Thank you Max, I believe that what the victims require MSF to provide as much medication, nutrition, human resources as well as clean water to be supplied to them.

Additional to identify the welfare of victims from you, given the operation performed by MSF Australia, remind me something which I didn't include inside the proposal, which is to actually conduct analysis by comparing performance to MSF worldwide - the other 18 branch around the globe, which will then look at the number of resources provided in different roles, and weight the amount of donation per project contributed by each branch according to the total population in that country. The purpose using the population in the previous measurement is to measure the potential contribution by each country and the actual contribution made, and has to take into account the economic status of the country, to seek if there's potential unidentified funds.

I believe to measure the above performance, it is to compare between 2 variables from different sources and/or same sources but from different time frame, and finally to set target on that target. It will be relatively cost effective.

Thank you again Max for your comment

Hi WeiHua, it's a very good tips for furure improvement, I believe the proposal requires a clearer solution, step by step procedure instead of from a very theoretical point of view

Thank you

Hi New@y,

I just finished reviewing your report.

It was a bit difficult to read as there are a lot of grammatical errors and sentence structure is poor for a tertiary level, in all honesty it’s the worst one I’ve read.

EG: “After recruited by MSF Australia, the staffs must go through a training which can make them know more about MSF Australia.”

Concessions can be made if English is not your first language, but otherwise some serious proof reading needs to be done.

I’ll review your KPIs one at a time:

1. Awareness – Amount of donation
Using donations as a measure of awareness is a logical and tangible indicator of awareness, but has the potential to be quite misleading.

How will statistical analysis account for large donations from single donors? Will this skew the results for geographical area by spreading the mean out over a larger population, indicating that they each donated a small amount when in reality they donated nothing?

By the same logic, high donations do not necessarily correlate with high awareness. Apart from being skewed by single, passionate individuals donating larger sums, how does this measure account for public knowledge of MSF’s activities in the large proportion of people who do not donate. I’m sure you and the rest of this competitions participants have a high awareness about Greenpeace and its actions on Japanese whaling, but you do not necessarily donate to the organization.

2. Awareness – Number of books and reports distributed, target 100% print distribution

I’m not even sure where to start with this one. Perhaps reading the first paragraph of MSF Australia’s 2007 annual report and you will see that they no longer distribute printed material due to environmental and financial costs…

Not to mention the fact the majority of mail outs end up in the bin, sorry.

What you need is a survey or some other tool to measure to gauge the awareness of the public through their actions or responses.

3. Training of staff

This KPI has merit. The human capital of MSF is its core resource and investment in training is required. Staff need to be trained, granted, but remember MSF’s core business is not training people, but recruiting trained professionals and providing the training required to adapt their existing skill set to field work. Setting a KPI strictly on the amount of training MSF can provide appears to be focusing on the wrong area of human resources.

4. Quality of volunteer

The quality of volunteer of volunteers recruited is a significant and valid KPI for this organization. The assumption that this has already occurred during the recruitment phase is a big one, and this is where I would have measured quality.

However “assuming” that they are of a high enough standard, it is fair to use measure the performance of volunteer’s and consider it a KPI for the organization

The 0-100% “average point system” needs more detailed explanation how performance is required


5. Independent and Ethnics from three different major forces

I’m sorry, I’ve read this section three times and have no idea what you are trying to say. I think you tried to link public/private donations to morality and people’s personal beliefs. I can’t understand your KPI, methodology or English, no offence.


6. Cost – How are each of the dollar value being allocated

This measure I thought began as a cost-effectiveness measure, something about Cost to generate donations from different sources. It ended with changes in financial reporting to make it more transparent. I’m a smart guy but I think the KPI and I got lost with a german businessman somewhere in between.

7. Identify the donors’ geographic location

Not really sure what the KPI is here. It’s a bti of déjà vu, I thought we identified geographic location through donation in point 1.
Anyway it appears now that you plan to conduct a survey via telephone and newspaper. I’m not sure if you have any idea in regard to how costly or inefficient survey like this will be but you can probably rest assured that it would be more than the donations that would result from it – ie the survey companies get excited when they hit a 5% response rate.

Dear Sam Gray,

Points noted and thank you with much appreciations

ZheKhai

Hi ZheKhai,

There are some creative ideas in your report but some explanations lack clarity and depth.

I liked the attempt to measure the quality of volunteers with a rating system. But you are not giving understandable information on how MSFA should go about assigning points in practice.

Can you elaborate on the 'Number of books and reports distributed'? I think that report downloads from the MSFA website should be substituted for this one. How does it all relate to geographical locations of readers? It is not clear from your report what performance area or sub-area 'Training of staff' purports to represent. According to MSFA's requirements it must be either the quality of volunteers signed on or their experience with the organisation.

I read your paragraph 'Independent and Ethnics from three different major forces' and could not honestly make out how you propose to measure that indicator. Is it an opinion survey of public perception? If so, it is quite a fresh idea. However, results would depend on the awareness level.

Hi ZheKhai :)

The report is good, we really like you third and fourth KPI(Training of Staff and quality of volunteer).

Well done

Andrea & Katy