I
would like to begin this afternoon with a quotation from a world-renowned
leader in academic thought. "For those who care deeply about social
problems and work tirelessly to make a difference, current foundation
practices not only diminish effectiveness, they inevitably reduce
the satisfaction that donors, staff, and trustees derive from
their work." While some of you are thinking -- yes -- current
foundation practices do diminish NGO effectiveness and others
are pondering the author of the quotation, let me preface his
name and title with some of his accomplishments. His books, theories,
and philosophies are internationally acknowledged by the many
of the most successful entrepreneurs, politicians, and social
sector professionals. Michael Porter holds the highest professional
distinction of a Harvard faculty member as University Professor.
Now,
one might ask how this relates to a conference on philanthropy
and volunteerism. The mission of this conference states that NGOs
associated with the UN strive to be increasingly more professional,
inclusive, and accountable. In a sector driven by the efforts
of individuals and volunteers, it is only that much more important
that we focus on accountability. When we donıt, as Porter states,
we reduce the effectiveness of donors, staff, and trustees --
in essence, reducing the effectiveness of volunteerism.
New
Philanthropy Benchmarking --a Working Book that I authored-- addresses
the issue of accountability --most directly-- through one of its
seven wisdom points: "Benchmarking can be as powerful in the social
sector as in the commercial sector." So, the most logical next
question is, What is New Philanthropy Benchmarking? New Philanthropy
Benchmarking ("NPB") builds upon a synergistic collaboration of
three components: classic benchmarking pyramid, progressive Intersectoral
strategies, and NPB analytical tactics. NPB is predicated upon
the assumption that the passionate will instinctively strive for
comparable success in the social sector as achieved in the commercial
sector. While motivations vary, instincts compelling superior
performance or driving a determination to eschew being "dumb money"
are considered pervasive and transferable.
Before
discussing the first of these three components, a classic benchmarking
pyramid, letıs defuse some of the negative myths and exaggerations
that jumped up when I mentioned measurement in the social sector.
First and foremost, I would like to state that not everything
can be measured, but that everything can be compared. Benchmarking
compares one organization to another in the areas of program,
process, and policy. Because benchmarking compares the aforementioned
three Ps, the mission of the organizations being compared -- or
benchmarked -- need not to be the same. The power and compelling
attractiveness of NPB is its ability to assist the passionate
to multiply the impact -- create value -- of their resource investments
relative to other similar social sector initiatives and minimize
risk exposure. Let me follow that statement by asserting that
relative value-creation is not solely based on the value of resources
in the commercial sector and neither should it be the case in
the social sector.
Educational
Components of New Philanthropic Benchmarking
|
Classic
Benchmarking
Pyramid |
+plus+ |
Intersectoral
Practices |
+plus+ |
NPB
Analytical Tools |
> |
Hard Metrics |
> |
Social Enterprise |
> |
Multiplier/Discount Effect
|
> |
3rd Party
Verifiable Metrics |
> |
Strategic Philanthropy & Restructuring
|
> |
Performance
Gap |
> |
Extensive
Comparable Internal Metrics |
> |
Social Capital
Markets |
> |
Deliverable Opportunities
|
|
As
utilized within NPB, the topical areas of the classic benchmarking
pyramid are designed to increase the probability of achieving
the highest integrity application in even the most diverse situations,
including volunteer management. Application of each is not universally
practical, but awareness of each will create a foundation for
more effective management. Let me briefly mention them ranked
by both ease of application and importance. To start, hard metrics,
as the name may suggest, are solid numbers of integrity in contrast
with qualitative ill-defined terms. With these in hand, NGO managers
should seek to utilize topical area two, third-party verifiable
metrics. Non-third-party-verifiable metrics can cause much more
damage than potential value. The third topical area, extensive
comparable internal metrics, offers the highest probability for
maximum integrity and NPB value-creation. Getting inside a potential
best-in-class NGO or commercial sector organization with ample
opportunity for extensive analysis provides the peak of the classic
benchmarking pyramid. This access is especially worth the effort
given the sensitive and confidential issues associated with the
personnel aspects of volunteer metrics.
Despite
its promise, benchmarking is a caveat solution. Benchmarking is
more than best practices; it is a comparative measurement with
active goal setting and implementation. NPB utilizes this continuous
process of improvement to assist in identifying performance lags
and focus on the application of best practices.
Supplementing
a classic benchmarking pyramid is the second of the three components,
progressive Intersectoral practices. Before highlighting representative
successful Intersectoral illustrative initiatives, it is appropriate
to define the concept of Intersectoral and review the diverse
categories of progressive Intersectoral practices critical to
advance a macro-level understanding. As defined in the body of
NPB, Intersectoral is the space where the commercial sector and
the social sector merge, creating for-profit initiatives with
social missions operating in the typical NGO settings.
While
there is a diverse range of progressive Intersectoral practices,
a common theme as it relates to volunteerism is creatively locating
yet undiscovered value within existing NGO assets and executing
to optimize their value. Three topical areas to investigate include
Social Enterprise, which includes social entrepreneurship, commercialization,
operational philanthropy, and contract services, Strategic Philanthropy
& Restructuring, including capacity building, collaboration, managerial
efficiency programs, restructurings, and foundation value-creation,
and Social Capital Markets, which includes innovative financings,
social venture capital, blended ROIs, and M&A transactions.
While
the NPB Working Book offers pages of examples, highlighting several
of the more applicable to members of the audience may provide
a productive catalyst for further thought and value creation.
Within
the social entrepreneurship category, on-line fund raising web
sites can utilize volunteers to staff phone lines while raising
equity funding via traditional venture capitalists. AARP generates
$150 million in licensing income supported by the goodwill of
its members. The Girl Scoutıs supported by a powerful volunteer
organization sells $240 million, annually, in cookies. Both are
examples of the commercialization trends within the Intersectoral
sector. An organization based in the Northwest United States,
Pioneer, is dedicated to hiring severely challenged (disabled)
individuals and gains outsourcing labor specific and task repetitive
outsourcing projects from commercial firms interested in supporting
community efforts; an strategy known in the field as operational
philanthropy. And, Goodwill Industries and possibly the Salvation
Army are two of the worldıs largest NGO providers of employment
and training services for challenged individuals via contact service
agreements.
Within
the strategic philanthropy and restructuring topical area, capacity
building possibly offers the widest application to volunteerism
as it applies mostly to people and information management issues.
The Robertıs Enterprise Development Foundations software systems
may be among the best-in-class. Within this category, collaboration
efforts show significant promise. One of the more prominent examples
is the collaboration between the Gates Foundation and the United
Negro College Fund in implementing the Millennium Scholarship
Program. Another example is the collaboration in online learning
start-up Fathom.com among Columbia University, Cambridge University
Press, London School of Economics, and the British Library. In
the area of managerial efficiency programs, both Community Wealth
consulting firm and the Morino Institute Netpreneur Programs stand
out. As for restructuring of NGOs to leverage the power of a world
class volunteer network, few deserve as much observation as Edgar
Bronfmanıs effort with three major Jewish organizations. Also,
foundation value-creation can leverage volunteer value-added as
is the case with the Birthright Israel program co-founded by the
Steinhardt foundation.
Within
the Social Capital Markets topical area, the opportunities to
leverage volunteerism may be less readily apparent, but offer
benefits to those willing to invest the necessary intellectual
capital. The powerful passions or cost advantages associated with
volunteers can allow NGOs to win attractive funding via innovative
financings such as recoverable grants or Program Related Investment.
Also worthy of note are the opportunities to obtain social venture
capital in part obtained by communicating the significant role
and competitive advantage played by volunteers within NGO. The
opportunities to utilize volunteers as a part of a much larger
comprehensive program to initiate or expand NGO operations with
the commercial sector (an approach often referred to as focusing
on a Blended Return on Investment) and obtain more traditional
commercial sector capital market funding exist as will be mentioned
below, but will be limited to a more select group of NGOs. The
opportunities for merger or acquisition transactions by NGO can
and have clearly created both social and financial NPB measurable
value but the opportunities to leverage within the context of
volunteerism require further analysis.
Before
moving on to the third and final NPB component, let me very briefly
review four Intersectoral mission public companies. Each indicates
the tides of change facing NGOs, including pressures from commercial
competition and pressures to optimize Intersectoral opportunities.
The first example is Edison Schools, a recent start-up and publicly
traded company that has assumed management of some of the most
challenging public schools in the nation. The second example is
University of Phoenix Online, a rapidly expanding publicly traded
company directly competing with government funded schools. Phoenix
offers degree programs through both on-site and distance education
classes via the Internet. The third example Res-Care Inc., yet
another publicly traded commercial entity, delivers services and
supports to people with disabilities and special needs youth.
And lastly, the fourth and largest of these four Intersectoral
examples is HCA, one of the largest hospital chains in the US
with its top competitors being social sector hospitals and with
year 2000 sales exceeding 16 billion dollars.
While
each of these four examples have typical social sector missions,
they operate in a unique Intersectoral setting. The development
of Intersectoral value-creation practices is moving at a much
faster pace and provides positive energy for the recognition of
the power of NPB and its application. The rapid increase in number
of Intersectoral success stories illustrates the previously unrecognized
potential.
The
third of the three components, NPB analytical tactics provide
further value-creation fuel through comparative value-creation
and performance on investment metrics. While comparative value-creation
and performance on investment metrics sound complex in nature,
in reality their simplicity merits further discussion. NPB utilizes
three critical tactics: deliverable opportunities, performance
gaps, and multiplier/discount effects. These three tactics empower
NGOs to establish a common language whereupon they can begin to
assess and create value.
First,
deliverable opportunities are specific situation outputs or deliverables,
be they processes, programs, or policies, that offer opportunities
for improved performance in an NGO. Deliverable opportunities
are similar to the commercial sector concept of nuggets of value
-- which are opportunities to create value by improving current
operations or by financial engineering previously ignored by the
capital markets and/or management.
The
second tactic builds upon the concept of deliverables. Performance
margin is the difference between the situation output or deliverable
being measured and the best practice. This can be expressed in
a dollar or unit term and preferably in its most basic form. Illustrative
examples include cost per meal, percentage of unutilized assets,
and fees paid per physician visit -- all of these concepts are
frequent and familiar to the practices of NGOs.
Importantly,
the third and culminary tactic -- the multiplier/discount effect
-- provides the necessary comparative quantification and concluding
step in the NPB analytical process. A multiplier exists when performance
either equals or exceeds that of the previous (or latest) best
practice or its cost is either equal to or less than the previous
(or latest) best practice. The definition of the discount effect
is the converse. An example of both effects should provide further
understanding of the usefulness of these measurements as the definitions
may not do justice to their potential power and importance.
An
example of a Multiplier Effect would be an NGO seeking to provide
Tuberculosis and Mediterranean Fever treatment in Middle East
countries. Proactively managing its investment, the NGO decides
to benchmark what appears to one of the best-in-class NGO in the
field. Next steps include assessing Deliverable Opportunities
where the NGO could provide value-added. Using its resources,
the NGO locates special situations to obtain quality medication
at a fraction of the benchmark, collaborates with other excess
capacity organizations to provide laboratories and free transportation,
and taps yet another organization eager to provide gratis physicians
-- volunteers. The existing best-in-class estimate cost for the
initiative is approximately 5 million-dollar. The new best-in-class
accomplishes its mission for less than 200,000 dollars. The NGOıs
independent audit indicates a Multiplier Effect of 31 times. It
should be obvious the benefits that volunteerism can have on creating
and expanding a Multiplier Effect and this competitive advantage
should be leveraged to maximize an NGOıs mission.
In
contrast to that, a Discount Effect is illustrated with a United
States Regional NGO School E-mail and Software Education Program.
A regional private school requests $10,000 to educate faculty
and administrators on utilizing various email features. An additional
$50,000 is requested to educate faculty and administrators on
word processing. A local capitalist/philanthropist ("CP") informs
the school that public libraries in close proximity to the school
offer free educational email and software classes providing informational
CDıs and user booklets to anyone at no cost. The school does not
heed the CPıs advice and solicits and receives the funding from
another source. In contrast to the previous 31 multiplier, the
regional private school has a 100% discount effect, investing
all of their money wastefully. The Multiplier/Discount Effect
is in its initial stages.
For
those interested in pursuing NPBıs application to NGO volunteerism,
there are an increasing number of resources, especially on the
Internet.
The
positive motivation for NPB within the context of volunteerism
is greater mission success. An alternative motivation is avoiding
Unintended Consequences to NGO initiatives. NGO managers have
a moral responsibility to assess risks prior to allocation of
significant volunteer efforts. Whether itıs misfortunate situations,
unintended consequences, or wasted fund. With regard to the risks
facing NGOs and good-faith volunteers, observations by two of
the seven Capitalists-philanthropists benchmarked in the NPB Work
Book pointedly indicate the real world concerns. A quotation from
the Bill Gates Foundation, "You know, it would be possible to
blow $100 billion and have no impact at all." And, an observation
from George Soros, "Charity goes against human nature. One of
the paradoxes is that it makes people dependent."
The
NPB Work Book reviews a comprehensive expanse of information within
its body, appendices, and endnotes and still proclaims that "benchmarking
can be as powerful in the social sector as in the commercial sector."
NGOs should seek to integrate NPB where practical, benchmarking
other situations as offering best practice insights, and capturing
value-creation opportunities. The examples provide insight as
to how NPB can facilitate identifying performance gap and deliverable
opportunities between current social sector-only organizations
and best practice social mission social or commercial organizations,
thereby advancing value-creation and forging an Intersectoral
evolution.
And,
while volunteerism provides support for an organization, it is
NGO managementıs fiduciary responsibility to ensure that the NGO
is achieving maximum efficiency from volunteerism. As Michael
Porter so wisely heeds, NGO management should not only increase
the efficiency but increase the satisfaction that volunteers receive
from their work.
An
extensive NPB revolution will undoubtedly create uproar. Complaints
are often largely based on superficial cultural barriers. Passionate
NGOs can be catalysts for major transformation within the social
sector. NPB addresses both processes and comparative assessment,
which is clearly a caveat solution. NPB does not claim to be a
panacea, although NPB is a positive opportunity to bring measurements,
comparisons, and greater value-creation to the social sector and
volunteerism.
Further
ideas and collaboration create the possibility for a more advanced
discourse as the NPB Working Book is only one more step towards
"new" philanthropy. Volunteerism is tremendously powerful and
within the context of NPB can be more effectively utilized and
communicated to accelerate mission growth.
To
review, letıs summarize the three NPB components as they relate
to volunteerism and NGOs. NPB component one -- classic benchmarking
pyramid-- provides the basic processes to understand comparative
standing of the social sector situation under consideration. This
comparison can focus solely on volunteer management or on more
diverse NGO considerations, including the entire NGO. Remember
both the three topical areas critical to achieving the highest
probability of maximum integrity and NPB value-creation (hard
metrics, 3rd party verifiable metrics, and extensive comparable
internal metrics) as well as the three areas for consideration,
also known as the Pıs: programs, processes, and polices. NPB component
two -- progressive Intersectoral practices -- seek to create greater
social value consistent with an NGOıs mission. The main topical
areas are social enterprise, strategic philanthropy, & and restructuring,
and Social Capital Markets. Here, the common theme as it relates
to volunteerism is creatively locating yet undiscovered value
within NGO assets and executing to optimize their value. And,
NPB component three -- NPB analytical tactics -- provides further
value creation fuel through comparative valuation creation and
performance on investment metrics. The primary three tactics discussed
are deliverable opportunities, performance gaps, and the multiplier/discount
effects. Here NGO managers can assess performance of existing
situations as well as assess prospective initiatives, both of
which can facilitate maximizing volunteer resources.
|