Application Workshop – Session Five June 21, 2011

Sponsors

Workshop Agenda Opening Comments, Introductions Category 3 – Questions Application Preparation Format & Style Space Allocation Organizational Profile Categories 1-3 – Approach-Deployment Best Practices, Traps to Avoid Categories 1-3 – Results Best Practices, Traps to Avoid Questions, Next Steps

Session Objectives By the end of the session, participants are expected to understand how to: Present responses that address criteria requirements Emphasize the “key” elements in both the Approach-Deployment and Results items Use visuals – diagrams, tables and graphs – to strengthen application quality Help the examiners find the information they need to provide quality feedback

Format and Style

Organizational Profile – 2 page maximum Category Responses – 6 page maximum Space allocation within those limits up to you 11pt. Font, ½ inch margins all around Footer – organization name, date, page # No supplemental materials Examiners may not contact you or review your web site – please don’t refer them there Use prose, bullets, highlighting, diagrams, tables, graphs, etc.

Space Allocation The space allotted for your application/response to the criteria is barely sufficient The challenge is to share the most important and relevant information, not just share information Plan before you write – decide what responds to the criteria and then put it in writing Include only what responds to the criteria

Organizational Profile Bullet-point responses encouraged Tables are effective for matching segments and their requirements Stick to the criteria requirements only Make sure you leave sufficient space for the Competitive Environment and Organizational & Strategic Challenges section Prioritize – “key” factors/information only

Categories 1-3 – Approach-Deployment Label your Category/Items responses clearly (1.1, 1.1-1, etc.) Diagrams are often an excellent way to reflect a process or describe a system Use examples to further illustrate an already- described process approach/deployment, not as a substitute for explaining the process

Categories 1-3 – Approach-Deployment Item level responses covering multiple related Areas to Address are usually more effective and more reflective of a system rather than a checklist Grouping consecutive, related items (i.e. Items 1.2 & 1.3) can be an effective option – address multiple items in a multi-sentence/multi-paragraph response

Categories 1-3 – Approach-Deployment Best Practices Responses directly reference related criteria item Fully planned prior to writing – latter part of criteria not shortchanged Use criteria language Combination of text/prose and tables, diagrams Prose/text provided to explain what is important in tables/diagrams Approach and deployment are both addressed

Categories 1-3 – Approach-Deployment Traps to Avoid Marketing/promoting your organization Telling stories to mask gaps – acknowledge and talk about plans Describing approaches without demonstrating deployment Substituting examples for processes/systems Trying to include everything you can think of

Categories 1-3 – Results Items Don’t leave results items for last in the drafting process and squeeze them in – results are most heavily-weighted part of the review process Include actual data – don’t limit response to a statement that “results are strong” or “performance levels are high” Simple tables and graphs (Excel) are excellent for presenting data – show trends and/or comparisons Tell the examiner to what to see in the results Include results for critical organizational priorities Show results for all three categories

Categories 1-3 – Results Items Best Practices 2-3 key results (top 2-3), well-presented, per category – balance across categories emphasized as opposed to volume in one category Levels and trends (actual data!), comparisons where available Clear explanation (brief) of what the result is/what the reviewer needs to know Results directly linked to mission (customer and impact), strategic objectives, sustainability goals, community impact Indicate that other results are available “on-site” (when accurate) to manage results volume – don’t overdo!

Categories Results Items Traps to Avoid Attempting to include too many results – data you have versus what should be included Unbalanced results distribution, not addressing process-related results Providing summary statement about results in lieu of the actual data Using percentages rather than actual data to “prop up” results Characterizing the organization’s focus on “mission- driven impact” but not reporting performance data to demonstrate such impact

Application Questions

Open Forum - Questions

Application Workshop – Session Five June 21, 2011