1. Improving Performance: Conveying the Impact to Your Constituents  Jason Saul, CEO, Mission Measurement www.missionmeasurement.com  Barbara Allen, Director, CIC www.cic.net

2. Our Mission To advance academic excellence through collaboration across our member universities. University of Chicago University of Illinois Indiana University University of Iowa University of Michigan Michigan State University University of Minnesota Northwestern University Ohio State University Pennsylvania State University Purdue University University of Wisconsin- Madison

3. Our inspiration  Good to Great and the Social Sectors by Jim Collins The first of the five challenges he outlines for the non- profit sector is: “Defining great. How do we calibrate success without business metrics?”  Staff attended a program at the Kellogg Center for Nonprofit Management on “measuring performance” featuring one Jason Saul as faculty.

4. The Challenge  How do we know that we’re delivering real value?  How do we communicate that value to members? (ROI)  What meaningful measures can be used to evaluate program effectiveness?  How do we motivate staff so they aren’t just “busy” – but “effective?  And how do we do this within a “legislative” environment?

5. The Benefits  Increased stakeholder engagement and satisfaction  Increased impact and program performance  Increased satisfaction of staff (pride of performance, investment in program improvement)  Provides a language to describe success across staff and partner universities

6. Process  Using process outlined in Jason Saul’s book: Benchmarking for Nonprofits  Interview stakeholders  Interview staff  Experiment with “equations”  Develop measures  Interview stakeholders  Interview staff  Focus and implement

7. The Five Questions We Asked  Phone interviews, 3-5 from each stakeholder group (plus staff) What impact would you like CIC to have? How will you know if CIC has been successful? How would you prioritize areas of impact? What data would you find valuable to describe impact? What one statement would you like to be able to make about the CIC?

9. Messages We Heard Top Priorities 1.Cost savings, cost avoidance, saving time 2.Developing people and increasing academic opportunities for faculty, staff and students 3.National impact and recognition of national leadership and collaboration models;

10. Messages We Heard Data that would be relevant  Cost and time savings (leveraged purchasing, but also time/cost saved in service provisions, in exploration of new services and service models)  Relevant data on program participants and meetings  Longitudinal data on program impact  “Opportunity premium” and other qualitative measures of membership

11. Messages We Heard Aspirations  We are “better. together.” Better individuals, better universities and we contribute significantly to a better American HE system because of our innovative work together.  We are a consortium of like-minded peer research universities with a very strong academic brand that sets and challenges higher education standards.  The member institutions of the CIC consistently over- perform relative to their budgets due to effective collaboration.

12. CIC: To advance academic excellence through collaboration across our member universities Member Capacity National Recognition CIC Effectiveness Return on Collaboration OutcomesDefinitionOutcomesDefinitionOutcomesDefinitionOutcomesDefinition Greater cost savings and efficiency CIC coordinated more contracts with more cost savings and less effort Increased academic opportunities for students There were more (and more unique) courses available to students Increased visibility of CIC and members More mention of CIC in national and international press (not just focusing on CIC, but including mention of CIC) Increased staff performance Each staff member innovating in the performance of their duties. Reduced risk of innovation More ideas and best practices were adopted by campuses with minimal effort and increased confidence Increased professional opportunities for faculty/staff More faculty and/or staff were engaged in meaningful academic or administrative collaboration with their CIC peers Increased competitive advantage Members report that they feel they have “more” through their association with CIC peers Increased member satisfaction Each campus offering more resources for collaboration. Reduced ‘hassle factor’ Reduced “time to contract” or “time to product” for collaborations Increased demand for CIC More grants were submitted with CIC component Be the ‘model’ Toolkit that helps CIC share what we know about how to support collaborations Increased operational effectiveness Evidence of increasingly more consequential, influential collaborations Outcomes and Metrics

13. A + B + C = D Impact What are you ultimately trying to accomplish? Priority Outcomes What changes in status, condition or behavior are required to attain “D”? Performance Measures How do we measure progress against our outcomes? Increase courses available to CIC students More promotion of courses, promotion of CS, TSP as options for students Reduce Hassle Factor Better web interface Key Strategies Which programs or activities will drive results? Increased # of Students Enrolled Increased Faculty Interest & Buy-in Enhanced student access to courses -Number CS courses offered -Number of courses taken via TSP -Number of LCTLs offered across CIC More receptions, info sessions to promote program Broader distribution of brochures Calls/Mtgs-Bring together more communities of interest More faculty concalls, receptions Dean efforts to promote TSP, CS, LCTLs -Number of students in current CS courses, in new CS courses -Enrollments from all CS campuses - More students using TSP -Faculty attendance at receptions, orientations -Number of disciplines represented in CS, TSP participation data

15. Results at CIC  We are 8 weeks into the fiscal year, and our universities have already identified (and agreed to fund) two new initiatives; a team of Deans is meeting with the Mellon Foundation to score funding for another initiative. Effectively, we’ll see a 20% increase in their investment during a time of downturn for all of them.  Our staff are engaged, coming up with new ways to improve programs and working more effectively together.  This effort is the springboard to our next strategic framework

16. Lessons Learned 1.To be effective, it has to come from the top 2.Measurement is a culture, not a project 3.Work within existing business processes; don't try to reinvent the wheel 4.Start simple; don't overtax the organization 5.Make measurement positive, not punitive

17. Resources  Benchmarking for Nonprofits: How to Measure, Manage, and Improve Performance by Jason Saul

18. Resources  Kellogg Center for Nonprofit Management (at Northwestern University)  http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/research/nonprofit/

19. Contact us: Jason Saul 312-899-1800 www.missionmeasurement.com Barbara Allen 217-244-9240 www.cic.net