Evalu8ing

Why Evalu8 collaboration,

relationships, performance?

Evalu8ing
August 2009

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

We no longer work in isolation

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

Sometimes we work one to one…

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

And sometimes one to many…

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

But mostly it is many to many

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

Be that within your organisation…

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

Or between organisations in one city…

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

Across the region or around the world

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

Innovation and performance improvement requires…

Collaboration

Co-operation

Communication 9

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

But how do you improve these drivers?

10

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

You can no longer rely on ad-hoc feedback

11

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

How can you improve performance?

1.  The first step is to define the drivers that are driving performance between your
stakeholders
2.  Then define a methodology to measure the performance drivers
3.  Use the resulting metrics to identify areas for improvement and share the results with
stakeholders
4.  Together, develop plans and implement solutions to address issues or encourage behaviour
5.  Then measure the drivers using the same methodology to determine if the plans and
implementation has had the desired result

12

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

Evalu8ing lets you manage multiple relationships

•  To foster and develop •  To optimise communication

collaboration and co-operation

•  To encourage alignment to •  To ensure alignment of

objectives performance expectations

•  To develop shared values •  To facilitate improved

performance

13

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

During mergers and acquisitions

14

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

During organisational restructure

15

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

When commencing major alliances or projects

16

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

When engaging in new relationships

17

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

Refreshing long term relationships

18

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

When introducing new suppliers

19

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

Evalu8ing lets you measure, manage, maximise…

20

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

up to 8 stakeholder groups in one survey

21

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

In a time poor world, it takes less than 15 minutes

With up to a
maximum of
20 statements
or questions
for evaluation
in any survey

22

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

With a survey interface that is easy to use

The participant interface is easy to use

and intuitive, taking most people less
than 20 minutes to complete.

The interface is customised to the

participant and survey details and
tracks completion.

Sliders are dragged or clicked to

register response.

Any question or relationship the

participant feels is not relevant can be
flagged by the participant.

Participants have full navigation of the

survey to answer and review as they
desire.
Participants can provide
comments for every question
and every relationship.
Participants can complete the survey
in their own time and log out and back
in at any time.

23

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

And the entire process turned around in 2 weeks

24

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

An Evalu8ing example

Start: Sun-26-Jul-2009 Agency 1:

End: Sat-01-Aug-2009 •  Recently appointed independent creative
People: 24 agency to execute brand / communications
Complete: 95.6% strategy through primarily offer based
marketing
Average Score: 65.1
•  Strong services industry experience with
many similar retail clients

Categories & Questions

5 categories
Agency 2:
•  Planning •  Incumbent design / print agency has long
•  Time Management history with the client
•  Cross Functional Collaboration •  Responsible for designing brand / corporate
•  Budget Management identity
•  Production Management •  Develops and produces all print collateral
4 questions per category = 20 questions including retail and media

Agency 3:
Client: •  Digital agency appointed 12 months earlier
•  Technology services Client with significant on a project basis
retail and direct response focus •  Agency 2 & 3 owned by same holding
Participants from the Marketing company
Communications Team 25

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

 Overall Results – No honeymoon period here

•  The scores are set as:

•  RED = Below the survey average
•  YELLOW = Above the survey average
•  GREEN = Upper survey quartile

•  Agency 1 and Client scored the lowest overall

score.

•  Agency 3 score from Client is on the survey

average.

•  Agency 3 scored the highest overall score

from Agency 2.

Client Agency 1 Agency 2 Agency 3

Client 57 69 65

Agency 1 60 65 67

Agency 2 60 66 85

Agency 3 70 51 77
26

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

 Poor engagement of new supplier

Agency 1 said of Client

•  We are involved once marketing planning
have decided on tactical execution. We
should be more involved in the strategic
development to further assist in achieving a
stronger brand proposition.

•  Being involved earlier would allow for more

creative options and solutions.

•  We should be involved earlier from a strategic

point of view which allows for better planning
and better execution.

Agency 2 said of Client

•  If we could be involved earlier - even just
more of a heads up, we'd be able to deliver
much better creative.

27

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

 Misaligned expectations with new supplier

Client said of Agency 1

•  Will often take feedback and will only discuss
clarification if next round is off.

Client said of Agency 2

•  Overall communication is good. Clarification
sought very early on.
•  Agency 2 are great in coming over to the office or
calling if they don’t understand a brief or need
more detail.

Agency 1 said of Client

•  Client encourages questions and discussions,
however, quality of feedback / solidity of feedback
is too variable and subject to change. There is
little conviction in strategy / path to execution.
•  Feedback/debriefs needs to be clearer and
consistent, involving all decision makers.
•  Yes they encourage discussion but the feedback
is not consistent, unified or clear.

Agency 2 said of Agency 1

•  Relationship too new to tell. 28

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

 Systemic poor practice

Client said
•  I feel across the board with the agencies that we
sometimes lack the understanding or insights
behind the creative. This is an area to be improved.

Agency 1 said of Client

•  The psychographic segmentation of the market -
usage, shopping behavior, path to purchase
analysis - could be better and more focused in
briefings.
•  Information provided is not of a high quality,
relevance and often not considered in terms of the
deliverables. Too much information when we don't
need it and too little when we do.
•  Relevant information is drip fed and not consistent
and this affects timings and workflow.

Agency 2 said of Client

•  It would be incredibly helpful if more information
could be provided with briefs for us to work with -
particularly for things that are heavily copy based
(e.g. DM, catalogues and brochures). Too often we
are hunting through old pieces to try and find
relevant content. 29

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

 Poor client practices

Client said of Agency 1

•  I feel the feedback is often negative as opposed to
finding a positive solution.
Client said of Agency 2
•  Agency 2 consistently gives knowledgeable
feedback on all areas of comms (including TV)
Using their experience of working with us for a
number of years. They work well with the other
agencies to share previous learnings.
Agency 1 said of Client
•  Feedback could be less creatively subjective and
more consistent.
•  Feedback is prompt, usually non-constructive nor
provides a clear direction. It tends to be subjective
from personal viewpoints rather than what will
appeal/work for the target audience.
•  The feedback is prompt but it is not considered,
clear and definitive.
Agency 2 said of Client
•  Always prompt. Not always valuable.
•  This depends on where and from whom the
feedback is coming from. Sometimes, teams aren't
aligned in their feedback and one person says one
30
thing and another says another.

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

 Out of step with the current behaviours

Client said of Agency 2

•  It does vary on each project. I feel sometimes that
if its not a priority for Agency 2 then I need to
chase constantly, but when they know that we
have to get some super done urgent, they are
fairly good. I think it would help to know the
expected timelines, I always ask now when I will
hear back from them.
•  We work very fast and it is important to be able to
get hold of Agency 2 quickly when anything
changes. Agency 2 responds quickly but it is often
hard to get hold of them.

Agency 1 said of Client

•  Timelines are too short to allow for delayed
responses. This does not harbour an environment
to achieve the best result.

Agency 2 said of Client

•  Sometimes it is difficult to get hold of Client for
availability of meetings or responses. This is only a
reflection of how busy she is, but sometimes her
team can't give the feedback and we do need to
hear directly from her. 31

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

 Poor communications regarding expectations

Client said of Agency 1

•  They will meet the end timeline, but it's very loose
along the way and one is left feeling a little
uncomfortable that all is in hand.

Agency 1 said of Client

•  Timelines are set without consultation of the
agency/agencies. Milestones are set to suit
senior exec approvals rather than the
dependencies of the project. This renders them
ineffective.

•  Timelines are set without enough involvement

from the agency on what can be achieved in the
timeframe.

•  Timelines are set but without agency

consideration.

32

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

How to start Evalu8ing…

Want to discover more on how Evalu8ing can help you

measure, manage and maximise the collaboration and
performance of your ‘many to many’ relationships?

Evalu8ing can provide you with:

1.  More information on the system and applications @
http://www.evalu8ing.com/
2.  Your own system login @ http://survey.evalu8ing.com/
3.  A pilot study of the system for your organisation

Plus we have additional consulting services to assist you in

obtaining even greater value and insight from the process.

33

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.

For more information…

Evalu8ing Pty Ltd

Sydney
+612 8399 0922
Melbourne
+613 9682 6800
Hong Kong
+852 3589 3095
Singapore
+65 6884 9149

people@evalu8ing.com
www.evalu8ing.com

34

Evalu8ing. Collaboration. Relationships. Performance.