ROUND ONE: Could You Please Be More Specific? (Part C)

SO: 

Our side (think organizations combatting CP in one way or another) has these compelling missions and visions -- "Life Without Limits" to name but one. We're off to a great start.

Do our nonprofits in particular, however, have practical and workable ways of bringing those about, i.e., of realizing them? At finer-grained and closer-to-the-ground levels of detail, are they able to focus on the activities that are likely to have the greatest impact? Do they have the know-how and know-what to wisely allocate their time, talent, and dollars to them?

They say in business school it's just a matter of getting the right people doing the right things the right way. Sounds simple. Where the rubber meets the road, however -- where real people have to grapple with real problems -- it's anything but.

I've been looking for the past few years into COMPREHENSIVE APPROACHES to doing the above. ("getting the right people doing the right things...") There are several. One of the more interesting to me is Kaplan-Norton's Execution Premium Process (XPP). Proferred by The Palladium Group as system for achieving breakthrough results, it uses, notably, Balanced Scorecards for linking an organization's bigger goals with its day to day actions. And per Palladium's site it's "as effective for government and not‐for‐profit organizations as it is for corporations." 

(The Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame Award honors organizations that have achieved dramatic performance outcomes through through the use of the Balanced Scorecard. 2012 honorees include two US nonprofits -- Blue Ridge Electric Membership Corporation and Catholic Charities Archdiocese of Boston, Inc. See below for more.*) 

XPP is powerful, complete, and highly engineered. A criticism of it may be that it's not the simplest thing to implement, that it may require "dozens of measures, a data system, and a complex set of processes to get going."

SO:

As an alternative...

The Bridgespan Group specializes in driving nonprofit performance and offers a comprehensive approach of its own for linking an organization's mission with its programmatic activities. Its (approach) may be more accessible/ less intimidating/ easier to implement. "What are one or two things you could look at in a more methodical way to know whether your programs are working and how they could get better?" is the kind of low-key question they'd ask for starters.

While I haven't studied it in depth, I know Bridgespan's approach is similar to Kaplan-Norton's in that it's fundamentally the SCIENTIFIC METHOD applied to performance management and improvement. It's classic, closed-loop, quality control thinking applied to the whole organization, a structured way to continually learn and zero in on an organization's key goals.

As they put it:

As an organization’s leaders get increasingly clear about the results they aspire to achieve, and about what they need to do to achieve those results [DEFINE], they are better able to figure out what information will tell them how they’re doing [MEASURE], understand what works and what doesn’t [LEARN], and explicitly apply what they’ve learned to better their results [IMPROVE]. 

I like their overriding emphasis on learning, and on thinking of performance management & measurement as a tool for improving an organization's ability to meet its mission. To read about their five lessons for hopping on the performance management "lifecycle," go here: Measurement as Learning. 

CLOSING

Bridgespan, Kaplan-Norton, and other consultancies make strong cases for embracing performance management. (Several case studies are available at their respective sites.) Without it, how do you really know if you're making a difference? How can you improve your offerings and be accountable if you don't measure?

*From Palladium's site: 

The social services arm of the Archdiocese of Boston works to improve the lives of the poor. In 2008 CCAB implemented a Balanced Scorecard program in response to declining donations. Employees now focus on activities that are most impactful on the lives of their customers. By 2012 they moved from a budget deficit to a surplus, the number of people receiving food grew by 34%, and they are perceived by parents as one of the best daycare providers in the area.

ROUND ONE: Could You Please Be More Specific? (Part B)

The confluence of financially-driven managerial criteria, combined with the progressive era’s lasting focus on measurable impact, has led to a growing instrumental orientation for the nonprofit sector.

I've been drawn to recent work done by Stanford PACS (Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society) focusing on language use in the nonprofit sector. Researchers there have determined, among other things, that managerial and scientific discourse has heavily influenced nonprofits and that an "interlanguage" (made up of 24 familiar words) has emerged that "spans the boundaries between the domains of civil society, scientific-research, and management." Said interlanguage is being used by all contributors and appears to be playing a role in connecting the three communities. It's also an indication, they say, that nonprofits are thinking more about managing for results.

This is part of a bigger project undertaken by Woody Powell and his team on metrics and evaluation in the nonprofit sector. (something I came across while thinking about orienting our CP orgs more in the managing-for-outcomes direction) Their goals are "to understand who is responsible for producing or creating different evaluation frameworks and metrics, who is responsible for proselytizing or carrying them to different places, and who is adopting or consuming them." I'll try to keep an eye out for and report on any potentially useful info that comes of it. 

The language an organization uses on its public web site -- subject matter of the above study -- reflects its intentional portrayal of itself. Such portrayals have been my only real windows into the thinking going on inside (what I think of as) the "CP industry." My "A Tale of Two Hope Machines" series of posts is based entirely on UCP's self-representations at www.ucp.org.* 

I haven't gone so far as to do a rigorous, PACS-style search for "evaluative" language at our other CP nonprofits' sites to get a sense of how important performance -- and measuring it -- are. I'm sure, though, I'd find some interlanguage in use. As for references more specifically to numbers, targets, performance goals, etc., here's what I see at a glance: 

• Some statistics, some facts and figures. As a result of visiting Let's Cure CP for the first time, for example, I just learned that: 1 in 3 children with CP cannot walk; 1 in 4 cannot feed themselves; 1 in 4 cannot dress themselves. And "The average medical lifetime cost for a person with CP is over one million dollars."

• Other signs of outcome-focused thinking. Reaching for the Stars lists some its specific achievements on its overview page. Example: "Through federal advocacy efforts, secured Congressional appropriations language committing to line item federal funding of Cerebral Palsy research in the 2013 budget."

We do seem to be becoming more results driven. But it's still not generally a strong point of emphasis; it's not a dominant trait. I'm of the impression that there's room for growth. Or, at least, that there may be opportunities for us to improve -- faster -- by experimenting with what in the business world are often called strategy execution or "performance management" approaches.

More "meat" with regard to using those to achieve breakthrough results in Part C.

*I've written specifically about UCP's language use on multiple occasions. In this post, for example, I zero in on its use of the word "hope": A Tale of Two Hope Machines, 3.0.

ROUND ONE: Could You Please Be More Specific? (Part A)

Round one of "the fight to end all fights vs. CP" as I've framed it began on June 1st. If it goes the distance, i.e., if neither side gets its block knocked off, it'll end on May 31st, 2014. We're now twenty-one (21) days in. That's over three-fifths (3/5) of the first round. And five (5) percent of a whole year.

Time is whizzing by.

Coming from the business side of things, as I do -- where performance and numbers and measurable results are everything -- naturally I'm going to be keeping an eye on the calendar. It's my job...

Isn't it? 

*  *  *  *  *

Last fall I spent some time looking into the big ideas upon which UCP (United Cerebral Palsy) is founded. When it came to dissecting the org's vision statement, I was mildly surprised that I was unable to find references to specific stretch goals or time horizons. Don't get me wrong -- "Life Without Limits" is a wonderful aspiration. Please sign us up. We'll take two. But it's not by itself very conducive to being carried out, i.e., executed.

My "KO CP" is of the same ilk. 

Going forward with it, however, my inclination will be to: 

• label it (is that my mission or my vision?) 

• think of it in project or change management terms 

• translate strategic choices into operational programs, and 

• shoot for specific targets along the way. 

I'm hip to several tools, methodologies, and best practice frameworks that are available to help me do those things; I'm just now starting to think about which ones to use.

In the meantime, a still very general way of expressing what I hope to accomplish is: I want to make the CP landscape look brighter than it otherwise would if I'd choose to sit on my hands and do nothing the next eleven-plus months. 

This begs all sorts of questions -- not only of me, but also of the leaders of our "CP industry" organizations. For example, if it's my intention to help them take their games up a notch and do more, I need to have a sense of what they're already on track to accomplish. (How else could I gauge my impact?) I wonder: Are they focused enough on outcomes themselves to have realistic views of how things might look come next June?*

I'm not sure. I'd like to suggest, though, that a more methodical, results-driven approach might help in that regard -- and in others. (Here I'm thinking of all orgs involved in fighting CP, but especially of our nonprofit advocacy, support, and research organizations.) There's compelling evidence to back me up. I'd like to inch closer to some of it...

Next.

*Sure would be interesting to know their forecasts and how they intend to judge whether or not it's been a successful year.

ROUND ONE: It's About Time. And Space.

As far as goals go, "Knock Out CP" is a whopper. It's also about as vague as can be. But you have to start somewhere, and, recalling (as I hardly ever do) the Austrian economist and philosopher Ludwig Von Mises, at least it's ACTIONABLE in that it meets these conditions for human action. There's:

1. a sense of dissatisfaction with the way things are; 
2. an image of a better, more suitable set of conditions; 
3. the expectation that purposeful action will make a difference.

Human Action: A Treatise on Economics was published in 1949. Coincidentally, that's the same year United Cerebral Palsy (UCP) was born as a national organization -- from humble beginnings; thanks to the efforts of families dissatisfied with their lack of options and wanting to dramatically improve the quality of life for children with CP. Today there are many more and many different types of organizations, worldwide, driven by similar missions. 

They'd all like to see CP go down for the count.

Generally speaking, each is in one way or another pursuing CHANGE for the better. Implicit are the notions that (a) work has to be done to produce change, and (b) work takes time. Time is a dimension of all change.

My own particular time-sense tells that progress is being made on the CP front, but at a SNAIL'S PACE. I feel impatient. So much so that I can't wait for the Big Summer CP Conference or the next Global Get-Together. (both nonspecified) It'll take light years for the President's BRAIN initiative to get funded and bear fruit. 

I want change to happen faster, i.e., in a much shorter amount of time.

Of course, my perceptions are colored by what I want for my daughter. I want her to thrive. I want her to exult. I want her to feel better. I want her to laugh more. I want her to be able to more fully participate...

PRONTO.

*  *  *  *  *

Expressing the changes we want to see on a personal, human scale makes them more understandable; it's where the focus properly belongs. Along those lines, I believe it's our responsibility as parents to keep our perspectives, needs, and senses of urgency front and center. The goal should be to "pull" helpful goods and services to our kids, and that's the way to start. 

We need to get the various provider organizations out there moving in tune with us.

*  *  *  *  *

I'm inspired: by the enterprise and energy, by the research findings, by the roadmaps and visions. But I've also been around the block some. 

Take the inspiring visions: 

One problem with them is that they're COARSE-GRAINED. In other words, they "identify some factors of interest but ignore many details in the process." (David K. Hurst) Even relatively simpler, standalone projects typically take longer than plans anticipate (doesn't this ring true in your experience?) due to unforeseen issues on the ground, and --

Our CP-related projects-to-come aren't likely to be simple. They won't even be complicated, in the ways, say, construction or IT projects often are. They'll continue to be complex. They'll entail lots of uncertainty. Stem cell research looks promising, for example, but it may be many years before we know whether or not transplantation is even safe.*

SO WHAT? 

We're probably way underestimating the amount of ground we need to cover, i.e., the distance or space we still need to traverse. (Space is another dimension of all change.) That means we should be doing a heck of a lot more work now. There's a Planetary Powwow scheduled for 2014? We need to move it up. Can we acclerate the planning phase? Can we get crackin' in advance on the work that's likely to follow? Can we make the need to meet...moot?

These are management matters. 

I personally want to see CP knocked for a loop within one (1) calendar year. Attaching that timeframe to it is my attempt to influence, i.e., manage, things in that direction. (Whether or not it's a smart attempt remains to be seen.) It's also SPECIFIC. 

Conjecturing, on the other hand, that there's "lots and lots of work to be done" is UN-SPECIFIC. What work? How much? What are the resource requirements? Our answers to questions like these will determine the kinds of results we get.

Can leading management thinkers help in all of this? 

I hope so.

*To say nothing of what Wendell Berry wrote -- something I always keep in mind: “We live in a world famous for its ability both to surprise us and to deceive us.”