IN THE FIELD OF TECHNOLOGYDEGREE PROJECT DESIGN AND PRODUCT REALISATIONAND THE MAIN FIELD OF STUDYMECHANICAL 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 TECHNOLOGYSCHOOL 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

2020-06-17Examinator

Sofia RitzénHandledare

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

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

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).

3

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).

4

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

5

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.

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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).

10

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

11

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).

12

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.

13

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.

14

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

15

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.

16

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

17

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.

18

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

19

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.

20

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

21

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.

22

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

23

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

24

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.

25

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

26

existing measures but also to identify missing areas of measurements. What is currently being measured was collected during the interviews as data points and this together with a review of the current reports was the foundation of how the current measurement practices are performed. Thereafter, the interviewees focused on their daily operations and what they personally measure and base their decisions on and what potential measurements are missing to reach their strategic goals. Gathering and summarizing this data showed what indicators were missing in the areas that were being measured, meaning the operational, business processes, and customer perspectives. To cover other important perspectives mentioned by Norton and Kaplan, the Balanced Scorecard was implemented when developing the new measurement practices.

4.3.1. Applying BSC to CA

When the Balanced Scorecard is applied to a CA, the different perspectives need to be customized for how a CA organization works. However, when implementing the Balanced Scorecard, it is important to bear in mind that different CA’s have different operations, goals and, processes and this is why each scorecard has to be adapted for each case. In this section, a general description of how the Balanced Scorecard can be adapted to a CA organization will be presented based on findings from the frame-of-reference and interviews.

By starting with the Internal Business Perspective, this represents the core operations for which a CA can be translated into the processes in the organization that relates to building the new companies. An example of processes could be the tools or arranged activities the CA provides to support the companies. When setting the goals, one must consider what the desired outcome is for the projects. Either if it is to have a certain number of projects in the accelerator or if the goal is that the projects should generate for example a prototype, creating customer relationships, or generate the first income after a certain amount of time.

When it comes to the Customer Perspective the term customer needs to be defined. For a CA, it is not clear who the customer is, in fact, there are different actors that could be the customer. One option is to set the projects (or small companies) in the CA as the customer. Another option is to have the customer of the projects as the customer. This option might be difficult in terms of reaching the customers and they might not be that many since the projects are in the development phase. A third option for who the customer could be is the main company that the CA lies under. The CA organization is probably an initiative from the company with a certain goal and expected outcome. When choosing between these options for the customer, one needs to look at what is most relevant for the specific CA in mind. If all seems equally important, then it could be reflected in the Balanced Scorecard by dividing the Customer Perspective into smaller, but not as detailed parts.

Since there are mostly newly started companies in a CA, the return on investments might not be that big. However, the Financial Perspective is still important to include even though the measurements will differ compared to regular financial measurements. The Financial Perspective in the Balanced Scorecard can be an opportunity to collect all relevant financial

27

measurements in one place. For a CA, maybe the most obvious measurement is the money spent on each project. To more easily be able to tell if the investments are paying off, the data should be compared with more soft data in terms of value-creating activities generated by the projects. These activities could be a project that has generated a prototype, started a collaboration or settled its first customer.

Innovation and Learning Perspective is a perspective that is incredibly easy for organizations to underestimate the impact of and therefore not put too much effort into the measurements on this part. The learnings in the CA are the key resources when knowing what to improve in the organization and therefore the learnings need to be captured. No matter if this is done by implementing new routines for documentation or if the routines just need to be adjusted, the key to making it work is that the implementation of the documentation is something that is possible for the employees to manage during their daily work. The second step is to make the learnings easy accessible in order to use them. Learnings could be lessons from both closed projects and the ones that have succeeded, but it can also be about the organization itself. Regarding the Innovation part of this perspective, innovation measurements are of course possible to find. Such measurements could be achievements by projects, deliverables, and new-started projets. However, a CA is an innovation department and because of this, the innovation measurements will pervade all four measurements.

4.3.2. BSC Applied to Ericsson ONE

By looking at the problems identified with current measurements at Ericsson ONE, the Balanced Scorecard has been customized to suit the organization. As Norton and Kaplan (1992) states, executives and senior managers should be involved in the process when setting the goals and measurements to make sure that relevant measurements are used. In this process of applying the Balanced Scorecard, the executives have been involved since the start to be able to relate the measurements to the organizational strategy and goals.. The BSC has only been applied to the existing goals with the identified missing measurements.

In Figure G, the perspectives in the original Balanced Scorecard is presented in relation to the customized scorecard created for Ericsson ONE. The Internal Business Perspective is represented by Pipeline since the processes for the Pipeline is the core operations that Ericsson ONE performs. One specific measurement that was identified missing in this part was the Lead Time for the projects. During interviews, the majority of people described the need for knowing how long time it takes for projects to go from one stage to another and time the it takes to go through the entire pipeline.

28

Figure G: The original Balanced Scorecard is presented to the left and the customized one to the right.

For the Customer Perspective, the decision was made to focus on the people working in the CA, the intrapreneurs as well as the people that are engaged with Ericsson ONE in different ways. This perspective covers the NPS score, tracking the Ambassador network, and furthermore people related measurements. One important measurement that has been added to this perspective is Awareness level which is a percentage of the Ericsson employees that have been in interacting with Ericsson ONE. Since Ericsson ONE is a relatively new-started department that is dependent on employees that send in projects to develop, the awareness of Ericsson ONE is crucial in order to keep the organization going which is related to their overall strategic goals.

When evaluating current measurements at Ericsson ONE, the financial part and learnings have been a weak spot. They have some measurement for these perspectives but it is spread out which makes the data difficult to find. Therefore, these perspectives have been collected and placed in the Balanced Scorecard. The only part in the Balanced Scorecard changed is the name of the Innovation and Learning Perspective. The Innovation perspective has not been in focus due to the fact that Ericsson ONE is an innovation department, that makes innovation part of all perspectives. The Learnings that are captured from each project has been collected and will be included to more easily be accessible which will facilitate knowledge sharing between the hubs. In the next section, a more detailed description will be presented showcasing the measurements of each perspective.

Bassen et al. (2006) are describing four perspectives for a Balanced Scorecard that are customized for a CVC organization; Financial, Collaboration, Process, and Knowledge Perspective. This customization is similar to the BSC adapted to Ericsson ONE since the same parts of the organization is covered, only named differently.

29

4.4. Dashboard

When the mapping and assessment of the current measurement practices had been done together with the development of a new measurement system that included and covered more perspectives, a mockup of a dashboard was created to visualize the data in a user-friendly and structured way. The decision of creating a dashboard to visualize the data was made based on the findings from the interviews. Since many features required by the users were dynamic features where the user can interact with the data, a static report was no option. By having an interactive dashboard, it also provided the opportunity to meet the requirements of the two perspectives; Operational and Executive level. The users make their own analysis based on the data points that they choose themselves and that is most relevant to them. A dashboard can easily divide the data into different sections and restrict some users when it comes to confidential data.

The dashboard was designed to include the existing data, the missing data points needed by the interviewees, and the missing perspectives that the BSC uncovered. The features wanted for deeper analysis has also been added to give an analytical aspect to it. The dashboard was divided, based on the Balanced Scorecard, into six different sections; Overview, Idea Drop, Pipeline, People, Financials, and Learnings. The Overview is a combination of the other sections together, focusing more on the overall goals and KPIs. This section is aimed at executives and presents data on a global level. It also has less analytical options compared to the other sections. This is presented in Figure H. The sections Idea Drop and Pipeline together cover the Internal Business Perspective. These sections are more analytical and are divided with the option to have them presented both on a global level but also on a hub level. The option to have the data presented from previous quarters or years is also available, unlike the current reports that only present the data from the previous month.

30

Figure H: The dashboard presenting the overview section.

Being a CA with projects in the development phase means there a few or close to no customers, and each project has its unique target audience. Overall the CA does not have a clear target audience as an organization that sells products or services has. They rather focus on the people that make operations functional. In the case of Ericsson ONE, these people are the intrapreneurs and ambassadors, resulting in the section People , that covers the original Customer Perspective in the BSC. This section presents both an overall and individual NPS that is collected through an NPS survey. The sections also cover the diversity of people engaged with one, as one of their goals is to have more diversity within the projects.

The Financial Section includes the financial aspects of the CA. Here the individual project budgets are presented together with the overall investments for the different phases of the pipeline. This section is confidential and is only available for executives that have access through their personal login and account. Lastly, the Learnings section is a unified place for documents covering projects’ previous learnings. Having one place where important documents are stored, facilitates knowledge sharing both between projects but also hubs.

4.4.1. Features

The dashboard was created with regard to the features that were inquired. The option to choose what variables to compare is available which gives the dashboard an interactive aspect as well as an option to get data points on both a global and hub level. An example on

31

how the graph works is shown in Figure I. Being able to change the time frame also gives the user the option to completely personalize the graphs and show the exact data points that are needed for each situation. These features are available on all graphs in the dashboard.

Figure I: Example of an interactive graphs were individual variables can be selected.

In the Overview section, indicators of the status of goals are presented. Depending on the goals and status, gauges indicate the progress and what range they are within. These give the executive direct feedback of whether the KPIs are met or not and within what range they are in. An example of how a gauge can indicate a KPI is presented in Figure J.

Figure J: A gauge indicating the status of goals, and within what range they are in.

32

4.4.2. Operational and Executive Perspectives

As mentioned, depending on the recipient, different levels of detail are required. At the same time, every area is somewhat important for everyone. This resulted in a dashboard including both levels, with the opportunity to decide yourself on what level of detail you want to have. Each section of the dashboard is divided into two parts. One, giving the overall status of goals and global KPIs. These parts together are the ones that build the Overview section. The other part is where the graphs are presented, which has the ability to present more detailed information on a hub level.

4.5. KTH Innovation

KTH Innovation is an academic accelerator organization at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) which started in 2007. The goal is to support ideas and research results and help out in bringing them to the market. In the team, there are several Business Development Coaches, Patent Engineers, and Legal Counsels which are coaching and helping the projects. To get the support you need to be related to KTH and they provide help to everyone that reaches out to them. In addition to this, KTH Innovation is running several programs to further help out projects in a structured way such as the Pre-incubator program, Bicky Chakraborty program, Brighter program, and Test Drive Deeptech program.

The programs and support are free of charge and KTH Innovation takes no ownership in the ideas. The financing for KTH Innovation comes from the government but they do not invest in the projects. The purpose of these finances is to through the work at KTH Innovation impact society in a good way.

4.5.1. Measurements at KTH Innovation

When KTH Innovation started to build its organization in 2007, the first action made was to define its goal, strategy, and mission. By having these definitions stated from the beginning, it has helped them to give guidance on how to measure the organization. Since the beginning, KTH Innovation has been measuring their processes and the measurements they set up is something they have continued with. Having the same data every year or quarter gives them the possibility to compare the performance of the organization and processes over time. This is the reason why it is important to stick to what you start to measure since the comparable data itself is highly valuable.

The process KTH Innovation has used for deciding on what data to start to measure has been based on their goals but they have also based the decision on what is possible to measure. For the goals, they have A-goals and B-goals that are indicating different priorities with measurements pointed to each one of the goals. The A-goals are brought up on meetings more frequently than the B-goals. To prioritize measurements that are possible to measure might seem like a trivial start, but it is easy to put effort into finding desired measurements

33

and indicators that are not possible to get. Despite this, it is important to remember to measure the indicators that really matter for the organization and its goals. Something KTH Innovation has used the measurements for is to spot bottlenecks within their organization. The measurement has also been used for developing strategies, motivate financial support, and make sure the goals are reached. Overall, the measurements indicating the performance is used as a controlling system for the processes.

As an accelerator, there are types of measurements that are used more commonly than others. Incoming ideas in relation to ongoing projects and the number of deals with a customer for the project are some of the measurements that KTH Innovation is looking at frequently. Another indicator they see as valuable and use frequently is the number of discontinued ideas. The value of that data is that it indicates that the business idea has been tested and validated, even though the result was that it was not further developed. There are measurements that KTH Innovation has considered to measure but decided not to measure. The first one is the quality of an idea since they argue that the time and effort it takes to measure this is not relative to the result of the measurement. In the process, KTH Innovation use for screening incoming ideas, the quality of the ideas is the same over time without having actual numbers on it. When considering to measure the quality of the ideas, they realized that it is difficult to measure it and especially in an efficient way. The second measurement that is not included is customer satisfaction. The argument for not including this measurement is that customer satisfaction is not relevant for improving the KTH Innovation processes for the idea carriers. Consequently, there is no point in measuring something that you are not able to use for improving. A third measurement KTH Innovation have considering to measure is learnings. However, to catch the learnings is something that KTH Innovation wants to include in the measurements for the performance but have excluded for now due to the difficulty of capturing them.

To keep track of the incoming ideas and ongoing projects a software system is used. As soon as there is an update regarding a project, a note is written by the coach at KTH Innovation in the project’s file. The update can be a meeting, achievement, or a checkpoint that is reached. This system makes the progress of the project is easy to follow and it is well integrated into the daily operations for the coaches, however, it takes a while for a new coach to learn the system. In relation to this, they state that no system is better than the person that needs to input the data.

34

5. DISCUSSION

This part is the discussion around the found results. It includes the discussions about applying the Balanced Scorecard to Corporate Accelerators, the three-step method for measuring innovation, and about collecting and visualizing data.

5.1. BSC applied to CA

When selecting what data to include in the dashboard, the Balanced Scorecard framework was used for guidance. To have a framework to use when setting up the measurements gives direction both in terms of what data to include, but also how to develop and deploy the new measurement system. For the Balanced Scorecard as well as for other frameworks, it has to be customized for each case when being applied, since no framework is applicable to every situation, which is also stated by both Bassen (2006) and Kaplan and Norton (1992). By using frameworks, guidance and direction were provided on a general level, but it should not be strictly followed since the flexibility could be jeopardized.

The choice of using Balanced Scorecard as a framework for Ericsson ONE was suitable due to the fact that it takes multiple perspectives into consideration and provides the possibility to be customized. In addition, the framework is one of the most commonly used in similar cases. By having the multiple perspectives that the Balanced Scorecard provides, a comprehensive set of measurements can be developed, which creates a more complete overview of the performance compared to other frameworks for measurements. This goes in line with what Bassen (2006) stated; the advantage of multiple perspectives is that the different stakeholder perspectives are reflected. By having a complete overview of the performance, different stakeholders, in terms of managers and executives, can make proper decisions based on the performance indicators. In addition, the identification of missing measurements is facilitated as well when multiple perspectives are included. When mapping and assessing the current measurements at Ericsson ONE, we discovered some perspectives were well covered, while others were lacking measurements. Actions to cover these missing measurements were then possible to take when developing the mockup, to be able to create a full overview of the organization. Regarding the possibility to customize the Balanced Scorecard, the multiple perspectives are one key-feature. Since the framework does not include specific details of what each perspective should include, it is up to the user to decide what to include for each case. The positive aspect of this is that the framework provides guidance at the same time as it is easily customizable.

When it comes to deciding the specific measurements that should be included for each perspective, there have been multiple factors discussed. Firstly, one factor that KTH Innovation also has experienced, is that there is a fine line between measuring what is possible to measure and what is relevant to measure. In the case of Ericsson ONE, there have both been a need for an executive view with highly relevant measurements, but also a need

35

for more data to make strategic decisions, both on executive and operational levels. Therefore, the selection of which data and measurements to include was done by prioritizing the internal needs for data points and choosing who the target audience should be for the dashboard. Secondly, what data points that are available has also been a restriction when deciding what data to include. The issue with starting to measure data that already exists was something KTH Innovation also was facing when starting the organization. This could indicate that this is a relatively common problem among accelerators.

Frameworks, such as the Balanced Scorecard as well as other frameworks for measuring business performance indicators, are presented in the literature as guidelines that define the basic principles of the framework (Kellen 2003). However, when it comes to implementing the framework, there is a lack of information on how to put them into practice. This leaves room for interpretation of how to set up the chosen framework. This could result in essential parts of the framework are missed, which might lead to misunderstanding and misinterpretations when following and implementing the frameworks. However, it is not realistic to have one guide for the implementation of the framework that would suit all cases. Although, more information and examples of how to put the frameworks to practice could give clearer guidance to the implementation to avoid missing essential parts or steps. This goes in line with what Bassen (2006) mentioned, that if measurements are standardized, they lack the flexibility to be adaptable to different specific environments.

5.2. Method for Measuring Innovation

Following the three-step framework by Brattström (2017) for measuring innovation was of big help during the process of improving the current measurement practices. Considering Ericsson ONE is a part of Ericsson’s innovation department and their operations revolve around innovation, the framework was suitable for the occasion, even though their operations include more areas and perspectives than innovation solely. The framework was shown to be versatile in that way. By mapping the current measurement practices, invaluable insight into the organizations was provided together with the current state of the measurement practices, and its existing problems. Gaining a bigger understanding of the current state and existing measurement practices naturally resulted in a greater opportunity to improve it since it provided an insight into what was currently working and what was not. It can, however, be discussed whether the first step of this framework actually includes assessing, or if it is mainly a mapping of the current situation, or where the focus should lie between these two options. It can also be discussed whether this step of the framework should be divided into two parts; mapping and assessing since the purpose of mapping differs from the purpose of an assessment.

Another focus in the step of the mapping of the current practices 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. Also as mentioned, the key managerial challenge is to understand the underlying problem the measurements should

36

solve. When an organization struggles with business performance measurements, it is easy to only focus on the measurements and how they can be improved, and not assess the overall goals with the organization and whether the measurements even are aligned with the organization's strategy. It is one challenge to develop what is currently being measured with the existing goals and another to go through an entire evaluation of an organization's goals and decide whether the goals are aligned with the organization's strategy or not. The latter requires a bigger amount of effort and which might be a holdback and a question in terms of priorities for the organization when trying to improve business measurements. This could be one reason for why the project’s focus, which was requested by the company, was to improve the current measurements, and not to look over the entire strategy and goals. To be able to do a complete mapping of the current measurements, this resulted in a limitation of the project.

The main goal of this thesis was to focus on developing the current measurement practices as it was the assigned project goal by the client. An important factor that was not as prioritized was how the current goals and KPIs for the organization were completely developed or not. As mentioned by Brattström (2017), the key objective when measuring business performance is to measure the correct goals. This could be venturous considering the new measurement practices that are developed after the assessment could be misleading or incorrect in terms of the organization's strategy. Meaning they could at a later stage, when the goals are updated or improved, become redundant, proving the importance of having goals and measurements that are fully assessed and aligned with the strategy of the organization from the beginning. Just as Lingle (1996) mentions, by having a developed measurement system could help the organization in pinpointing or monitoring progress in certain strategic areas and plays a crucial part when translating strategy into results.

The second step of the three-step method is the development of the current measurement practices where the aim is to update existing measures or create new measurements. As mentioned by Brattström (2017), a common pitfall is to measure parts of the organization, but not the whole, and this was proven during the assessment, that Ericsson ONE had a somewhat fragmented and inconsistent measurement system. This was why, to be able to develop a measurement system with a holistic overview and to find the missing perspectives, the Balanced Scorecard was applied, just as discussed in 5.1.

The final step of the three-step method is the deployment of new measurement practices. Having a developed dashboard for the organization is only the first step when it comes to deployment and implementation. Now it is assumed that the organization takes responsibility for creating new instructions for implementation of the measurements. This can ultimately result in a complete change when it comes to the ways of working, considering “what gets measured is what gets done”, as said by Brattström (2017). Also, this is explained as “entrenched measurement systems” 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.

37

However, if it is shown that the new measurement practices are not being followed or even used after implementation, there are different assumptions one can make. One assumption would be that the implementation method or plan was not carried through or was not sufficient and that employees were not informed or introduced enough to the dashboard to start using it in the correct way. Another assumption, on the other hand, would be that if employees were shown to not be using it, it could also mean that the measurement system is not sufficient. Something could have gone wrong during the mapping, assessment, or development that resulted in a new lacking measurement system, not providing the employees with correct or relevant data and therefore be the reason why it is not being used.

The three-step method for creating new measurement practices was followed in this project and it provided exceptional direction and structure for the duration of the project. The method has with its steps an adaptability which makes it both customizable and applicable to a great number of different scenarios and organizations. This goes in line with what Kaplan and Norton (1992) mentions about customizing the framework for each individual case since the measurements are goal-related. If this were to be repeated or used in another project, it would be beneficial to focus more on the mapping and assessing of the current goals and what is actually being measured and if that is aligned with the overall strategy, and have this focus from the beginning. This rather than only assess the current measurement system and see how that could be developed. It would also be beneficial to discuss the implementation plan further at the start of the project and decide who will be responsible for it. This could be overlooked and deprioritized otherwise.

5.3. Collecting and Visualizing Data

To collect and visualize the business performance indicators in this thesis, the concept of a dashboard has been utilized. In the case of Ericsson ONE, the different measurements have been spread out in different sources that have limited accessibility to the data. This has lead to people missing out on crucial data and also hindered knowledge sharing. The main purpose of choosing to present the data on a dashboard was to enable executives and managers to quickly get an overview of the operation and goals. By not having to look in different reports and websites for data, lots of time is saved. The increased availability of data by having a dashboard is highlighted in the literature (Resnick 2003) with the purpose to more easily make decisions. Despite the fact that the dashboard in Ericsson ONE’s case not have been implemented yet, the managers and people interviewed have indicated a need for finding accurate data in an easy way. Only after the implementation would it be possible to say if the decision making has improved or not, but at least time will be saved for the teams in Ericsson ONE.

To build and implement a dashboard the data needs to either be gathered automatically from a source or manually be put into the system. In the same way that data needs to exist and be available, the data also needs to be able to implemented in the system. The simple solution is to build a manual system were a person manually gatherers and presents the data. This

38

solution requires less development time and effort. In some cases, third-party companies can be used instead of developing a completely new system. On the downside, both the system and accuracy of the measurements in the system becomes dependent on the person in charge of the manual input. In addition, the data might become less accessible if it is updated on a monthly basis. For instance, it could make it difficult to see the current status in the middle of the month. Instead of having manual data input, an automatic system can be build that gathers and updates data automatically. Although this might require more effort in the beginning from a development point of view, the system would not rely on manual input from an employee after deployment. As experienced in this project, an automatic updating system has the advantages of being a more long-term solution more sustainable than the manual one. Implementation can be done in steps, starting with the most crucial parts, which can then be expanded at a later stage. What is most important is that it is automatically updated from the beginning to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the data. For a manual system, an expansion of the system will require more effort by the person managing all data which in the end might be more expensive than the development cost for the automatic system. This also creates an opportunity for human errors, minimizing reliability.

To visualize the measurements and indicators, the iterative part of the UCD approach was utilized when designing the dashboard. One reason for this choice was to avoid the issue raised by Resnick (2003) regarding forgetting about the end-user. There are different ways of getting the end-user perspective, but the one used in this case was user-testing by surveys. The surveys provided valuable feedback in a fast and efficient way, increasing the usability of the dashboard each time. There was, however, no possibility to ask follow-up questions to the same extent as during face-to-face interviews, since the surveys were anonymous. One of the key findings by involving the end-user in the design process was the increased understanding of the data and how it was used and interpreted. In some cases, it was realized that the data points needed by the users were available to them, but was not presented in the correct way. Consequently, by having the data presented in the wrong way (i.e. by using the wrong type of chart) the purpose of the data was missed out since no analysis was possible to make. By following a User-centered approach with many user tests, this was avoided.

39

6. CONCLUSION

This chapter presents the conclusions and is divided into three parts. The first part is about applying the Balanced Scorecard to a Corporate Accelerator, the second is about the three-step method for measuring innovation, and the third is on collecting and visualizing data.

6.1. Applying BSC to CA

The main advantage of using the Balanced Scorecard for CA is the multiple perspectives that are included. This enables to identify missing indicators and measurements at the same time as it ensures a broad perspective for the chosen measurements. What needs to be considered carefully when using the Balanced Scorecard is the possibility to customize the framework. For each case, the framework needs to be customized to suit the situation, but since guidance of how this is done is lacking, the framework might be misinterpreted during implementation. When implementing the framework, a good starting point is to measure data that is possible and available to find. The data points included should also reflect the need from the target audience for the measurements.

6.2. Method for Measuring Innovation

Following the three step-method offered company-specific adaptability for implementing new measurement systems. The three-step method for creating new measurement practices provided direction and structure for the whole duration of the project and had with its steps an adaptability that made it customizable and applicable to a great number of different scenarios and organizations. This project focused on developing the current measurement practices as it was the assigned project goal by the client. An important factor that was not as included was how the current goals and KPIs for the organization were completely developed or not, which is an important step in the three-step method. As mentioned by Brattström (2017), the key objective when measuring business performance is measuring the correct goals, which should have been of greater focus.

6.3. Collecting and Visualizing Data

In terms of creating a system that collects the data points used for measuring, an automatic system to update the data points should be considered. This option might be more long-term sustainable which will increase the reliability of the data. Before the system is being developed, the availability of data needs to be checked so they are possible to collect. In addition, by including the end-user of the system in the development process, a broader

40

perspective is possible to gain where the final data points are presented in a way useful for the users.

6.4. Future Work

The investigation on measuring business performance indicators in this work was done in collaboration with one company. Since the need for measurements differs between different cases having it being goal-related, further case studies would be needed to be done on the topic for comparing the applicability of the Balanced Scorecard. Variations of the type of companies and accelerators are also possible areas to further investigate. For instance, how business performance measurements differ between corporate accelerators and external corporate accelerators. By looking into this, one could find if the result in this work gets confirmed or if new angles are found. In addition, the type of framework used could also be elaborated on for making the same type of comparison.

As stated in this report, there is a lack of how to put the frameworks for measuring business performance into practice. One suggestion for future work is to make an attempt for mapping out and create some guidelines for how to implement one or several of the frameworks into a specific type of organization.

For this research, the creation of a dashboard has been included which is an area with potential for being further investigated. One struggle with a dashboard is the different stakeholders’ perspectives that need to be represented. How to meet these different stakeholder perspectives should further be explored.

41

7. REFERENCES

Adams, R., J. Bessant, & R. Phelps. (2005). Innovation management measurement: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews 8, no. 21-47.

Bassen, A. Blasel, D. Faisst, U. & Hagenmüller, M. (2006). Performance measurement of corporate venture capital – balanced scorecard in theory and practice. Int. J. Technology Management, Vol. 33, No. 4

Bititci, U. Carrie, A. & Turner, T. (2002). Integrated performance measurement systems: Structure and dynamics , in Business Performance Measurement: Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press.

Brattström, A. Richtnér, A. Frishammar, J. Magnusson, M. & Björk, Jenny. (2017). Creating Better Innovation Measurement Practices. MIT Sloan Management Review. 59.

Chesbrough, H.W. (2003). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44 (3) (2003), pp. 35-41

Dziallas, M. & Blind, K. (2018). Innovation indicators throughout the innovation process: An extensive literature analysis. Technical University of Berlin, Chair of Innovation Economics.

Fisher, N. & Kordupleski, R. (2019). Good and bad market research: A critical review of Net Promoter Score. Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, Volume 35, Issue 1, 138-151.

Frigo, M. & Krumwiede, K. (2000). The Balanced Scorecard, Strategic Finance. Vol. 81, No. 7, 50-54.

Hung, S.Y. (2003). Expert Versus Novice Use of Executive Support System: An Empirical Study. Information & Management. Volume 40, Issue 3, 177-189.

42

Kaplan, R. & Norton, D. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard - Measures That Drive Performance. Harvard Business Review. U.S. and Canada.

Kellen, V. (2003). Business Performance Measurement At the Crossroads of Strategy, Decision-Making, Learning and Information Visualization. CIO & Faculty, School of CTI, DePaul University.

Kohler, T. (2016). Corporate accelerators: Building bridges between corporations and startups. Business Horizons Volume 59, Issue 3. College of Business, Hawaii Pacific University

Lingle, J. H. Schiemann, W. A. (1996). From balanced scorecard to strategic gauges: Is measurement worth it? Management Review. Vol. 85 Issue 3, p56.

Mocker, V. Haley, C. & Bielli, S. (2015). Winning Together - a guide to successful corporate-startup collaboration. Nesta.

Norman, D. (1986). User Centered Design System - New Perspectives on Human -computer Interaction. Taylor & Francis.

Simmons, R. (2000). Performance Measurement and Control Systems for Implementing Strategy. Prentice Hall; 1 edition.

Sutcliffe, K.M. & Weber, K. (2003). The High Cost of Accurate Knowledge. Harvard Business Review, p 75-82.

Reichheld, F. (2003). The One Number You Need to Grow. Business Harvard Review. December 2003 issue.

Resnick, M. (2003). Building the Executive Dashboard. Human Factors and Ergonomic Society Annual Meeting Proceedings. Florida International University.

Rompho, N. (2011). Why the Balanced Scorecard fails in SMEs: A case study. International Journal of Business and Management. Vol. 6, No. 11.

43

Appendix A: Ericsson ONE Interview Guide

Main purpose of interview: What problems exists today and what is needed related to measure Ericsson ONE. Sub purpose: What exist and is used today

● Tell us about your role in Ericsson ONE and your daily work? ● What indicators that are used and measured today?

○ Do you think it indicates the performance of Ericsson ONE? ● In what situations do you have a need for presenting/using the performance of

Ericsson ONE? ○ To who do you need to present it?

Sub purpose: What measurements are missing and which problems are there?

● Which data/indicators do you find missing? ○ In what situation is it missing?

● What are the problems with the indicators you are using today? ● What would you prioritize as 1 and 2 that would need to be improved the most?

Sub purpose: What is needed in a dashboard

● In terms of dashboard, how would you like to use it?

1

Appendix B: KTH Innovation Interview Guide

Main Purpose of interview: How is an accelerator measuring its performance? Sub purpose: How to start measure?

● How did you start to measure the performance? ● How do you measure now? ● Does it differ today compare to the start of KTHI? ● What tools are you using? Software? Framework? ● If yes: How? ● Any other comments or thoughts?

Sub purpose: How use the measurements? ● What effect by having measurements have you seen? ● Which measurements are used the most? ●

Sub purpose: What to measure ● What complications are there with measuring an accelerator/incubator? ● What measurements are indicating performance today from your perspective? ● What is difficult to measure? ● How do you measure learnings? ● Have you been benchmarking on how and what to measure?

2

Appendix C: Feedback Survey

A picture of each section was provided along with the following questions:

3

Followed by a general section asking about the Dashboard as a whole:

4

Appendix D: Risk Analysis

Risks Probability Impact Action plan Interviewees do not respond/Interviews do not occur

3 9 Find other key persons that can provide us with the same information

Development of EDS (Ericsson Design System) takes too much time. What is the time frame of creating such a system?

3 3 Be in close contact with IT support and make sure to have insight in how the system will be developed from the beginning.

GDPR stands in the way of collecting data

3 9 Research other ways that data can be collected or avoid including the specific data.

Data population for the dashboard does not work

1 3 Be in close contact with IT support and make sure we are on track. Find other ways.

Data population for the dashboard takes more time than estimated

3 3 Be aware of obstacles and be proactive. Make sure to have close contact with IT.

5

TRITA -ITM-EX 2020:414

www.kth.se