Cover Image
close this bookOrganizational Performance and Change Management - Workshop proceedings - October 1-3, 1997, International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR), Philippines (IIRR, 1997)
close this folderWorkshop 1
Open this folder and view contentsCritical factors and performance indicators
Open this folder and view contentsCase 1: Sibol ng Agham at Teknolohiya (SIBAT) experience - Performance indicators
Open this folder and view contentsCase 2: The quest for a transformed organization - A review of factors in organizational performance in a christian development organization (World Vision, Incorporated)
View the documentComments on the cases
View the documentWorkshop outputs
View the documentSummary of discussions

Workshop outputs


Funding agency group

Assessment points




Cost and effectiveness

- Scarcity of resources
- Program quality (focus and impact)

Lack of standards to measure effectiveness

- There are experiences on reducing cost without sacrificing quality
- Lack of sharing of database

Reach of the program

For magnitude of impact

Self-governing organization

Relationship among partners

- Self centered/lack of building of strategic alliance

- Vision, Mission, Goal (VMG) realization

Defines reason for being

- Difficult to measure
- Over-projected goals
- Accountability and shared values

- Environment should be catalyzing

- Continuity of livelihood program beneficiary

Creation of more opportunities

There is minimal application of knowledge and skills learned from training

- Relevance to the prevailing situation

Sustenance of basic needs

Program sustainability

Prioritization of program alternatives

No shared understanding of monitoring and evaluation system (donor and beneficiaries)

- Tenurial security for wise management of resources

To create self-governing organization

Non-implementation of sanctions regarding funding is inadequate

Ability to say no to organization

- Capability building of partner organizations

To replicate the program

Improvement of the quality of life (Minimum basic needs standards)

Because beneficiaries are poor communities

Program expectation not congruent with beneficiary capability

Lack of systematic analysis to determine congruence

NGO support group

Assessment points






- Business profitability

Funding agency driven or internally driven performance assessment?

Movement/ stakeholders development

- Financial self sufficiency


- Leadership (developing second liners, openness, risk taking foresight)
- Active Board of Directors
- Movement building (not for profit)
- Clear movement/phase out of senior staff

Clarity in vision, mission, goals; development agenda; values; philosophy; paradigm

- Clearly defined, vision, mission, goals
- Ownership of vision, mission, goals

Documentation is generally lacking on organizational history. Often this is left with individuals

Documentation of the process of evolution/development to avoid reinventing the wheel. Uphold importance of documentation.

Staff capacity/ human resource development and commitment

- Willingness to take responsibility and risks
- Development of second liners
- Knowledge, skills and attitude level versus job demands
- Staff competence versus needs or partners

Transparency regarding financial standing

- Program

- Efficiency service
- Maximization or resources

Service delivery

Target versus outputs

Compensating individual staff for contributing to organizational performance

Include proposals a budget to cover for increase in compensation.

Responding to needs/service creation

Performance assessment seen as threatening

Performance assessment feedbacking

Management systems

Mechanism for learning in place

Balancing professionalism and volunteerism

- Human resources

- Desire to learn exist

- Financial

- Desire to be more efficient

- Integration / learning

- Ability to look back at one self as an organization

Governance (of Board of Trustees)

Active participation of Board of Trustees/ Board of Directors' development

- Relevance vis-a-vis external and historical context

- Evolving needs of partners

- Changes in external environment affecting performance

- Responding to people's needs/ demands even when there is no budget for it in terms of time and other resources

- Willingness of partners to collaborate/

- External constraints/ situation - Nodal points in one's organizational history

- Efficiency versus effectiveness

Availability of inputs

Funds, frameworks, tools, curriculum, (timeliness, adequency)

Effects/outcomes of services rendered

- Extent of utilization of learning by partners

- Effects/ outcomes level assessments need human, material, and financial inputs thus performance assessment generally focussed on outputs and immediate effects

- Give adequate inputs to guage effects/outcomes

- Cooperative graduating to higher level of organization development

- General: lack of/no clarity on institutional/ organization level assessment points and indicators

- Unify on the use of measure for performance

Operating NGOs group

Assessments points





Strategy soundness

Participative SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat) process

Reflects out institutional values

Balance between output and process

Understand/ appreciate personal struggles/ process of staff-value alignment

Efficiency of resource allocation/ generation

Adequency of resource based on project/ program requirements

Credibility as an organization reflects trust for future funding and long-term relations with funders

Balance between care for the staff and caring for the poor/ community

Management capacity/ development of human resources

Equip staff with knowledge, skills, attitude/ commitment. Provide appropriate caring/ compensation

Sustainability and relevance as an NGO

- Difficulty in using/ developing qualitative criteria/ indicators
- Addressing macro policies which are contradictory to micro objectives of the organization

Staff/community participation is key to the success of the strategy goals set

Values - consistency organizational values and individual values

- Staff lifestyle/ performance
- People/ community lifestyle

Maintains membership in network and ensures expansion

Achievement of targets

Modified minimum basic needs

Recognition of other GOs/ NGOs of your work

Invitation of other GOs and NGOs and resource

The assessment points most commonly identified by all groups were:

· cost-effectiveness

· use of resources

· efficiency

· allocation and generation of resources

· management capacity

· program effectiveness

· achievement of qualitative (e.g., improvement of quality of life) and quantitative (e.g., reach) program targets

The following were identified by both the funding agency and technical support groups:

· identifying a mission with external and historical contexts
· self governance
· capability building of partners

The funding agency group additionally identified the continuity of livelihood projects and sustainability of programs as an important performance indicator. This group went on to say that tenurial security and wise resource management determine the chances for sustainability of community management programs.

The operating group gave further performance indicators as:

· consistency of internalization of values between organization and staff
· the organization's human resource development program
· recognition of work by other development organizations
· a sound strategy and organizing process

Finally, the technical support group added that willingness of beneficiaries to collaborate and participate also indicate program and organizational performance.

The participants categorized the performance indicators into three groups. These were those affecting:

1. the network
2. individual organization
3. program/project levels

It was also pointed out that organizational or network performance cannot be taken in isolation of its programs/projects and the beneficiaries they serve. The bottomline of NGDO work should ultimately be measured against what it has done for its beneficiaries.