Nectica

BACKGROUND

Please describe your company and your position there.

I am the Perfect Store Manager for Cono Sur in Latin America and I am in charge of the product display strategy and development of Shopper marketing solutions.

Our company is one of the largest snack companies in the world with global net revenues of $ 25.9 billion in 2018, operations in more than 80 countries and approximately 80,000 employees.

Our products can be found in more than 150 countries, with iconic brands such as: Oreo, Milka, Cadbury, Trident (Beldent), Halls, Tang, Clight in others.

OPPORTUNITY / CHALLENGE

For what projects/services did your company hire Nectica, and what were your goals?

The COVID pandemic gave rise to the possibility of displaying the products most used for cooking at home (eg Oreo, Milka and Royal) in combination, with a solution to install in supermarkets that is truly innovative for our company.

SOLUTION

How did you select this vendor and what were the deciding factors?

Considering that the great importance of the project, it was sought to tender suppliers with verifiable references in terms of high technical knowledge such as agility. In that sense, I know the capacity of one of the directors of Nectica many years ago, with which I referred him to the IT area who incorporated him as a new provider. And after a bidding process led by Purchasing, they were winners for both costs and flexibility in their proposal.

Describe the scope of work in detail, including the project steps, key deliverables, and technologies used.

The project consists of an interactive multi-brand exhibition under the slogan of “Mix and Enjoy”, both on gondola toecaps and on “islands”. Each merchandiser includes an industrial TV, a mini PC and a barcode reader. And in half of them, also cameras and sensors to track the behavior of the shopper.

With these elements, Néctica developed software for exhibitors that allows the display of audiovisual content and animations to attract the consumer to the exhibitor, invite them to scan a product and, from there, show them related recipes. On the other hand, each recipe on the screen has a dynamic QR code x store / recipe / id that allows the shopper to access a website, also developed by Nectica, with extended content. And our company to identify in which stores QRs are being scanned, and therefore that those displays work, even without the need for them to be connected.

For the rest of the interactions (eg product scan log) all exhibitors have an option in the synchronization software to a single server in the cloud that collects the information and allows us to update content remotely. All this was developed through meetings with the supplier for each instance (Return of the brief used in the tender, confirmation of technologies to be used, screen design and validation of the final development.

How many people from the vendor's team worked with you, and what were their positions?

From the provider we interact with 3 people: a project manager, an interface developer (screens, etc.) and a backend developer.

RESULTS & FEEDBACK

Can you share any measurable outcomes of the project or general feedback about the deliverables?

We had excellent feedback from both our customers (store managers and Top Management), and internally. To date, the average number of interactions per store / day is 80 product readings. And the solution was awarded internally both locally and internationally.

Describe their project management style, including communication tools and timeliness.

The way of working was very good. In the different instances they were technically advising us and guiding us so that we take the best definitions. Especially in the initial specification. Also in each instance they were presenting their final proposal, with mockups when necessary, and we were approving them.

On the other hand, at certain times they worked in a coordinated way and on their own to align themselves with other suppliers (eg the person in charge of the furniture manufacturing, the creative and market research agencies). Which freed us up for work. We communicate virtually, and when necessary (eg for the testing and testing stage), in person between Nectica and other providers.

Lastly, in terms of timing, they not only complied but were moving faster in their developments than the company in our final definitions for each stage.

What did you find most impressive or unique about this company?

Its combination of high technical knowledge, quality in what has been done (and without failures) and above all flexibility and predisposition to advance quickly and reliably, with a great predisposition to proactively solve the particularities that were emerging. Really empowering yourself from the project. It is evident that they are an agile provider and with the technical capacity to be able to solve multiple challenges in a simple (and economical) way, with different variants.

Are there any areas for improvement or something they could have done differently?

I do not find weaknesses in the process or its way of working. I would only recommend considering that on the client side we cannot always follow their work speed (we are slower), so that internally they do not get frustrated and take it into account in their planning.

BACKGROUND

Please describe your company and your position there.

I am the Coordinator of Institutional Communication at CEMIC. CEMIC is a Center for Medical Education and Clinical Research. It has 2 hospitals and 7 medical centers.

OPPORTUNITY / CHALLENGE

For what projects/services did your company hire Nectica, and what were your goals?

Nectica was contracted to develop the Web, the Intranet and a series of integrated satellite applications. The general objective of the whole development was to modernize the appearance and homogenize all the microsites and applications that we had.

SOLUTION

How did you select this vendor and what were the deciding factors?

Nectica came to us from the hand of an external consultant who advises us on marketing and communication issues. We started with a first job and after seeing the results we continued with the rest of the developments. The points for which we chose Nectica were the responsibility, professionalism and dedication that they put into their work. We also took into account his portfolio.

Describe the scope of work in detail, including the project steps, key deliverables, and technologies used.

Mdabroad is a company whose main activity is the management of medical assistance cases. We had a CRM custom developed by other companies, but we were never satisfied with the response times or the quality of the product. The first objective was for Nectica to take control of the development, optimize the application and modernize it.

Then we were creating new modules to offer telemedicine services, medical appointments, payment and online collection of medical services and similar services internationally. Today we are among the market leaders in our field.

How many people from the vendor's team worked with you, and what were their positions?

The team was made up of image designers and coordinators from the Cemic side, together with a design and layout team from Nectica and its group of developers.

RESULTS & FEEDBACK

Can you share any measurable outcomes of the project or general feedback about the deliverables?

https://cemic.edu.ar/ http://fundacionquirno.org.ar/

Describe their project management style, including communication tools and timeliness.

It was always fluid. The most critical points had to do with the possibility of implementing the design of our image department on the web. Our designers worked together with those of Nectica in a round trip to be able to layout all the pages and transmit the institutional image as required. Then the development teams interacted with our IT department in order to have access to the information to be displayed in the applications and the site.

What did you find most impressive or unique about this company?

Cemic is a huge institution and we had multiple independent applications. Nectica found a way to integrate all of these, generating a single system image both in terms of image and functionality.

Are there any areas for improvement or something they could have done differently?

There are situations where they seek to satisfy different people involved even when they deviate from the initial scope of development. Although they manage to leave all parties happy, and the systems end up with more functionalities, delays tend to be generated