evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups

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




2

We no longer work in isolation




3

Sometimes we work one to one…




4

And sometimes one to many…




5

But mostly it is many to many




6

Be that within your organisation…




7

Or between organisations in one city…




8

Across the region or around the world




9

Innovation and performance improvement requires…

Communication

Co-operationCollaboration




10

But how do you improve these drivers?




11

You can no longer rely on ad-hoc feedback




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




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




14

During mergers and acquisitions




15

During organisational restructure




16

When commencing major alliances or projects




17

When engaging in new relationships




18

Refreshing long term relationships




19

When introducing new suppliers




21

up to 8 stakeholder groups in one survey




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




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.




24

And the entire process turned around in 2 weeks




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




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




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.




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.


• 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.




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.


• 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.


• 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.




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.


• 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.


• 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.




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.


• Timelines are too short to allow for delayedresponses. This does not harbour an environment

to achieve the best result.


• 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.




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.


• 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.




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.




34

For more information…

Evalu8ing Pty Ltd

Sydney

+612 8399 0922

Melbourne

+613 9682 6800

Hong Kong

+852 3589 3095

Singapore

+65 6884 9149

[email protected]

www.evalu8ing.com

evalu8ing collaboration and alignment between multiple stakeholder groups

Documents