Upload
darren-woolley
View
223
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 1/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
1
Evalu8ing
Why Evalu8 collaboration,
relationships, performance?
Evalu8ing
August 2009
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 2/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
2
We no longer work in isolation
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 3/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
3
Sometimes we work one to one…
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 4/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
4
And sometimes one to many…
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 5/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
5
But mostly it is many to many
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 6/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
6
Be that within your organisation…
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 7/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
7
Or between organisations in one city…
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 8/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
8
Across the region or around the world
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 9/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
9
Innovation and performance improvement requires…
Communication
Co-operationCollaboration
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 10/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
10
But how do you improve these drivers?
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 11/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
11
You can no longer rely on ad-hoc feedback
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 12/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
12
How can you improve performance?
1. The first step is to define the drivers that are driving performance between your
stakeholders
2. Then define a methodology to measure the performance drivers
3. Use the resulting metrics to identify areas for improvement and share the results with
stakeholders
4. Together, develop plans and implement solutions to address issues or encourage behaviour
5. Then measure the drivers using the same methodology to determine if the plans andimplementation has had the desired result
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 13/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
13
Evalu8ing lets you manage multiple relationships
• To foster and develop
collaboration
• To encourage alignment to
objectives
• To develop shared values
• To optimise communication
and co-operation
• To ensure alignment of
performance expectations
• To facilitate improved
performance
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 14/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
14
During mergers and acquisitions
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 15/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
15
During organisational restructure
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 16/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
16
When commencing major alliances or projects
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 17/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
17
When engaging in new relationships
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 18/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
18
Refreshing long term relationships
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 19/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
19
When introducing new suppliers
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 20/34
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 21/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
21
up to 8 stakeholder groups in one survey
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 22/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
22
In a time poor world, it takes less than 15 minutes
With up to a
maximum of
20 statements
or questionsfor evaluation
in any survey
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 23/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
23
With a survey interface that is easy to use
The participant interface is easy to useand intuitive, taking most people less
than 20 minutes to complete.
The interface is customised to the
participant and survey details and
tracks completion.
Sliders are dragged or clicked to
register response.
Any question or relationship the
participant feels is not relevant can be
flagged by the participant.
Participants have full navigation of the
survey to answer and review as they
desire.
Participants can complete the surveyin their own time and log out and back
in at any time.
Participants can provide
comments for every question
and every relationship.
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 24/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
24
And the entire process turned around in 2 weeks
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 25/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
25
An Evalu8ing example
Start: Sun-26-Jul-2009End: Sat-01-Aug-2009
People: 24
Complete: 95.6%
Average Score: 65.1
Categories & Questions
5 categories
• Planning
• Time Management
• Cross Functional Collaboration
• Budget Management
• Production Management
4 questions per category = 20 questions
Client:
• Technology services Client with significantretail and direct response focus
Participants from the MarketingCommunications Team
Agency 1:• Recently appointed independent creative
agency to execute brand / communicationsstrategy through primarily offer basedmarketing
• Strong services industry experience withmany similar retail clients
Agency 2:
• Incumbent design / print agency has long
history with the client
• Responsible for designing brand / corporateidentity
• Develops and produces all print collateralincluding retail and media
Agency 3:
• Digital agency appointed 12 months earlier
on a project basis
• Agency 2 & 3 owned by same holdingcompany
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 26/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
26
Overall Results – No honeymoon period here
• The scores are set as:
• RED = Below the survey average
• YELLOW = Above the survey average
• GREEN = Upper survey quartile
• Agency 1 and Client scored the lowest overallscore.
• Agency 3 score from Client is on the survey
average.
• Agency 3 scored the highest overall score
from Agency 2.
Client Agency 1 Agency 2 Agency 3 Client 57 69 65 Agency 1 60 65 67 Agency 2 60 66 85 Agency 3 70 51 77
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 27/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
27
Poor engagement of new supplier
Agency 1 said of Client• We are involved once marketing planning
have decided on tactical execution. Weshould be more involved in the strategicdevelopment to further assist in achieving a
stronger brand proposition.
• Being involved earlier would allow for morecreative options and solutions.
• We should be involved earlier from a strategicpoint of view which allows for better planningand better execution.
Agency 2 said of Client
• If we could be involved earlier - even justmore of a heads up, we'd be able to deliver
much better creative.
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 28/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
28
Misaligned expectations with new supplier
Client said of Agency 1• Will often take feedback and will only discuss
clarification if next round is off.
Client said of Agency 2
• Overall communication is good. Clarificationsought very early on.
• Agency 2 are great in coming over to the office or
calling if they don’t understand a brief or needmore detail.
Agency 1 said of Client
• Client encourages questions and discussions,however, quality of feedback / solidity of feedback
is too variable and subject to change. There islittle conviction in strategy / path to execution.
• Feedback/debriefs needs to be clearer and
consistent, involving all decision makers.
• Yes they encourage discussion but the feedback
is not consistent, unified or clear.
Agency 2 said of Agency 1
• Relationship too new to tell.
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 29/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
29
Systemic poor practice
Client said• I feel across the board with the agencies that we
sometimes lack the understanding or insightsbehind the creative. This is an area to be improved.
Agency 1 said of Client
• The psychographic segmentation of the market -usage, shopping behavior, path to purchase
analysis - could be better and more focused inbriefings.
• Information provided is not of a high quality,relevance and often not considered in terms of thedeliverables. Too much information when we don't
need it and too little when we do.
• Relevant information is drip fed and not consistentand this affects timings and workflow.
Agency 2 said of Client
• It would be incredibly helpful if more information
could be provided with briefs for us to work with -particularly for things that are heavily copy based(e.g. DM, catalogues and brochures). Too often we
are hunting through old pieces to try and findrelevant content.
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 30/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
30
Poor client practices
Client said of Agency 1• I feel the feedback is often negative as opposed to
finding a positive solution.
Client said of Agency 2
• Agency 2 consistently gives knowledgeable
feedback on all areas of comms (including TV)Using their experience of working with us for anumber of years. They work well with the other
agencies to share previous learnings.
Agency 1 said of Client
• Feedback could be less creatively subjective andmore consistent.
• Feedback is prompt, usually non-constructive nor provides a clear direction. It tends to be subjective
from personal viewpoints rather than what willappeal/work for the target audience.
• The feedback is prompt but it is not considered,clear and definitive.
Agency 2 said of Client
• Always prompt. Not always valuable.• This depends on where and from whom the
feedback is coming from. Sometimes, teams aren't
aligned in their feedback and one person says onething and another says another.
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 31/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
31
Out of step with the current behaviours
Client said of Agency 2• It does vary on each project. I feel sometimes that
if its not a priority for Agency 2 then I need tochase constantly, but when they know that wehave to get some super done urgent, they are
fairly good. I think it would help to know theexpected timelines, I always ask now when I will
hear back from them.
• We work very fast and it is important to be able toget hold of Agency 2 quickly when anything
changes. Agency 2 responds quickly but it is oftenhard to get hold of them.
Agency 1 said of Client
• Timelines are too short to allow for delayedresponses. This does not harbour an environment
to achieve the best result.
Agency 2 said of Client
• Sometimes it is difficult to get hold of Client for availability of meetings or responses. This is only areflection of how busy she is, but sometimes her
team can't give the feedback and we do need tohear directly from her.
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 32/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
32
Poor communications regarding expectations
Client said of Agency 1• They will meet the end timeline, but it's very loose
along the way and one is left feeling a littleuncomfortable that all is in hand.
Agency 1 said of Client
• Timelines are set without consultation of theagency/agencies. Milestones are set to suit
senior exec approvals rather than thedependencies of the project. This renders them
ineffective.
• Timelines are set without enough involvementfrom the agency on what can be achieved in the
timeframe.
• Timelines are set but without agencyconsideration.
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 33/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
33
How to start Evalu8ing…
Want to discover more on how Evalu8ing can help youmeasure, manage and maximise the collaboration and
performance of your ‘many to many’ relationships?
Evalu8ing can provide you with:
1.
More information on the system and applications @http://www.evalu8ing.com/
2. Your own system login @ http://survey.evalu8ing.com/
3. A pilot study of the system for your organisation
Plus we have additional consulting services to assist you in
obtaining even greater value and insight from the process.
8/9/2019 Evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evalu8ing-collaboration-and-alignment-between-multiple-stakeholder-groups 34/34
Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.
34
For more information…
Evalu8ing Pty Ltd
Sydney
+612 8399 0922
Melbourne
+613 9682 6800
Hong Kong
+852 3589 3095
Singapore
+65 6884 9149
www.evalu8ing.com