We are a charity website still in development and you could really help by telling us what you think of the site. Once you have had a chance to see the site, would you take part in a very short, confidential survey? You just have to click Launch Survey (it will open in a new window). Thank you very much.
Launch the survey No thanks
One of the ways that I assist an organisation's capture performance is have a ‘Results Raid’ day.
People (staff; volunteers and trustees) get together for a day and look for data – things with numbers. "Look for numbers" I tell the people assembled in the morning. All day people bring and email data. I have two senior staff or trustees lined up to file the data – in a large paper folder and on a memory stick. Evidence of building security and disability support can be photographed and add to the data.
I have used a variety of models to sort the data i.e. PQASSO; EFQM; the Big Picture. It has to be a model that has a Results section for this method to work the best.
People find it fun and take great pride in seeing all the work they do sorted. The process allows all people to be part of a quality review and give trustees the opportunity to see the gaps.
Do you have any other ways of capturing performance?
Sheila Fraser (in Scotland)
In my experience, I noticed a direct correlation between the ambiguity of charity mission and its performance. Where, it is not possible to explain what the particular charity does is one sentence, it is more often a problem to measure performance. I would always challenge the charity to explain what they do in one sentence so that a lay person can understand easily, that is a foundation to measure performance effective. The charity culture needed to change, where each stakeholders (staff, trustees, volunteers etc) subconsciouly always ask themselves before taking any action whether these are having a direct impact on its mission.
I see ‘performance’ broken into efficiency and impact.
Efficiency is about using resources optimally so they derive the maximise value for the charity, having processes in place that ensure the organisation works well, setting clear expectations for staff, stakeholders and management, etc …
Impact should show a charity is having the desired results and outcome for donors, its beneficiaries and stakeholders. In an ideal world, ‘impact’ loops back into efficiency to solidify positive behaviours on an operational level.
In both instances – how one captures performance greatly depends on the organisation and I am a bit fan of mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches – especially when the charity doesn’t have a system already in place. It’s the nuances and stories of what charities do that makes the sector unique.
Therefore I try not to count for counting sake. Rather I think there is a progression of developing quantitative benchmarks that truly indicates outcomes and results and often there are a few stages before an organisation gets to indicators that truly depict its achievements. Plus – such an approach makes measuring performance more sticky across an organisation as good change management elements – e.g. two – way communication - are inbuilt and it creates a more supportive performance environment. (sorry, for the ‘consultancy speak’).
Granted none of the above works well without a good strategy and I agree with Golam that there is certainly a relationship between strategy and performance that underpins the viability of the two.
Del.icio.us
Twitter
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon