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