You Get What You Measure

With apologies to a certain rock band, you don't get what you need, you get what you measure. This expression, you get what you measure, is a favourite management maxim of mine (along with "good, fast and cheap: pick any two") and is often helpful to keep in mind.

Successful for-profit organizations like Procter & Gamble are experts at measurement, and almost as importantly, know exactly what to measure.  I was reminded of this recently when a staff member at a client proudly informed me they had 140 followers on Twitter.  My response was to congratulate her, and then ask whether this had exceeded their goal or if this was faster than she had hoped?  Her answer?  There was no goal, 140 just seemed like a lot...

And 140 followers in a couple of months may indeed be stellar, but unless you set up a goal and measure against it, you'll never actually know.  Here are some simple guidelines to help both charities and for-profit organizations set good goals and measure against them appropriately.

• Set the target(s) before the activity - setting them afterwards doesn't count
• You can adjust the target but don't discard the original - you'll want to learn from why you changed it
• Document your goal and share it - it will make you more likely to achieve it and keep you honest!
• Do some research about the goal - too stretching becomes demotivating, too easy adds little value
• Make your goals / targets "SMART"
• Specific
• Measurable
• Achievable
• Relevant
• Time-bound
• Always do a post-mortem - this debrief will be extremely helpful to avoid future mistakes and cement best practices

The final point is to be careful what you measure.  You can drown in metrics, and I first heard the phrase "analysis paralysis" at P&G for a reason.  So do be selective.  And in being selective, seek to find the most fundamental drivers to your success.  In any organization there are many things that are important, but ultimately only a few key levers that you can use to drive the whole operation.  For example, in Fundraising you may want to measure how many Prospects you have, but its often more helpful to count how many Prospect Meetings are booked per month.

So be sure to measure because it will directly influence what you get!

Database Evolution: Avoiding Costly Mistakes

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and and over again and expecting the results to be different.  In my experience charities generally follow four main evolutionary steps in managing their data and database software...  And oddly enough the results are generally the same for all those charities!  Here are the outlines for the four stages, and some tips on how to avoid some costly pitfalls.

PAPER:
The first step for most charities, often because they're small and don't need much more, or because they're trying to be really thrifty, is to use a manual or paper-based system.  This can actually work pretty well, unless the charity grows or until the sticky-notes and hanging files get out of control.  So eventually someone takes the time to migrate to...

SPREADSHEETS:
The next phase of database development is to use a spreadsheet (like Excel) or if there's a technically competent staffer or volunteer, some kind of pivot table.  Again, not a bad option for the right size organization with limited demands on its database, but usually someone (the Fundraisers, Board members, etc.) start wanting to actually use the data, and this forces the next evolutionary step.  This often leads to a...

PROPRIETARY SYSTEM:
Every charity is unique.  So it follows that each one needs its own unique database to meet its needs, right?  Wrong!  And yet so many charities spend loads of money pursuing their own special database path, sometimes creating unique campaign and fundraising events just to get started, or to build the next version.  Yet with few exceptions (e.g. large charities with the resources to keep up with costly code-writing and upgrades) these stand-alone systems rapidly become outdated, expensive to maintain, and very hard to use.  My strong advice is to avoid this step if at all possible and, if your charity needs this level of database support, move straight to...

OFF THE SHELF:
There are countless options for charities of all sizes and budgets to manage their databases effectively and efficiently.  And if you need something unique to support your specific needs, most of these packages can have modules "bolted on", or even new code written, for far less cost than sustaining a proprietary system.  And you get the benefit of thousands or even millions of other users helping to spread out the costs of upgrades and tech support, generating a truly robust system.  My other tip would be to not necessarily go with the best known brand: like many major purchases and little research and solid advice can go a long way to save money and provide better options.

Avoid costly mistakes by thinking carefully about your database needs, or else you could wind up owning a dinosaur or even facing an evolutionary "dead end"!

The Science of Making the Ask

In case you're wondering, the "Ask" is fundraising-speak for closing the deal or putting your offer on the table.  It's when all your cultivation efforts to understand the interests and motivations of your prospective donor come together in one place.

My experiece, and all the training I've ever received, indicates that it's always best to go with another person to the meeting for the Ask.  If you're staff, the thinking is that you should go with a volunteer or contact of the prospect.  The logic is that:

• One person can be watching the body language while the other speaks
• Two people make for more accurate memory of the meeting and any points raised
• The staff person can handle any "technical" questions, and the volunteer or contact reinforces the personal nature of the relationship
• Since the volunteer or contact has also already made a gift this puts the Ask on a more authorative level (e.g. I've given and I invite you to do so as well)
• Since "like gives to like" the volunteer or contact is assumed to be at the same "level" as the prospect

It turns out however that there is another, more important reason to have a second person present.  A variety of studies have shown that people are more likely to give, and feel better about their giving, when they are being watched!

The most recent issue of Advancing Philanthropy has an article that summarizes several examples where even having a pair of eyes printed on a poster asking for a donation generated higher giving.  And another example where the pleasure of giving is measurably higher for the donor when done while being watched.

So next time you're ready to make an Ask, be sure to bring a friend!

And Stanford Says...

Over the last many months I've written extensively about the worlds of charities, for-profit enterprises, management and where they all intersect.  Obviously, I'm not the only one thinking about these topics.  Here's a great article from the Stanford Social Innovation Review that makes some compelling and interesting points in the same areas.

Have a look at the article and then I'd invite to review some of my "back blogs" - I've had some other thoughts on these topics you might find interesting!

Social Enterprise: The REAL Truth

Accuse me of false advertising if you will, but while I've got some very interesting data to share, the fact is the "real" truth isn't in yet about Social Enterprise. So bear with me for second before we get to the interesting data...

Like Social Media (and apologies to all the evangelists out there who will disagree) I'm not convinced that Social Enterprise is a panacea either in terms of profile, fundraising, or any other metric for charities or for-profit organizations.  I'm currently consulting with an organization that is testing the waters of Social Enterprise, and so far so good.  But it's a vanishingly small part of the organization, and since the organization is so small to begin with there are barely enough systems and processes in place for the Mission-driven parts, let alone some little projects that make just a little bit of money.

So clearly any organization considering starting Social Enterprise(s) needs to think critically about:

• Size and capacity (including systems and processes) of the organization
• The "opportunity cost" versus other initiatives
• Natural "fit" of the proposed Social Enterprise projects
• Skills and acumen required for success (lots of regular for-profit enterprises fail every year!)
• Whether the goal is profit, profile, Mission, experience for participants, or some blend thereof - just be clear about the desired outcome(s) so you know when you've succeeded!

Now on to the data.  The good folks at the Ontario Nonprofit Network shared their "Social Finance Census 2010" back in December.  The full Executive Summary can be found via a link on the page here.  I just saw it the other day and one chart jumped out at me.  Turns out that in this survey (not sure how random and scientific it was) over 50% of respondents reported 10% or more of their revenue was from Social Enterprise.  Interesting.  That is more than I would have guessed.  

So is Social Enterprise the way to riches for your charity?  Maybe not.  But as Governments and and the economy continue to whittle away support, perhaps a prudent, measured introduction into Social Enterprise is in order for your organization.  It certainly looks as if a lot of charities are already trying to find the real truth about Social Enterprise.

Good, Fast and Cheap: Pick any Two

There are many expressions that clearly apply in both the for-profit and Charitable worlds, and one that I've been using with a client a lot lately is "good, fast and cheap: pick any two". For people hearing this aphorism for the first time tend to smile after they figure it out, mostly because it makes so much intuitive sense.

But while the expression applies in both the for-profit and Charitable worlds, it has some different implications when used on the Charitable side.

First, Charities are so often so tight for cash that they can’t buy their way out of a problem.  In other words, where a corporation (particularly a larger corporation) might throw money at a problem to ensure it gets resolved "well / good" and "quickly / fast", charities don’t usually have those resources. Projects sometimes get done poorly or executed without all aspects being done well in order to hit deadlines.

Second, and in a way arguing against the first difference, is the impact of volunteers. This is a tool for-profits generally can’t access, and has a huge equalizing effect in the quality of work that even the smallest of charities can do. The volunteer that leads a program, the book-keeper who works for free two days a week, or the HR expert who does some pro-bono work are all examples of volunteers I’m familiar with where the work is done for charities that is all of "good", "fast" AND "cheap".

So while for larger charities expecting volunteers to do all the work is likely not realistic, it is one key way for Charities to try and deliver on their Mission on a shoestring budget. For the Charitable leaders out there, are you using volunteers to their fullest potential?

The bottom like for all organizations is that clear plans, well thought out deadlines, and a focused set of priorities means that you’re not scrambling, and can resort to "fast" only rarely and instead rely on "good" and "cheap" more regularly!

The 3 Laws of Growing any Organization

A late Friday afternoon conversation with one of my clients reminded me of some business fundamentals that I've never seen translated into the Charitable world.  So here, without too much fanfare and perhaps for the first time ever, are Goodworld's three Laws of Organizational Growth, and the related 3 Laws of Revenue Growth for the Charitable world.

Many of you are familiar with these frameworks from a for-profit point of view, and with so many models they are deceptively simple.  What makes the translation into the Charitable world particularly interesting is that on the Revenue side many organizations spend a lot of time focusing on the first option (increasing numbers of supporters), while the most efficient options might well be the next two.  Both Revenue option 2. and 3. are about enhancing relationships, and that's something that every successful charity should be very good at!

So there you have it - just like Newton's Laws, but inspired not by an apple but by too many spreadsheets!