The strategy is being built on what the Group needs, not on what we assume
The May 2026 strategy workshop did its job: it assessed eight years of The Greenhouse's activity, aligned the team on direction, and surfaced the structural questions that still need answering: on operating model, Group integration, funding, and identity. It deliberately did not make the final decisions.
Those open questions cannot be answered honestly from inside the team. They are questions about what the business needs, where innovation should sit relative to Transform and the AI Lab, and what leadership expects innovation to deliver. The only credible way to answer them is to ask the people who hold those answers. That is what this phase does.
The workshop named "push to pull" as one of the three structural gaps: today innovation pushes opportunities at business units; adoption stalls because the need did not originate with them. Building the strategy through stakeholder interviews is the process modelling its own conclusion: we start from demand, not assumption. It also gives the final strategy something a desk exercise cannot: stakeholder validation before it reaches leadership.
The journey to here
Eight years of activity, across three mandates
Innovation culture → startup bridge → venture studio. Real delivery (100+ events, 4 retail-tech cohorts, ventures raising external funding), but a mandate that fragmented as the Group built its own innovation, data, and AI functions.
Strategy workshop
Assessed 88 activities (SWOT, keep / rework / kill), aligned a directional thesis, and surfaced the open strategic questions that define the next phase.
Stakeholder interviews (this document)
A focused task force gathers cross-functional input, strategic and operational, to answer the workshop's open questions with real demand. 3–4 weeks, maximum.
Strategy & operating model → leadership
Synthesis translates into mandate, thesis, model, governance and metrics, then validated with leadership, backed by what stakeholders actually said.
One innovation engine, defined by real demand and clean boundaries
The underlying problem is fragmentation. Over time, multiple innovation-adjacent functions emerged across the Group, each with good intent, which diluted ownership and left business units unsure where to go for what. The strategy's job is to reposition The Greenhouse as the Group's single, clearly-bounded innovation engine. The interviews give that repositioning two things it needs:
- Demand. The real, unsolved customer and operational problems business units would actually hand to an innovation team, so the mandate is built on pull, not internal assumption.
- Boundaries. A clean line between innovation (new business models, external venture building) and the adjacent mandates of Transform (technology roadmap, enterprise systems) and the AI Lab (AI product deployment). Clarifying this boundary is a primary objective of several interviews, not an afterthought.
The Greenhouse has proven external credibility and venture-building capability, but has lost internal authority through fragmentation. The interviews surface what the Group genuinely needs from innovation, so the strategy is built on evidence and lands with leadership already validated.
A small team, a tight timeline, a two-tier conversation
| Member | Role on the task force |
|---|---|
| Joanne Marie Bassoul | Director, The Greenhouse. Main stakeholder driving the strategy; leads the interviews and the synthesis. |
| Rafi Dikranian | Supports the interviews and synthesis alongside Joanne. |
| Simran | Supports the interviews and synthesis; owns this plan and the questionnaire design. |
| Edward | Guides and advises from an investment perspective. |
Timeline: 3–4 weeks maximum, from approval to synthesis. This is the constraint that keeps the exercise simple and focused.
How we interview
Every conversation is anchored in real past behavior rather than opinion, and tailored to what each stakeholder can uniquely tell us. The full instrument, the governing question, the five archetype scripts, and the disconfirmation battery, sits in the interview framework below.
Interviews are conducted in person.
Internal and external, each with a defined objective and expected output
The list splits into internal stakeholders, who we interview to triangulate strategic perspective, real commercial demand, and boundary clarity across the adjacent technology mandates, and an external list still to be defined. Deciding who sits on the external side is itself an open item for the task force.
Several stakeholders hold mandates that touch innovation: technology, AI, omnichannel, transformation, and brand creation among them. We expect, and welcome, differing views on where the lines should sit, and each conversation treats those views as valid input to drawing the boundaries. We listen for what each function has actually done and needs, so the boundaries we propose are grounded in real activity rather than assumption.
| Interviewee | Objective | Expected output |
|---|---|---|
| Internal · Leadership & Group functions | ||
| Isabelle HendrichsManaging Director · Multibrand | Surface multibrand retail demand and where new business models or ventures could serve her brands; appetite to sponsor and fund. | Ranked multibrand demand and venture opportunities with a named owner. |
| Andeea FetzerVP · Strategy | Align innovation with the Group's 10-year strategy and where it fits the corporate agenda. | The strategic gap innovation must fill, and the fit-test it is judged against. |
| Amit KeswaniChief Omni Channel & AI Officer | Omnichannel and AI roadmap and how each connects with innovation; the executive-committee view. | Boundary line and integration points across omnichannel, AI, and innovation. |
| Kamran AbbasiChief Technology Officer | Technology roadmap and the innovation / technology boundary; what should not sit with innovation. | Definitive tech-boundary clarity. |
| Zahra Kassim LakhaChief Investments Officer | Investment lens: capital allocation, co-investment appetite, and ROI posture toward ventures. | Investment appetite, co-investment stance, and the metrics innovation reports against. |
| Tracy GriffinChief Financial Officer | How a multi-year bet survives annual budgeting; financial expectations and the number that earns a yes. | Funding-model constraints and the metric innovation is held to. |
| Miguel CalelloVP · Finance | Funding mechanisms for multi-year ventures within annual cycles; cross-company view of what gets funded or killed. | Funding-model constraints and measurement expectations. |
| Charbel LahoudVP · Growth & BD | Where ventures, partnerships, or new models could accelerate growth; overlap with the BD pipeline. | Growth-led demand and partnership opportunities, plus the boundary with BD. |
| Jeremy DenistyDirector of AI | Understand the AI mandate and how AI initiatives and Greenhouse venture work connect, so the boundary and ways of working are clear. | A clear, shared boundary on the AI mandate and how the two pipelines work together. |
| Harry LonerganDirector, Digital Marketing · Omni | Digital-marketing and DTC needs and where new digital capabilities or ventures could create value. | Digital-marketing demand and opportunities, and the boundary with omni. |
| Dhouha LouatiSVP · Transform | Clarify what Transform's roadmap covers so innovation's scope separates cleanly. | The definitive innovation / transformation boundary. |
| Zaur ShiraliyevVP · L&D | Which innovation-culture and training activities transfer to L&D. | A clean handoff of culture and training scope. |
| Samer ToumaVP · People & Culture | Culture mandate beyond tactical HR: where innovation owns the voice vs. the delivery. | Agreed ownership split on innovation culture. |
| Emma ElkaroutVP · Talent | The Greenhouse as a talent-attraction and employer-brand asset. | What the space and brand are worth to talent, and what to preserve. |
| Tony AtallahVP · Rewards | Whether reward and incentive structures enable or block intrapreneurship and venture participation. | Reward and incentive enablers and blockers for innovation. |
| Lynn AlKhatibVP · Communications | Innovation positioning and the internal / external narrative; resetting internal perception. | Communication inputs for repositioning and the perception reset. |
| Internal · Brands | ||
| Nicole NitschkeManaging Director · Faces | Faces brand-level retail problems and appetite for ventures; boundary with beauty creation; willingness to own and fund. | Brand-level demand and venture opportunities with a named owner. |
| Darine ElsabbaghGeneral Manager, Ecommerce · Faces | Faces e-commerce and digital-retail problems and appetite for new models. | Ranked Faces digital demand and pilot opportunities. |
| Rani NasrVP, Ecommerce · Level | Level e-commerce needs and digital-retail problems suited to venture building or sourcing. | Digital-retail demand from Level. |
| Laura CasalinoGeneral Manager · Tanagra | Tanagra own-brand retail problems and appetite for new business models and experiences. | Brand-level demand and concrete pilot opportunities. |
| Reda KeddajiGeneral Manager · Tryano | Tryano retail and experience problems and appetite for new models. | Store and brand-level demand and experience opportunities. |
| External · to define who we include | ||
| List to be decided: we still need to agree who belongs here. Candidate categories: ecosystem & investor partners, government and institutional partners, peer corporates with innovation arms, and founders. | ||
Behavioral evidence, gathered against a hypothesis
The framework fuses two disciplines. From user research: never ask what people want or would hypothetically do, ask about real past behavior and where money and time already moved. From strategy practice: carry a hypothesis, structure the inquiry so answers aggregate into a synthesis, and tailor each conversation to what that person can uniquely tell us.
What should The Greenhouse be, for whom, and what does it stop doing?
What every interview must help answer
Each conversation is assigned the branches that person can actually illuminate. Together, the interviews answer all six:
- DemandWhat real, unmet, budgeted problems exist that innovation could own?
- AdoptionWhy has past innovation failed to scale inside the Group? The push-to-pull gap.
- BoundariesWhere does innovation end and Transform, AI, and omnichannel begin?
- CapitalHow does a multi-year venture get funded, measured, and killed?
- Mandate & guardrailsWhat does ownership expect, and what is the risk appetite?
- Right to playWhere does The Greenhouse have credibility, and where would people bypass it?
How we ask: anchored in real events, never in opinions
The questions that matter test behavior, not preference. Opinion questions generate polite agreement; behavioral questions surface the truth.
| Avoid: opinion & hypothetical | Ask instead: behavioral |
|---|---|
| "Would you use an innovation team?" | "The last time you needed something you couldn't build in-house, what did you do? Who did you call?" |
| "Is innovation important to the Group?" | "Where did your innovation budget actually go this year? What got cut first?" |
| "What should innovation do?" | "Walk me through a problem on your plate right now that you have no path to solving with your team and budget." |
| "Do you value The Greenhouse?" | "When did you last engage them? What did you need, what did you get, and what happened after the pilot?" |
We listen for hard signals, not soft ones: money already moved, a workaround already built, a problem raised repeatedly, real frustration, and who they go to today.
Five interview archetypes
We tailor the instrument to what each stakeholder holds, rather than splitting by seniority. Each archetype shares the governing question but carries its own script.
Commercial & business-unit leads
The demand source. Heaviest behavioral discipline: real problems, past attempts, why pilots died, willingness to own and fund.
- Tell me about the last problem you tried to solve that your team and budget couldn't reach.
- The last time you brought in an outside solution, who paid, and what happened after the pilot?
- If a solution worked tomorrow, who in your P&L would own it and fund it to scale?
Adjacent-mandate owners
The boundary set. Boundary-focused: where their roadmap ends, where it connects with innovation today, and what innovation should not touch.
- Show me where your roadmap and The Greenhouse's work already overlap. Where does that create friction today?
- What should an innovation function explicitly not do, because you already own it?
- Where is the clean line between your mandate and theirs, in your own words?
Capital & measurement
The funding model. How a venture gets funded across annual cycles, what has been funded or defunded before, the one metric that earns a yes.
- Walk me through how a multi-year bet actually gets funded here, against annual budgets.
- What innovation or venture spend got approved, or killed, in the last cycle, and why?
- What single number would make you defend this investment to the board?
Owner, board & strategy
Mandate & guardrails. The 10-year fit, risk appetite, what winning at innovation looks like at ownership level, and what would make them lose patience.
- When you picture innovation succeeding in five years, what specifically is different about the Group?
- What would make you conclude this isn't working and pull the plug?
- Where does innovation sit in the 10-year strategy today, honestly?
Enabling functions
The handoff set. Which non-core activities should transfer out of innovation, and where the brand, space, and culture value actually sits.
- Which activities currently run by The Greenhouse would sit more naturally with your team?
- Where have you seen the brand or the space create real value? Give me a concrete example.
- What would the Group lose if the innovation function narrowed its scope?
The disconfirmation battery
The strategy's central bet is consolidation: The Greenhouse as the Group's single innovation engine. The most valuable thing these interviews can do is find where that bet breaks, in a one-to-one, before leadership does. We ask the boundary owners and BU leads directly:
- If The Greenhouse became the single front door for all innovation, where would that slow you down?
- Who do you go to today for an innovation need, and why them and not The Greenhouse?
- What would make you bypass an official innovation function entirely?
- Where does The Greenhouse have no right to play in your area?
Whatever survives this battery is a strategy we can defend. Whatever doesn't, we found it early.
Session flow: ~45–60 minutes
What each interview produces, and how it becomes strategy
From each interview
Structured notes against a common template, so every conversation is comparable: demand signals, pain points, boundary inputs (innovation vs. transform / AI / brand sourcing), expectations of innovation, and verbatim quotes worth carrying into the leadership presentation.
From the set, in synthesis
- A demand map: what the business actually needs, ranked, with the sponsoring stakeholders attached.
- Boundary clarifications: the agreed line between innovation, transformation and AI, sourced from the people who own each.
- Validation & objections: where stakeholders back the proposed mandate, and where they push on it, so the strategy answers real concerns.
The interviews feed directly into the operating model, the mandate definition, and the leadership presentation, turning the workshop's open questions into answers the Group has already validated.
Where the work lives
This page is the front door, the plan everyone reads. The live working files sit alongside it, linked below. Links are placeholders until the files are created and connected.