One important consideration for progress updates

One important consideration for progress updates

As always, my week unearths an interesting conundrum that has some useful insights buried within.

This week's insight came from helping a team update their Board on their progress over the past year.

Here's my number 1 takeaway that I want to share with you also.

Your ‘update' will be more useful to you and more interesting to your stakeholders if discuss what you delivered rather than what you did.

I have included the before and after below to illustrate what I mean while also offering three suggestions.

Firstly, you may note that the ‘after' uses a variation of the Traffic Light story, which I think is very useful for this kind of update.

This is where we focus the storyline around the different measures for success, or KPIs if you will.

Secondly, the supporting points in the ‘after' are again skeletal, but follow a useful pattern. They enable us to explain what our own view is on our performance and then support that by offering external validation.

Thirdly, ‘sketching out' a storyline in the way we have for the ‘after' is just the start. This helps surface the broad themes. The real value comes in being highly specific and drawing out a message for each point as a fully formed thought.

I hope that helps. More next week.

Kind regards,
Davina

PS – We will have a working session this coming week. Do register on the Sessions Registration page . We will offer only one during July as I will be taking some time away. Sheena will, however be on deck to help with any logistical questions you may have.

BEFORE

AFTER

The difference between being ‘clear’ and being compelling’

The difference between being ‘clear’ and being compelling’

This week's working groups provided an excellent opportunity to think about the difference between being ‘clear' and being ‘compelling'.

I have drawn out three key takeaways that highlight that although being clear is a useful place to start, it is often not enough.

Making the leap from being clear to being compelling required us to lean into my favourite question: why?

Did the ‘trigger' really describe why we were communicating about the information in the context? For example:

Version 1 – The Board has used this as an opportunity to review the Constitution and governance practices to ensure compliance and to identify opportunities for improvement.

Version 2 – We are proposing some amendments for your consideration ahead of the coming AGM

Did the ‘so what' synthesise the items together and explain 
why this group of actions was necessary?

Version 1 – Amending the Constitution will ensure it is able to reflect community expectations, provide flexibility, allow for technological advances and meet best practice governance standards.
 
Version 2 –The Board seeks Members' endorsement at the AGM to amend the Constitution to meet best practice governance standards and maintain full funding.
Did each top line point explain explain why each group of actions was important?

Version 1 – With one exception, was a list of topics rather than messages
    • Reflect community expectations [the exception]
    • Clarification and flexibility
    • Technological advances
    • Governance best practice
Version 2 –A list of outcomes that each group of amendments would deliver
    • Reflect community expectations by being more inclusive
    • Clarify lines of responsibility to tighten governance and qualify for future funding
    • Allow for technological advances
    • Update timeframes around the voting process

Here is the video from the working session.