Are our programs having the Impact we want? Do program Finances justify a program’s viability? How can we identify strengths and weaknesses?
Executive Directors are striving to cope with shrinking budgets. If programs must be cut or curtailed, what approach helps with decision making? Management Consulting Services (MCS) has developed a process and tools for program analysis. Executive Directors, and their Boards, have found the MCS approach to be helpful.
Step 1. Develop Program Assessment Criteria
The process begins with definition of the criteria to be used in evaluating programs. Recently, an MCS client agreed to the following criteria for its programs:
- Mission fit – How well does the program fit with mission and vision?
- Impact – What are the benefits to various constituencies?
- Constituency outcomes – What are they and how are they measured?
- Qualitative evaluation
- Quantitative measurement, to extent available
- Revenue analysis – What are the current and projected revenues?
- Cost analysis – What are the expenses, inclusive of staff time and overhead?
- Competitive position – Who else delivers the program? How does our program compare? Are other programs substantially better?
Step 2. The Program Analysis Grid
With the program criteria determined, MCS created a Program Analysis Grid. A sample grid for an organization with 9 programs appears below in Decision Tool 1:
The Program Analysis Grid
An organization with this program profile might conclude that Programs F, G, and H are low on organizational impact and on financial contribution.
Step 3. The Program Matrix
Next, the organization, looking for strong programs with both high impact and adequate financial support, takes the analysis a step further. Programs are arranged in a program matrix based on their ranking along these lines. Impact is inclusive of the rankings for mission fit, quality, measurable impact, and competitive position. Financial contribution is a combination of revenue and expense, along with future expectations of revenue.
In the Program Matrix below, notice that the Quadrant 1 in the matrix is high on both impact and financial viability. Quadrant 2 is high on mission and mission, but has a lower financial ranking. With adequate funding, these programs could be very effective. Quadrant 3 is lower on impact, but financial support is available. Quadrant 4 is the weakest position, low on impact and low on finance. These are the programs the organization may divest. Alternatives would be to knowingly support a financially weak program because it is the “soul” of the agency’s mission or to significantly restructure costs.
The Program Matrix
