hey u guys used SMART too, i did as well, not bad i reckon, i totally agree with the idea behind it S>M>A>R>T, KPIs should be designed to incorporate this.

Hi Something Professional...

I liked the explanations and justifications of your KPIs.

I have a comment regarding the HR KPI of "Benchmarked Employee Turnover Rate".

I believe it is hard to generalise that a high turnover rate would mean less job/work satifaction. Remember that MSFA recruits volunteers who probably come out of their normal jobs and are motivated to provide humanitarian aid at a low cost...but essentially would have to return back to their normal lives and families.

Hence I believe that just based on your measurement (and the volunteer work involved with MSFA) you would potentially get regular high turnover rates which may not necessarily relate to poor experiences or less job satisfaction.

Instead I suggest that you might want to look at the actual volunteer feedback for their experiences, rather than benchmarking volunteer experiences on a turnover rate...which might not be relevant in a volunteer organisation...

Just thought it was a point worth discussing... :D :D :D

Well done again on your report...it was enjoyable to read.

Regards
Joel

Hi Guys

We really enjoy reading your report. Great work!

Your report is very easy to follow and the seven KPIs are good.

In your report, we know the third KPI is designed to measure awarness. But, we do not understand how the 'Mention/Major ratio' works. Can you explain to us a bit more in detail, as what kind of stories can be defined as major stories?

Overall, it is really good

Andrea & Katy :)

Hi Andrea & Katy,
Great question,

An extremely useful indicator in gauging the awareness and interest that MSF is creating surrounds the amount of press and information coverage they foster. However, differences can arise in the quality of media coverage.

Media coverage can generally occur in two major ways: a mention or a major.

A mention is media coverage that is usually done by sources other than MSF. They are generally not as comprehensive as a major story.

A major story consists of an in depth exposé of the work done by the organisation with stories explicitly about volunteers, projects, in-depth interviews and/or analyses provided by expert field staff or leading MSF representatives. They often involve intensive media relations work but are more effective in highlighting MSF operations in a way that aligns with company goals.

In addition to highlighting current humanitarian issues, major stories also assist in creating heightened public and media perceptions of MSF. The 2006 Australian Annual report states that MSF’s perception as a generator of major stories was significantly reinforced in the Australian media landscape due to their large number of major stories.

Hope this answers your question.
Thanks.

Thank you Judge for the question,
In regards to the "Mention/Major" ratio, which has been outlined by my colleague above, this data would be captured by media databases like Factiva, or Newsbank. Simple and effective searches for 'mentions' or 'majors' (whole articles) could be easily measured and determined over the course of the year.
As for a good ratio, there is no best ratio, just a range that should be maintained or sought after.
The Ratio looks something like this:
Mentions/ Majors
Simply put, how many mentions per major article. As there would be far more mentions than major stories throughout the year, a ratio between 2-3 would be appropriate. Of course we must realise that MSF would prefer major articles because they have the ability to raise a deeper sense of awareness than mere mentions. Although, in saying that, MSF would also like to be publicised and remain in the public sphere of thought when it comes to the third world and large humanitarian disasters, like in Burma recently.
Therefore the behavioural impact of this KPI would lead to MSF focusing to increase major stories during times of high rates of mentions. Which in turn, increases the effectiveness of the major stories because their public awareness would already be heightened from all the various mentions.

Hi Joel,

Thanks for your comment regarding our KPI of "benchmarked employee turnover rate".

In summary, I believe your concerns are
> our KPI not necessarily relating to job satisfaction
> our KPI not relevant to a volunteer organisation.

I believe our KPI does have a strong focus in meeting the objectives of MSF.
Employee retention rates are becoming more and more an important organisational issue today, and they even more so strongly apply for volunteer organisations. It is important that MSF doesnt enter a skills shortage that could impede their efforts in the field, and also, what seems to be more important than recruiting talented staff is retaining talented staff and increasing the average level of experience among employees that would lead to higher quality. Many insights into career progression opportunities, employee branding, provision of new challenges, training and development and strong management can be given by the turnover rate. It can be followed that if employees were satisfied with the above, they are less likely to leave earlier than their expected stay.

In constructing this KPI we also intended to target the turnover of long-term staff rather than short-term staff (those who would return to their familes perhaps after at year at most in the field). The HRIS could be used to match the employees intended/expected stay compared to their actual stay, and use the most relevant in the turnover rate. Then this way we could obtain a turnover rate similar to other industries.

You also mentioned that turnover would be potentially high, but then other volunteering organisations would have turnover of a similar level and therefore we would benchmark our rate to the appropriate average of this sector.

Thanks again for the comment,

Jerel