Clearwater Fine Foods Inc.
Clearwater Fine Foods Inc. (CFFI)

World’s largest integrated shellfish harvester
and processor.
◦
◦
◦
◦
Leading seafood producers
Largest buyer, producer, and exporter of live lobster
Largest producer of sea scallops
Major exporter of shrimp, surf clams, ground fish tuna
and shark
Organization Structure as of 1997

CFFI had parted company with Hillsdown in 1989
◦ Maintaining 100% of its Canadian seafood businesses
◦ Owns Grand Banks seafood for Icelandic scallops, surf
clams
◦ Argentina joint venture producing Antarctic scallops
◦ Controlling interest in Ocean Nutrition Canada
 Fish oil encapsulated products
Organization Structure as of 1997

International Sales Offices:
◦
◦
◦
◦
Santa Ynez, California
Orlando, Florida
Windsor , UK
Shanghai, China
Organization
Ownership- 100% managment
 Sales - $200M CAD
 Board of Directors -Internal
 Operations





12 Divisions
10 Processing Plants
30 Vessels
4 Sales Offices
Clearwater Fine Foods Inc.
Divisions:
Blue Ribbon Seafoods
Clearwater Arctic Surf Clam Co.
Clearwater Lobsters
Clearwater Lobster Shops (Retail Stores)
Continental Seafoods
Deep Sea Trawlers
Grand Bank Seafoods
Highland Fisheries
Ocean Prawns Partnership
Pierce Fisheries
China Sales Office
Toronto Sales Office
CFF (Europe)
Ltd.
Windsor, U.K.
CFF (U.S.A)
Inc..
Santa Ynez,
CA
Orlando, FL
Clearwater
Limited
Partnership
Eastern
Quebec
Seafoods Ltd.
Ocean
Nutrition
Canada
Glacier
Pesquera S.A.
Organization

Employs





90 head office (Bedford, Nova Scotia)
30 in 3 retail outlets
650 in vessels
1875 regular + 600 seasonal in processing plants
5 sales staff
Corporate Strategy
1.
2.
3.
Focused on growing distribution channels
Diversified products through strategic
partnering and market growth
Primarily decentralized yet vertically
integrated, dominating or leading each product
line
Organizational Problem

Change in Corporate Strategy in1995
◦ Growth oriented to “CFFI Vision 2000”
◦ Five and Three Year Corporate Goals
◦ Targets




Financial
Product
Market
Operations Performance
Organizational Problem

Development of Strategic Plans
 Each Line and support function creates their own plan
 Outlining the objectives in Vision 2000
 List of implications to operations/ actions for Vision
2000 success
Information Aspect of the Problem

1996 Yearly Update Meetings
◦ Noted Problems with Communication and
Collaboration within the company.

Contributing Factors
◦
◦
◦
◦
Size
Diversification
Decentralized
Vertically integration
Diversified and Decentralized
Shrimp Processing
Clam Processing
Groundfish Processing
Scallops, Clam Processing
Dryland Lobster
Saltfish Plant
Saltfish, Scallops
Dryland Lobster
Fleet Headquarters
Offshore Lobster
Head Office
3 Retail Stores
Plus: 3 Vessels off coast of Argentina and Sales Offices in Toronto, US, UK and China
IT/IS Aspect of the Problem

Pre 1996
◦ Basic Email
◦ Internet site but no intranet
Define Solution in Case

MIS Manager , Leonard Landry
◦ Developed a Corporate Intranet
 Secure, common area to post company interests
◦ Upgraded to Microsoft Exchange for e-mail
 Shared Calendars, Corporate Address Book
 Ease of contacting colleagues
** Search for Brainstorming and Consensusbuilding Software to aid in decision making
Group Decision Support Systems
(GDSS)
Combines
 Communication
 Computer and Decision Technologies

◦ Support formulation and solution on
unstructured problems in group meetings
◦ Used when problems are not optimal, evident
or possible
◦ Used in real time
Group Decision Support Systems
(GDSS)

Decision Rooms
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
U Shaped Configuration
Network Micro Computer Stations
Color monitors sunk into desktops
Wide screen protector at front of room
Central desk, server
Independent Facilitator
Group Decision Support Systems
(GDSS)

A Member of MIS Steering Committee
suggested:

Queens University Executive Decision Room
◦ Uses Group Systems Software
◦ DeSantis-Gallupe matrix in text
 Brent Gallupe is a professor at Queens University
 Founder of the first group-decision support lab.
Group Decision Support Systems
(GDSS)

Committee decided to send a group to
evaluate the QEDC usefulness
◦ Group selected was the Finance and Admin
Department
◦ Two Goals of the meeting
 Develop an initial draft of a strategic agenda for the
department
 Familiarize Managers with the tools of GDSS
Bedford Accounting and Finance Group : Organization Chart
Bob Wight
VP Finance
Rein Liiva
Controller
CFFI
Emerson
Fiske
Internal
Auditor
Leonard
Landry
MIS
Manager
Linda
Fowler
Accounting
Supervisor
Sandy Rudolph
LAN/WAN Administrator
Andrew Bower
Programmer/Analyst
Debbie Korecki
Programmer/Analyst
Lori MacCaull
Information Manager
Clint Slaunwhite
End User Support
John Miller
Controller
Clearwater
Lobsters
Bill Stafford
Controller
Ocean
Nutrition
Canada
Accounting
Staff
13 people
Accounting
Staff
3 people
The Meeting
Bob Wight and his 6 direct reports
 Meeting lasted 8 hrs in duration

◦ Began with a electronic brainstorming
exercises to familiarize team with the
technology
◦ Completed a SWOT Analysis
 Topic Commentator
 Through Discussion they decreased the volume of
ideas then ranked their strengths and weaknesses
from the SWOT analysis using a vote tool
The Meeting
◦ Goal Generation
 Idea Organizer Tool
 Discussion reduced to 10 items
 Reduced again to 5 main goals with the Vote Tool
◦ Creation of Objections for each Goal
 Electronic brainstorming created 90 goals
 Ended with 4 main objectives per goal
◦ Team mapped out a list of actions items and
assigned responsibility through discussion
The Meeting
◦ Meeting Ending:
 Had 5 main goals,
 4 objectives per goal
 Assigned action items to responsible parties in the
meeting
 All agreed to a follow-up session after discussion
with other senior managers in the org.
◦ Last activity
 Discuss suggestions and ideas for the groups long
term vision for which they used the Topic
Commenter
The Meeting Evaluation

Meeting evaluation using the questionnaire tool
◦ PROS




All members felt satisfied
Felt they had equally contributed
Felt unthreatened
Like the lack of interruption
◦ CONS




Felt Rushed
Isolated from Group
Ideas Overlooked
Felt ideas were left out
The Follow Up:
◦ Meeting took place on November 6th
◦ All agreed to collect feedback and have a
follow up session at the end of November
◦ March 1997 at case end
 Feedback had been solicited
 No follow session took place
How well did CFFI Implement GDSS
Software as a solution?

Pros
◦ Solicited an outside facilitator for first
meeting
◦ Used a test group that included the MIS
manager
 Buy in would be important in full scale
implementation
◦ Mixed technology use with old fashion face to
face discussion
 Help to improve consensus
What Went Wrong in the Implementation
of the GDSS Software as a Solution?

Cons
◦ Test group only included managers
 Nice to have all levels of opinions
 Lower level staff may seen more benefit from anonymity
◦ Due to the facilitator, a main leader did not
emerge from the group
 Follow up meeting was never planned and implemented
 Progress stalled on strategic plan and full use of GDSS
◦ Team seemed to lose interest
 Take more time to pre plan to use GDSS
 Booking time to travel etc.
What Other Alternatives Were Available?

Non Technology Tools for Strategic
Planning





Brainstorming
Nominal group techniques
Explain/ defend opinions
Final decision
Organizing and Prioritizing



Fishbone Diagram
Venn Diagram
Etc
Alternative

PROS
◦ Cheaper
◦ Promotes relationship building

CONS
◦ Difficult to document all suggestions and
ideas, challenge for group to focus
◦ Slower and inefficient
◦ Productivity is also low
◦ Smaller ideas get lost due to difficultly to
capture
◦ No anonymity to idea generation
Solution and Advantages

GDSS Software:
Saves time, increases efficiency/ productivity
◦ Avoid Group Think
◦ Equal participation by providing anonymity
◦ Users work simultaneously and independently
◦ Eliminates time restraints of debate
◦ Ideas are quickly edited, sorted, saved,
discarded, and copied
Messages for a Modern Leader

Creating the need for change
◦ Study found on average spend 800 hrs in meetings
and executives consider 240 of those hours as wasted
time.
◦ Fewer and/or more productive meetings means more
time for other activities
◦ However, people are less likely to use this tool as it
requires more motivation and effort than paper based
tools.
◦ Team must be open to developing new skills and
consider innovation and efficiency a priority
Messages for a Modern Leader

Systems need to be managed
◦ There should be a centralized leader to follow
thru after the meeting and encourage
continued participation and buy-in.
◦ Silos created between organizational
structure can not be removed with the
addition of technology alone.
◦ Different time and place tools could be used
to help improve collaboration and
communication between all department lines
Define Alternatives: Zing Technologies

AnyZing
◦ Requires a single computer, a data projector and several keyboards.
◦ It had 3 components called Create, Meet and Learn

ZingThing
◦ Requires a server and client computers, one for the facilitator.
◦ Additional participants use extra keyboards attached to the client
machines.
Define Alternatives: Zing Technologies

Pros over Groupsystems
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
Link 12 people through single computer
Can rent system to determine needs
Server software and intra or internet based
Consultant Kit $3,000 vs $20 – 40,000
Networking allows laptops to be linked using
wireless LAN
◦ No Limit to Users
New Developments

Clearwater Fine Foods (USA) Inc.
◦ Public Offering in Trust, 2002
◦ Bob Wright CFO
“The way to manage the company’s costs was to invest. We
have invested in the latest and best technology to reduce
costs and improve quality. That has given us a competitive
edge in this industry.” John Risley, Co-Founder CFFI
Q &A