Case Study - Improved decision making and greater credibility
INTEGRIS Health Foundation
Mr. Dana R. Todsen, ACFRE, President
INTEGRIS Health Foundation has been participating in the AHP Performance Benchmarking Service for three years. Dana Todsen, who came on board as foundation president during the second year of the benchmarking initiative, has found the process invaluable. It has helped INTEGRIS identify problem areas and provided decision-making tools that allow them to operate more effectively.
The value of industry standards. One of INTEGRIS’ biggest surprises was discovering that the metrics it was using for reporting and measuring special events were very different from those used by other health care development organizations. Upon further review, INTEGRIS realized that its definition of special event revenue didn’t reflect true data and was skewing actual results. By adopting industry standards, not only was INTEGRIS using a better measure, but now it was able to truly engage in “apple-to-apple” comparisons with its industry peers.
Improved performance through superior decision-making tools. INTEGRIS uses the AHP benchmarking data for performance measurement in its development office to help determine incentive pay, gauge productivity, and to assist decision making. The INTEGRIS system has 15 hospitals of all sizes, from a 25-bed facility, to a 508-bed tertiary care center, and it has found that in general, the benchmarking trends and the numbers relate to them all and provide a picture of how they are doing across the board. INTEGRIS hasn’t found bed size to be that important - true production numbers have been good for all its facilities.
Using the benchmarking data, INTEGRIS has been better able to plan its approach as well as evaluate its effectiveness. “We are much better able to understand resources and staffing needs, especially for capital campaigns. We can evaluate if adding certain components will be beneficial. Can we justify the extra money in the budget? Should we add staff? With benchmarking, we can accurately predict money raised by adding or losing staff members and then make decisions accordingly,” said Todsen.
“Talking the talk” – better CEO & CFO relations. Todsen feels strongly that the AHP benchmarking program has given him a “seat at the table” with his hospital CEO and CFO now that he can speak the language of hospital executives with respect to productivity and return on investment. In the past, INTEGRIS just looked at the amount of money raised year-over-year. But it had no way to explain its productivity. Now INTEGRIS has true metrics. According to Todsen the benchmarking process has been a critical step not only in improving foundation results, but also in providing increased accountability and credibility for his organization.
Case Study - Re-thinking old standards leads to increased productivity
Glen Falls Hospital Foundation
Mr. Raymond Agnew, CFRE, Executive Vice President
When Ray Agnew came to health care in 1998 after 18 years in higher education, he was surprised by the lack of standards and tracking, not only in his organization, but also in the health care development field. He immediately set about putting procedures in place internally, but he had no idea how they “stacked-up” with others in the industry. When the AHP benchmarking program was being formed, Agnew jumped at the chance to measure Glen Falls’ performance against its peers.
An invaluable internal process. Agnew and his foundation team found the process of collecting data thought-provoking. It forced the foundation to re-evaluate how it was tracking progress and results, and it uncovered many inconsistencies and “glaring holes.” “We were not holding ourselves accountable as well as we should. We didn’t have standards and goals, for example, for the number of prospects we were qualifying, or the number of proposals going out. We were paying lip service to the fact that we were ‘seeing a lot of people’ but we needed to really quantify it,” said Agnew.
Re-thinking old standards. When comparing the foundation’s data to other organizations’ in the benchmarking program, Agnew was struck by the limiting nature of the traditional industry standard “cost to raise a dollar.” “The organizations that seemed to be the most efficient were usually not the ones raising the most money. If we raised $15 million at 20 cents on the dollar that might look great; but if we spent 40 cents and could raise a billion dollars – we’d go for that billion every time!” said Agnew. The foundation now relies on other benchmarking metrics to evaluate effectiveness.
Better reporting leads to greater accountability. As a result of the AHP benchmarking process, Glen Falls Hospital Foundation has significantly changed the way it reports its results. The foundation now provides meaningful statistics – not just a number of how much money was raised. Agnew is able to show measurable financial changes and account for deliverables every month. The foundation board of directors has welcomed the improved tracking and reporting. The foundation has also injected this new information into the hospital’s way of thinking by showing colleagues that they are serious in the development field.
Improved decision making. The AHP benchmarking tools have helped Glen Falls to better allocate resources, and to provide credible justification for those decisions. For example, when the foundation was at the beginning of the AHP benchmarking process, it had just hired a temporary campaign assistant to help handle major gifts for a short period. After analyzing the benchmarking data, the foundation realized that in order to achieve its goals, it needed to keep this person on staff full-time.
As a final note, Agnew shared, “The AHP benchmarking standards have been created after lengthy review by a peer group of best-practice health care development organizations. The data and decision-making instruments now available through this program need to be the tool of choice among health care professionals if they are serious about achieving their objectives.”
|
