Cover Image
close this bookOrganizational Performance and Change Management - Workshop proceedings - October 1-3, 1997, International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR), Philippines (IIRR, 1997)
View the document(introduction...)
View the documentAcronyms
View the documentForeword
close this folderOrganization of the workshop
View the documentBackground
View the documentSchedule
close this folderOverview
close this folderThe external context of NGDOs
View the document(introduction...)
View the documentGlobalization
View the documentFund sourcing outlook
View the documentNGDO-foreign donor relations
View the documentThe domestic scene
View the documentNGDO strategic responses
View the documentConclusion
close this folderThe internal impetus and imperatives for organizational performance and change management
View the document(introduction...)
View the documentElements of NGDO performance and change management
View the documentOrganizational diagnosis
View the documentChange management interventions
View the documentConclusion
close this folderWorkshop 1
close this folderCritical factors and performance indicators
View the document(introduction...)
View the documentProcess
close this folderCase 1: Sibol ng Agham at Teknolohiya (SIBAT) experience - Performance indicators
View the document(introduction...)
View the documentSIBAT - the early years
View the documentThe network organization
View the documentDescription of experience
View the documentWhat are performance indicators?
View the documentWhat are the tools to ensure responsiveness in changing conditions?
View the documentWhat are the key lessons and insights?
View the documentLessons in networking
close this folderCase 2: The quest for a transformed organization - A review of factors in organizational performance in a christian development organization (World Vision, Incorporated)
View the document(introduction...)
View the documentThe world vision
View the documentFinding a vision for an organization
View the documentAssessing organizational performance
View the documentInsights in assessing performance
View the documentChallenges and issues that affect performance
View the documentA final word
View the documentComments on the cases
View the documentWorkshop outputs
View the documentSummary of discussions
close this folderWorkshop 2
close this folderPerformance assessment frameworks, tools and techniques
View the document(introduction...)
View the documentProcess
close this folderCase 3: Planning, monitoring and evaluation - The PhilDHRRA experience
View the document(introduction...)
View the documentThe change management experience
View the documentHighlights
View the documentFurther learnings and insights
View the documentProcess
View the documentConclusion
View the documentNote
close this folderCase 4: MASAI: Experiences in developing and using organizational assessment tools
View the document(introduction...)
View the documentDescription of experience
View the documentMASAI's evaluations
View the documentThe evaluation framework
View the documentContent areas
View the documentMethods and tools
View the documentThe evaluation process
View the documentOutcomes or impact of the evaluations
View the documentLessons and insights
View the documentKey insights
View the documentWhen would the assessment of NGO performance be considered "successful"?
View the documentConclusion
View the documentNotes
View the documentComments on the cases
close this folderWorkshop outputs
View the document(introduction...)
View the documentFrameworks
View the documentTools
View the documentSummary of discussions
close this folderWorkshop 3
close this folderChange management
View the document(introduction...)
View the documentProcess
close this folderCase 5: Philippine business for social progress (PBSP): Organizational change management
View the document(introduction...)
View the documentTriggering changes within to respond to external changes
View the documentDeveloping a strategic masterplan
View the documentAssessing the financial capability
View the documentSustainability plans
View the documentManaging changes through an organizational development program
View the documentLessons in designing and implementing a change management program
View the documentKey success factors
close this folderCase 6: Pambansang Kilusan ng mga Samahang Magsasaka (PAKISAMA) - A case of PO autonomy
View the document(introduction...)
View the documentVision and mission
View the documentMembership
View the documentMajor programs and services
View the documentLinkages and networks
View the documentPurpose of undertaking organizational development
View the documentDescription of experience
View the documentMethods and tools used
View the documentLessons and insights
View the documentConditions for success (for the autonomy process)
View the documentConclusion
View the documentComments on the cases
View the documentWorkshop outputs
close this folderSummary of discussions
View the document(introduction...)
View the documentPlanning and implementing change
close this folderWorkshop synthesis
View the documentWorkshop synthesis
close this folderCommitments and action points
View the document(introduction...)
View the documentCommitments
close this folderAnnexes
close this folderAnnex 1 - Directory of participants
View the documentNational NGOs
View the documentRegional NGO
View the documentInternational NGOs
View the documentOrganizing committee
close this folderAnnex 2 - Organizational capacity assessment tool1
View the document(introduction...)
View the documentPurpose
View the documentUsing the assessment tool
View the documentOrganizational capacity profile
View the documentOrganizational capacity assessment tool
close this folderAnnex 3: Reflections on Philippine NGO organizational performance and change management
View the document(introduction...)
View the documentObjectives
View the documentImpetus and imperatives for change management
View the documentElements of change management
View the documentOrganizational diagnosis
View the documentGuidelines for internal organizational assessment
View the documentChange management interventions
View the documentAnnex 4: Samples of indicators used by PhilDHRRA in its 1995-1996 social review
close this folderAnnex 5: Globalization: Dominant trends
View the documentEconomic
View the documentPolitical
View the documentSocio-cultural
View the documentEnvironmental
View the documentGlobal sources of NGDO Finance
View the documentOfficial development assistance is declining
View the documentAlternatives to traditional donor funding
View the documentAdvocacy shifts
View the documentExisting mechanisms for direct NGO participation in governance
View the documentAnnex 6: Key points in the preliminary review of the literature
View the documentAnnex 7: References
View the documentManagement and production team

Summary of discussions


Figure

FIVE THEMES EMERGED from the discussions. These were:

1. Fit
2. Accountability
3. Impact
4. Sustainability
5. Stakeholders

Fit

Fit broadly means finding the right systems to realize the vision. For instance, WVI had consistency in its shared values with its 7Ss. WVI rediscovered the relevance of the 7Ss as benchmarks of organizational performance within the context of how these should be structured, and used in pursuing their vision and serving the requirements of their ministry.

MASAI affirmed this by saying that an organization is basically healthy if there is a match between its:

· programs' outputs and their respective beneficiaries' needs;
· competencies and task requirements of its programs;
· mechanisms by which needs are articulated by their beneficiaries and received by them.

A match in each of the correlations measures an organization's effectivity, efficiency and extent of participation, respectively. Any mismatch, on the other hand could mean:

· the organization is not meeting its objectives as translated into program;
· it is not using its resources properly; or
· it does not ensure participation of its beneficiaries.

Participants thought the above criteria was a sound way to measure efficiency and effectiveness. Everybody empathized with the reality of organizations overextending themselves to cater to the demands from beneficiaries, which cannot be accommodated by existing resources and mechanisms.

A common vision shared by NDGOs and the community is an important component of the strategy that should be adapted by any organization.

This last is particularly true in the case of SIBAT that depended largely on whether or not its members continued to identify with the issues it advocates.

Accountability

The participants were unanimous in saying that accountability is a very important measure of their performance. Accountability means taking responsibility or being answerable for the fulfillment of commitments made to the organizations' various stakeholders or multiple beneficiaries. Many participants said that donors usually measured accountability through an organization's cost-effectiveness and efficiency in resource allocation.

On the other hand, accountability to the beneficiaries meant the achievement of both the qualitative and quantitative targets of programs intended to improve the quality of their lives. However, actual achievements were considered by many participants as indicators of performance and, therefore, considered separately under impact.

Impact

Impact is interpreted as an indicator of reach, scope or scale of development initiatives or efforts.

Sustainability

Measuring sustainability is a two way process. It involves continuing the development process as programs and projects at the beneficiaries' level, and the continued existence of organizations that facilitate the process themselves. For the first, sustainability directly relates to the level of capability or development achieved by the beneficiary through self-governance. For the second, sustainability is linked to managing acquired competencies and the success or mechanism installed by the organization.

One participant spoke of the financial sustainability experiences in his organization. He made it clear that NGDO sustainability should only be talked about in relation to the continued demand for its services by its beneficiaries. He then presented a radical model for attaining financial sustainability through cost-recovery measures. The model states that if beneficiaries are the reasons for an NGDO's being, then they should also be the ones who should sustain it. If beneficiaries find an NGDO's services necessary, they should ensure continuous delivery by paying for such services.

Project priorities and goals also serve as performance indicators. For example, for organizations working on community-based resource management, tenurial security for the community was considered a major indicator of success. For others, sustaining livelihood activities was a major indicator of effectiveness.

Stakeholders

Most of the issues raised revolved around the theme of stakeholdership. Stakeholders were defined as groups having an interest and investment in the organization. For example, NGDOs have multiple stakeholders. They include the Board, staff, donors, partner-organizations, communities, other beneficiaries and target groups.

The issues raised were:

· Who sets the standards?

· Whose set of interests should ultimately indicate performance level given the often competing objectives of NGDOs? The compliance to funding agency demands or requirements? The promotion of the well-being of the beneficiaries? The viability of the NGDO? The competence gained from experience by the staff? The results of the rigorous analysis of professional evaluators or external experts?

In relation to this, how does an NGDO achieve a balance between its process and task/outcome orientation, between its service and financial sustainability objectives, without prejudicing its own as well as the interests of any of its stakeholders? And who should be accountable for either the success or failure of initiatives? Is it reasonable for funding agencies to hold unsatisfactory performances against NGDOs and use this as a justification against further funding? Or, is there a need for shared accountability of failure among all stakeholders?

What is a reasonable standard? Is it possible to come up with industry benchmarks that are acceptable to the majority of development players regardless of what sector of society they come from, whether from civil society, business or the state?

And how does an NGDO promote institutional understanding of performance benchmarks among its own staff? Is it plausible "that for most NGDOs, there seems to be a common appreciation for the usefulness of performance assessment among its members but no unified understanding of the actual indicators used in the process among them?"