• Home
  • About
  • The Career
  • The Challenge
  • The Cause
  • The Prizes
  • The Teams
  • Register
  • Login
 
  • The Challenge
  • The Cause
  • Entry Basics
  • Entry Criteria
  • Judging Criteria
  • Prizes
  • Register
  • Meet the Teams

Prudent Management

Team members:
Junaedy Pranata (Macquarie University) ,
Onnes Hendrata (Macquarie University)

Prudent Management
In order to vote for this submission, please install Flash. Click here to install Flash

Synopsis

Executive Summary

PM Research framework is based upon the Norton-Kaplan Balance Score Card. There are four perspectives which Medecins Sans Frontieres Australia (MSFA) needs to classify its Key Performance Indicators, which are innovation-growth, internal business process, customer perspectives and financial performances.

First of all, Innovation-growth perspective should aim for human capital development and merging organizational culture. The measurement of human capital development takes into consideration the relevant activity figures relative to the number of trainings conducted in that particular period while the measurement of merging organizational culture considers reduction of internal conflicts and low employee turn-over as one of the results of implementing good Corporate Governance.

Next perspective about internal business process, MSFA should focus on performing excellent project and portfolio management. Excellent Project Management and Portfolio Management emphasize on three fundamental measurements: speed, cost and quality. A higher ratio of Earned revenue to total expense, low resource utilization, low relevant total expenses, reduce time from formulating project until the treatment available for the very first patient, and accurate Cost Schedule are one of the many measurements method to determine speed, cost and quality improvement for a project. In addition, portfolio management will use a larger scale of measurements which require the formulation of performance bench mark which should be updated when it is relevant and material to do so.

The third perspective discusses about one of the raison d’etre of the organisation which is customer delight and operational excellence. The measurements of customer delight and operational excellence will consider matters such as low number of customer complaints, increase in number of people given treatments, further reference from the donor about MSFA, and increase of MSFA brand value which most of them require comprehensive marketing surveys.

Finally, substantial fund yield is the core key performance indicator to support all the existence of the organisation. Two recommended measurements for this KPI is the increase of the total fund generated relative to number of projects executed and percentage of the total fund generated utilized for field projects out of the total generated fund.

As final remark the seven Key Performance Indicator and their measurements are not an exhaustive list. As part of the evaluation stage in a strategic management, a continuos update of the measurement methods and the list of the indicators should be do so when it is material and relevantly reflects MSFA performances.

Download Powerpoint Presentation
Download Word Document
If prompted, please "save" file before opening.
 
VIEWING 1 - 7 OF 7
The report was well written with clear and well focused key points. The suggestions were logicall developed.
By nan on April 29 2008, 09:01
Thank you Nan.
By Junaedy Pranata on April 29 2008, 21:50
Thankyou for your submission.
We were interested in your KPI MOC 3 with regard to monitoring internal conflicts. What would you define as an internal conflict, and how would you measure this in practise?
By Judge   on May 7 2008, 16:10
Dear Honourable Judges,

Internal Conflicts which might occur during the attempt for good corporate governance are likely due to the following nature:
1. Conflict of Interest
This might happen if there is undisclosed self-interest by management or Board of Directors (related with their fiduciary duties). For example: Maximising bonus or director remuneration instead of field expense project from the available fund, concealing failures of a project, selecting a project which boosts more of MSFA popularity instead of one that helps more people.
2. Incompetence in technical or ethical
For example: failure to manage staff or volunteers disputes which might lead to employee fraud, non compliance of employee or volunteers with organizational values or medical code of conducts, failure to acknowledge product or service standards.

One of the ways to measure them is by establishing a feedback database system (using e-mail, suggestion box, etc), which requires volunteers and internal management to contribute their critics and ideas toward a particular period performance. Every period (ie monthly or yearly ), the management should categorize the ideas and critics according to the nature above.
The list for the nature of the conflicts is not exhaustive and might increase or decrease depends on the entry given. The judgement for which internal conflicts are relevant to the measurement of KPI should vary for each period in accordance with the different circumstances occurred.

Yours faithfully,


Prudent Management
By Junaedy Pranata on May 8 2008, 19:50
Hey guys,

Well done on the report, clear in addressing the question put forth. I like how you have attributed the KPIs to certain perspectives, but I would have liked to have seen a more succinct summary of these so more of the focus was placed on the KPIs.

It was effective how you have described each KPI qualitatively with associated ratios; often I have found these to be quite wordy, would you consider choosing the most applicable ratio for MSF to apply consistently under each KPI heading? Which ratio have you catered towards the independence and autonomy of the organisation from external pressures?

Perhaps a short conclusion would have tied up your points in driving those perspectives home.

Accompanied by a relevant and effective PPT.

Well done guys and good luck.
By Andrew D'Azevedo on May 8 2008, 22:24
Dear Andrew D' Azevedo,

Thank you for your time to review our paper and PPT.

We agree with your suggestion to put a shorter wording for each ratio. It was just no enough time to find a concise wording that explains the ratio accurately without any bias.

Regarding the independence and the autonomy of the organisation, we show this as part of the MOC ratios(merging organisation culture) that implicitly tied up with the organisation values, code of conduct and ethics.

We implemented BSC for the KPI ratio since we believe this tool will provide a clear and concise guidance for MSF.

There are several levels that have to be achieved by MSF gradually starting from innovation and growth level up to financial performance and customer delights.

The bottom layer is sort of like the foundation for all other indicators.

Thus, the focus should be emphasized more into the bottom level first and then continues upward without neglecting the lower levels.

Thank you


Regards,


Prudent Management

By onnes hendrata on May 9 2008, 00:03
Hi there,

Well done on the report and slides...I think your method in determining the KPIs was good, using the BSC.

However, I think that while you have defined independence with voluntarism (and I agree they are linked)...I think your BSC may have missed the KPIs and measurement of independence and ethics of MSFA as an organisation. And how MSFA interaction with outside stakeholders (e.g. government, private donors etc) might affect the objectives of MSFA.

Overall, I thought it did address the other objectives/aims of MSFA very well.

Cheers
Joel
By Joel Seah on May 11 2008, 20:44
VIEWING 1 - 7 OF 7

  • Home
  • About
  • The Career
  • The Challenge
  • The Cause
  • The Prizes
  • The Teams
  • Register
  • Login
  • Contact Us
  • © 2008. All rights reserved.
  • Terms and conditions
  • Privacy Policy