Degree of Differentiation Low < Medium > High market data. feedback.

Transcription

1 Focus Criteria Focus (50%) Dimension Segmentation Degree of Differentiation Low < Medium > High Segmentation Segmentation selection selection done done using using some form traditional of external internal market data segmentation /or process, i.e. size, geography. Segmentation done using external market data selection was based on best match to internal capabilities to create innovative solutions for the. Segmentation done using external market data selection based on match to internal capabilities willingness. Targeted involved throughout strategy implementation planning process.

2 Engagement solved an internal need but was not clearly aligned to a need/challenge. value acknowledged by the targeted /or market. Traditional contacts (purchasing, sales etc.) were used to acquire needs value acceptance clearly demonstrated through direct Multi-level contact (EI, R&D, Procurement, Marketing, Operations, etc.) within the organization by the business was required to design implement the value acceptance clearly demonstrated through indirect direct Multi-level contact (EI, R&D, Procurement, Marketing, Operations, etc.) within the organization by multiple Cargill businesses functions were required to design implement the.

3 Solutions Discovery 10%) solved a general market need required no specific tailoring for a particular. targeted a was tailored based on our knowledge of the s use of our product/service. The achievement incrementally improved the s existing supply chain, process, cost, efficiencies, /or top line growth. targeted a was tailored based on our knowledge of some of the 's value drivers (cost, risk, etc.). The achievement had a large impact on the s supply chain, process, cost, efficiencies, /or top line growth. was broadly applicable or a very specific tailored achievement, which required in-depth knowledge of all the targeted 's economic drivers. The achievement substantially improved the s supply chain, process, cost, efficiencies, /or top line growth.

4 Innovation Value Delivery/ Sharing (20%) Uniqueness (3%) Complexity (3%) No distinctive value identified. represented incremental improvement to current Cargill cost or revenue. value sharing not considered. Incremental to what is currently being done at Cargill but is not a unique capability does not provide advantage. Information skills required are available to the industry or general public. Some distinctive value identified value sharing negotiated with in a traditional buy/sell manner. The achievement represented incremental improvements to current Cargill cost or revenue. Incremental to what is currently being done in the industry. Creates some advantage for Cargill but is easy to replicate. Information /or skills are easy to obtain /or replicate. Significant distinctive value identified sharing negotiated with. had significant impact on Cargill cost, profit or revenue. Value sharing negotiations focused on maximizing Cargill value. Breakthrough for Cargill. Generates a advantage may be difficult to replicate or imitate due to IP protection. Unique skills /or required (difficult to create /or replicate) Significant distinctive value created sharing identified early. had significant impact on Cargill s cost, profit or revenue. Value sharing negotiations focused on maximizing long-term relationship. Breakthrough for the industry. Provides Cargill with a major advantage is difficult to replicate or imitate due to formal IP protections. Information /or skills do not exist needed to be acquired or developed.

5 High Performance Usefulness (4%) Alignment (5%) scalable with application within Cargill. Intellectual Property was tested for freedom to operate. Goals expectations were not set broadly communicated to all involved. customized scaleable with application to a particular or supplier. Intellectual Property was tested for freedom to operate was protected. Clear team goals expectations were set communicated to create a shared understing of the business purpose. customized, scaleable structured so that providers can use to create new solutions preserve advantage. Intellectual Property was tested for freedom to operate, protected the value was shared. Clear team individual goals expectations were set communicated to create a shared understing of the business purpose. Team had a shared purpose, which was aligned around the. customized, scaleable was leveraged across multiple organizations in Cargill outside of Cargill to create significant distinctive value though knowledge IP leverage. Clear team individual goals expectations were set broadly communicated to create a shared understing of the business purpose. Team had a shared purpose, which was aligned around the. Methods used by the team were also aligned around the.

6 Ribbons (30%) Environment (5%) Collaboration Scope delivered was within team s sphere of control. Involvement of a specified team. Conflicts dealt with. Information shared across the team. Scope delivered was within team s sphere of control or influence. Diverse points of view were solicited respected. Involvement of others across a business or function was acknowledged recognized. Conflict dealt with objectively. High degree of sharing across the business or function. Scope delivered was outside of team s sphere of control or influence. Diverse points of view were solicited respected. Cross business functional collaboration was encouraged. Involvement of others across a particular business or function acknowledged recognized. Conflict dealt with quickly objectively. High degree of sharing within the team business or function. Scope delivered was outside of team s sphere of control or influence. Diverse points of view were solicited, respected applied. Methods used created environment of cross business functional collaboration that provided improved results. Involvement of others across Cargill acknowledged recognized. Conflict dealt with quickly objectively. High degree of sharing across Cargill.

7 Recognition Leadership Informal recognition reward systems were used. Ensured that employees were focused motivated on achieving critical goals. Formal recognition reward systems were used. Reset the bar to reflect the skills stards needed to produce the Engaged existing employees to achieve stretch goals. Recognition reward systems were used to positively affect individual outcomes. Reset the bar to reflect the skills, mindsets, stards needed to produce the Developed engaged existing employees to achieve stretch goals. Recognition reward systems were used to positively affect individual team outcomes. Reset the bar to reflect the skills, mindsets, stards needed to produce the Made difficult choices about person-job fit issues. Recruited needed outside expertise. Developed engaged existing employees to achieve stretch goals.