View
12
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Hagler 1
Monique Hagler Rhodes College
May, 2015 Dr. Hossler
Design Thinking as a Means to Quantify Nonprofit Performance
Introduction
When dealing with the for-‐profit sector, simply collecting and analyzing a business’s
income, profit, and share of wallet will easily accomplish the task of measuring
performance and success. Although the nonprofit sector is different from its for-‐profit
counterpart in many ways, it is still imperative that a nonprofit organization be able to
quantify performance and success. The body of scholarly literature focused on measuring
nonprofit success proposes three specific areas where outcomes may be quantified:
financial, operational, and social (Sawhill & Williamson, 2001;Dillon, 2012; Bagnoli &
Megali, 2011).
Arguably, the most fundamental arena is the multidimensional influence of the
nonprofit’s interactions with the community – the social aspect. The term “community” is
defined as “a social unit that shares common values” encompassing both geographical and
psychological togetherness. When this is taken into consideration, the social arena is
realized as the network of service users, donors, management, board of directors, and the
general public, all under one roof. When this happens, the community (social) aspect
becomes the key determinant of success in the two remaining areas – organizational
structure and finances – by virtue of their inherent dependency on the “social”.
Hagler 2
Given the intimately social nature of the nonprofit’s work and operations, one
realizes how important it is to take a human-‐centric approach when it comes to quantifying
the success of a nonprofit’s performance. Unfortunately, quantifying social success is
arguably the most difficult to achieve because of its seemingly intangible outcomes (Dillon,
2012) but is by no means an impossible task.
Purpose Statement
In this paper, I propose that by defining Intended Impact and Theory of Change
supplemented by the process of Design Thinking, the nonprofit may accurately convert
social outcomes into quantitative measurements of performance. This framework for
performance measurements will be appropriately grounded in assessing the ability of the
nonprofit to address and consequentially satisfy the multifaceted needs of individuals in
the community. By taking this approach, both the individual nonprofit and the society at
large experience enhanced wellbeing, long-‐term success, and innovative growth. Personal
interviews with experts in the field of Design Thinking will be referenced to provide
support for this argument.
Addressing Community Need
The nonprofit sector is distinguishable from its for-‐profit counterpart due to, in part,
its responsibility of answering to the community rather than to that of the stakeholder
subgroup (Bagnoli & Megali, 2011). Furthermore, the degree to which a nonprofit is able to
successfully address community need is crucial in determining the long-‐term success and
stability of that organization (Anheier, 2005). In order to determine the performance of a
Hagler 3
nonprofit, one must examine and then quantify data regarding the nonprofit’s impact,
activity, and capacity (Sawhill & Williamson, 2001). Here, the organization must ask: Are
we making progress towards fulfilling our mission and meeting our goals? Are our
activities achieving the program’s objectives and implementing our strategies? Do we have
the resources – the capacity – to achieve our goals? (Sawhill & Williamson, 2001). By asking
these questions, the individual is then able to assess performance according to the
nonprofit’s ability to address community need.
It is important to realize that these factors of performance encompass more than
just the user experience given the incredibly human-‐centric dependency and reality of the
nonprofit’s existence. Josh Roberts of Southern Growth Studio explains that “understanding
the nonprofit’s human components involved – their staff, donors, and users – is very
important, even more so with nonprofits than with other businesses” (2015). Thus, the
performance measures of a nonprofit must appropriately reflect and consider the
multidimensional influence and interactions that the organization has with its associated
human components – the community.
By dissecting the implications of each area of performance measurement, the
individual realizes that the multifaceted, interconnected contributions from the user group,
volunteers and employees, board of directors, donors, and even the general public
determine nonprofit success. The operations of a nonprofit should not be approached with
the “us versus them” mentality for this very reason. When examining Impact, one must ask:
Does the general public – the wider community – benefit from the work that we [staff] are
doing? Are we [staff] successfully contributing to the overall wellbeing of society by virtue
of our effect on users of programs and services? In the area of Activity: Does our
Hagler 4
understanding of the user’s situation correctly align with the user experience? Is there a
better way to provide these services by situating them in the context of the user’s daily life
and reality? And with Capacity: Do our volunteers/employees and board members feel
equip and able to effectively contribute? Does our nonprofit create and maintain an
environment where the individual’s potential and skills are maximized? Are we completely
realizing and satisfying the needs of our donors? (Sawhill & Williamson, 2001). These
questions are of particular importance to both short-‐term operations and long-‐term
sustainability of the organization.
No matter how successful a nonprofit may be in the areas of Impact and Activity,
they will ultimately fail if the community needs associated with Capacity are not adequately
addressed. Understanding the motivation for giving must therefore become a priority for
the nonprofit. Holly Lissner of Southern Growth Studio explains that “stopping to listen to
your donor base -‐ and going outside of your donor base -‐ to get an understanding of the
different personalities and needs of the general population is important for the
development of effective strategies for meeting community need” (2015). Thus, in order to
measure a nonprofit’s Capacity, it is crucial to determine donor touch points – the ways
that financial contributors encounter and interact with the organization. One must ask:
What compels someone to engage with our nonprofit? Why does our
particular mission statement matter to each donor? What could we do to
increase the individual’s share of wallet that we have? What sort of
interactions do our donors desire from us? (Roberts, 2015)
By asking these questions, the nonprofit may then better understand the donor’s
experience by defining it through an empathetic approach. When the community needs of
Hagler 5
financial contributors are adequately addressed and satisfied, areas of Impact and Activity
are consequentially maximized. Furthermore, addressing community need is a process of
measuring social effectiveness in the delivery of goods or services (Bagnoli & Megali,
2011). Performance measures should therefore answer: To what degree has our activity
contributed to the wellbeing of recipients and community-‐wide goals?
Nonprofits frequently fail and die out due to a disconnection between mission,
services, and the needs of all people living in the community. Brown & Wyatt explain:
Time and again, initiatives falter because they are not based on the client’s or
consumer’s needs and have never been prototyped to solicit feedback. Even
when people do go into the field, they may enter with preconceived notions
of what the needs and solutions are. (2010)
Andrew Carnegie (1988) reiterates this claim and says that the individual’s ability to wisely
give or contribute to another is inherently limited by a lack of understanding of the
recipient’s circumstances. This phenomenon is precisely the reason for the disconnection
between the nonprofit’s services, operations, and the real needs of all people in the
community that they fail to serve. Thus, failure to address community needs can be
attributed to a top-‐down process of imposing strategies and services on the target
community group without first understanding how it will play out in their life and what it is
exactly that they need (Roberts, 2015). As demonstrated here, assessing all aspects of
community need provides the foundation for both quality of services and the ultimate
survival of the nonprofit long-‐term. Consequently, the nonprofit’s progress towards
fulfillment of community need as a measurement of performance must begin with the
mission statement.
Hagler 6
Crafting (or Redrafting) the Mission Statement
Measuring performance of a nonprofit must be considered in light of their ability to
make progress towards or achieve goals pertaining to the mission statement. Dillon (2012)
argues, “Missions tend to focus on public good, emotion, and awareness making it difficult
to quantify success”. Although the nonprofit’s performance does focus on the production of
social goods, it is both possible and plausible to quantify success if the organization first
articulates specific, mission-‐oriented program goals.
In order to do so, the nonprofit must adapt a mission statement that is broad and
supplemented by statements of intended programmatic impact and methods for achieving
mission-‐oriented goals. The primary reasoning for a broad mission statement is that it
allows for programs to evolve over time in coordination with a changing community
landscape (McGregor, 2007). Colby et al. (2004) explains, “Broad mission statements may
allow for room to innovate and to expand programing in response to the evolving needs of
users”. In this way, broad mission statements may ultimately maximize community impact
by allowing for a variety of solutions while also taking constraints and context into account
(IDEO, 2015). Here, constraints may include financial capacity or the sociocultural
environment, while context may account for whether or not there are other nonprofits
within the community already providing the same service.
Colby et al. (2004) argues that instead of creating or refining a mission statement
with narrow focus, the nonprofit should develop clarity about intended community impact
and the associated means for achieving mission-‐oriented goals. By framing program
objectives in this way, the mission statement manifests unity through shared values and
perceptions of what success will look like (Lissner, 2015). More importantly, developing
Hagler 7
clarity about mission-‐oriented action will, in turn, strategize programmatic operations and
management decisions. By creating mission-‐oriented goals, outcomes regarding the
nonprofit’s ability to address community need can then be measured.
Intended Impact and Theory of Change
Before a measurement system can be realized through the Design Thinking process,
the nonprofit must first define and articulate the connections between the organization’s
mission, vision, goals, and programmatic strategies (Sawhill & Williamson, 2001).
Statements of Intended Impact and Theory of Change should be used to bridge this gap
between the mission statement, internal operations, and programmatic activities (Colby et
al., 2004). This process requires that organization leaders clarify who are the intended
users and what “success” will specifically look like. Setting measurable, mission-‐oriented
statements enables the organization to then assess progress against these goals (Sawhill &
Williamson, 2001).
Colby et al. (2004) explains that Intended Impact “is a statement or series of
statements about what the organization is trying to achieve and will hold itself accountable
for within some manageable period of time”. In order to generate a statement of Intended
Impact, one must ask: Who are our beneficiaries? What benefits do our programs create?
How do we define success? What would make us obsolete? Only by asking these questions
can the organization identify the benefits their services intend to provide and the
associated target user and community. Intended Impact statements, therefore, articulate
strategic priorities encompassed by the underlying mission statement.
Hagler 8
The sequential process of determining a nonprofit’s Theory of Change can then be
utilized to inform the cause-‐and-‐effect relationship between program objectives and the
Intended Impact. Anheier (2005) notes, “Many managers and organizational subunits find
it difficult to separate their own interests from that of the organization and therefore
pursue self-‐interested strategies”. This is a common situation for many nonprofits and is
not necessarily due to malicious intentions of organizational leadership. Instead, lack of
clarity regarding what mission-‐oriented success will look like incentivizes leaders to
pursue their own individual strategies towards fulfillment of their personal perceptions of
organizational goals.
For this reason, it is important that an organization determine Theory of Change in
order to explain how the Intended Impact will be pursued and achieved. Theory of Change
explains how resources (organizational and financial) will be converted into the mission-‐
oriented social results – creating a strategy for operations and resource-‐allocation
decisions (Colby et al., 2004). This process requires the organization to ask:
What is the cause-‐and-‐effect logic that gets us from our resources
(people and dollars) to intended impact? What are the most important
elements of our programs’ content and structure? Are there other
ways in which we could achieve the desired outcomes? What is the
minimum length of time our users need to be engaged to achieve
these outcomes? (Colby et al., 2004)
By asking these questions, the mission statement can then be used to create a framework
for organizational strategies according to the determined target user group, programmatic
methodology, and the intended community impact. The process of determining both
Hagler 9
Intended Impact and Theory of Change is iterative in nature – informed by organizational
values, beliefs, and operational capacity as well as by hard data concerning community
need and interaction. For this reason, it is important that a nonprofit facilitate this process
with Design Thinking.
The Process of Design Thinking
Design Thinking requires that nonprofits take a human-‐centric and iterative
approach to determine efficacy of programs/services, which is measured by the ability to
address specific areas of community need. Holly Lissner of Southern Growth Studio states,
“Design Thinking can help nonprofits by enabling them to meet the needs of the community
in which it serves, whether that includes people running the organization, the donors, or
the recipients” (2015). Design Thinking works by integrating human emotion and intuition
with rationale and analytics (Brown & Wyatt, 2010). Because Design Thinking is grounded
in the user experience, the process can be used to facilitate unbiased measurements of
nonprofit performance.
Oftentimes, when an organization invests a lot of money and time into the creation
of new services, “they become married to those ideas making it difficult to conceal their
bias when looking for user feedback” (Lissner, 2015). The process and methodology behind
Design Thinking works by significantly eliminating the imposition of top-‐down perceptions
when determining the success of programs/services in addressing community need. In this
way, the user feedback (data) that is generated through the Design Thinking process
provides an unbiased demonstration and measurement of the nonprofit’s performance.
Hagler 10
Design Thinking begins with the Empathy phase defined as the work to “understand
the way they [the community] do things and why, their physical and emotional needs, how
they think about the world, and what is meaningful to them” (Plattner, 2015). Thus, in
order to measure a nonprofit’s performance in this way, they must first define community
need by going directly to the source – the individuals in the community. During the
Empathy phase, people involved in the Design Thinking process (“designers”) observe,
interview, and listen to target community individuals that were defined through the
process of Intended Impact.
It is important that designers ask strategic open-‐ended questions and take
demographic information during the interviews with community individuals (IDEO, 2015).
Interviews with experts in the community area of focus and secondary outside research are
also essential in gaining “key insights into relevant history, context, and innovations”
(Brown & Wyatt, 2010). By framing interview questions with a focus on “who, what, where,
when, why”, designers utilize ethnographic methodology to begin to uncover the needs of
individuals as gathered from the primary source itself. After interviews have been
stockpiled, designers finish the Empathy phase by “sharing out” each story with other
designers to provide collective insight captured in a visual form (Plattner, 2015).
Following the Empathy phase, the body of qualitative data is synthesized and
organized as a means to generate informative insight, uncover the needs of a target
community, and ultimately assess the various ways that a nonprofit can potentially meet
those needs – encompassing both the Define and Ideation phases of Design Thinking
(Plattner, 2015; Brown & Wyatt, 2010; IDEO, 2015). Most importantly, the Define phase
enables the nonprofit to capture the “baseline” needs of target community individuals,
Hagler 11
which can then be used to answer the question: How effective was our program in
addressing the individual’s baseline needs required to incrementally move towards
achieving our mission-‐oriented goals? How might we do better? During these two phases of
Design Thinking, it is likely that designers will realize ways in which current programs may
be improved, in addition to innovative program objectives that may be introduced.
The Define and Ideation segment determines specific areas of community need and
generates context-‐appropriate ways that the nonprofit could potentially address
community needs – a process used to inform and reiterate the nonprofit’s Theory of
Change. The final phases of Prototyping and Testing are primarily used as a tool to generate
innovative programmatic strategies to better address community need, but can also
facilitate quantitative measurement of current program activities as well. Here, both new
ideas for services and current programs are prototyped and tested within the target
community subgroup. Iteration in response to user feedback is crucial for the development
of human-‐centric design (Brown & Wyatt, 2010). Because of this, the Design Thinking
process may be used as a method to quantify nonprofit performance by measuring the
ability of current programs in meeting target community need.
This can be achieved by comparing baseline community need to reported user
feedback after the program or service has been realized. Because empathy and user
feedback are utilized throughout all aspects of the Design Thinking process, both the
current performance and the potential for more effective solutions can be measured using
this method. Although the Testing phase is primarily used as a way to validate newly
generated ideas, it can also function as a method for quantifying existent nonprofit
performance. By using “baseline” data collected during the Empathy phase quantifying
Hagler 12
specific facets of community need, Theory of Change – the methods to achieve mission-‐
oriented goals – is better informed and programs/services may be shaped to best address
individual community needs as defined during the Testing phase.
Design Thinking as a Means to Quantify Community Need and Performance
By going through the Design Thinking process, specific aspects of community need
are converted into tangible, quantifiable data. Lissner (2015) emphasizes that “humans
have the ability to articulate their own needs and issues” in regards to specific community
need, and this is exactly what is uncovered during the Empathy phase of Design Thinking.
IDEO (2015) explains, “Human-‐centered design allows us to arrive at solutions that are
desirable, feasible, and viable”. In the case of a nonprofit, “desirable” reflects the fulfillment
of unmet community needs.
By observing human behavior and the individual’s interactions with their
environment (community), the nonprofit may then quantify “community need” through
empathetic collection of data (IDEO, 2015). This process can be used to encompass and
quantify all aspects of community need including that of the user, employee, board
member, donor, and individuals in the society at large. Specifically, the Empathy and Define
phase of Design Thinking converts qualitative narratives from community members into
tangible, quantifiable data points. Dillon (2012) explains, “By knowing community needs,
you can then measure the effectiveness and efficacy of the organization’s ability to meet the
needs of the people they serve”. The process of Design Thinking not only pinpoints specific
areas of community need, but also enables the organization to quantify targeted outcomes
associated with each community subgroup (Colby et al., 2004).
Hagler 13
Moreover, by first collecting and quantifying specific community needs during the
Empathy and Define phase, one can then measure performance of the nonprofit by
generating feedback regarding programmatic outcomes as compared to the original
mission-‐oriented goals. For example, if during the Empathy phase, the target community
group consistently reported, “I wish that someone would help me find a career, not just a
job”, designers may uncover the target community need as “the desire for long-‐term and
meaningful employment”. If this community need is applicable to the nonprofit’s mission
statement, Intended Impact would therefore be defined as “to help [target] individuals
realize and secure careers”. This would be accompanied by the Theory of Change which
would include objectives such as: the individual’s discovery and specification of their
desired career path, the development of career-‐oriented skillsets, career-‐specific education
and training, and/or expanding personal networks in the appropriate field. Thus, Theory of
Change should be understood as the underlying components or building blocks necessary
to achieve the mission-‐oriented goals that correspond to the target community need
(securement of careers, in this case). In this way, the components specified in the Theory
of Change serve as the facets of nonprofit performance that should be measured.
The Design Thinking process not only functions as a method to identify target
community need, but also creates a framework in which performance of the nonprofit is
appropriately gauged by their ability to address and fulfill the various facets of community
need. Performance should therefore be measured through the process of gathering user
feedback after a nonprofit’s service/program has been realized. Using the aforementioned
example of career-‐oriented objectives, the nonprofit would gather the following data upon
completion of the program by asking:
Hagler 14
Was the user able to identify a specific and personal career path? Has the
user progressed in their development of career-‐specific skills? Was the user
able to obtain career-‐specific training or education? Did the user develop
meaningful connections with others experienced in the respective career
field?
By addressing these questions after the user’s completion of the program, social outcomes
can be transcribed as quantitative measurements. Because specific community need is first
illuminated and defined during the Empathy and Define phase, it is then possible to obtain
performance measures by analyzing the nonprofit’s ability to address these needs through
programs or services. Thus, the analytic comparison of empathetic data gathered from pre-‐
and post-‐interaction with the nonprofit can therefore be used as an accurate evaluation of
performance.
Understanding and addressing the needs of users is equally important to
quantifying the needs of donors – the financial backbone of operations and capacity to
serve. Lissner (2015) explains that the best way to develop the community at large is
through economic stability and that this can be achieved with the Design Thinking process.
In the case of the nonprofit, establishing economic stability is primarily dependent on the
organization’s ability to meet the community needs of donors. Robbins (2006) admits that
it is difficult to determine the modern motivation for giving in today’s world. But if one is to
approach this dilemma with a human-‐centric, empathetic design, individual motivations for
giving can easily be uncovered. By empathizing with the donor experience, a nonprofit may
first quantify the specific needs of donor personalities and then strategize the donor-‐
nonprofit relationship to best address these needs in short-‐ and long-‐term interaction.
Hagler 15
Here, it is crucial that the nonprofit has clearly articulated and communicated the Intended
Impact and Theory of Change to ensure that the community needs of both donor and user
are aligned and treated with equal importance. Only when the nonprofit has successfully
addressed the community needs of donors can programmatic objectives involving the user
experience move to center stage.
The Design Thinking process is best suited to establish a framework for measuring
performance of the nonprofit. Design Thinking enables organization leaders to clarify and
agree upon what “success” will look like within each community subgroup by first
establishing and quantifying the underlying community needs (Colby et al., 2004). In this
way, Design Thinking may also be used as a means to align and unify daily operations of
nonprofit employees and volunteers once mission-‐oriented goals have been articulated and
agreed upon. Oftentimes desired outcomes are social, emotional, or cultural in nature
(Dillon, 2012) – outcomes that are arguably more intangible than something like revenue
or sales, but nonetheless, are quantifiable. Roberts (2015) suggests measuring health
metrics, behavioral change, and/or psychological markers according to programmatic
mission-‐oriented goals. Through the Design Thinking process, empathy-‐generated
feedback gathered before, during, and after the individual has interacted with the nonprofit
allows one to consistently track the nonprofit’s performance by their ability to address
community need (IDEO, 2015).
Deeper Implications
Not only is the development of performance metrics crucial for the nonprofit to
strategize efforts to best address target community need, but it would also have larger
Hagler 16
scale effects if it were to become universally practiced. The nonprofit sector works closely
with vulnerable populations on a daily and intimate basis – opening up a potential window
for research of the nation’s underserved, disadvantaged, and most misunderstood
population subgroup (Salamon & Sokolowski, 2004). The generation of social data would
allow research to inform and strategize social initiatives to meet sociocultural goals
(McGregor, 2007). If universally incorporated by the nonprofit sector, the social impacts
that organization leaders witness first-‐hand could be quantifiably measured and presented
in order to rally for intervention from public authorities (Sawhill & Williamson, 2001;
Bagnoli & Megali, 2011). In this way, performance measures could provide a great benefit
towards society’s wellbeing by bridging the gap between for-‐profit, nonprofit, and
governmental agencies.
Performance measures also work by legitimizing nonprofit operations across all
types of community subgroups. Sawhill & Williamson (2001) state, “To the lay public,
measures impart a sense of focus and business-‐like competence” and that “the mission is
being carried out in a satisfactory manner” (Dillon, 2012). Moreover, this perceived
“business-‐like competence” is derived from the inherent tie between performance
measures and “self-‐imposed ‘rules’ regarding statute, mission, and program of action”
(Bagnoli & Megali, 2011). This measure of legitimacy may also help to align government-‐
funding allocation with effective organizational performance and generated social
outcomes (Cordes & Weisbrod, 1998; Smith & Lipsky, 1993). In other words, acceptance of
performance measures would significantly decrease contract failure within the nonprofit
sector – a situation in which a user is unable to evaluate the quality of service, thus
incentivizing the service provider to produce a lower quality service (Young, 1998). When
Hagler 17
the lay public can easily interpret nonprofit performance, organizational spending becomes
transparent and must then be justified by the ability to produce social outcomes – results
dependent on successfully addressing the focal community need (Roberts, 2015). In this
way, “nonprofits in disguise” – the primary culprits of contract failure – would become
extinct due to a shift towards a more informed allocation of donor dollars.
Performance measures can be extremely marketable in this way. Roberts (2015)
explains, “Twenty years ago, individual nonprofits only had to compete [for donations]
with the other nonprofits in the neighborhood. But now, you have to compete with an
organization on the east coast of Africa”. In the age of the Internet, potential donors dollars
can be allocated to organizations in all areas of the world. Although this is important for the
progressive wellbeing of mankind, it entails that increased competition for donor dollars
manifests a harsh reality for the survival of individual, local nonprofits in maintaining
economic sustainability. Performance measures could therefore be used as a competitive
advantage to secure donor support through the validation of intended community impact.
Performance measures not only legitimize organizational operations, but also
tangibly demonstrate a nonprofit’s values and efficacy in addressing specific areas of
community need. Smith & Lipsky (1993) describe nonprofits as “incubators of democracy”
that function as an “idea vehicle where we can express individual desires through civic
participation”. For this reason, performance measures provide a visible declaration of
organizational values, beliefs, and strategies, making it much easier for potential donors to
identify which nonprofits align with their personal, individual desires.
The Design Thinking process of generating performance measures may also help to
uncover modern motivations for giving. Tangible data regarding a nonprofit’s performance
Hagler 18
not only enhances the organization’s reputation, but also works to educate donors and
potential donors about the logic behind programs and objectives. Therefore, performance
measures could be used to increase advocacy (McGregor, 2007). Roberts states, “When you
become more educated about the nonprofit, you can become a better advocate for them. It
also shows you a very tangible way of seeing where your dollar went” (2015). Moreover,
performance measures enable the donor and potential donor to move past a basic
understanding of the mission statement – effectively addressing their “need” for a
relationship rather than a transaction. Coles (1993) argues that true giving can only occur
when the individual feels like they have been given to. Thus, by using performance
measures as a means to address the donor’s desire to express personal values through civic
engagement and to see mission validated by action, the donor will feel more motivated to
give.
Development of a framework for performance measures as facilitated by Design
Thinking provides a clear benefit for a nonprofit’s long-‐term vision and sustainable growth.
Through the process, organizations realize long-‐term strategies – stretch objectives
encompassing 10-‐15 year goals – by establishing concrete and tangible ways to
incrementally progress towards achieving the lofty mission statement (Sawhill &
Williamson, 2001). The development of Intended Impact and Theory of Change statements
help the nonprofit to locate other areas of need that may be applicable to their mission-‐
oriented goals (Colby et al., 2004). Furthermore, consistent use of the Design Thinking
process of attaining “user” feedback enhances the nonprofit’s potential to realize and
implement innovative products, services, and strategies. Not only does this maximize the
Hagler 19
nonprofit’s ability to successfully address community need, but innovation also functions
as the competitive advantage vital for insuring long-‐term economic sustainability.
Conclusions
The development of performance measures within the nonprofit sector should be
realized as an immediate concern for all subgroups in the community – the user, employee,
board, donors, and the general public. Limited manpower notoriously seen with the
nonprofit sector presents an undeniable challenge when considering just how realistic this
proposal really is (Roberts, 2015; Sawhill & Williamson, 2001). Fortunately, although
Design Thinking does require a dedicated team, the process itself is very affordable to
pursue (Lissner, 2015) and does not necessarily require that the nonprofit hire an outside
party. Indeed, the global design company IDEO offers a comprehensive self-‐guided option –
The Human Centered Design Toolkit – that is closely modeled and extrapolated from the
Design Thinking method (IDEO, 2015). Not only can IDEO’s toolkit be accessed free of
charge, but it is also specifically geared to be used by nonprofits and NGOs worldwide.
Thus, failure to pursue Design Thinking and implementation of performance measures due
to hubristic protection of resources (time and money) would be a disservice to both the
nonprofit itself and the community at large.
It is important that performance measures as generated through Design Thinking be
a primary concern because it will ensure long-‐term success – financially and structurally –
while also enabling the nonprofit to evolve and adapt over time according to changes in the
community’s social landscape. Anheier (2005) argues, “Finding, defending, and optimizing
niches on either the demand or supply side becomes a key task of organizational survival,
Hagler 20
and organizations that fail in these tasks are more prone to extinction over time”. By
consistently interpreting performance using human-‐centric, empathetic methodology, the
nonprofit may continue to successfully address, compete, and adapt to best serve the target
community needs – thereby maximizing long-‐term sustainability.
The ultimate goal of Design Thinking and performance measures on nonprofits is to
positively contribute to the wellbeing of the community and society at large by addressing
individual areas of need. In modern times, the nonprofit sector has become inherently
responsible for addressing the human needs located specifically within one’s own
community. Schneider (2009) explains, “People develop social capital through
participation in voluntary [nonprofit] associations and this participation serves as the
building blocks for civic engagement and healthy communities”. For this reason, it is
important that the nonprofit sector universally implement performance measures in order
to prevent and eliminate nonprofits in disguise from having adverse effects on the
community and social progress. Thus, in order for the nonprofit sector to effectively
contribute to the collective wellbeing of society, they must individually develop and
implement a framework for measuring performance. The human-‐centric process of Design
Thinking is ideal for this.
Hagler 21
Bibliography
Anheier, H. (2005). “Organizational theory and structure”. Bagnoli, L. and Megali, C. (2011). “Measuring performance in social enterprises”. Nonprofit and Vol Sector Quarterly 40(1):149-‐65 Brown, T. and Wyatt, J. (2010). “Design thinking for social innovation”. Stanford Social Inno Review 8(1):31-‐5 Carnegie, A. (1889). “The gospel of wealth”. Colby, S., Stone, N., and Carttar, P. (2004). “Zeroing in on impact” Stanford Social Inno Review 2(2):24-‐33 Coles, R. (1993). “The call of service: satisfactions”. Cordes, J. and Weisbrod, B. (1998). “Differential taxation of nonprofits and the commercialization of nonprofit revenues”. Jour Policy Analysis and Manag 17(2): 195-‐214 Dillon, B. (2012). “Organizational leadership and the balanced score card: lessons to be learned from marketing activities in a nonprofit setting”. Int Jour Bus and Social Sci 3(15):105-‐112 Hall, P. “Historical perspectives on nonprofit organizations in the United States” IDEO (2015). “Human-‐centered design toolkit: the field guide to human-‐centered design”. Lissner, H. (April, 2015). “The state of nonprofits and design thinking”. Personal Interview. Southern Growth Studio. McGregor, C. (2007). “The community benefit standard for non-‐profit hospitals: which community, and for whose benefit?”. Jour Contem Health Law and Policy 23(2):302+ Plattner, H. (2015). “An introduction to design thinking process guide”. Institute of Design at Stanford Robbins, K. (2006). “The nonprofit sector in historical perspective: traditions of philanthropy in the west”. Roberts, J. (April, 2015). “Addressing community need with Design Thinking”. Personal interview. Southern Growth Studio Salamon, L. and Sokolowski, S. (2004). “Measuring civil society: the John Hopkins Global Civil Society Index”. Sawhill, J. and Williamson, D. (2001). “Mission impossible? Measuring success in nonprofit organizations”. Nonprofit Manag and Leadership 11(3):371-‐86 Schneider, J. (2009). “Organizational social capital and nonprofits”. Smith, S. and Lipsky, M. (1993). “Nonprofit organizations and community”. Young, D. (1998). “Contract failure theory”.
Recommended