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.” 

PRE-FIGHT: Let's Glove Up

Here's how my pea brain's mind's eye sees things:

ON ONE HAND

We have various organizations and institutions, for and not for profit, that are committed to fighting the Cerebral Palsy fight and improving outcomes as they relate to CP. 

To me, they look to be doing bang-up jobs: pounding away at key challenges and opportunities; landing their share of punches. Becoming...thanks largely to advances in fields like genetics and robotics and brain science...encouraged and emboldened -- even to the point of believing that theirs-and-ours is a winnable battle. Even in the previously inconceivable sense that CP will someday be both preventable and curable. 

I'm excited along with them. 

I'd be a lot more excited if I knew that their various visions were about to be realized, say, this week. Even a year from now would be a more than acceptable time frame. 

Unrealistic? Could never happen? 

Maybe. 

Who's really to say? 

At a bare minimum, I don't think it's too overly whacky to suggest that big things could conceivably happen in the CP arena sooner rather than later and that, furthermore, we all ought to open our minds' eyes -- wider than they are now -- to what's possible. 

ON THE OTHER HAND

Over the past few years, I've immersed myself in enough management writing to have at least a feel for who the more influential thinkers are and what they're thinking about. What interests me most is their work on helping organizations get smarter and better, faster. (much of which is intimately tied to disruptive technologies like cloud computing, social media, mobile, and big data)

How're they doing? 

They're figuring things out. They're making discoveries. They're experiencing some wins. 

Many of them are fired up about what's possible, too. 

I'D LIKE TO RECOMMEND

We in the CP sphere should take greater advantage of what those management gurus -- those business brainiacs -- have to offer. 

Why's that?

Because CP has been kicking our butts. 

No offense to any one individual or CP organization, but -- we need help. All the help we can get. Why fight with one hand tied behind our back if we don't have to?

The good news is that the products of those folks' energies and efforts are more widely and readily available than ever before. They're there for the taking. So, too, are the opportunities for making personal connections. Accessing them, and attracting them to us and our "defeat CP" cause, should be straightforward.

We'll have to strive as a group, however, to become more:

1. OPEN

At the risk of exposing my own biases and nincompoopery, I am (via this post and this blog) putting myself out there in hopes that someone will come along and help me become a better / smarter CP fighter. Our orgs need to follow suit. To "get back," we need to give. We need to offer up our challenges and opportunities, our responses and results -- the whole of it -- to critical thought and commentary. 

May be worth taking under advisement:

• We should resist believing we're on the right track and therefore in no need of new and different ways of thinking or acting. The truth is, our mental models, e.g., our strategies and roadmaps and visions, are laughably small relative to the enormousness of our challenges. 

• Like CP itself, the problems we face are complex. In the words of David K. Hurst, "good questions are (often) better than good answers." Wisdom begins with an admission of ignorance. 

• A lack of funding doesn't have to slow us down. Money's just one of many resources we may acquire, mobilize, leverage, etc. 

• Keep this in mind: “There are always more smart people outside your company than within it.”* The staff at SUBWAY this month is wearing t-shirts that read "Make Us Better / Take Our Survey." If the biggest corporations are looking every which way for better ideas, we should probably be doing the same.

2. FINDABLE/ LOCATABLE 

I hope to be able to use this blogspace to make our leading CP organizations more visible to leading management thinkers -- and vice versa. My little mission is to facilitate connections. Very-best-case outcomes, to my way of thinking, would involve collaborative problem solving and co-creation activities between both sides. (both "hands") To that end, I invite participation. 

So, for example, to:

• Cynthia @ Reaching for the Stars: If you want to share your views here about what you believe it'll take to build "a foundation of hope for children with cerebral palsy"; if you want to name your pains; if you want to go public with your lengthy "things to do" list -- either directly or indirectly through me -- you're more than welcome to!! 

• John Seely Brown and John Hagel @ Deloitte Center for the Edge: You wrote in The Power of Pull (2008) about "Harnessing Pull to Change the World," and specifically about mastering pull "at the individual and institutional level to achieve much broader impact in economic and social arenas." I welcome either or both of you to use this forum to teach us how to beat CP. Feel free, in other words, to stop by and solve our problems for us!!

There's also a Twitter component to this. It'll be devoted to more of the same (as above) but revolve around a particular, pick-up-the-pace goal. 

I want things to move faster. Way, way faster than we're generally envisioning now. Using a (crude?) boxing analogy, I hope to be able to look at the next year as if it were a 12-round fight -- with an intention of knocking CP on its duff by the end. As Chief Inciter, I'll report on how the fight's progressing and do whatever I can to influence things in our favor. My tweets and interactions will be directed at the level of the organization, but anyone's more than welcome to follow along @KnockOutCP.

CLOSING

`A la Ralph Waldo Emerson, David Weinberger writes in Too Big To Know (2012): 

We thus do not yet have any good idea of what cannot be done by connected humans when working at the scale of the Net. 

We truly don't know what can or can't be accomplished. 

So...

Why not get ready to rumble?

Round one's set to start on June first.

*quote attributed to Silicon Valley icon Bill Joy (co-founder of Sun Microsystems)

Thanks For Asking

Guest post prepared for Cynthia at Reaching for the Stars

Why, you ask, aren't there more doggone clinicians out there who specialize in comprehensive CP care?

Great question! 

First off -- I think I may have a good sense of why you'd want to know. I'm a dad of a beautiful (had to get that in there) daughter with CP. Of course, I want the best for her. I'm also eleven-plus years into it now, and I've learned, through trying and erring, just why they're called "complex" special needs. Hardly anything about 'em is as simple as one would hope.

Let's take a quick early detour:  

Cristin Lind is the special needs mom behind the enlightening blog, Durga's Toolbox. Last September she posted this care map (below) that she had drawn to communicate the "spider web" of connections she navigates in the course of raising her son. If you haven't already seen the map or done a similar accounting, I bet you'd be surprised at the number of connections, especially in the health arena, you're juggling yourself. 

More about how you may be able to use your own care map to get things moving in a simpler & saner direction at bottom.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to have just one go-to doctor? To be able to turn to a single medical pro who understood both your child's history and challenges -- and all things CP? Someone capable of integrating everything that needs to be integrated and responding with appropriate care? 

Dr. Lisa Thornton ten-fours the idea. In writing for RFTS's 30 Days of Inspiration, Motivation & Information Series, she says "it’s critical for parents to find a health care practitioner who is familiar with the management of Cerebral Palsy and who can help them sort through the best options for their child." She also notes that pediatric physiatrists are "specially trained for this" but that they, unfortunately, are rare.

Bummer. 

Jibes with my own experience of: 

• searching last summer for an authoritative answer to the question Should my child be under the care of a physiatrist? 

• trying to track down a real, live one to talk to, and 

• all but striking out. 

When I eventually did encounter one of these elusive birds, I was somewhat disappointed. The doc I met didn't seem to want what I wanted: (which was) for him to take overall charge of my daughter's care. He wasn't a coordinator. Instead, he saw himself as the "spasticity guy" and he was quite happy to defer to the neurologists, developmental pediatricians, etc. with whom he practiced. Despite having been intensively and holistically trained in those fields himself.

Your results may vary. 

For me, the jury's still out as to whether or not there should be a push for more of these specialists. In the meantime, I'm back to the drawing board wondering: 

Maybe my daughter would do just as well without a physiatrist? Maybe the team care she's already privileged to receive (the kind offered via hospital comprehesive CP programs, independent therapy centers, intermediate care facilities, etc.) is workable? Maybe the focus should be on improving the ways clinical teams operate? 

Truth be told, those aren't the only "Maybe"s that come to mind. I can go in any number of directions on this. Maybe, for example:

• we should ask practicing physiatrists to tell us more: Do you feel comfortable in the role of key care coordinator? Would more kids with CP be better off if there were more of you scattered about? 

• a parent survey is in order to learn how needs are or aren't being met via current care arrangements? 

• the focus should be on parent education? Maybe there's a way -- thinking way, way outside the box -- parents could become junior physiatrists themselves?

*  *  *  *  *

“Some problems are so complex that you have to be highly intelligent and well informed just to be undecided about them.”*

Why aren't there more CP specialists out there? 

Still a great question. 

Like CP itself, though, it's complex and "wicked." It's not strictly technical. There's no one, straightforward answer. Aside from posing it and adding my two cents, I'm not sure what more to do with it.

Now that the question's been formulated and made public, however, maybe some better equipped individual or organization will pick up on and wrestle with it. Maybe one or more of my follow-up questions will trigger the same. That's my hope.

My main message is this:

I'm as naive as they come. But I'm pretty sure that no upper limit to the number of CP specialists has been set in stone for all time. The situation is fluid. That physiatrists are rare isn't the respsonsibility of United Cerebral Palsy (UCP). There's no AAPMR (physiatry's medical society) conspiracy. This has nothing to do with Reaching for the Stars (RFTS). The reason there aren't more specialists is that we parents haven't been piping up. 

It really comes down to me and you.

*  *  *  *  *

All I really know is I want my daughter to thrive. I believe asking questions can help.

For good solutions to emerge, you have to ask questions to which others can (and wish to) respond. That's how things get moved along. That's how you chip away at complex problems like ours. You ask questions -- no matter how naive an "asker" you are -- and you hope to learn your way to better and better answers.

It seems to me a questing disposition is key.

*  *  *  *  *

The care map concept has taken on a bigger life since Cristin first unveiled hers. More and more it's being recognized as a valuable tool both for parents and their "provider teams."

Benefits for parents include: gaining a better understanding of the care landscape to be navigated, and growing new skills /capacities. (It's empowering.) For providers, e.g. health professionals, care maps help them to "meet families where they are" and may, in turn, lead to better care-coordination solutions and health outcomes.

There's a widespread belief that a gulf exists between the amount of health care needed in the world and what's actually being given. So, health care is being redesigned everywhere with care coordination a top priority. Boston Children's Hospital has taken a particular interest in moving in this (family-centered) direction and partnered with Cristin. As a result, two specific things you, as Juggler-in-Chief, can do now that you couldn't just a few months ago are: 

• visit the hospital's care mapping page

• download a care mapping how-to guide to learn how to create and use one yourself!

*Laurence J. Peter, author of The Peter Principle

A Tale of Two Hope Machines, 9.3.5.B.1

I want to try to get at the reasoning behind some of UCP's recent innovations and determine if they represent innovating at the PRODUCT and SERVICE level (?) or at the INSTITUTIONAL level (?) and then use whatever I come up with as a basis for further questions and comments.

Because I've been reading about leadership development programs, let's first have a cursory look at the Emerging Leaders Academy. (which I classified as innovation-ish in a previous post)

*  *  *  *  *

The Emerging Leaders Academy is a new leadership training and mentorship program offered by UCP-National to selected mid-career affiliate staff members.  It's an excellent example, in my opinion, of how the folks on K Street are trying new things and taking the organization in new directions.

But, is it innovative? Is it  -- I like this definition from Scott Anthony, managing partner of the strategy and innovation consulting firm, Innosight -- “something different that has impact”? 

I'm gonna say "no," strictly speaking. Why? Because, although it may turn out to be a good idea, to qualify as an innovation it has to be more clearly linked to revenues, net income, or free cash flow*. It has to fill the coffers.

That said, however...

One of the keys to innovating at the institutional level -- besides tapping into flows of knowledge -- is leveraging talent, i.e., helping employees perform better faster. Emerging Leaders is clearly endeavoring to do that by facilitating leadership mentoring and creating new avenues for passionate employees to connect and learn from others across the UCP network.

As for how JSB et al. would JUDGE the program, qualitatively, I'd need to know more of the specifics to hazard a guess. I'm sure they'd bring up the fact that programs like these "mostly focus on transfer of existing explicit knowledge, rather than the creation of new knowledge or even on giving participants the necessary learning skills to tackle knowledge flows." Hence, they'd want to take a closer look at the specialized instruction, i.e., "master tracks" component... 

I'll hold off for now on further commenting.

*  *  *  *  *

Since I've been doing some reading ahead for section eleven, though, I *would* like to interject a few words -- a little more food for thought -- about the implications of David Hurst's ecological model for the development of people within an organization. 

If I had to pick one sentence that captures the essence of what he sees as a top manager-leader's JOB ONE, it would be this from the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead: 

The art of progress is to preserve order amid change and to preserve change amid order.

Accordingly, Mr. Hurst believes emerging leaders need -- above all -- a "deep appreciation of the contexts in which they are operating." Of UCP-National he'd ask (regarding this training program): How can you help your affiliate up-and-comers develop their contextual intelligence? How can you help them acquire this ability?

His answer /advice: 

Provide them with the right kinds of experience. Via the right kinds of experience, your people can develop their capacities to play their roles better. He adds, "The use of  live ammunition -- real issues -- is the essential ingredient of effective management development programs." (The best kinds of ammo? Uncomfortable circumstances. Severe personnel problems. Bottom line pressure. Unexpected turns in the road...)

The challenge for UCP-National in this case would be to create "career paths that expose young managers to new challenges every two to four years and prepare them to benefit from those assignments." This would require structuring meaningful experiences into a sequence of escalating challenges. Mr. Hurst's model carries within it a code for doing so. 

I don't see signs that this kind of thinking or, more specifically, this sort of structuring is currently a part of the Emerging Leaders program, but -- 'specially given the fact that there are in the neighborhood of 100 network affiliates -- it could be. 

May well be worth looking into. 

*from Wikipedia: "essentially the money that the company could return to shareholders if the company was to grow no further"

A Tale of Two Hope Machines, 9.3.5.B

Got edges?

Conventional wisdom says an ailing organization should aggressively cut costs and /or develop new products and services to raise revenues. UCP's done both of these in recent years. To minimize operating costs, the former UPC of Central OH merged with another nonprofit (that also serves people with disabilities). On the revenue side, the national office has introduced at least three significant new service offerings...

Assuming for a minute it's done all the COST CUTTING it can do -- organizationwide, affiliate network included -- I want to focus this post on the GROWTH side of the UCP equation. 

"When organizations speak of pursuing growth, most are speaking of product- or service-level innovations produced in the core of their organization." 

The word "core" is key here. The authors of The Power of Pull contend that innovations derived from core operations are offering diminishing returns these days. Marginally improved, marginally differentiated products and services aren't moving the dial. As it relates to UCP, their concern would be that improvements of that ilk would likely not generate enough dough to make up for any losses the organization is experiencing due to reduced government support and /or increased competition.

(Do LIFE LABS, Mission Driven Consulting, and The World CP Challenge represent just marginally improved or differentiated services? If so, are they destined to provide  mediocre-at-best returns? If not, are there additional things UCP could do to ensure their sustained effectiveness? I hope to make those sorts of questions the subject matter of the next post.)

JSB et al. would counsel against pursuing marginal returns. It's not sensible, they write, "to keep pushing harder and harder on existing resources with minimal gains." 

If this is the organization's m.o., it should consider looking to the edge and learning to innovate at a more fundamental, institutional level -- for at least three reasons: (1) there's a good chance market opportunities are being missed (2) pursuing edge opportunities can be relatively less costly [because you're leveraging external resources] and (3) significantly, UCP would develop new institutional capabilities in the process.

If things are "difficult" for UCP, that's a sign that more changing and adapting need to be done. Changes in management mindsets are likely in order.* What the authors offer is a pragmatic pathway to making said changes and to improving, specifically, UCP's ability to learn.

In the next post I'll try to characterize and categorize some of UCP-National's innovations. Then, after that, I'll go into how UCP could inch itself closer to the edge.

*Question for UCP top managers to ponder: Do you consider it your purpose to be an orchestrator for your people to connect and learn from others, i.e., to improve their performance?