hey, im from unisa too, dont think ive seen you guys around. im a 2nd year student.your report is very detailed and insightful. u know, all my group members bailed out on me, we should form a combined group if u guys are interested for the next challenge. :)

just in case others where wondering that i voted 5 stars for ppl from the same tertiary institution, this is not so, first report i read first up. its a 5 starer to me, id explain moreso later, cos its pretty late now

Hi Tung,

Thank you very much for your rating. As for the next challenge, we are planning to participate but not certain yet. This one has been quite tough but we enjoyed it!

Kind regards,
VR Partners

Hi Guys:

We think you did a good job! The report is clear and we really enjoy to read it.

We like the KPIs for HR the most, and the formula is great~

Well done

Andrea & Katy :)

Thank you for your question.

Average reach (AR) is best measured on an annual or semi-annual basis. A more frequent measurement is possible since MSFA tracks media mentions and major stories each month. However, the results will be skewed by event spikes and differences in media planning schedules.

As MSF strives to bring public attention to underreported stories, their communications performance should not be tied to the breaking news swings. Averaging across several months allows removing some of these random components. In addition, it permits to accumulate audience data relating to news outlets on the Internet.

For each mention and story MSFA will have to note an estimated audience exposure. Where audience numbers or ratings are not publicly available, the association needs to request this information from their media partners. Given that AR is an average indicator any external confidential data will be protected.

It is advisable to monitor and report the results separately for mentions and major stories. Once the AR is computed for the first period it can become a baseline for future benchmarking and planning.

Kind regards,
VR Partners

Hi guys,

Enjoyed reading the report, very clearly laid out and formatted with a succinct executive summary.

If anything, perhaps your explanations adnd applications of your ratios could have been a little more detailed; introducing some targets or industry benchmarks for the ratios would also improve comparability from year to year.

Liked your incorporation of "temoniage" in your discussion and ratios, one of MSF's key slogans and purposes!

Perhaps a conlcusion would have tied up all KPIs and the goals of the organisation better?

Nevertheless a very clear and effective report.

Best of luck.

Hi Olga and Yura,
Your report is simple yet conveys some good ideas. We think that you did a great job in finding a KPI related to MSFA project unit as such KPI is missing in other reports.
In relation to your staff turnover KPI, we think that it is not the major measure of employee’s satisfaction. The staff turnover does not convey as much information as the staff survey that you mentioned. For example, there can be staff who really enjoy their work with MSF but due to one negative factor (such as insecurity due to war), they end up sending their resignations.
On the other hand, using the staff satisfaction survey, the survey will help you to obtain information about the factors leading to dissatisfaction and thus take possible actions to resolve such problems. From the example above, MSF can swap the volunteers who are in the safer regions and willing to work in dangerous region with those staff who are nearly to submit their resignations due to insecurity.
Overall awesome report

The Godfathers :)

Hi Olga and Yura,

Since you have taken your precious time to carefully read over our report, it would be rude not to look over yours. My group mate seems to have already commented on some aspects of the report. I just have some aspects to add.

I agree with my group mate in that overall you have done a fairly good job. Elaborating on each KPI would not have hurt as your report seems really short.

I would not agree with the Medical Support KPI as it seems that you have concentrated on the Project Unit which is extremely of a small scale at the present time. I can provide the actual data to the indicators you have provided to show the minimal impact on the organisation as a whole. Number of total field visits in 2006 is five. Number of formal training will definitely be small as there are only 3 people in the department. Why would you consider making a KPI for the PU at this point? I believe the measure can be calculated in a split second judging from the small scale of operations, but would this be of any benefit to the organisation as a whole? Maybe if MSF Australia is to ask you to prepare a report again in a couple of years when the department has grown you will be able to assess the KPI as one of the major measures, but at this point your argument seems weak. I do not understand how the operational reviews, medical conference presentations and therapeutic protocols would give you the desired indicator of output per specialist. Please elaborate on these points. It seems as if you have not thought this KPI through since it does not appear to be practical in both the methods applied and the impact on the organisation as a whole.

It appears that you are on the right track with the volunteer competency KPI. However, I believe that MSF Australia already has a rigorous selection process of the volunteers and would not require too much additional measurements. If you see on the website, you might notice for example that surgeons are required to have a “minimum of 2 years post registration experience in surgery”. I believe that you should have conducted through research since the measure appears to have already been integrated within the HR division.

I agree with the volunteer satisfaction KPI up to the extent that it applies to the non-medical full time staff. The measure is definitely applicable to the administration staff, but it will be wrong to use it for the medical staff sent overseas. My group mate seems to have already noted on this aspect, but seems to have missed some considerable errors. How can you use “number of volunteer resignations” as the numerator of the formula in the context of an organisation such as MSF Australia? It is clearly present from the website and the report that the medical volunteers serve the organisation for a short period of time in an overseas field project and are then dispatched. Hopefully, you have considered this effect on your formula which will have an extremely high numerator for the medical staff as a result of the short term nature of the job. The measure is clearly not applicable to the medical staff as it will not provide the organisation with any method of job satisfaction in terms of medical staff. I have early mentioned that the formula applies for the non-medical staff, yet at the same time I believe that it will not be a significant influence to the organisation as MSF Australia seems to have no problems in hiring the non-medical staff. The issue lies in medical staff recruitment, as you might have noticed from the fact that the medical staff recruitment has fallen (I believe it was something like 120 medical staff recruited this year).

I have no clue of what you mean by the sum of audience numbers in your average reach formula. I understand that you might have felt that the formula makes sense in theory, but I see that it seriously lacks practicality. Please tell me how MSF Australia can possible calculate all of the people or even give a valid estimate as to how many people are aware of the total media mentions? Given the infinite amount of source out there such as newspapers, posters, etc., how can MSF Australia possibly find an accurate amount of people who viewed the coverage of MSF Australia’s role in the world? Your statement on newspaper circulation seems to be weak in practical sense since not all people who buy a certain newspaper will read the article on MSF Australia. I strongly suggest you think through the specific measures where MSF Australia will be able to quantify awareness. The number of internet hits seems to be a start, but it still feels like you have not thought the idea through well enough. I just want to point out that practicality was a major part of the report, and it seems that you have not integrated this aspect into your report.

I agree with my partner in a sense that the other measures you have used are valid points. Good effort guys.

Hi there...

I think your report is concise and straight to the point. Making it easy to read and digest...

My only comment would be that your report might have missed out a KPI that specifically deals with ethics.

But apart from that...job well done!

Cheers
Joel