Improving Performance: Conveying the Impact to Your Constituents Jason Saul, CEO, Mission Measurement • www.missionmeasurement.com Barbara Allen, Director, CIC • www.cic.net
Dec 29, 2015
Improving Performance: Conveying the Impact to Your
Constituents
Jason Saul, CEO, Mission Measurement• www.missionmeasurement.com
Barbara Allen, Director, CIC• www.cic.net
Our Mission
To advance academic excellence through collaboration across our member universities.
University of Chicago
University of Illinois
Indiana University
University of Iowa
University of Michigan
Michigan State University
University of Minnesota
Northwestern University
Ohio State University
Pennsylvania State University
Purdue University
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Our inspiration
Good to Great and the Social Sectors by Jim Collins
The first of the five challenges he outlines for the non-profit sector is: “Defining great. How do we calibrate success without business metrics?”
Staff attended a program at the Kellogg Center for Nonprofit Management on “measuring performance” featuring one Jason Saul as faculty.
The Challenge
How do we know that we’re delivering real value? How do we communicate that value to members? (ROI) What meaningful measures can be used to evaluate
program effectiveness? How do we motivate staff so they aren’t just “busy” – but
“effective? And how do we do this within a “legislative” environment?
The Benefits
Increased stakeholder engagement and satisfaction Increased impact and program performance Increased satisfaction of staff (pride of performance,
investment in program improvement) Provides a language to describe success across staff
and partner universities
Process Using process outlined in Jason Saul’s book: Benchmarking
for Nonprofits Interview stakeholders Interview staff Experiment with “equations” Develop measures Interview stakeholders Interview staff Focus and implement
The Five Questions We Asked
Phone interviews, 3-5 from each stakeholder group (plus staff)• What impact would you like CIC to have?• How will you know if CIC has been successful?• How would you prioritize areas of impact?• What data would you find valuable to describe impact?• What one statement would you like to be able to make
about the CIC?
Messages We HeardTop Priorities
1. Cost savings, cost avoidance, saving time
2. Developing people and increasing academic opportunities for faculty, staff and students
3. National impact and recognition of national leadership and collaboration models;
Messages We HeardData that would be relevant
Cost and time savings (leveraged purchasing, but also time/cost saved in service provisions, in exploration of new services and service models)
Relevant data on program participants and meetings Longitudinal data on program impact “Opportunity premium” and other qualitative measures of
membership
Messages We Heard Aspirations
We are “better. together.” Better individuals, better universities and we contribute significantly to a better American HE system because of our innovative work together.
We are a consortium of like-minded peer research universities with a very strong academic brand that sets and challenges higher education standards.
The member institutions of the CIC consistently over-perform relative to their budgets due to effective collaboration.
CIC: To advance academic excellence through collaboration across our member universities
Member Capacity National Recognition CIC EffectivenessReturn on Collaboration
Outcomes Definition Outcomes Definition Outcomes Definition Outcomes Definition
Greater cost savings and efficiency
CIC coordinated more contracts with more cost savings and less
effort
Increased academic
opportunities for students
There were more (and more unique) courses available to
students
Increased visibility of CIC and members
More mention of CIC in national and
international press (not just focusing on
CIC, but including mention of CIC)
Increased staff performance
Each staff member
innovating in the performance of
their duties.
Reduced risk of innovation
More ideas and best practices
were adopted by campuses with
minimal effort and increased
confidence
Increased professional
opportunities for faculty/staff
More faculty and/or staff were engaged
in meaningful academic or
administrative collaboration with
their CIC peers
Increased competitive advantage
Members report that they feel they have
“more” through their association with CIC
peers
Increased member satisfaction
Each campus offering more resources for collaboration.
Reduced ‘hassle factor’
Reduced “time to contract” or “time
to product” for collaborations
Increased demand for CIC
More grants were submitted with CIC
component Be the ‘model’
Toolkit that helps CIC share what we know
about how to support
collaborations
Increased operational
effectiveness
Evidence of increasingly more
consequential, influential
collaborations
Ou
tco
mes
an
d M
etri
cs
A + B + C = D A + B + C = D
ImpactWhat are you ultimately trying to accomplish?
Priority OutcomesWhat changes in status, condition or behavior are
required to attain “D”?
Performance MeasuresHow do we measure progress
against our outcomes?
Increase courses available to CIC students
•More promotion of courses, promotion of CS, TSP as options for students
•Reduce Hassle Factor•Better web interface
Key StrategiesWhich
programs or activities will
drive results?
Increased # of Students Enrolled
Increased Faculty Interest & Buy-in
Enhanced student access to courses
- Number CS courses offered
- Number of courses taken via TSP
- Number of LCTLs offered across CIC
•More receptions, info sessions to promote program
•Broader distribution of brochures
•Calls/Mtgs-Bring together more communities of interest
•More faculty concalls, receptions
•Dean efforts to promote TSP, CS, LCTLs
- Number of students in current CS courses, in new CS courses
- Enrollments from all CS campuses
- More students using TSP
- Faculty attendance at receptions, orientations
- Number of disciplines represented in CS, TSP participation data
Results at CIC We are 8 weeks into the fiscal year, and our universities have
already identified (and agreed to fund) two new initiatives; a team of Deans is meeting with the Mellon Foundation to score funding for another initiative. Effectively, we’ll see a 20% increase in their investment during a time of downturn for all of them.
Our staff are engaged, coming up with new ways to improve programs and working more effectively together.
This effort is the springboard to our next strategic framework
Lessons Learned
1. To be effective, it has to come from the top
2. Measurement is a culture, not a project
3. Work within existing business processes; don't try to reinvent the wheel
4. Start simple; don't overtax the organization
5. Make measurement positive, not punitive
Resources
Benchmarking for Nonprofits: How to Measure, Manage, and Improve Performance by Jason Saul
Resources
Kellogg Center for Nonprofit Management (at Northwestern University)
http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/research/nonprofit/
Contact us:Jason Saul312-899-1800www.missionmeasurement.com
Barbara Allen217-244-9240www.cic.net