Board Self-Assessment:2015 Benchmark Report

NCMA Governance CommitteeCharlie Williams, PY16 Chair

2

Survey

• First time using updated annual survey• 23 surveys distributed; 23 surveys completed (100%

response rate)• Performance of the Board• Nine (9) areas of board responsibility• Compare our responses to association benchmarks,

and our data from last year

3

Survey Results

• 9 areas measured1. Mission2. Strategy3. Public Image and Advocacy4. Board Composition5. Program Oversight6. Financial Oversight7. Executive Director Oversight8. Board Structure9. Meetings

Avg. Score

Bench: 3.08

2015: 3.22

2014: 3.45

2013: 3.05

2012: 3.35

*1.1 Supporting the association's mission.

*1.2 Periodically reviewing the mission to ensure it is appropriate.

*1.3 Using the association's mission and values to drive decisions.

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

1. Mission

2012201320142015Benchmark

5

Comments on 1. Mission• Review mission and vision in each board meeting, ensuring all board members understand each and are

working congruently to meet objectives of both. With committees working somewhat independently, it increases the possibility that board members will veer off the shared vision and objectives path.

• Drive toward results more quickly by following through on actions.

• Mission, Vision and Strategic Plan needs to be updated

• The Board needs to further dissociate itself from daily Executive Director duties. The Board should work for the President, and should not become entangled in Operational issues. That creates a conflict of interest when the Board later attempts to evaluate the performance of the Executive Director. rjb

• More attention to strategy development in a structured and organized fashion. 1 to 3 year and 5 year plans are the norm for strategy.

• Continue to review our vision and mission and on-going board activities

• Need to distinguish Tactical/Operational activities from Strategic/Advisory activities

• Make it a point at each board meeting.

• The Board needs to do a better job of focusing on a mission and vision and then following through with the execution. Seems like we talk about the same issues every year but don't do anything to change the outcome.

Avg. Score

Bench: 2.86

2015:3.04

2014: 3.08

2013: 2.52

2012: 2.89

*2.1 Assessing and responding to changes in the association's environment.

*2.2 Understanding the needs of the association's members and stakeholders.

*2.3 Using the strategic planning process to set the association's strategic direction in partnership with the Executive Director.

*2.4 Focusing regularly on strategic and policy issues versus operational issues.

*2.5 Tracking progress toward meeting the association's strategic goals.

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

2. Strategy

2012201320142015Benchmark

7

Comments on 2. Strategy• The existing goals were tracked and measured to some extent. Evolving the strategic plan was minimal

at best.

• Re-review the existing strategic plan, look strategically at existing trends in professional associations, the acquisition environment, and contract management profession.

• Working more closely with NCMA staff, especially with the Executive Director, and searching for new and/or improved ways to get more in touch with the members and former members to determine how to better serve them.

• Time to dust off the strategy and conduct a deep dive to lay out the next 5 year plan.

• The distinction between strategic and operational matters is often a gray line.

• Through focus and clarity on strategy and aligning the goals and objectives to that. We did it in some instances that provide clear strategic intent, but not consistently.

• Focusing on strategic planning and understanding and acting upon membership needs

• Hold the ED accountable to advancing the CMBOK as the cornerstone of contract management knowledge.

• Need to distinguish Tactical/Operational activities from Strategic/Advisory activities

• We are getting better as a Board understanding when we are starting to get into the weeds but still have a lot of work to do on establishing a strategic plan and then utilizing it going forward to make decisions.

• Seems like the Association could be a little more pro-active in dealing with environmental changes--like a loss of market share in the webinar arena.

Avg. Score

Bench: 2.90

2015: 3.49

2014: 3.32

2013: 2.53

2012: 2.87

3.1 Building a positive public image of the association.

3.2 Networking to establish collaborations and partnerships with other organizations.

3.3 Maintaining an open dialogue with the association's members related to public image and advocacy issues.

3.4. Articulating and approving broad, overarching positions on industry or professional issues.

3.5 Advocating on behalf of the association and its members.

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50

3. Public Image and Advocacy

2012201320142015Benchmark

9

Comments on 3. Public Image and Advocacy

• Ensure clear distinction of NCMA Strategic goals with that of day-to-day operations, with clear articulation of evolving strategy and the external environment.

• Mike has done well at putting a public face to NCMA; other Board members need to step up to do more of the same. Would also like to see more press about how we're collaborating with other associations/organizations. ABA, APMP, others... there are complementary associations we could work with to establish our leadership role within the 'association' realm.

• Think we need to utilize the talents on the Board more strategically. Also think we need to make sure we are giving as much attention to the main industry leaders; not just government.

• Feel like the association is very reluctant to "advocate" or take a position on issues affecting the industry. There seems to be a desire to keep NCMA "out of the fray" and let the industry associations take up the advocacy mantel.

Avg. Score

Bench: 2.61

2015: 3.25

2014: 2.85

2013: 2.50

2012: 2.96

*4.1 Examining the board's current composition and identifying gaps, e.g., in professional expertise, influence, ethnicity, age, gender.

*4.2 Effectively orienting new board members.

*4.3 Utilizing the skills and talents of individual board members.

*4.4 Identifying and cultivating potential board members as part of a succession planning process.

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

4. Board Composition

2012201320142015Benchmark

11

Comments on 4. Board Composition

• The executives should have a clearer understanding of what strengths each board member posses, what each member can do for NCMA. Discussion with each board member as to what their strongest areas are, and how that can be leveraged to help NCMA.

• Committee assignments seem to have been in part based on Presidential preferences, not necessarily aligning Board member desires and strengths. In some cases, some Board members seemed to always have a regular conflict between Board required activity on working groups and committees and often were not able to significantly participate in the assigned Board activities, resulting in more work for those that made the necessary time as part of their commitment to being a Board member. The BoD is more than a line on a resume or profile. When this happens, the greater capability of the board is marginalized and less gets done. The association and the membership ultimately suffers.

• Establishing "Watch Lists," and Board Competencies is a huge step forward in ensuring future Boards are properly resourced to manage the Association's challenges. NCMA must go beyond filling its Board with directors with only contracting competencies, but also requires senior executives with strategic vision, education, legal, financial, CEO level business, and expanded state/local, subcontracting/supply chain, academic, training and program management competencies as well.

• Continue to survey members and nonmembers for skills/abilities that are needed/desired for board positions in the future. Could incorporate chapter leaders/volunteers/board members' talents into a future leader pool for development and succession planning.

• The Board orientation session should set expectations with incoming 1st. yr. members to delineate the operational/tactical role of Executive Director/HQ Staff and the strategic/advisory role of the BoD

Avg. Score

Bench: 2.87

2015: 3.50

2014: 3.22

2013: 2.65

2012: 3.23

*5.1 Ensuring the board receives sufficient information related to programs and services.

*5.2 Ensuring the association has adequate infrastructure, such as staff, facilities, volunteers and technologies.

*5.3 Determining whether the association has in place appropriate policies and procedures governing the activities of its chapters.

*5.4 Identifying standards against which to measure organizational performance e.g., industry benchmarks, competitors or peers.

*5.5 Monitoring the quality of the association's programs and services.

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

5. Program Oversight

2012201320142015Benchmark

13

Comments on 5. Program Oversight• Without a relevant and current strategic plan, measurement becomes less relevant and less focused since

there is no plan within which to perform. Other than strict operational and standard measures, you can't know what and where to measure.

• Improving the Board's orientation to expand existing information on existing NCMA programs, and best practices of non-profit Board policy and governance models.

• Figure out what NCMA certifications/programs are really about. For example, Board discussions have focused around not diluting the NCMA certifications brand, but survey data discussed indicated NCMA certifications generally do not translate to pay increases, promotions, or other professional recognition in gov or industry

• The Board understands the association's programs and services based on the ED's Ops Report. However, we still debate over the definition of "critical programs," and I believe we need to drive more independence into the ED's role while ensuring the Board has better insight into industry benchmarks on how to evaluate performance. I see too much co-mingling of Board/Staff operations, and insufficient insight into what "world class" associations provide their members. That results in an Ops Report, but not truly a Board-led assessment... which is what the Board should be doing. Governance, not operations. rjb

• The association could do a much better job at tracking the implementation of programs and directly coordinating data to determine success. Also think the association tends to stick with a program too long when all signs are pointing that it is past its shelf life.

Avg. Score

Bench: 3.10

2015: 3.78

2014: 3.62

2013: 3.24

2012: 3.73

*6.1 Ensuring the annual budget reflects the association's priorities and addresses key budget risks.

*6.2 Monitoring the association's financial health, e.g., against budget, year-to-year comparisons, ratios.

*6.3 Reviewing the results of the independent financial audit and management letter.

*6.4 Establishing and reviewing the association's investment policies.

*6.5 Ensuring that insurance carried by the association is reviewed periodically e.g., general liability, directors' and officers', worker's compensation.

*6.6 Ensuring the association has policies to manage risks, e.g., reserves, internal controls, personnel policies.

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50

6. Financial Oversight

2012201320142015Benchmark

15

Comments on 6. Financial Oversight

• There are issues with chapters not complying with the IRS requirements. We have tried to wrestle with this, but need to come to a hard decision to protect NCMA.

• The financial management area of NCMA is very strong, as evidenced by all recent external audits.

• It would be helpful to instruct board members, especially new ones, regarding financial practices, such as reserved/not reserved funds, before board members are required to give input that may impact the financial decisions made for the association. In short, ensure board members understand what they are expected to weigh in on.

• Oversight of Chapter financial controls is important for the Association's reputation

• Would really like the association to start looking at opportunities along with risks and quantifying and tracking those opportunities through implementation to see if they are as successful as planned.

Avg. Score

Bench: 3.17

2015: 3.20

2014: 3.13

2013: 2.88

2012: 2.70

*7.1 Cultivating a climate of mutual trust and respect between the board and Executive Director.

*7.2 Establishing priorities and setting performance goals by mutual agreement with the Executive Director.

*7.3 Giving the Executive Director enough authority to lead the staff and manage the association successfully.

*7.4 Discussing and constructively challenging recommendations made by the Executive Director.

*7.5 Formally assessing the Executive Director’s performance and ensuring compensation is approved in accordance with Association policy.

*7.6 Planning for the absence or departure of the Executive Director (e.g., succession planning).

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

7. Executive Director Oversight

2012201320142015Benchmark

17

Comments on 7. Executive Director Oversight• Most of these are not disclosed to BOD members. The President seems to have control, as maybe it

should be.

• 1. One would have to ask the ED if he believes he is failry compensated. 2. There needs to be a finer point made between what the BoD's roles and responsibilities are with respect to the ED's and staff's roles. I believe that too often the BoD reaches into the ED domain to drive an outcome that really is up to the ED and the staff. The BoD should be governing and evaluating and measuring, not doing NCMA business ops..that is the ED and the staff. I believe if you ask the ED and the staff, they will provide a list of these areas that are relevant. Do it, ask them!

• Review of compensation and performance goals against relevant and appropriate benchmarks will ensure continued improvement.

• Keep the Executive Director in the loop as committees move forward with duties and perceived objectives to help avoid straying and/or duplicating efforts of former boards or staff

• Much better transparency this year

• This area requires improvement. It's "Good/Very Good" but could be better. Laying in a solid, well-negotiated performance plan early in the year and then allowing the ED to work to it is an imperative. (Similar to a SOW/PWS construct.) And, Mike will need to be more receptive to offerings/ideas forwarded to him in the spirit of improvement. There's some tension in this area that needs resolution. rjb

• I don't recall any succession planning or discussions of future candidates for key positions.

• Do we have a plan if Mike won the lottery and left tomorrow?

Avg. Score

Bench: 2.98

2015: 3.52

2014: 3.44

2013: 2.83

2012: 3.25

*8.1 Carrying out the board's legal duties of care, loyalty, and obedience.

*8.2 Defining responsibilities and setting expectations for board member performance.

*8.3 Implementing steps to improve governance and the performance of the board.

*8.4 Periodically reviewing and updating the bylaws, board policies, and board procedures.

*8.5 Following and enforcing its conflict-of-interest policy.

*8.6 Reviewing its committee structure to ensure it supports the work of the board.

0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.50

8. Board Structure

2012201320142015Benchmark

19

Comments on 8. Board Structure• Not much thought is shared as to the committees and their goals, and what each member is expected to bring to

that committee. It seems as we populate the BOD with higher level executives who have very demanding and time consuming jobs we require considerable investment of their time to properly execute their committee duties. Most corporate BODs do not have these high level people doing 'grunt' work.

• Seems like SOME board members are not committed to assignments they sign up for. Need to re-inforce that people need to follow-through on commitments.

• See previous comments on BoD over reach and non-performing BoD members

• With the establishment of new Committee roles and member responsibilities should be re-reviewed again. There was some disagreement this year between various Committee assignments and staff, which created extra unnecessary energy and frustration. If unclear what direction a Committee should take, lacking prerequisite strategic guidance, it would be inappropriate to "create initiatives" simply for the sake of activity. The Board must focus on strategy and big picture guidance and leave operational details to the CEO and staff.

• Improve communication and decrease assumptions made

• Not all Board members carry the same load... and, we (as a Board) may want to engage in some self-assessment and association benchmarking to determine what that load should be. Our committees remain oriented toward "activities" vs. strategic planning or thinking, and (in my opinion) that goes against the purpose of a substantive Board and creates a blurring of the lines wrt distinctive roles. I'd also like to see some form of routine Education/Training required for Board membership. Even a couple hours per year of Education on "world-class Board practices" might get Board members focused on Governance vs. Contract Management.

• Some Board members do business receiving revenues from the Contracting field (the association's constituents, not perform in Contracting)--do we get a Personal Conflict of Interest and recusal statement from them or do we just have them sign the ethics statement? This could be an area to consider to ensure an unconflicted focus.

• Think there is still confusion on what roles belong to staff and what belong to committees. Also see a lack of accountability for Board responsibilities and duties.

Avg. Score

Bench: 3.06

2015: 3.61

2014: 3.37

2013: 2.94

2012: 3.36

*9.1 Fostering an environment that builds trust and respect among board members.

*9.2 Preparing for board meetings (e.g., reading materials in advance, following up on assignments).

*9.3 Establishing and enforcing policies related to board member attendance.

*9.4 Using effective meeting practices, such as setting clear agendas, having good facilitation, and managing time well.

*9.5 Engaging all board members in the work of the board.

*9.6 Efficiently making decisions and taking action when needed.

*9.7 Monitoring board activities to identify and address discriminatory or non-inclusive behaviors.

*9.8 Ensuring that minutes of meetings and actions taken by governing bodies and authorized committees are documented.

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50

9. Meetings

2012201320142015Benchmark

21

Comments on 9. Meetings

• This goes to not only engaging BoD members, but also holding them accountable for performance beyond meeting attendance.

• There are some Board members who do not completely engage with Committees and overall Board activities. Perhaps some one on one discussion should occur with those members during the year to ensure all members contribute.

• Board members need to identify to the President or EC if they believe their skills and expertise are not being appropriately utilized.

• Create clear and achievable goals for the Board, given that Board members have other important responsibilities.