1 / 22

Board Self-Assessment: June 2011 Benchmark Report

Board Self-Assessment: June 2011 Benchmark Report. NCMA Governance Committee. Survey. Survey conducted by BoardSource 2nd year using this survey 23 surveys distributed; 19 surveys completed (83% response rate) Checklist of Practices Performance of the Board

mirari
Télécharger la présentation

Board Self-Assessment: June 2011 Benchmark Report

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Board Self-Assessment: June 2011 Benchmark Report NCMA Governance Committee

  2. Survey • Survey conducted by BoardSource • 2nd year using this survey • 23 surveys distributed; 19 surveys completed (83% response rate) • Checklist of Practices • Performance of the Board • Nine (9) areas of board responsibility • Compare our responses to association benchmarks, and our data from last year • Degree of Consensus

  3. Summary Results • 9 areas measured • Exceed benchmark in all areas • 7 areas improved, 2 declined from FY2010 ___________________________________ • Mission • Strategy • Public Image and Advocacy • Board Composition • Program Oversight • Financial Oversight • CEO Oversight • Board Composition • Meetings

  4. Bench: 2.97 2011: 3.27 2010: 3.21 We exceed benchmark on all items.

  5. Comments on 1. Mission • Keep to what makes NCMA strong - concentrate on serving the Chapter member • We have done some really good working this year on developing the mission and getting some action items identified; however we now need to develop the vision of where do we want to go in the long run and develop the plan for how we'll get there then see if our mission items still sync. • We could do better at linking the goals of the committees to themission & values of the Association. • Specific action items assigned to individuals to lead (not just committees?) to accomplish progress (specifically in the area of obtaining greater government participation.) • The Board has done a wonderful job at taking on these areas this past program year.

  6. Bench: 2.83 2011: 3.06 2010: 3.05

  7. Comments on 2. Strategy • The Association must link strategic goals to specific tactical activities. This does not occur yet. The Association also may be losing touch with its members and chapter base, as new BOD members have no depth of prior experience or knowledge. • I have to rate #2.6 as just OK for this year, but I believe we are on a path toward fixing this problem • Board has discussed changes in the environment and possible approaches for future, but seems to be having some difficulty arriving at a strategy. • I think that board needs to utilize surveys to understand clearly what its membership needs. • Believe we will improve as strategy is executed operationally over the next 1 to 2 years. • need improvement in measuring progress towards goals, but it is being addressed • We've done some good work on the mission and now need to spend some quality time on how we will go about implementing. • Need to better assess performance

  8. We exceed benchmark on all items. Bench: 2.86 2011: 3.11 2010: 3.29

  9. Comments on 3. Public Image and Advocacy • There still needs to be more focus on Government - Industry Dialogue • Board could project a more public profile while still maintaining impartiality on specific contracting policy issues. • We can do better. Some of the above areas are achieved because of the private/personal positions many of the BOD members encumber. However, I'm not really certain the BOD as a collective body do all the above to the degree possible. Rather, the BOD seems to defer to the ED. Is that good/bad? It simply 'is.' • Strong leadership and communication between the BOD, EC members and the BOD. Create methods for obtaining membership feedback.

  10. Bench: 2.75 2011: 3.21 2010: 3.51

  11. Comments on 4. Board Composition • continue efforts to involve potential board members in activities to get them exposure and experience • Need to overcome hurdles inhibiting more participation by members from the government community. The BOD could be accused of being a tool of industry. • Improvement areas include: 1. Figuring out whether the role of the board is status/influencing or working board to complete tasks? Seems to be leaning toward status/influencing which is fine - just need to ensure tasks are managed by staff then. Seems like our policies re rotating and bringing in new board members evolve as favorites roll off the board and some want them maintained which minimizes the intent of the policy which is to ensure new blood/thinking in the organization. How are we growing new board members? What are we doing? • I believe that assignment of board subject area chairs is still too relationship based. I do not see a mechanism or one that has been transparently articulated that reflects a process for aligning individual desire/preference, capability, experience with subject area • Question 4.6 is scored based upon 2011 procedure. The plan for 2012 is excellent • Right now there is not a good balance between government and industry. we need to target more government involvement. it seems as the years go by there are more motions to have the Exec committee elct more members to the Board than the association. First need to get membership excited about elections and get them to vote. • Some Board members don't fully participate in their committee assignments. This is where much of the work is done. Board members need to fully understand their commitment to serve. It's more than just attending Board meetings.

  12. Bench: 2.80 2011: 3.34 2010: 3.31 We exceed benchmark on all items.

  13. Comments on 5. Program Oversight • New Board members are far more accomplished in their profession, but less knowledgeable of NCMA than in the past. A performance assessment process has not been defined or implemented. • 5.5 We have a lot of completion work to do in this area. We have some good ideas within the PSE Committee but not much coming out as finished published products • The Board could do a better job identifying relative measures of success for programs by aligning program outcomes and outputs with the committee's actual work. • To my knowledge, no internal "IG" in place to perform the above. Loose assessment of chapter/program health via Graalman and frequent informal communication. • If Board evolves to one of influence then we'll need to add Staff to manage tasks.

  14. Bench: 3.09 2011: 3.59 2010: 3.47 We exceed benchmark on all items.

  15. Comments on 6. Financial Oversight • Most of the financial oversight is performed by Board committees; overall Board is provided an overview and summary of issues. • Would like to see greater investment in CMLDP growth. • We have cash! I suggest the EC have a "business" discussion in regards to which programs to invest this cash in order to maximize income and training availability to the members.

  16. Bench: 2.95 2011: 3.17 2010: 2.90

  17. Comments on 7. CEO Oversight • Succession plan being drafted; Board needs to actively question CEO - some improvement recently. • We do not have a succession plan in place and the Board does not actively engage with the Executive on future programs enough. Executive rightly presses on with issues and • agendas. • I'm not aware of any succession plan for the key leaders of NCMA and do think having this in place is a good idea. • Most of the matters directly involving the Executive Director are handled by a Board Committee and specifics are not discussed with Board more broadly. • The Chief executive's performance needs to be more formally linked to Association performance, as defined by Strategic goals and tactical performance objectives.

  18. Bench: 2.95 2011: 3.44 2010: 3.41 We exceed benchmark on all items.

  19. Comments on 8. Board Structure • Reduce the number of committees. example, no reason for Asset management committee. Reduce the number of Board Members. 23 is too many. • OCI is a concern, in that some Board members appear to be involved as a personal resume enhance or organizational promotion, without visible dedication to the business of the Board itself. Other areas show continued improvement. • Some Board Members are not performing to their commitments so what actions do we take? How does that work? • I think Board does a very good job of managing itself and the Association's policies and procedures.

  20. Bench: 3.05 2011: 3.44 2010: 3.28 We exceed benchmark on all items.

  21. Comments on 9. Meetings • I think we could have more focus on the needs of the membership. • The last Board meeting was in March but yet we still have 3.5 months left in the year. It seemed that during the meeting, any meaningful discussion/topics were deferred for the new board. Why? Otherwise, it was just a feel good meeting, review the overall operations, thanks to all for a great job, blah, blah, blah... and not much value added. Suggest the board meetings be spaced out quarterly vs. Nov-Jan-March • Committees and the EC need to improve documentation. • Several board members have poor attendance record, but recently have been contacted about it. • What is our policy if Board Members do not participate in meetings? Not all Board Members are meeting their committee commitments so what action occurs?

More Related