-process at Ericsson ONE.
The pipeline aims to drive innovation with speed and discipline. The first phase is Initiation where smaller investments are offered to stimulate the ideas. Thereafter, the ideas move on to Ideation Phase were the aim is to quickly test new ideas with early adopters and customers for the duration of three months. In this phase, the idea is further developed with a big focus on customer-centricity and other customer-focused processes and tools such as Design Thinking. In the Incubation phase, the projects build their Minimum Viable Product (MVP) for six months with the aim to prove the market fit and to find their first paying customer.
The Incubation Phase moves on to the Ignition Phase where the projects are evaluated each quarter for further investments. The final phase is Incorporation and the aim of that phase is to launch a game-changing new business, which either could be a spin-out or a new business area for Ericsson.
Ericsson ONE wants to shape the future through intrapreneurship by providing a toolbox for game-changing ideas. The tools are necessary for their global network of engineers, experts, and technological resources to make ideas become a new part of Ericsson’s new business.
The provided tools are focused on a lean startup approach that helps the ideas succeed in the different phases.
For Ericsson ONE’s service to work, they are dependent on employees sending in ideas.
Since Ericsson ONE is a relatively new-started organization within a large company, the knowledge about Ericsson ONE within Ericsson needs to be in place. One of the actions made by Ericsson ONE to spread the word about Ericsson ONE is the Ambassador network.
The Ambassador network consists of employees at different Business Areas and Market Areas in Ericsson and they are engaged in the work that Ericsson ONE does in different ways. They can help out in rating and comment on ideas, inform other employees about what Ericsson ONE does or the ambassadors are inspiring the employees to send in their ideas.
4.1.3. Current Measurements
The existing measurements today are aligned with the two goals to; become a toolbox for pioneers, and; build a strong pipeline of ideas. Measurements for the first goal are based on the NPS that is extracted from the employees that are engaged with Ericsson ONE, the
intrapreneurs, and ambassadors. Measuring the NPS gives an indication of their overall experience with Ericsson ONE that gives a benchmark that can be used to compare the quality of the service between different teams and time periods. Ericsson ONE measures the pipeline by looking at the existing number of ideas that are submitted to Idea Drop and how many projects that are in different stages along with the 5i Innovation Process. Reaching a specific number of ideas per quarter gives an indication of whether the goals are met or not.
To track the ideas and projects, a monthly report is created which indicates the numbers of dropped ideas the last month.
4.2. Mapping and assessing the current measurement practices
The mapping of the existing measurement practices was analyzed and with the gathered data, the main root causes of why the existing measurement system today is lacking were found according to the interviewees. The existing measurement practices that exist today were shown to have the following main problems that are presented in Table 2.
Table 2: Root causes and consequences of the current measurement system.
Problem Consequence Effects
Reports are updated on a monthly basis.
No time perspective is given for a deeper analysis and comparison.
No reliable overview of activity, progress, and status.
Monthly reports are manually created.
Time-consuming and resource inefficiency.
Bigger risks for human mistakes.
Lack of detailed data. Each hub has to collect its own data manually to draw its own analysis needed to make strategic decisions.
This means the hubs have different results and access to different data.
- Low insight into other hubs. - Duplication of work that is time consuming and resource inefficient.
- Data exists in one hub that could be useful in another hub.
Data is spread out in different hubs.
Knowledge sharing is restricted.
- Duplication of work.
- Restricts decision making.
- They are not reusing what others have already learned and implemented.
- Missing out on existing data that could be useful.
Only the internal business and process perspective is covered.
Leaving out financial, customer, and innovation and learning perspectives do not provide a holistic view of an organization.
A misleading and fragmented view of the whole organization is given when they only take
processes into consideration.
4.2.1. Monthly Reports
One of the main root causes is that the reports that present the status of the pipeline and its ideas are done on a monthly basis. This results in reports that lack a time perspective with no option to compare to previous months or years. In the current measurement practices, this means that the analysis of progress and activity of the pipeline is not compared over time, meaning no forecasts or indicators can be drawn to state either past or future prognosis. On an executive level, especially in the role of Head of Ericsson ONE and Head of ONE Operation that needs to report to the Head of BTEB and the CEO of Ericsson, this needs to be improved to be able to report reliable data and progress status.
4.2.2. Low Insight into other hubs
Considering that the reports are provided on a monthly basis, the level of detail is inadequate according to the majority of the interviewees. The data provided is on a high level resulting in the hubs manually have to extract data from Idea Drop themselves to create their own data reports with more detailed data that is more customed for analysis. They need this to be able to track their own progress and status of where all the projects are in the pipeline and how many ideas they have in each phase. This results in duplication of work considering that each hub individually extracts the same data but in their own way. Making the existing report more redundant at the same time as each hub is having duplication of work which is both time-consuming and resource inefficient. Having the data spread out at each hub also restricts knowledge sharing between hubs. The interviewees from the different hubs expressed that they had little insight into the other hubs and that it would be beneficial if the communication and knowledge sharing were more developed. This also shows that the problem is not that the data and data points that the hubs need for analysis do not exist, it is just not presented in the correct way.
4.2.3. Fragmented measurement system
From an executive point of view, an important factor is that the monthly reports from Idea Drop are only covering one perspective in the aspect of measuring Ericsson ONE's performance. Looking at the number of dropped ideas is only covering the business processes perspectives, leaving out other crucial perspectives such as financial, innovation, and learning perspectives. This complicates the measurement practices of the organization since it is hard for the executives to get a holistic and correct overview of the entire organization.
The root causes that were found during the interviews is leading to time and resource inefficiency, duplication of work, lower insight into other hubs, limited knowledge sharing, and a restricted overview of the organization. With a better business performance measurement system, the list presented in Figure E shows the potential results if it were to be
developed. The executive team would get a holistic analysis including all the important perspectives together with better and more precise tracking of organizational goals. It would also offer the possibility to get a deeper analysis which could result in making better strategic decisions and see trends and forecasts.
Figure E: The results and potentials if the root causes are solved.
4.2.4. Features
Features of the existing reports were also discussed. As mentioned, the reports that present the status of the pipeline and its ideas are done on a monthly basis. This results in reports that lack a time perspective with no option to compare to previous months or years. This is just one feature that the current reports were missing that were mentioned during the interviews.
Other features that were found missing in the current reports were gathered and a list of the wanted features was created and is presented in Table 3.
Table 3: Descriptive list of features that are wanted for the current measurement practices.
Feature Description
Time Perspective Having the possibility to compare data over time and choose their own personal time frame for when the data should be presented.
Comparison There are more variables that need to be compared than the current state. Having the possibility to choose your own variables and compare them to each other.
Interactive The data should be able to be presented in real-time during presentations. Having an interactive presentation
of data would enhance the presentations.
Goal Statuses The KPI’s for the organization and whether they are reached or not should be presented.
Different levels of detail Depending on the receiver, their need for detailed data differ. Executives are for example in bigger need of an overview.
Automatically updated Having monthly reports leaves out detailed specifications of certain areas. Automatically updating would provide a more analytical approach, it would minimize manual labor and provide a more reliable overview.
4.2.5. Operational and Executive Perspectives
There are different tasks required by different stakeholders at Ericsson ONE, resulting in separate objectives for each stakeholder. With different objectives, the use of a measurement system will naturally differ depending on who the user is. The interviews have identified two perspectives on two different detail levels on what kind of data is needed. The two perspectives are separated into an operational and executive perspective. These perspectives are separated due to the two different purposes each perspective is supposed to fill. The executive perspective includes what upper management at Ericsson ONE needs to see and measure, with the purpose to get a holistic overview of the performance and to communicate it to the Head of BTEB and the CEO of Ericsson. This does not specifically require detailed information about the operations in each hub.
From an operational perspective, however, the detailed information is more crucial.
Employees in each hub, intrapreneurs, and ambassadors, that have direct interactions with the ideas and the pipeline has a greater need of getting more detailed data of each project to be able to compare and analyze. The purpose of the operational perspective would, therefore, be on analysis and comparison to make better strategic decisions. The two perspectives are presented in Figure F.
Figure F: Two perspectives for different purposes.
These two perspectives can, however, be separated into two levels of detail as well. A global level and a hub level. Considering that Ericsson ONE operates with three hubs in different areas, the executives are more concerned about the operations on a global level including all hubs, while the hubs have a bigger need of measurement practices that are more focused on their specific hub. This does not, however, conclude that the executive perspective is not in need of information on a hub level and vice versa; the operational perspective is not interested in the overview on a global level. Each detail level is still important, just on different scales depending on the reader. This is presented in Table 4, as a matrix, where the level of interest is shown between the different perspectives and levels of detail.
Table 4: Two perspectives on two levels of detail.
Executive Perspective Operational Perspective Global Level Interest level: High Interest level: Medium Hub Level Interest level: Medium Interest level: High
4.3. Developing new measurement practices
The aim during the development of the new measurement system is to both update existing measurements but also create new measurements. By identifying these measurements, suitable measures can be selected for further development and then be included in the measurement system. This has been done after the mapping and assessing of the current measurement practices with a focus on analyzing and summarizing the findings from the interviews to get a deeper understanding of the operations as a whole. This to both update
