HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 OPSBA Review - Mandate, Role, Purpose and Member Satisfaction1
Board of Directors OPSBA Business Matters
Item #7.2(b)
Origin: Executive Office
Date: February 25, 2008
ISSUE: OPSBA REVIEW
Background:
At the Board of Directors meeting on June 7, 2007, the following recommendation was
approved:
“That staff be directed to report to the Board in February 2008 with a detailed
proposal for a strategic review of the mandate, role and purpose of OPSBA, with
the objective of determining member board satisfaction with OPSBA’s programs
and services.”
Staff initiated investigative discussions with four professionals with expertise in the area
of governance and operational effectiveness of not-for-profit organizations. They are:
• School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University
• Schulich School of Business, York University
• Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto
• Integrated Leadership Strategies, Calgary, Alberta
They were provided with documents such as OPSBA’s Constitution, Key Work (OPSBA
Priorities and Services) and Annual Report and were also asked to visit the OPSBA
website. They were also provided with the motion from the June 2007 Board of
Directors meeting and asked to consider it in advance of an exploratory interview.
Three telephone interviews and one in-person interview were held to discuss the
responses to the request. During the conversations, all four observed that it is helpful to
find ways to strengthen the organization’s effectiveness as it is currently structured. It
was considered useful to have a well-structured satisfaction survey of the various client
groups to identify challenges, gaps in service and services and programs that should be
protected and expanded before beginning to look at possible changes. Costs for this will
vary depending on the intensity of work that is undertaken. One question that is central
is whether the organization is accomplishing its current role as spelled out in its current
priorities and mandate.
One preliminary opinion emerging from this early part of the process is that a
comprehensive “whole organization” survey that would bear useful results would require
2
major time and resource commitments. Each professional also identified specific
components or cumulative steps inherent in the Board motion. Although different
language was used by each person interviewed, these could be described as:
assessment of how OPSBA’s Board and Committees currently function; assessment of
client satisfaction; and a strategic review of mission, mandate and purpose.
The four professionals who were interviewed were asked to provide an outline for a
possible process, and some observations and suggestions, based on their professional
experience with similar organizations, as to what might best fulfil the intent of the
motion. They were also asked to estimate the costs of the project.
Key Points of the Proposals Submitted
Respondents, having reviewed OPSBA’s Constitution and other related documents,
commented that the Association’s governance model is appropriate for the organization;
one specific comment is that the Constitution is an evolutionary document that responds
to issues as they arise.
Respondents support a member satisfaction survey as separate from and preparatory
to a strategic review and advise that the survey pursue specific, content-related areas of
inquiry. One concrete method that would contribute to a full picture across the province
could involve conducting regional focus groups
Respondents indicate that a strategic review of mission, mandate and purpose will
require considerable time and resources and that the process to be used for the review
be designed in consultation with a steering group.
Respondents support an assessment or audit of the current operating effectiveness of
the Board and committees and flag this as a highly useful and cost-effective initiative.
General Summary of Proposals
School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University
This proposal describes the work arising out of the Board motion in three parts. These
parts are consecutive and increase in complexity and cost as one phase leads to the
next.
The first suggested step is an assessment or audit of the current operation of the board.
This suggestion is based on the fact that most modern governance literature strongly
encourages boards to evaluate regularly their own operating effectiveness as a matter
of good governance. In the overall context of the OPSBA Board motion, this is proposed
as the least costly and perhaps most potentially useful action for the Board. It would
clearly require the support of the Board. In terms of methodology, the assessment could
take several forms from a simple survey concerning the way the Board operates to a
question based interview approach of all Board members individually. It is noted that
3
this process could form the basis of an annual appraisal by the Board of their own
activities as is in keeping with standard good governance practice.
The next part of the proposal comments on the part of the Board motion calling for
determination of member board satisfaction with OPSBA’s programs and services. The
proposal suggests that this be conducted on a program specific basis to avoid a catch-
all opinion survey which may not generate useful information that can be acted upon.
The Board would need to decide explicitly what it wants to have peoples’ opinions on.
The survey questions must be targeted and clear if the data derived from such a study
are to be meaningful. Other questions to be decided relate to who the organization
wishes to survey: OPSBA board members, members of OPSBA, all trustees, users of
OPSBA services, organizations with whom OPSBA has relationships? Will the data be
collected by survey or by interview? Will all respondents be contacted or just a sample?
Would focus groups be an effective method? It is noted that this is very different from a
strategic review.
With regard to the step involving a strategic review, it is noted that it is always a sound
practice for an organization to conduct a review of its mission, mandate and priorities on
a regularly scheduled basis. This can help the organization with the development of
meaningful strategic and operating plans. This phase is a substantial undertaking and
will take considerable time and resources given OPSBA’s many constituencies. It would
be expected that the outcome of such a review would be a re-affirmation or amendment
of OPSBA’s priorities for the next few years. In designing the methodology for
undertaking a full strategic review, a key question is who does the organization wish to
be the respondents; OPSBA board members, members of OPSBA, users of OPSBA
services or all trustees of member boards? The answer to that question determines how
data will be collected i.e. by survey or interview or will all respondents be contacted or,
just a sample of the potential list. It is suggested that the Board have some type of
steering committee to work with whoever is selected to conduct the data collection for
OPSBA.
This proposal did not include costings pending consultation with OPSBA around the
direction to be taken. All of the proposed steps require additional input from the Board.
Schulich School of Business, York University
This proposal contemplates engaging in an initial project that would include the
following steps:
• Meet with a working group of staff and Board to design the process that would
involve a review.
• Interview key stakeholders, including staff, to better understand some of the
issues that should be included in the review.
• Create a questionnaire that would be distributed to all Board members to gather
their perceptions of Board performance on key Board roles and responsibilities.
4
In addition, each Board member would reflect on how well they feel that they are
performing in their own role of Board and/or committee member.
• Tabulation of the results of the questionnaires and a summary report written.
• One-day Board workshop to discuss the results and develop consensus on next
steps and required improvements. This would include an overview of Board roles
and responsibilities, best practices in board/staff relations and the unique
governance requirements of advocacy organizations. Some time could be
devoted to reviewing the strategic planning process and ensuring that it is
effective.
The total fee quoted for completing the defined project described above is $3,500. It is
noted that this would increase as the process evolved into a satisfaction survey and
strategic review.
Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto
This proposal defines the goal as development of an assessment of OPSBA’s current
strengths and challenges and, subsequently, development of implementation plans for
increasing OPSBA’s effectiveness.
The method proposed includes an initial phase involving an internal audit that would
incorporate surveying key stakeholders through an interview process to examine the
structure and effectiveness of the current organization design. This would be followed
by an analysis of the information generated from the interviews; this phase would
identify opportunities for improvement and develop a set of recommendations and next
steps to address issues raised in the assessment stage. Finally a report on the entire
process and its findings would be presented to the Board. The respondent emphasizes
the participative nature of the process.
The proposal estimates that the initial project as described would take 100 hours at a
rate of $150.00 per hour, for a total fee of $15,000.
Integrated Leadership Strategies, Calgary, Alberta
This consultant proposes a four-phase process comprising assessment, issue
identification, solution generation and solution implementation. The purpose for Phase
1 would be to clarify issues, determine who the stakeholders to be surveyed are, what
the key deliverables are and the key elements to be explored. The methodology for
Phase 1 calls for structured telephone interviews with a small group of member boards
and key stakeholders followed a more specific on-line survey of at least 30% of member
boards. In broad terms the survey would seek to determine if OPSBA’s current
mandate is well understood and seen as serving current needs of stakeholders, and to
determine if current services meet client needs. Phases 2, 3 and 4 would build on the
results of Phase 1 and are not, therefore, described or costed in the proposal.
The fee quoted for Phase 1 of four phases is $34,800 plus expenses.
5
Comments on the Proposals
All the respondents see the need for an initial assessment of the OPSBA environment.
This is variously described as assessing the current effectiveness of the Board and
Committees, determining strengths and challenges, or gaining clarification of what is to
be explored further. Each proposal implicitly or explicitly moves from this step to a
broader scan of how well the organization is meeting the needs of its member boards
and stakeholders. It is reasonable to conclude that both these sources of information
would offer a solid foundation for a more in-depth exploration and strategic review of
OPSBA’s mission, mandate and purpose.
Because of the varied approaches and methodologies, a strict comparison of proposed
costings is difficult to make. From information submitted, the minimum quoted for the
basic first step is $3,500 and the maximum quoted for the complete undertaking is
$93,550. The recommendations drafted for consideration of Executive Council and the
Board of Directors balance the need to move ahead with this project with the need to
ensure that there is support for inclusion of funding for the project in the next round of
OPSBA’s budgeting process.
ACTION:
For consideration and recommendation.
Staff Resource: Gail Anderson, Executive Director
Florenda\WP\FOLDERS\BOD\February 2008\OPSBA Review 7.2(b)