June 16, 2011

16/06/11 Research Progress Meeting

Meeting Minutes-Paul’s Excellent 7




Meeting Called By: Paul’s Excellent 7

Type Of Meeting: Progress

Name of Meeting Facilitator: Yanik

List Of Attendees: Yanik, Ponthy, Anna, Sakshi, Jan, Edelen


1. Anna

Struggling to finalise objectives, and not sure about research methodology. She now realizes she may not necessarily need to do interviews or a case study – it can be literature based. Has too many ideas and potential objectives, she needs to narrow them down to three or four, and then go into them deeply. Jan: “Just get rid of that!”. Think about the state of corruption in China at the moment and why it is bad, current approaches to fighting it, and how leadership/SOPK can help to fight it. Build a logical flow along those lines.

2. Yanik

Has been focusing on research methodology for the literature review lately. Explained why he has been going into so much depth with it, and hoping to get back on the lit review soon. Lost some time due to illness/fatigue.

3. Ponthy

Re-structured lit review after Paul’s comments, using affinity diagrams to group ideas. Thinking about the justification for the methodology of his interviews. Will also need an implementation model for application in Indonesia, along with criteria for assessing it. Has to keep asking why! Got around 12,000 words for lit review so far.

4. Edelen

Re-wrote introduction, now working on research methodology and literature review. Has a lot of information, but recently found some areas that she was lacking in. Will submit some to Paul soon.

5. Sakshi

Changed question recently to how CSR is being used for greenwashing. Started with a case study approach, but will now look more at case histories, with a view to creating a framework than be applied in most companies.

6. Jan

Thinking about re-doing research methodology for lit review – it might need condensing anyway. Has submitted first 1/3 of lit review, got it back and reworked it.

Action Items and Deadlines:

Next meeting, 30th June, 6.30pm, IMC004

March 28, 2011

28 March 2011 Minutes

Meeting Minutes-Paul’s Excellent 7



WMG Syndicate Room 223

Meeting Called By: Paul’s Excellent 7

Type Of Meeting: Progress

Name of Meeting Facilitator: Yanik

List Of Attendees: Yanik, Vagelis, Ponthy, Edelen, Jan, Sakshi.


1.    Yanik

Has a problem, relating to partnerships in CSR, and wasted resources. Wants to use the concept of creating shared value to make the solving of social/environmental problems integral to what business does. So, essentially, social enterprises, and how to encourage their collaboration to make use of their greater combined resources in tackling the problems of the world, while reducing duplicative efforts. Will present more fully using slides on Friday. 62hrs/week to go.

2.    Sakshi

Started literature review, did 10 hours last week. 56hrs/week to go.

3.    Ponthy

Doing lit review. Written 2500 words. Working with the conflict of Deming’s thoughts of only having one supplier, with the risk of that. Trying to use Porter’s 5 forces to analyse, Nestle are using it. 52.5hrs/week to go.

4.    Edelen

Trying to assess innovation strategies against CSR principles/approach. Most developed CSR framework she found is from 2006. Going to critique approach regarding responsible innovation. Struggling with fitting it into word count. 58.6hrs/week to go

5.    Jan

Lit review on leadership, getting a bit lost in the literature. Has already spent 60-70 hrs on PMA as well, trying to combine Semco ideas with Deming and servant leadership. Has picture of what is possible in leadership, now trying to combine with stakeholder management and sustainable success. Now trying to work out what he needs to do regarding primary data collection. 56.5hrs/week to go.

6.    Vagelis

Has been working on PMA’s mostly. 46.5hrs/week to go.

March 19, 2011

Monday meetings…Pros and Cons

Dear team,

I have been thinking about our current meeting method (Decision Making-Should we continue like we are doing)

I was thinking that perhaps it worth compromising some more time on Mondays but making that time more effective.1 thought (alternative) is why don't we join for say 2hours and a 1/2 or 3 hours from 6:30 to 9:00 and write in a paper our current status and work for 2 hours and then giving each to minutes to say in which way they advanced.

I would like to here more alternatives or thoughts.

The pros and cons of the way we are currently managing our Research time, I perceive are:


Weekly basis is good to realize about how time is passing

Sometimes is good what others have done if someone is stocked


Not all of us are attending and perhaps is because they think it don't worth "lossing" an hour or so , to say I did anything.Perhaps some people is struggling with time management.

I think it worth keeping the minutes, but perhaps they can be a brief summary of our purpose at the beggining of the meeting and  the words we say at the end, and different people could be in charge of summarizing them.

I really would like to listen/read more options of how we can improve our results as a team and individuals.



March 15, 2011

14 March 11

Meeting Minutes-Paul’s Excellent 7



WMG Syndicate Room 112

Meeting Called By: Paul’s Excellent 7

Type Of Meeting: Progress

Name of Meeting Facilitator: Yanik

List Of Attendees:Jan, Edelen, Anna, Yanik, Vagelis, Ponthy.


1.    Ponthy

Progress in literature review, around 500 words in the last week. Mainly around definition and importance of purchasing.

2.    Edelen

Reading about innovation, going beyond green.

3.    Anna

Still focusing on solutions...she needs to stop looking for a problem to match, and find a fresh problem. Encouraged her to look at problems that leaders have with making decisions. Can SSM help? Could decision-making in general be a good way to go?

4.    Yanik

STILL stuck for a topic. Looked at a broad range of areas without getting too far: strategy, excellence, marketing, the business case, etc. Ede has a an article that she thinks will help, will send it to me.

5.    Vagelis

Planning to have 1/3 of project done in the next two weeks! Justified why SME’s should scan external environment, and how. Best practice, etc. Moving onto strategic management, networking, internationalization.

Summary Of Discussion and Conclusions:

A summary of the others’ problems, for the benefit of Yanik and Anna, who are still struggling to define theirs:

·    Vagelis - SME’s in Greece have really bad performance, due to the crisis.

·    Edelen - Performance of Mexican SME’s not good, esp innovation. CSR misunderstood, and people don’t believe it.

·    Jan - No sustainable success in manufacturing, because balance of stakeholder management is bad, caused in part by poor leadership.

·    Ponthy – MNC’s in developing countries manage suppliers badly, need more of a partnership.

Action Items and Deadlines:

Everyone to continue work alongside RDM. Yanik has set self deadline of submitting outline by next Monday’s meeting. Would like the rest of the team to help him enforce this, or question/punish failure later! ;-) Thanks.

March 10, 2011

7 March 2010

Meeting Minutes-Paul’s Excellent 7



WMG common Room

Meeting Called By: Paul’s Excellent 7

Type Of Meeting: Progress

Name of Meeting Facilitator: Yanik

List Of Attendees: Yanik, Jan, Vagelis, Anna


1.    Anna

She has come up with a topic, but has no problem or evidence to back it up. Needs to read a lot! And more than just self-improvement books! Look for journal articles for problems in leadership in business and politics. Finding a problem is the first step! And we want to see one next week.

2.    Jan

Has made some progress on literature review. The book relating direct to the project subject is proving useful.

3.    Vagelis

Has also found a book very close to the subject of his project, relating to competitive advantage in SME’s.

4.    Yanik

Still hasn’t submitted outline, but now getting there, and really hoping to do so at the end of RDM. Came across the work of a foundation in London (named GlobalCool) that is using market segmentation as an approach for convincing people to make greener life choices.

5.    Poor Attendance

We were all a bit disappointed that the others didn’t make it, all for the reason that they were working on PMA’s!

Summary Of Discussion and Conclusions:

Everyone to continue as they are, Anna really needs to do some reading around her topic particularly.

February 21, 2011


Meeting Minutes-Paul’s Excellent 7



WMG Syndicate Room 223

Meeting Called By: Paul’s Excellent 7

Type Of Meeting: Progress

Name of Meeting Facilitator: Yanik

Timekeeper: Vagelis

List Of Attendees: Yanik, Vagelis, Jan, Edelen, Ponthy, Anna


1.    Ponthy

Had some feedback from Paul on part of outline – didn’t get to read latest version. Needs to find more evidence to back case up, has used conflicting sources. Also, told not to use et al. unless it is more than FIVE authors! No other major problems, at least at the high level.

2.    Jan

Still waiting for feedback, unsure how to progress at this point, but has been looking in depth at complexity of secondary research. Writing Intro is perhaps next step?

3.    Deadlines

Has anyone set any for themselves? Some have, and some missed theirs. Going forward, we think it is quite useful to do so, but also very hard to keep to.

4.    Vagelis

Progressing on lit review, not much else to say.

5.    Yanik

Still has not submitted outline, probably 1-2 weeks behind the others. Bit worried about starting to fall behind. Next week DEDICATED to project.

6.    Anna

Has not been able to do much on project due to workload. Still hasn’t really started. We tried to give direction to her, based around what her plans are for the future. She clearly has the passion, but now needs to get involved in the material to find a problem to solve. Gave advice on others who might be able to help, e.g. parents, friends. In-depth discussion ensued. Direction looking towards how Chinese political leadership would have to change to improve leadership for excellence in companies, or whether Western leadership might be appropriate for China, and what barriers might exist. Now it’s up to Anna! You have to present something to us on the 7th March – we want to see a problem! J

Action Items and Deadlines:

Anna and Yanik need to get a move on with outline! Others should carry on with literature review.

February 15, 2011

31 Jan 11 Minutes

Meeting Minutes-Paul’s Excellent 7


18.30 – 20.00

WMG Syndicate Room 013

Meeting Called By: Paul’s Excellent 7

Type Of Meeting: Progress

Name of Meeting Facilitator: Yanik

Timekeeper: Vagelis

List Of Attendees: Yanik, Jan, Vagelis, Anna, Edelen, Ponthy


1.    General Progress:

Vagelis has received feedback, and his intro is essentially done. Everyone else is on the way, and most people expect to be finished with their outline by the middle of next week. Awaiting an email from Paul to confirm a deadline for submission, and how the presentation meeting will run. Have thought about whether to include things from ReMe that Paul hasn’t asked for. Some have decided it is appropriate for their project, others think it is not necessary at this stage.

2.    Meeting Structure:

We spent a very long time meeting last week, needed a better structure. Have decided together that we should limit how long one person can present their project, to 5 minutes max. There will then be 5 minutes max to discuss their issues, before we move on. Vagelis will time this strictly. If there is time later to pick up issues, that is always a possibility, but there is not time to meet for an hour and a half every week.

Also, if someone doesn’t have anything to say one week, that is not a problem. We are all aware that being part of the project group generates guilt in an informal way, in those who haven’t worked much lately!

Yanik will write all minutes from now onwards, as he has the natural advantage! And doesn’t mind doing it.

3.    Jan

Has been thinking about career impact (wants to become leader, needs to understand stakeholders first), risk (time, lack of data (quantity and right type), resource requirements. Now going on to dissertation structure and research methodology.

Has finished mindmap for initial lit review, 8000 words! Has started writing introduction, mentioning the recent Davos forum and the number of leaders present. Mentioned that Vineet Nayar said he now saw a light at the end of the tunnel – people are changing the way they think about business, which links with Jan’s reading/thoughts on stakeholder management.

Has research question, and four supporting objectives, scope defined, but acknowledges the global reach of companies operating here and Germany goes much further. Manufacturing focus, but also financial/service examples. Discussion and feedback followed. He has set deadline of 20th March to complete lit review, hoping he won’t need to survey/interview.

4.    Ponthy

Been looking at research methodology also. Needs data, observation (secondary data – from himself) and primary data (so, interviewing current workers, but how many is enough?).

Objective is to investigate supplier development from traditional view moving towards partnership ideal. Worried about what kind of access he can get to Nestle – if it is limited, his case study approach will not add value to project. If he can’t get access, Plan B will be to widen approach to other MNC’s and do a literature review.

5.    Edelen

Has found a (Joni Mitchell?) song for her introduction! The music reflects (un)consciousness of the time, was written in the 70’s – shows that even then, there was an understanding of CSR, and the importance of doing right by people and the environment.

Found article on China vs Mexico, looked at recent growth, and lack of it in Mexico. Author said it’s due to Mexican output lacking added value.

Her question has developed somewhat from its original form, with more crossover with Jan potentially. Also, she’s looking at if there’s a crossover between top 10 CSR companies and top 10 innovators? Could a guidance framework work for both CSR and innovation simultaneously?

A lot of sub-questions defined to investigate, but she is confident it is not too many. 6 objectives defined. Group felt there might be too much content, and not enough flow between them. She might need to narrow her focus.

Summary Of Discussion and Conclusions:

Most people are making good progress, and Vagelis is far ahead of everyone. Yanik, Anna, and possibly Sakshi (we don’t know), need to put a lot of work in this week to make sure they are on track with their project outlines, and ready to present something next week.

Action Items and Deadlines:

Project outlines are the priority, for everyone. Waiting for Paul to set a new deadline, but otherwise assuming that he’ll want them by 9th Feb (a week tomorrow!) so he has time to look before the Group Presentation meeting on the 11th.

Good luck everybody! See you, same time, same place next week. Varsity for dinner and drinks afterwards?

14 February 11 Go Anna! Cheers up everyone!

Meeting Minutes-Paul’s Excellent 7



WMG Syndicate Room 223

Meeting Called By: Paul’s Excellent 7

Type Of Meeting: Progress

Name of Meeting Facilitator: Yanik

List Of Attendees: Ponthy, Anna, Yanik, Edelen (we assume others are busy with LE mini-projects).


1.    Anna

Struggling with getting her project started. We gave her guidance and ideas on how to start. Reading around effectiveness of leadership, and Eastern vs Western styles. Made sure she understood what is required of her, and that she is behind.

2.    Room Change

Paul informed IMC 013 no longer available for us. We can now meet in IMC 223 instead. Same time: 18.30, Monday’s.

3.    Discussion of Friday’s Meeting

Mainly for Yanik’s benefit. He missed it due to illness. It was quite long, 4 hours! Ponthy and Ede were told their research ideas were too broad/ambitious – need to be more specific on one area. Jane’s group largely focusing on Quality/Six Sigma type projects – some have made good progress.

Summary Of Discussion and Conclusions:

Action Items and Deadlines:

Anna needs to get some initial literature work done by next week, so she can present her research question and objectives at least.

Minutes 7 February 11

Meeting Minutes-Paul’s Excellent 7



WMG Syndicate Room 013

Meeting Called By: Paul’s Excellent 7

Type Of Meeting: Progress

Name of Meeting Facilitator: Yanik

Timekeeper: Vagelis

List of Attendees: Vagelis, Sakshi, Edelen, Ponthy, Yanik, Jan


1.    Vagelis

Greek problem – two surveys demonstrating lack of competitiveness. Will implement EFQM to SME’s to improve them. SME’s because they make up the largest part of the company. Why not just give it to them and tell them to implement? They lack time to think about it, so Vagelis aiming to create specific guidance.

2.    Jan

Submitted outline already. Has made presentation for Friday, based around outline. Re-worked research question based on last week’s feedback. Needs to identify that sustainable success is dependent on stakeholder management, which is dependent itself on leadership. Happy with problem, and objectives. Went a little into answering problems, will modify. Chosen a relativist research approach, with mainly secondary data, though primary might be needed.

3.    Edelen

Chinese/Mexican similarities in development problems. Governments themselves have a short-term focus. Many in Mexico try to implement CSR, but it’s hard to get support. Not given respect, treated as a marketing tool. Has looked at key elements of innovation and sustainability. Overlap – long-term thinking. Will look at creating framework to guide/assess Mexican SME’s. SME’s chosen as responsible for 70% of pollution worldwide, but more likely to be innovative as they have no structure.

4.    Yanik

How can you encourage the development of responsible and sustainable excellence within European MNC’s? This is ok – not too general, need to make sure that my outcomes give me something to market later. Should come out of objectives. Expand on problems associated. Hoping to submit proposal before meeting at end of the week.

5.    Sakshi

Looking at improving customer (stakeholder choice) satisfaction/relations within UK commercial/retail banks, with a view to doing so through CSR practice. Have a bad reputation, lots of customers switch.

6.    Ponthy

MNC’s tend to work on supplier development to improve bottom line, secure supply base, etc. Research will focus on Company X, a large MNC in Indonesia. Meant to follow European HQ guidelines, but since they are in an emerging market, mutual trust is a problem when developing suppliers. How can you move this towards a partnership? Case study approach – secondary data. Comparing between scholarly views and practical opinions within company.

Summary Of Discussion and Conclusions:

Action Items and Deadlines:

February 05, 2011



January 2023

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Dec |  Today  |
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31               

Search this blog



Most recent comments

  • Hi, friends, thanks all, thanks helps here. Thanks vegalis. I just left one objective and 'get rid o… by on this entry
  • My friends. . . . Sorry for not being there with you…........... Even through skype but i was ill … by on this entry
  • We must consider the fact that we calculate the hours with 1 week less…...... So if we utilize all… by on this entry
  • Hey, guys, Enjoyed our beers. That is a good way to talk about our project. Wish all of us a wonderf… by on this entry
  • Yanic i think we discussed the concequences of not meeting your dedline. . . . First week is kicking… by on this entry

Blog archive

RSS2.0 Atom
Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder