Clearwater Fine Foods Clearwater Fine Foods Inc.Inc.

Clearwater Fine Foods Inc. Clearwater Fine Foods Inc. (CFFI)(CFFI)World’s largest integrated shellfish

harvester and processor. ◦ Leading seafood producers◦ Largest buyer, producer, and exporter of

live lobster◦ Largest producer of sea scallops◦ Major exporter of shrimp, surf clams,

ground fish tuna and shark

Organization Structure as of Organization Structure as of 19971997CFFI had parted company with

Hillsdown in 1989◦ Maintaining 100% of its Canadian seafood

businesses◦ Owns Grand Banks seafood for Icelandic

scallops, surf clams◦ Argentina joint venture producing Antarctic

scallops◦ Controlling interest in Ocean Nutrition

Canada Fish oil encapsulated products

Organization Structure as of Organization Structure as of 19971997International Sales Offices:

◦ Santa Ynez, California◦ Orlando, Florida◦ Windsor , UK◦ Shanghai, China

OrganizationOrganizationOwnership- 100% managmentSales - $200M CADBoard of Directors -InternalOperations

12 Divisions 10 Processing Plants 30 Vessels 4 Sales Offices

Clearwater Fine Foods Inc.

Divisions:Blue Ribbon Seafoods

Clearwater Arctic Surf Clam Co.Clearwater Lobsters

Clearwater Lobster Shops (Retail Stores)Continental Seafoods

Deep Sea TrawlersGrand Bank Seafoods

Highland FisheriesOcean Prawns Partnership

Pierce FisheriesChina Sales Office

Toronto Sales Office

CFF (Europe)

Ltd. Windsor,

U.K.

Glacier Pesquera

S.A.

CFF (U.S.A)Inc..

Santa Ynez, CA

Orlando, FL

Clearwater Limited

Partnership

Eastern Quebec

Seafoods Ltd.

Ocean Nutrition Canada

OrganizationOrganizationEmploys

90 head office (Bedford, Nova Scotia) 30 in 3 retail outlets 650 in vessels 1875 regular + 600 seasonal in

processing plants 5 sales staff

Corporate StrategyCorporate Strategy1. Focused on growing distribution

channels2. Diversified products through

strategic partnering and market growth

3. Primarily decentralized yet vertically integrated, dominating or leading each product line

Organizational ProblemOrganizational Problem

Change in Corporate Strategy in1995◦Growth oriented to “CFFI Vision 2000”◦Five and Three Year Corporate Goals◦Targets

Financial Product Market Operations Performance

Organizational ProblemOrganizational Problem

Development of Strategic Plans Each Line and support function creates their

own plan Outlining the objectives in Vision 2000 List of implications to operations/ actions for Vision 2000 success

Information Aspect of the Information Aspect of the ProblemProblem1996 Yearly Update Meetings

◦Noted Problems with Communication and Collaboration within the company.

Contributing Factors◦Size◦Diversification◦Decentralized◦Vertically integration

Head Office

3 Retail Stores

Clam ProcessingGroundfish Processing

Dryland Lobster

Saltfish Plant

Fleet HeadquartersOffshore Lobster

Saltfish, ScallopsDryland Lobster

Scallops, Clam Processing

Shrimp Processing

Diversified and Diversified and DecentralizedDecentralized

Plus: 3 Vessels off coast of Argentina and Sales Offices in Toronto, US, UK and China

IT/IS Aspect of the IT/IS Aspect of the ProblemProblemPre 1996

◦Basic Email◦Internet site but no intranet

Define Solution in CaseDefine Solution in CaseMIS Manager , Leonard Landry

◦Developed a Corporate Intranet Secure, common area to post company

interests

◦Upgraded to Microsoft Exchange for e-mail Shared Calendars, Corporate Address Book Ease of contacting colleagues

** Search for Brainstorming and Consensus-building Software to aid in decision making

Group Decision Support Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS)Systems (GDSS)Combines Communication Computer and Decision Technologies

◦Support formulation and solution on unstructured problems in group meetings

◦Used when problems are not optimal, evident or possible

◦Used in real time

Group Decision Support Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS)Systems (GDSS)Decision Rooms

◦U Shaped Configuration◦Network Micro Computer Stations◦Color monitors sunk into desktops◦Wide screen protector at front of

room◦Central desk, server◦Independent Facilitator

Group Decision Support Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS) Systems (GDSS) A Member of MIS Steering

Committee suggested:Queens University Executive Decision

Room◦Uses Group Systems Software◦DeSantis-Gallupe matrix in text

Brent Gallupe is a professor at Queens University

Founder of the first group-decision support lab.

Group Decision Support Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS) Systems (GDSS) Committee decided to send a

group to evaluate the QEDC usefulness◦Group selected was the Finance and

Admin Department◦Two Goals of the meeting

Develop an initial draft of a strategic agenda for the department

Familiarize Managers with the tools of GDSS

Bob WightVP Finance

Rein Liiva

Controller

CFFI

Emerson FiskeInternal Auditor

Leonard Landry

MIS Manager

Linda Fowler

Accounting

Supervisor

John Miller

Controller

Clearwater

Lobsters

Bill Stafford

Controller Ocean

Nutrition Canada

Accounting Staff

13 people

Accounting Staff3 people

Sandy RudolphLAN/WAN Administrator

Andrew BowerProgrammer/Analyst

Debbie KoreckiProgrammer/Analyst

Lori MacCaullInformation Manager

Clint SlaunwhiteEnd User Support

Bedford Accounting and Finance Group : Organization Chart

The MeetingThe MeetingBob Wight and his 6 direct reportsMeeting lasted 8 hrs in duration

◦Began with a electronic brainstorming exercises to familiarize team with the technology

◦Completed a SWOT Analysis Topic Commentator Through Discussion they decreased the

volume of ideas then ranked their strengths and weaknesses from the SWOT analysis using a vote tool

The MeetingThe Meeting◦Goal Generation

Idea Organizer Tool Discussion reduced to 10 items Reduced again to 5 main goals with the

Vote Tool

◦Creation of Objections for each Goal Electronic brainstorming created 90 goals Ended with 4 main objectives per goal

◦Team mapped out a list of actions items and assigned responsibility through discussion

The MeetingThe Meeting◦Meeting Ending:

Had 5 main goals, 4 objectives per goal Assigned action items to responsible

parties in the meeting All agreed to a follow-up session after

discussion with other senior managers in the org.

◦Last activity Discuss suggestions and ideas for the

groups long term vision for which they used the Topic Commenter

The Meeting EvaluationThe Meeting EvaluationMeeting evaluation using the

questionnaire tool ◦PROS

All members felt satisfied Felt they had equally contributed Felt unthreatened Like the lack of interruption

◦CONS Felt Rushed Isolated from Group Ideas Overlooked Felt ideas were left out

The Follow Up:The Follow Up:◦Meeting took place on November 6th

◦All agreed to collect feedback and have a follow up session at the end of November

◦March 1997 at case end Feedback had been solicited No follow session took place

How well did CFFI Implement GDSS How well did CFFI Implement GDSS Software as a solution?Software as a solution?Pros

◦Solicited an outside facilitator for first meeting

◦Used a test group that included the MIS manager Buy in would be important in full scale

implementation

◦Mixed technology use with old fashion face to face discussion Help to improve consensus

What Went Wrong in the What Went Wrong in the Implementation of the GDSS Implementation of the GDSS Software as a Solution?Software as a Solution?Cons

◦Test group only included managers Nice to have all levels of opinions Lower level staff may seen more benefit from

anonymity

◦Due to the facilitator, a main leader did not emerge from the group Follow up meeting was never planned and

implemented Progress stalled on strategic plan and full use of

GDSS

◦Team seemed to lose interest Take more time to pre plan to use GDSS Booking time to travel etc.

What Other Alternatives Were What Other Alternatives Were Available?Available?

Non Technology Tools for Strategic PlanningBrainstormingNominal group techniquesExplain/ defend opinionsFinal decisionOrganizing and Prioritizing

Fishbone DiagramVenn DiagramEtc

AlternativeAlternativePROS

◦Cheaper◦Promotes relationship building

CONS◦Difficult to document all suggestions and

ideas, challenge for group to focus◦Slower and inefficient◦Productivity is also low◦Smaller ideas get lost due to difficultly to

capture◦No anonymity to idea generation

Solution and AdvantagesSolution and AdvantagesGDSS Software:Saves time, increases efficiency/

productivity◦Avoid Group Think◦Equal participation by providing

anonymity◦Users work simultaneously and

independently◦Eliminates time restraints of debate◦Ideas are quickly edited, sorted, saved,

discarded, and copied

Messages for a Modern Messages for a Modern LeaderLeaderCreating the need for change

◦ Study found on average spend 800 hrs in meetings and executives consider 240 of those hours as wasted time.

◦ Fewer and/or more productive meetings means more time for other activities

◦ However, people are less likely to use this tool as it requires more motivation and effort than paper based tools.

◦ Team must be open to developing new skills and consider innovation and efficiency a priority

Messages for a Modern Messages for a Modern LeaderLeaderSystems need to be managed

◦There should be a centralized leader to follow thru after the meeting and encourage continued participation and buy-in.

◦Silos created between organizational structure can not be removed with the addition of technology alone.

◦Different time and place tools could be used to help improve collaboration and communication between all department lines

Define Alternatives: Define Alternatives: Zing Technologies

AnyZing ◦ Requires a single computer, a data projector and several

keyboards. ◦ It had 3 components called Create, Meet and Learn

ZingThing ◦ Requires a server and client computers, one for the

facilitator. ◦ Additional participants use extra keyboards attached to

the client machines.

Define Alternatives: Define Alternatives: Zing TechnologiesPros over Groupsystems

◦Link 12 people through single computer

◦Can rent system to determine needs◦Server software and intra or internet

based◦Consultant Kit $3,000 vs $20 – 40,000◦Networking allows laptops to be

linked using wireless LAN◦No Limit to Users

New DevelopmentsNew DevelopmentsClearwater Fine Foods (USA) Inc.

◦Public Offering in Trust, 2002◦Bob Wright CFO

“The way to manage the company’s costs was to invest. We have invested in the latest and best technology to reduce costs and improve quality.  That has given us a competitive edge in this industry.” John Risley, Co-Founder CFFI

Q & AQ & A