Survey Results & analysis for

NCMA Board of Directors Assessment Checklist (March 27,

2010)

Executive SummaryThis report contains a detailed statistical analysis of the results to the survey titled NCMA Board of Directors Assessment Checklist (March 27, 2010) . The results analysis includes answers from all respondents who took the survey in the 12 day period from Saturday, March 27, 2010 to Wednesday, April 07, 2010. 20 completed responses were received to the survey during this time.

Survey Results & AnalysisSurvey: NCMA Board of Directors Assessment Checklist (March 27, 2010)

Author: Cambria Tidwell

Filter:

Responses Received: 20

1) 1). Was there a quality agenda?

2) Comments:

Comments:

We were (and should be) focused on the Allance recommendation. Budget well done.

Gary's presentation of the BMA was not on the agenda

Only gap was that discussions re the Alliance were inadvertently omitted from the agenda.

But it did not include the "merger" topic.

3) 2). Did the agenda have the right mix of strategic and tactical topics/issues?

4) Comments:

Comments:

Too much time spent on BMA

UOR Com still not understanding the proper direction. Focused only on DAU accepted curriculums. This throughs out institutions with mature CM programs based on the CM-BoK. The need to find CM avocates with in the academic community is not the focus of the current direction. Instead the direction is focused on the number of federal DoD students working toward CM certification. This is too narrow a focus. This is already being done by all branches of the armed forces. Go to Google and look up Acquisition Corps, there listed by name rank and branch are the soon to be DIWA certified acquisition military officers. Why was this not mentioned in the UOR committee presentation. Strategic direction needs to be broader, and multifaceted and should reach out to highschool, & college career counselors as well as university placement officers. 2. BMA is good in concept but needs to have a better conveyance of the intended end game. Broader span of professional skill sets by bring together other professional organizations is needed for the current and newer professionals. So why is it that we don't have a face to face BoD meeting, and put all the details on the table for consideration?

would prefer to see an update from all committees

Good mix. Appreciate the lively discussion as it helps ensure we arrive at best possible outcomes.

5) 3). Was Board member read-ahead material distributed in sufficient time before the meeting to allow the participants to prepare for the meeting?

6) Comments:

Comments:

yes, but request documents be put into a zip file and sent as email attachment. Downloading from the web is too difficult and time consuming.

Would REALLY appreciate a more user friendly approach to receiving the docs. There are too many and none of us can do a bulk download so it's extremely time-consuming and inefficient. Maybe create 1-2 zip files and upload that rather than 40 docs. We spend more time downloading than reading. Huge time waste.

Always an excellent job getting info out in advance.

The continuing discussions on the business alliance needs to have documentation provided early to BOD members in order to help understanding and discussions with peers on the BOD.

7) 4). For actions where votes were required of the Board, was sufficient, fact-based material presented to allow the Board member to make an informed decision?

8) Comments:

Comments:

Where it was not it was noted by boardmembers and table until next meeting.

Recommend a "sense of the Board" vote be taken on the lengthy "BMA" discussion.

The issue of merger versus alliance and the options and decisions ended up a little confusing - the discussion was excellent but not sure how it ended up or what next steps are.

Lack of upfront documentation on the business alliance makes it difficult to fully prepare for the BOD meeting.

9) 5). Did Board members arrive at the meeting prepared to address the topics listed in the agenda to enable constructive and meaningful discussions with facts and supporting information?

10) Comments:

11) 6). Was the meeting held in a location and atmosphere that was free of distractions and discomfort so that participants could concentrate on the meeting?

12) Comments:

Comments:

Room temperature--too cold

13) 7). Were meeting support items available for use and operable (computers, projector, screen, soft copy presentations, white board, good markers, erasers, easel, paper, etc.) and did at least one person know how to work them?

14) Comments:

Comments:

It would be useful to have internet access to preclude having to print out all that paper--just a suggestion

Microphone quality seemed to be an issue.

15) 8). Were the right people and resources available at the meeting to adequately address the items listed in the agenda?

16) Comments:

Comments:

Alliance parties should have been here to hear their ideas and concerns about the planned joint venture type arrangement.

It would have been helpful to have legal expertise on the differences between merger and alliance. Perhaps another chart with different options on types of alliances with pro's and con's would be helpful - from something as simple as a services agreement between executive staffs as a low risk starting point.

Glad to see that our legal counsel is attending meetings regularly.

17) 9). Were action items from the last meeting reviewed and the results of the actions reported?

18) Comments:

Comments:

The action items that were agreed upon were reviewed and reported. It was not clear though about the merger/alliance and all the ideas that were suggested - any actions - how do we continue to make progress versus what sometimes seems a revisiting.

I don't recall, but I do think they were covered in Neal's Operations Report read ahead.

19) 10) Was the meeting controlled such that:

19.1) 10a) It started and ended on time(10) Was the meeting controlled such that:)

19.2) 10b) Sufficient time was spent on each topic(10) Was the meeting controlled such that:)

19.3) 10c) Inputs from everyone were solicited(10) Was the meeting controlled such that:)

19.4) 10d) People learned, understood positions presented, cooperated, and the Board was able to obtain consensus (for the most part)(10) Was the meeting controlled such that:)

19.5) 10e) Everyone was respected and treated professionally(10) Was the meeting controlled such that:)

20) Comments:

Comments:

Gary did a great job.

We went over but for important discussion

Recommend the operations report be moved to the beginning, vice the last item on the meeting agenda, in order to better frame the discussion and provide understanding as to the state of the Association as the agenda moves toward specific topics.

Statements by some members seem to carry more weight (attention, respect) than others.

Obviously the discussion on BMA did not go as planned.

Should probably begin w/ OPs Report as it gets squeezed at the end and this is critical info that helps give the Board perspective.

Excellent meeting. for 10(d), there was a lot of opportunity for all to be heard, but it was not clear in the end if there was consensus - or how we would get to a consensus. I guess it will be part of the longer strategic planning meeting in Florida?

I believe too much time was spent on the "Alliance."

But we could have discussed the merger/BMA topic for much longer.

More time and discussion on the business alliance is necessary to forge consensus on the topic. Enough time, early in the day, is necessary for discussions to be fruitful in developing a way ahead.

21) 11). If the meeting was prolonged, did the topic of discussion merit extending the meeting beyond the scheduled time for adjournment?

22) Comments:

Comments:

Good discussion re Alliance; however I wasn't sure what the goal of the discussion was. Seemed vague. Would probably be more productive if there was a stated objective to the discussion.

The business alliance discussions requires a complete understanding of the BOD. The time needs to be spent to ensure that everyone gets the "elevator speech" and can support the overall plan.

23) 12). Was there a "comfort" break provided and refreshments supplied or allowed to be brought in?

24) Comments:

25) 13). Were accurate action items recorded and read at the end of the meeting for concurrence by the Board members?

26) Comments:

Comments:

Didn't happen.

Action items were not summarized at end. Unclear what next steps or action items are planned for alliance discussion

Appreciated your giving transitioning leaders recognition and a chance to speak - nice gesture after all their hard work.

I believe action items were taken, but not summarized at the end of the meeting. Given, the very nice acknowledgements of some of our departing colleagues, it was a minor oversight. it

Do agree, with the caveat that it wasn't clear what the next steps are for merger/alliance.