Region Name Review

Confidential & Proprietary • Copyright © 2010 The Nielsen Company

Region NameReview

NameDate

April 22, 2023 Confidential & ProprietaryCopyright © 2010 The Nielsen Company

Global Business Services

Regional Review Checklist

Check Points Yes/No

Have COE Leaders reviewed their sections?

Have COE Leaders reviewed the entire deck?

Have required pre-meeting reviews taken place?

Has the completed deck been reviewed by GBS Communications at least two business days prior to the prep meeting?

Is the number of pages in the deck no more than the total length of the meeting, divided by 4 (e.g. 8 hour meeting deck should have no more than 120 slides)?

Are the sections in the proper order, as outlined in the agenda?



Process Guidelines

• This template should be used to build your regional review deck

• If adding pages, please be sure to do the following:– Ensure readability—fonts must be legible—no smaller than 14 point in text boxes,

no smaller than 10 point in tables or charts– Use Nielsen color scheme for all charts; text should always be black, except for

page titles, which should be Nielsen Blue– When importing slides from other decks/templates, ensure they conform to

Regional Review template look and feel– Please DO NOT insert tables and charts as pictures/images.

• The number of pages in the deck should be less than or equal to the total length of the review meeting divided by 4 (e.g. 4 hour review deck < 60 slides).

• The entire presentation MUST be reviewed by key stakeholders including COEs before the prep meeting and Mitchell’s review.

• GBS Communications must review the presentation before the prep meeting. Please deliver the complete deck, and allow 2 days for review.



Agenda

Time (ET) Topic Presenter(s)

Opening

Financials

MSci

Data Acquisition

Operations

Technology

BPI

Meeting Wrap-up

Core Standard Templates



Cost Walk

Takeaway

$$ in MM @ BR

* IAG Excluded



Funnel

Item #1

Item #2

Item #3

Item #4

2009ACTUAL

$XXMM$XXMM

$XXMM$XXMM

$XXMM$XXMM

$XXMM$XXMM

$XXMM$XXMMTOTAL

PLAN

Delivered

$XX

in Savings



Scorecard

Service Contractual Delivery Quality

Cycle time Comments

Add Targets / R,Y,G definitions to all KPI charts



Job Jar View

9

Q2’08 Q3’08 Q4’08 Q1’09 Q2’09

# Projects Completed

# Projects In-flight

Still To Be Completed

In-Flight for next Quarter

Total FTE to be allocated

Already committed

Available workload

Available capacity for 2009 projects

• XX projects delivered• XX still in flight in DATE and XX will be in flight in DATE• Using XX% of our capacity in QUARTER ‘09

Include cost of all completed projects



• Project One

• Project Two

On the Horizon

Takeaway

List of new programs for discussion…



Competitive Landscape

Should include 2-3 key competitors, their competitive performance, and additional description.

• Explanation of Company X competitive performance, description• Explanation of Company Y competitive performance, description



Four-blocker

Text• Text

Text• Text

Text• Text

Text• Text



Text Slide

Takeaway

Text• Bullet



Picture Slide

Text• Bullet



Chevrons/Process

Text Text Text



Numbered List

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Text

Text

Text

Text

Text

Text

Title

Title

Title

Title

Title

Title



Table



Quality On Time Coverage UCWO Service SatisfactionCarrefourLeClercCadbury N N Danone- France Y N Danone- Blédina N Y Nestlé N N Unilever N N Bongrain Y Y Kraft Food N N LU N N Diageo Y N P&G Y Y Henkel N N Coca Cola N N Reckitt Benckiser N N Pernod Ricard N Y Colgate N Y Ferrero Y Y SC Johnson N N Intersnack Y N Benedicta/ Heinz N N Panzani N N Douwe Egberts N Y DIM N Y Beiersdorf N N Orangina N N Glaxo SmithKline N N COTY N Y Sara Lee N N Bacardi Martini Y Y Kronenbourg N N General Mills N Y LDC N Y

(Country Name): The Watcher – DATESt

rate

gic

Clie

nts

Sele

ct C

lient

s

• When copying and pasting symbols into the table, make sure you select “Keep Source Formatting”

• Delete any extra spaces above or below images in table after pasting

• Font for table cells with symbols should be set to “Wingdings”



Region RMS – Key Timelines KPI Trend

On Time DeliveryCountry Sep'08 Oct'08 Nov'08 Dec'08 Jan'09 Feb'09 Mar'09 Apr'09 May'09 Jun'09 Jul'09 Aug'09 Target

ValueCountry 1 95.5% 100.0% 98.1% 100.0% 98.9% 99.8% 99.6% 99.7% 99.8% 99.7% 99.8% 99.8% 100.0%

Country 2 97.6% 99.8% 98.4% 98.0% 99.0% 99.2% 99.7% 99.4% 98.8% 98.9% 99.8% 99.6% 100.0%

Country 3 99.3% 99.3% 99.0% 98.7% 98.7% 98.7% 98.5% 98.4% 98.0% 98.6% 98.2% 98.3% 100.0%

Country 4 100.0% 99.9% 99.9% 99.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Country 5 100.0% 100.0%100.0% 100.0% 96.4% 94.4% 98.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.6% 100.0%

Country 6 100.0% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Country 7 99.3% 93.8% 95.0% 90.0% 100.0% 99.3% 99.5% 99.5% 99.3% 99.0% 99.3% 99.2% 100.0%

Country 8 98.7% 99.4% 99.1% 98.7% 99.0% 99.3% 97.3% 98.8% 98.9% 98.5% 98.1% 99.1% 100.0%

Country 9 95.9% 95.7% 98.6% 93.5% 96.6% 96.8% 97.2% 98.3% 98.8% 98.9% 98.6% 99.0% 100.0%

Country 10 100.0% 100.0%100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Country 11 100.0% 100.0%100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Country 12 100.0% 100.0%100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Country 13 100.0% 100.0%100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Country 14 98.5% 100.0%100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Country 15 99.0% 93.3% 100.0% 94.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

For On Time Delivery slides find way to show target delivery date (e.g. D+20)



Region CPS – Key Quality KPI Trend

Sample Fulfillment (%)

Country Sep'08 Oct'08 Nov'08 Dec'08 Jan'09 Feb'09 Mar'09 Apr'09 May'09 Jun'09 Jul'09 Aug'09 Target Value

Country 1 75.6% 75.4% 75.9% 78.9% 89.8% 90.9% 91.1% 91.1% 90.3% 89.9% 89.3% 88.1% 86.0%

Country 2 87.3% 88.3% 87.6% 86.5% 85.7% 84.5% 83.4% 83.4% 84.1% 85.2% 85.3% 85.4% 88.0%

Country 3 86.4% 86.7% 86.6% 86.6% 86.0% 85.8% 85.0% 84.4% 84.3% 83.8% 84.1% 84.6% 88.0%

Country 4 92.7% 93.5% 93.3% 93.7% 93.8% 93.9% 93.5% 92.1% 90.4% 88.6% 86.6% 86.0% 90.0%

Country 5 99.3% 99.0% 98.7% 98.7% 98.4% 98.0% 97.5% 96.9% 96.7% 96.4% 96.9% 97.8% 93.0%

Country 6 101.2% 100.6% 100.6% 100.7% 101.0% 100.5% 100.1% 99.2% 99.1% 99.7% 100.0% 100.7% 100.0%

Country 7 99.1% 99.3% 99.6% 99.3% 99.0% 99.4% 99.9% 100.2% 100.1% 100.0% 99.9% 99.8% 100.0%

Country 8 96.5% 96.6% 96.7% 96.7% 96.9% 97.1% 96.6% 96.7% 97.1% 97.4% 98.6% 99.1% 98.0%

For CPS, only show metrics in meaningful months when data is delivered.

Hot Client Issues



Client Issues Process

• Weekly calls to review each hot client issue - region and local teams

• Cross functional – GBS, PL, MSci, CS• One tracker and status• Focus on root cause analysis and actions• Extended to client communication and

sign-off• Expedite resolution with SME support

Hot Client Issues by Client

Total Hot Client Issues Hot Client Issues by Area

Summary



Hot Client Issues: Feedback

Cross functional involvement resolving issues

• Shared accountability to close issues – everyone has a role to play (CS, PL, GBS and MSci)

• Speedy escalation to regional heads (CT, Glen, Richard, Sophie, Ravi and Anna/Andrew) - no place to hide

• Meaningful resolutions – reporting rigor and senior involvement ensures the right process is followed first time

• Client communication and involvement – ensuring clients are involved and stake-holders of what we are attempting to achieve

• Impressive improvement in the response rate –a sea change

• Brings in the management focus on Key client pain areas

• Formal sign-off from clients for each of the issues

• Sharing solutions across clients/ countries



Most Common Root Causes

• Product Design Issues:– Coverage issues

– Universe update

– Panel Representation

– Sample adequacy

– Uncovered channels • Process Deficiency:

– Non Sampling errors

– IMDB: wrong coding - incorrect weight factor/price, item classification etc

– Data fluctuations: Inadequate corrections given by RF to handle wide variations of sales reported by a store versus previous period, especially for low penetrated brands and SKUs

MSci Engagement is Critical

Hot Client Issues – Root Causes Overview

Deep Dive on Red Zone Countries

Deep Dive countries should show annual revenue for the country.



Indonesia May'08 Jun'08 Jul'08 Aug'08 Sep'08 Oct'08 Nov'08 Dec'08 Jan'09 Feb'09 Mar'09 Apr'09

% Quality Escape 6% 5% 8% 23% 8% 14% 24% 18% 18% 1% 0% 3%

% On Time Delivery 82% 21% 32% 87% 35% 65% 26% 67% 0% 75% 92% 93%

RMS: Root Cause Analysis

Quality Escapes•Root Causes

– Significant Volume growth and fluctuation in distribution in some MBD– Error in inputs on New Universe Update

•Action Taken– Revised sensitivity on Trend Check QC, IBD review done – Check list/ point included on Universe Input

On Time Delivery•Root Causes

– Degradation of performance, capacity issues resulting in RF slow performance.

•Action Plan– Short term managed by team by rescheduling and reallocating work

– New server in place in June, Go live in July

On Quality Escapes/On-Time Delivery scorecards, add a thick bar after the month of the last regional review (Mitchell visit)

Add Revenue and EBITDA to each Country Deep Dive chart

Other Program Templates



Henrique Valerio

Technology

GBS Latin America Engagement Model

Bene PaganiClient Service Team

Pablo LavolpeOperations

Hector Mendoza

Data Acquisition

Arturo Garcia Castro

Latin America



Risks and OpportunitiesRisks COE Region Countries Risks Amounts ($K)

TOTAL RISKS:

COE Region Countries New Opportunities Amounts ($K)

TOTAL OPPORTUNITIES:

Opportunities:



2009 Say:Do Ratio

YTD On-time Delivery by Job Jar

Page 31

Root Cause AnalysisIT Reasons affecting APIMEA region

Non-IT Reasons affecting APIMEA region

Price is Right tool used by CS when launching new Products - Consumer

APIMEA Say: Do Ratio Q3 2009 – XX% Oct – XX%Planned Project Commitments

• Delivered On-Time• Late Due to IT Reasons• Late Due to Non-IT Reasons

Cancelled

Segment Project Root Cause

Consumer

Segment Project Root Cause

Consumer



Resource Hours

Capacity Summary – Q2

Project Name Project Health Owners BUS/

GBS

Actual Hrs

Q2’09

Percent of JJ

CapacityDPPF Implementation

Tech : Neil Banfield; Sponsor: Scott Davey GBS 2,032 12.2%

AIS Reporting Tech : Volker Stapelmann; Sponsor: Michele Strazzera BUS 2,016 12.1%

Production System Tech : Neil Banfield; Sponsor: Scott Davey BUS 1,974 11.9%

AIS Reporting (Global)

Tech : Volker Stapelmann; Sponsor: Michele Strazzera BUS 1,680 10.1%

RAM/MI Tech : Stephen Bills; Sponsor: Peter Cornelius BUS 1,512 9.1%

Production System Convergence (Asia)

Tech : Gilbert Cheong; Sponsor: Dan Coutts GBS 1,050 6.3%

Data Collection Jobs

Tech : Dan Coutts; Sponsor: Scott Davey BUS 1,050 6.3%

Data Collection TV Tech : Dan Coutts; Sponsor: Scott Davey BUS 840 5.0%

Data Collection Print

Tech : Dan Coutts; Sponsor: Scott Davey BUS 420 2.5%

Ad Validation Tech : Volker Stapelmann; Sponsor: Ben van der Werf BUS 420 2.5%

Data Collection Mail

Tech : Dan Coutts; Sponsor: Scott Davey BUS 210 1.3%

Data Collection Internet (NL)

Tech : Volker Stapelmann; Sponsor: Scott Davey BUS 210 1.3%

Total 13,415 81%

Page 32Page 32

* JJ Capacity is as a % of assignable capacity

Overall



RMS: Root Cause Analysis (Detail)

Root Causes: Several quality issues were identified during the Operational review and the main focus are:

- Repetition of Convenience Chain information.- Wrong Retailer item description- Price quality controls

-Current Status: Operation Review made on w/March 23rd

Next Steps: Quality plan on progress

Quality Escapes On-time Delivery

On Target



Client Hot Spot Process

Client/ Country Issue Root Cause Action

Nestlé / Brazil • (APR1) - RMS – Retail Index – Client questioned the price variation for Molico 90g in Yoghurt data base

• Conversion factor error SOLVED• Corrected and reprocessed

Nestlé / Brazil • (MAR1) RMS – Retail Index Baby Food product category – the client identified a coverage drop after change all bar codes of their products, due to a change in its weight and flavor.

• MSci concluded the analysis and the coverage drop is due drugstores channel that is part of the sample of Retail Index, but not of Nestle databases

• RD also verified some problems with conversion factor, but this does not justify the coverage issue

• MSci will present the analysis to CS

• CS is requesting a rework to correct the conversion factors that are not correct. Deadline still TBD

Region Name Review

Documents

Transcript of Region Name Review