All entries for Tuesday 15 February 2011

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 2011

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Jan |  Today  | Mar
   1 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

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

Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder