Step 2: Capacity Audit

The capacity audit below is broken down into ten components and these are further subdivided into sub-components. For each sub-component a set of four criteria are provided: levels 1 - 4. They are done in an ascending order of the robustness of each sub-component. The audit is structured by providing four ascending “pictures” of an organization across the various components. The assessor should make a judgement on which rank is most appropriate. Some sample questions are also provided to assist The Assessor in the process.

 Level oneLevel twoLevel threeLevel fourRating
1. Mission, Strategic framework & Policy objectives 
Mission No written mission or limited expression  of the EO’s reason for existence (lacks clarity, specificity); either held by very few in the EO or rarely referenced Some expression of EO’s reason for existence that reflects its values and purpose; held by some within the EO and occasionally referenced Clear expression of EO’s reason for existence which reflects its values and purpose; held by many within EO and often referenced Clear expression of EO’s reason for existence which describes an enduring reality that reflects its values and purpose; universally held within EO and frequently referenced  
Vision No clear vision articulated; little shared understanding of what EO aspires to become or achieve beyond stated mission Somewhat clear or specific understanding of what organization aspires to become or achieve; held by only a few or ‘on the wall’, but rarely used to direct actions or set priorities Clear and specific understanding of what EO aspires to become or achieve; held by many within EO and often used to direct actions and set priorities Clear, specific and compelling understanding of what EO aspires to become or achieve; universally held within organization and consistently used to direct actions and set priorities  
Values No common set of values exists or is documented within the EO Common set of basic values exists but is not shared broadly; values are only partially aligned with EO’s purpose and are rarely harnessed Common set of values exists but not universally known; they are partially aligned to the EO’s purpose Common set of values exists and is widely known throughout the EO, helps provide a sense of connection and a clear direction for behaviours; values are also timeless and stable across leadership changes; values clearly support EO’s purpose  
Strategic planning Limited ability and tendency to develop strategic plan, either internally or via external assistance; if strategic plan exists it is rarely or never referenced Some ability and tendency to develop high-level strategic plan either internally or via external assistance; strategic plan sometimes directs management decisions Ability and tendency to develop and refine concrete, realistic strategic plan, some internal expertise in strategic planning or access to relevant external assistance; strategic plan used to guide management decisions Ability to develop and refine concrete, realistic and detailed strategic plan; critical mass of internal expertise in strategic planning or efficient use of external sustainable highly qualified resources; strategic planning exercise carried out regularly; strategic plan used to guide management decisions  
Strategic Policy framework Strategic policy framework is either non-existent, unclear, or incoherent (largely scattered policy initiatives); it has no influence on day to day behaviour Strategic policy framework exist but is either not clearly linked to mission, vision and policy goals or lacks coherence; or it is not easily actionable; strategy is not broadly known and has limited influence over day to day behaviour Coherent Strategic policy framework has been developed and is linked to mission and vision but is not fully ready to be acted upon; strategy is mostly known, and day to day behaviour is partly driven by it Clear and coherent medium to long term strategic policy framework developed that is both actionable and linked to overall mission, vision and policy goals; strategy is universally known and helps consistently helps drive day to day behaviour at all levels of the EO  
Policy goals Vision (if it exists) not translated into set of concrete goals, though there may be general (but inconsistent and imprecise) knowledge within organization of overarching goals and what it aims to achieve Vision translated into concrete set of goals; goals lack at least two of the following four attributes: clarity, boldness, associated measures, or time frame for measuring attainment; goals known by only a few; or only occasionally used to direct actions or set priorities Vision translated into small set of concrete goals, but goals lack at most two of the following four attributes: clarity, boldness, associated measures, or timeframe for measuring attainment; goals are known by many within the EO and often used by them to direct actions and set priorities Vision translated into clear, bold set of realistic goals that the EO aims to achieve, within specific time frames and concrete measures for each goal; goals are universally known within EO and consistently used to direct actions and set priorities  
SOME SUGGESTED QUESTIONS
  1. Is the mission statement clear and understood by all relevant parties?
    1. When and how was it developed?
  2. Is there a clear and compelling vision statement?
    1. When and how was it developed?
    2. Is this closely connecting to the priority setting?
  3. Does the EO have a clear, realistic, time bound strategic plan?
    1. How was it developed in terms of membership consultation and input from other stakeholders?
    2. How is it operationalized into the EO’s daily operations?
    3. Does it incorporate a mixture of short, medium, and longer term priorities?
    4. Is it communicated effectively to all relevant parties?
    5. How is it measured in terms of impact?
  4. Are the EO’s policy objectives tightly tied to its broader mission and vision?
  5. Does the EO have appropriate organizational structures to conduct advocacy activities?
2. Brand
 Level oneLevel twoLevel threeLevel fourRating
Brand recognition The EO is regarded by the business community, government, and other relevant stakeholders as an ineffective advocate for business with only some expertise on specific policy issues The EO is regarded by the business community, government, and other  relevant stakeholders an effective voice for business in the country on specific policy issues The EO is regarded by the business community, government and other, relevant stakeholders as an effective voice for business in the country across all policy areas but seen as particularly strong on specific policy issues The EO is regarded by the business community, government and other, relevant stakeholders as the most effective voice for business in the country across all policy areas; other business organizations look to EO for leadership  
Brand impact No or very little membership growth in any sector; consistent problem with non-payers; poor recognition of EO’s ‘offer’ amongst membership Some membership growth in some sectors; consistent problem with non-payers; inadequate recognition of EO’s ‘offer’ amongst membership ; HR enterprise directors are the principal point of contact Membership growing across sectors; no real issues with non-payers; solid recognition of EO’s ‘offer’ amongst membership; members’ satisfaction surveys/focus groups undertaken; enterprise member CEOs & senior board figures engaged with EO Membership steadily growing across sectors; no problems with non-payers; excellent recognition of EO’s ‘offer’ amongst membership; members’ satisfaction surveys/focus groups regularly undertaken and acted upon; enterprise member CEOs & senior board figures engaged regularly with EO  
SOME SUGGESTED QUESTIONS
  1. Does the EO regularly conduct assessments of its perception amongst members?
    1. How is this done (e.g. by the EO itself or through an independent company)?
    2. How regularly is this done and how are the results acted upon?
  2. Does the EO regularly conduct assessments of its perception by policymakers?
    1. How is this done (e.g. by the EO itself or through independent company)?
    2. How regularly is this done and how are the results acted upon?
  3. Does the EO regularly conduct assessments of its perception by key stakeholders including the general public?
    1. How is this done (e.g. by the EO itself or through independent company)?
    2. How regularly is this done and how are the results acted upon?
3. Membership
 Level oneLevel twoLevel threeLevel fourRating
Member driven Core activities, policy proposals and services are often vaguely defined and lack clear alignment with mission and overarching goals; EO’s approach seems scattered and its public pronouncements seem vague and lack cohesion Core activities, policy proposals  and services are well-defined and linked with the EO’s mission and overarching goals; EO’s approach still seems scattered and not fully integrated into a clear strategy Core activities, policy proposals  and services are well-defined and aligned with the EO’s mission and overarching goals; EO’s approach is generally consistent with the overall EO’s strategy All activities, policy proposals and services are well-defined and fully aligned with the EO’s mission and overarching goals; EO’s approach is coherent and consistent with the EO’s strategy overall; synergies are captured; EO’s public pronouncements are timely, clear, and impactful  
Assessing members needs Little and poor quality communication with the membership on policy developments, if any; information to members is random and often irrelevant; No surveys carried out; policy objectives are developed in an ad hoc fashion and are always reactive; no strategies to mobilize member support for policy objectives; no ability to resolve policy pressure points amongst members nor resolve divisions between small and large members; major issue of capture by a few large members Communication with the membership on policy developments is random and mostly lacks sufficient analysis; information to members is haphazard; Very rarely are surveys carried out; policy objectives are developed in an ad hoc fashion; some strategies to mobilize member support for policy objectives; poor ability to resolve policy pressure points amongst members and resolve divisions between small and large members Regular communication with the membership on policy developments; information to members is mostly up to date; surveys carried out; policy objectives are developed as a result of analysis of membership needs; strategies to mobilize member support for agreed policy objectives; ability to resolve policy pressure points amongst members; ability to resolve divisions between small and large members Regular high quality communication with the membership on policy developments; information to members is always up to date; frequent and well timed surveys carried out;  policy objectives are developed as a result of comprehensive and detailed analysis of membership needs; strategies to mobilize member support for agreed policy objectives; ability to resolve policy pressure points amongst members; ability to resolve divisions between small and large members  
Cross-sectoral engaged members Some active members but largely disengaged membership;  no processes in place to track turnover and ensure member retention; no strategy for membership growth; no sectoral associations as members Members engaged but confined to limited number of companies as most active and also limited in sectoral reach;  poor processes in place to track turnover and ensure member retention; poor strategy for membership growth in areas where EO is less strong;  sectoral associations as members but poor engagement; no track record in overcoming divisions between sectoral members Variety of enterprises from across membership active in EOs work; Processes in place to track turnover and ensure member retention; strategy for membership growth in areas where EO is less strong; engaged sectoral associations as members; ability to overcome divisions between sectoral members Variety of enterprise form across membership active in EOs work; strong and robust processes in place to track turnover and ensure member retention; membership retention is a objective that runs right throughout the culture of the EO; effective strategies for membership growth across sectors, including sectors in which women-owned businesses are dominant; strong engaged sectoral associations as members; ability to overcome divisions between sectoral members  
SOME SUGGESTED QUESTIONS
  1. Is membership growing?
    1. In which sectors is membership growing?
  2. Is there a senior member of staff that is charged with membership development and management?
  3. Are there robust systems in place to track membership satisfaction?
  4. Are there a number of policy committees with active cross-sectoral membership engagement?
    1. Is a position on these committees highly sought after?
    2. Is there sufficient regular turnover of personnel on these committees?
  5. Are all members fully briefed on policy developments in a timely fashion?
    1. Provide recent examples?
4. Governance Structures
 Level oneLevel twoLevel threeLevel fourRating
Governance structures ensure that members interests collectively are put first Membership criteria is not clearly defined; annual general assembly rules are unclear; a system of EO rules, consisting of a constitution/statutes, exists but is not an effective guide for the organization; eligibility criteria for board members and procedure for electing members of the board is in effect a closed shop; there are no policy or committees Membership criteria is defined; annual general assembly rules enable representation of all members; a system of EO rules, consisting of a constitution/statutes is in place; eligibility criteria for board members and procedure for electing members of the board is open to the entire body of member companies but the reality is that the processes are mostly captured by small groups of large members;  mechanisms by which membership fees are determined; there are no policy or other committees Membership criteria is clearly defined and is voluntary; annual general assembly rules clearly enable fair and balanced representation of all members; a system of EO rules, consisting of a constitution/statutes, by-laws is in place; eligibility criteria for board members and procedure for electing members of the board is open to the entire body of member companies, including those owned and managed by women; mechanisms by which membership fees are determined; there some policy and other committees Membership criteria is clearly defined and is voluntary; annual general assembly rules clearly enable fair and balanced representation of all members; a system of EO rules, consisting of a constitution/statutes, by-laws and, as need be, codes of conduct is in place and these rules are in line with the national legal framework; eligibility criteria for board members and procedure for electing members of the board is open to the entire body of member companies; transparent mechanisms by which membership fees are determined; there is a range of policy and other committees such as remuneration and auditing  
Board composition Membership with limited diversity (e.g. sectoral, geographical  and firm size); commitment to EO’s vision, mission and strategic objectives is unclear; meetings are sporadic and attendance is sometimes poor Membership with diversity (e.g. sectoral, geographical, firm size and gender) but with unhealthy imbalances; some commitment to EO’s vision, mission and strategic objectives are unclear; meetings are well planned and attendance is adequate  Membership with diversity (e.g. sectoral, geographical, firm size and gender) but some (perhaps inevitable) imbalances; solid evidence of commitment to EO’s vision, mission and strategic objectives; purposeful meetings are well planned and attendance is consistently good and engaged  Membership with diversity (e.g. sectoral, geographical, firm size and gender) includes specific policy expertise from members; proven track record of addressing issues immediately and resolving as quickly as possible; strategically-driven; all members highly engaged, and membership of the board is highly valued throughout membership   
Board Governance Roles of Board and management are unclear, and management given weak direction; board rarely scrutinizes budgets or holds DG to account; no clear guidelines on board membership and formal procedures; non-existent or ineffective processes by which the board of directors is elected/removed; no time limits; no processes to ensure that the board is not dominated by larger members or regional/sectoral groups;  the EO is used as a platform for the president/board members to promote their companies to the detriment or exclusion of other member companies Roles of Board and management are clear, management given unclear direction by board but does review the DG’s performance and monitor potential conflicts of interest; budgets are reviewed and provision for audits also ensured by board supervision; clear guidelines on board membership and formal procedures, but not always adhered to; weak processes by which the board of directors is elected/removed; certain categories of people disqualified from board membership (e.g. currently-serving members of government) but in reality this is not adhered to; similarly, processes to ensure that the board is not dominated by larger members or regional/sectoral groups are not adhered to Roles of Board and management are clear and function well; Board reviews budgets, audits, etc., (or reviews subcommittees who undertake this work); annual review of DGs performance; clear guidelines on board membership and formal procedures; work of each committee within the organization is presented periodically to the board; effective processes by which the board of directors is elected/removed along with time limits; certain categories of people disqualified from board membership (e.g. currently-serving members of government); processes to ensure that the board  is not dominated by larger members or regional/sectoral groups, and that women are represented; the EO does not serve as a platform for the president/board members to promote  their companies to the detriment or exclusion of other member companies Roles of Board and management are clear and function well; management given clear direction; EO performance regularly evaluated by Board; Board reviews budgets, audits, etc., (or reviews subcommittees who undertake this work); annual review of DGs performance; clear guidelines on board membership and formal procedures; Board empowered and prepared to hire and fire DG if necessary; board periodically evaluated; summary of the work of each committee within the organization is presented periodically (at least annually) to the board. Effective processes by which the board of directors is elected/removed along with time limits; certain categories of people disqualified from board membership (e.g. currently-serving members of government); effective processes to ensure that the board  is not dominated by larger members or regional/sectoral groups, and that women are represented; term of office for the president (and the board members), is fixed and the number of consecutive terms that can be served by the same person(s) is limited; the EO does not serve as a platform for the president/board members to promote  their companies to the detriment or exclusion of other member companies; there is a code of ethics that applies to all board members  
SOME SUGGESTED QUESTIONS
  1. Is a position on the Board of Directors and other office-bearing functions in the EO highly sought after and influential?
    1. Is there a healthy turnaround of office bearers that reflects the diversity and talent of the membership?
  2. Is there a range of policy and other committees?
    1. Do these functions effectively and greatly assist in the smooth running of the organization?
5. Services
 Level oneLevel twoLevel threeLevel fourRating
Service offer No purely commercial approach to the pricing of services, i.e. they must make a profit;  services are not based uniquely  in areas of  EO’s comparative advantage, mandate and expertise; services if offered are ad-hoc; no assessment of value of services nor of ability to scale up current offer Commercial approach to the pricing of services, i.e. they must make a profit;  services are not always based uniquely  in areas of  EO’s comparative advantage, mandate and expertise; some limited assessment of value of services and ability to scale up current offer Commercial approach to the pricing of services, i.e. they must make a profit and services are well regarded and used; services are always based uniquely in areas of  EO’s comparative advantage, mandate and expertise; assessment of value of services and ability to scale up current offer Highly competitive first class services, deeply-rooted in areas of the EOs comparative advantage, mandate and expertise; services are highly regarded and widely used; there is continual assessment of the value of the EO’s service offer and adjustments are made when needed; new opportunities are always sought  
SOME SUGGESTED QUESTIONS
  1. What kind of services does the EO offer?
    1. How long have they been in operation?
    2. How profitable are they?
  2. What is the percentage income of services to income from membership fees?
  3. What decision making processes are in place to decide on how to operate a new service?
  4. Are services for members only?
  5. Are services part of a membership package or a standalone service offering?
  6. What new services are planned?
6. Policy
 Level oneLevel twoLevel threeLevel fourRating
Research and fact-based policy interventions Sporadic use of data from outside sources to support proposals; limited capacity to work with research data; little understanding of where to find useful data or how to assess its quality; surveys of members on policy issues never undertaken Basic data used to support advocacy work; ability to read research reports and evaluate quality of data exists, but data is not relied upon as part of regular decision making; there is familiarity with one or two sources of data especially relevant to EO’s policy work; little capacity to analyze raw data or present it in graphical engaging ways Familiarity with useful data sources in relevant policy areas; data used to support decisions, proposals and throughout advocacy work; employs staff with research and survey skills although they may not conduct analysis full time; capacity to assess data and good analytical capacity; ability to effectively use data in policy arguments Respected by peers as consumer and producer of quality data; excellent survey capability which provides real emphasis to policy proposals; dedicated research and survey skills capable of working with complex data; important organizational questions answered through research; proven track record of convincing policy makers of the validity of the EO’s proposal based on its research and data analysis; respected as a source of key information across policy issues  
Policy influence Poor ability to influence policy makers; rarely called to participate in substantive policy discussions; policy proposals not taken seriously by government; no policy committees; policy objectives are ad hoc; no briefing documents or position papers developed; representation to government is infrequent and ad hoc;  no regular channels of consultation any ministry Aware of means to influence policy makers;  some impact in policy discussions but mainly reactively ; one of several business representative organizations active in policy discussions; no policy committees;  policy objectives are ad hoc; but agreed by Board; no briefing documents but some position papers developed; representation to government is (mostly) unstructured and through informal channels of consultation with some ministries Fully aware of influence channels to government and active across these channels; a key business organization  active in policy discussions; policy committees exist; policy objectives are agreed by the board;  briefing documents for some  policy objectives published; position papers developed ; representation to government is (mostly) structured and formal; regular channels of consultation with all relevant ministries Proactively influences policy making in highly effective manner; always seen as the ‘go to organization’ for a business voice across policy areas; policy proposals always considered and respected by policy makers; robust policy committees exist; policy objectives are agreed by the board;  structured series of briefing documents for all policy objectives published; position papers developed and widely disseminated; representation to government is structured and formal; regular and effective channels of consultation with all relevant ministries at all levels  
Advocacy approach Advocacy work is focused only on short-term objectives; long-term strategy does not exist in meaningful way; policy objectives are vague Advocacy work is generally focused only on short-term objectives; long-term strategy does exist but is not integrated into overall strategic  advocacy approach; policy objectives are clear but not always followed in strategic fashion Advocacy work is focused on both short and long-term objectives; long-term strategy is integrated into overall strategic  advocacy approach; policy objectives are clear but measurement and impact analysis are not as strong as they should be Advocacy work is focused on both short and long-term objectives; long-term strategy is integrated into overall strategic  advocacy approach; policy objectives are clear and regularly measured for impact  
SOME SUGGESTED QUESTIONS
  1. Does the EO actively promote its own policy positions and proposals and is it recognized as a proactive influence in the policy making process?
  2. Is policy formation genuinely organic from the membership and are there clear processes in place to ensure that policy objectives are always tightly connected to actual membership needs, including those of women members?
  3. Does the EO have a clear set of policy briefs that outline its proposals across all areas it seeks to influence?
  4. Does the EO have clear mechanisms to measure the impact of its policy work?
7. Management
 Level oneLevel twoLevel threeLevel fourRating
Director General Narrow background and range of experiences; little evidence of innovative thinking; poor management skills;  no understating of members needs and the need to be a membership-driven organization; very poor interpersonal and networking skills; limited recognition of leadership ability amongst peers and members background and range of experiences reflects some depth; some evidence of innovative thinking; management skills need to improve; not sufficient understating of members needs and the need to be a membership-driven organization; some interpersonal and networking skills; some recognition of leadership ability amongst peers and members Broad background and range of experiences; clear evidence of innovative thinking; good management skills; solid understating of members needs and the need to be a membership-driven organization; good interpersonal and networking skills; recognition of leadership ability amongst peers and members Broad and deep background and range of experiences; clear evidence of innovative thinking; excellent management skills; 100% clear on the importance of  understating of members needs and the need to be a membership-driven organization; Top level interpersonal and networking skills;  recognized throughout the country as innovative respected business leader  
Operations planning Operations run on a purely day to day basis with no short or longer term planning; no experience in real operational planning and any operational plans not linked to  strategic objectives nor the EO’s overall mission Some ability to develop high level operational plan either internally or via external assistance; operational plan loosely linked to strategic planning and used roughly to guide operations Ability to develop and refine  concrete realistic operational plan; some internal expertise in operational planning; operational plans linked to strategic objectives and overall mission; high level operational plan either internally or via external assistance; operational plan linked to strategic planning and used to guide operations Robust, lean and well designed set of processes in place in all areas to ensure effective and efficient  running of the EO; processes are widely known used and accepted and are key   to ensuring full impact; continual monitoring and assessment of processes, with systematic improvements made; operational plan tightly linked to strategic planning and used to guide operations  
SOME SUGGESTED QUESTIONS
  1. Does the Director General have sufficient scope, autonomy, and the resources necessary to implement the agreed strategic plans?
  2. Is the position of Director General considered as an important and visible ‘voice’ of the organization?
  3. What is the relationship between the Director General and the board like?
    1. Do the rules enable it to function effectively?
8. Resources
 Level oneLevel twoLevel threeLevel fourRating
Staff Few in number and drawn from a narrow range of skills and experiences;  abilities limited to current job; zero time to look beyond day to day immediate issues; staff have no understanding of the EO’s mission and strategic objectives Drawn from a broader range of skills and experiences such as economics, legal, research;  some scope for mobility within staff structures and to upskill current staff; some ability of staff to look beyond day to day immediate issues; some understanding of the EO’s mission and strategic objectives and but little sense of what they mean for their role Sufficient staff numbers drawn from a broad range of skills and experiences such as economics, legal, research;  scope for mobility within staff structures and to upskill current staff; good ability of staff to look beyond day to day immediate issues; staff fully understand the EO’s mission and strategic objectives and what they mean for their role but challenges exist in translating this into day to day realities; roles and responsibilities of staff members are mostly linked to action plans Highly professional staff encompassing the complete a range of professional kills and experiences in economics, law, research, and HRM;  continual emphasis on and investment in skills; staff always take strategic view and look beyond day to day immediate issues; staff fully understand the EO’s mission and strategic objectives and what they mean for their role; roles and responsibilities of staff members are linked to action plans  
HR planning EO uncovers and/or addresses HR needs only when too large to ignore; lack of HR planning activities and expertise; job descriptions to not exist Some ability to develop HR plans either internally or via external assistance; HR plan loosely or not linked to strategic planning activities and only roughly guides HR activities; job descriptions tend to be static Ability to develop and refine concrete realistic HR plan; some internal expertise in HR planning; HR plan linked to strategic planning activities and used to guide HR activities; job descriptions periodically updated and revised in response to changing organizational needs and to support the growth and development of the staff; commitment to gender balance in staffing as an equal opportunity employer Ability to develop and refine concrete realistic and detailed HR plan; critical mass of internal expertise in HR planning; or efficient use of external highly qualified resources; HR plan tightly linked to strategic planning activities and systematically used to direct HR activities; job descriptions regularly updated; commitment to gender balance in staffing as an equal opportunity employer  
Financially robust organization Current revenue mix is not sustainable; there is no audit committee; income entirely dependent on a group of larger companies ; no membership strategy for increasing revenues Current revenue mix will not facilitate any growth in the organization; there is no audit committee; income comes from a group of larger companies; poor membership strategy for increasing revenues in areas where the EO already has strong representation Current revenue mix is sustainable in the longer term; there is an audit committee; external auditors are commissioned by the board at least annually to review the finances; income comes from across the membership and is not entirely dependent on a group of larger companies; membership strategy for increasing revenues Current revenue mix to facilitate growth is sustainable in the longer term; there is an audit committee; external auditors are commissioned by the board at least annually to review the finances; income comes from across the membership and not  a small proportion of members; robust membership strategy for increasing revenues which is always under review  
SOME SUGGESTED QUESTIONS
    1. Are there sufficient high quality professional staff, including a balance of women and men, across all areas of the EO’s operations?
    2. Are work plans tightly connected to the organization’s overall strategic plan and vision
    3. Is a job in the EO widely sought after by graduates?
    4. How sustainable are revenue streams currently?
9. Communications
 Level oneLevel twoLevel threeLevel fourRating
Strategy No communications plan or articulated communications strategy in place; key messages not defined or articulated; EO’s policy messages are inconsistent; no media profile No communications plan or articulated strategy in place, but key messages defined; policy messages are not always consistent; occasionally active in media across policy issues Communications plan and strategy in place; key messages defined;  policy messages are generally consistent; active in media across policy issues Communications plan and strategy in place, and are updated on a regular basis; key messages defined and messages customized to different audiences;  policy messages are always consistent and powerful; consistently active in media across policy issues; successful media strategy in place to make EO the “media choice” for expressing the views of business  
FOUR SUGGESTED KEY QUESTIONS
  1. What is the EO’s media profile like?
  2. How consistently does the EO feature in the media?
    1. How is coverage of the EO usually portrayed?
  3. Does the EO have clearly articulated messages that it customizes to different audiences?
  4. Does the EO regularly produce high quality policy publications?
10. Measurement & Evaluation
 Level oneLevel twoLevel threeLevel fourRating
Performance appraisal Very limited measurement and tracking of performance and progress; all or most evaluation based on anecdotal evidence; no external performance comparisons made; organization collects some information on its activities and outputs but has no measurement of outcomes; impact assessments rarely used to improve EO’s activities or approaches; information capture systems not in place Performance partially measured and progress partially tracked; some external performance comparisons made; organization regularly collects information on its activities and outputs and has begun measure outcomes; impact assessments occasionally used by management and staff to improve EO’s activities or approaches; management and staff do not recognize impact assessments as integral to the EO’s work; information capture systems not in place Performance measured and progress tracked in multiple ways on a regular basis; effective internal and external benchmarking occurs but may be confined to select areas; multiple indicators used in evaluation used in evaluation with primary focus on outcomes; independent nature of evaluation is missing; Impact assessments used by staff and management and often help makes adjustments and improvements; management and staff do recognize impact assessments as important to the EOs work; some information capture systems in place Comprehensive, integrated system used for measuring EO’s performance and progress on continual basis; internal and external benchmarking used by management and staff in target setting and daily operations; clear and meaningful outcomes-based performance; indicators exist across all EO areas of activity; periodic reviews of the EO’s effectiveness by external impartial sources; systematic practices across the EO of making adjustments and improvements based on impact assessments which are an integral part of the EO’s operations and culture; resources are devoted to measuring and documenting the EO’s impact; information systems in place to capture and measure the EO’s impact across all areas of operations  
SOME SUGGESTED QUESTIONS
  1. Is impact assessment of the EO’s activities, particularly evaluation of its policy work, imbedded in the culture of the organization?
  2. Are regular reviews conducted of the EO’s activities and are robust mechanisms in place to evaluate and adjust activities based on the findings?