Looks very nice guys

Just a tip with the executive summary, its kind of been written as an intro to each KPI. The idea of the Exec Sum is to summarise all the important info (ie the KPIs) on the first page so that the "executive" doesn't have to read the whole document.

I'd prefer a few more sub headings breaking it down into KPI, Methods and Justification. Its a bit hard to work out just what the actual KPIs in the paragraphs are - but that just me.

1)Human Capital Growth

Good. I like your focus on retention/turnover, its more cost effective than recruiting (which is still important and good to see you covered it).

2) Diversity and Skills of Human Resources
Good important section and some great points raised. I especially liked you points on the skill allocation - point the right person in the rights job, it promotes efficiency.

3)Public Awareness of Organisations
Some good suggestions for marketing policy and great to see the evaluation side of things in there. Got a bit lost as to what the specific KPI was (Is it just Public Awareness?). But a good section none the less.

The cost optimisation section generally good, but a bit glossed over. I like the idea of comparing with similiar organisations to see if any efficiency gains could be learned, but again through the section I sturggled to identify what the KPI(s) were. The mention of 3rd party auditors is a good point for independence.

Feedback is good, glad to see you put it in, provides valuable data on staff satisfaction.

Good report guys, don't forget your references though

Hey!
Some really good ideas here, although it would have been nice to see some ways to calculate the said ratios, etc, to specifically measure the KPIs.
Good Luck,
Alicia

Hi Guys:

You report is very detailed and it contains a lot of information on the seven KPIs.

We think the 7th KPI is really interesting, and see it working well with staff and volunteers, but we are unsure considering the countries and conditions MSF International works in how do you propose to measure and survey patient feedback.

Overall the report is great.

Good work

Andrea & Katy :)

Hey Andrea and Katy


In regards to the 7th KPI; the measurements and surveys on patient feedback, can be conducted through the distribution of a survey to patients during their recovery time from treatment, and to family members in waiting rooms. The survey can focus on medical treatment, care and facilities allowing room for suggestions and comments. Also volunteers working with MSF (not medical staff) could conduct surveys and collect feedback when they are working in the villages, to collect information and data on the impact of MSF efforts on a community.


For patient feedback, it is vital that people know that there is a channel of communication available, and the existence of a feedback survey. Promotion of the survey could be incorporated into part of the introduction a doctor makes to a patient prior or during treatment.



In regards to measuring the feedback obtained, we could make surveys more quantitative and comparable by incorporating number rankings in the survey, e.g. on a scale of one to ten. In regards to the qualitative answers given by patients, these would need to be analysed to find commonalities in responses, and those with high frequencies can then be considered as issues which need further development to provide possible solutions.



Note: The analyses of surveys can be outsourced by MSF to market research companies who have the teams and skills in place to analyse large quantities of data efficiently; which may be more cost effective than internal analysis.



Due to the work of MSF in multiple countries with varying ethnicity and languages collection and analysis of survey may prove difficult with language barrier. To try and reduce this problem the surveys should be made available in the local language(s) so patients are able to understand the questions and answer them effectively. The number based and quantitative questions can be analysed easily, but the qualitative answers may require translation prior to analysis; or analysis could be conducted through a local market research company if available.

Thanks for you feedback guys :p
Rhonda

Thank-you "Judge" for reviewing our report and for the question posed.
It is often difficult in collating qualitative data and placing it in a format to be easily comparable. We can identify four main groups of human resources in administrative staff, promotional staff, training staff and medical staff (nurses and doctors). We would propose using primary information and data gathered via the use of surveys or that, which was gathered initially when volunteering to MSF, in compiling comparative data.

Upon grouping human capital resources according to skill, we would therefore compare and contrast certain key characteristics of staff e.g. languages spoken, areas of specialisation, years in work experience (medical and non-medical), number of calls taken per day, number of volunteers recruited per day etc...Measuring the diversity of skills in terms of medical treatment, creativity in marketing, versus say communication skills, and typing speed would also be a method of distinguishing between the values of human capital.

MSF could adopt an artificial scoring system, whereby each skill area would total to an aggregate number. The higher the number, the more skill diverse as measured on an individual basis. Scoring may also be compared via profession, e.g. generic skills of nurses to doctors, to trainers/teachers, to promotional staff and to administrative staff for further comparability. Using rates of turnover will also give an indication to the success of each group and the productivity of that certain mixture of skill sets. Again, comparing groups of administrative staff against that of medical staff may not be the best means of comparison, rather a comparison of skills and abilities internally within each group, may be more effective in communicating to MSF successful areas of human capital, and those needing improvement.

Further, the incorporation of personality profiling tests may also be a legitimate way of summarising the skills, motivations and diversity of attitudes amongst staff of MSF. Also, staff may undertake tests covering numerical ability, general knowledge, comprehension and literary understanding, practical skills (for doctors and nurses) and even open-ended scenario questions. The numerical and descriptive data gathered from these may give MSF quite a comprehensive look into the diversity of staff skills and areas of which some may be strong and others weaker. MSF may use the data in constructing teams to best mix and match the skills of various individuals in trying to maximise productivity and efficiency. However, the one drawback of these is ultimately its cost, and the time needed to undertake and analyse the results from these tests. If MSF were to go ahead with this suggestion, it should decide to do the testing at regular, but longer time intervals, e.g. every 4 years. For those years these tests are not done, they may undertake the less costly and simpler skills analyses as suggested above.

To the judges; seond response to human resource question:

The measuring of the diversity in human resources can be carried out during the application phase of the recruit, whereby their role in MSF is described as an occupation which best fits their job and position in MSF, e.g. admin staff, accountant, nurse, general practitioner, specific type of surgeon, etc.

Measuring skill level of human resources is more difficult as of the variety of certifications and accreditations available in multiple professions. But if we look at each occupation and compile a list of accreditations (compulsory and optional/additional) for an occupation, for example for an accountant in Australia; you must have a CPA or CA; and having compiled lists for each occupation recruits can say which accreditations they have and don’t have. This listing can also be used for courses offered by MSF Australia in its training of recruits. This can also be conducted during the application process as well as updates of changes throughout there time with MSF.

The most effective and reasonable method of carrying out the above two measurements is for the application process to be conducted electronically over the internet, whereby the choosing of an occupation from a list of options will then take the applicants to a new page which lists all the courses and accreditations available for that occupation. This electronic data can be easily processed to generate tables and graphs of the diversity of occupations in the human resources of the organisation, and then for each occupation numbers and graphs can be generated regarding the skill levels from the number of courses and accreditations completed by those in an occupation. Allowing for the measurement and ranking of occupations in regards to numbers and/or skill level. This data can be compared across the organisation, i.e. MSF Australia and MSF International and other subsidiaries; and comparability over different time periods.

If the method is electronic and over the internet, not only is the data quickly gathered and processed, but it means applicants can create an user account with MSF Australia, and any changes to occupation, additional training and accreditation can be updated by them in a timely and efficient manner; which means data in the MSF database will be accurate and up to date.

To ensure that accreditation and training has actually been carried out and completed by an applicant, MSF Australia can check its own training rosters, check with the professional bodies e.g. CPA and ICAA for accountants, and have the applicants provide evidence of accreditations, such as certificates (i.e. scanned copy part of the application process)

Rhonda