COMMUNICATION STRATEGY

The concept of Communication strategy (cs) is based on the assumption that corporate communication/ public relations/ communication management is practised as a strategic management function; that it assists the organisation to adapt to its environment by achieving a balance between commercial imperatives and socially acceptable behaviour; that it identifies and manages issues and stakeholders to ensure that organisational and communication goals are aligned to societal and stakeholder values and norms; and that it builds relationships through communication with those on whom the organisation depends to meet its economic and socio-political goals. Communication strategy is conceptualised as a functional strategy providing focus and direction to the Communication function. !t is facilitated by a practitioner performing the role of the communication manager at the functional organisational level. !t is the outcome of a strategic thinking process by senior communication practitioners and top managers taking strategic decisions on the management of and the communication with strategic stakeholders. "eveloping Communication strategy makes the Communication function relevant in the strategic management process by providing the link between the organisation#s strategic goals and its communication plans. The Communication strategy development process can be summarised as including both the formulation of communication goals in the Communication function#s $deliberate# strategy development (typically as part of the budgeting cycle for e%ample once a year) as well as the ongoing formulation of communication goals as part of $emergent# strategy development (the latter resulting from environmental scanning and issues management). The Communication strategy formulation process consists of several steps& Step 1& Develop 'deliberate' commu icatio !oal"# The organisation's key (strategic) priorities are reviewed culminating in a series of communication goals and themes aligned to these priorities representing 'deliberate' Communication strategy. The communication goals focus on closing the vision ( culture ( reputation gaps thereby increasing the effectiveness of the Communication function. Step $% Set e&&icie c' tar!et"# These are set to supplement communication goals thereby increasing the efficiency of the Communication function. Step (% Develop 'emer!e t' commu icatio !oal"# Constantly emerging societal and stakeholder issues that are identified in the organisation#s issues and stakeholder management process are addressed in a series of communication goals and themes that represent 'emergent' Communication strategy. The communication goals focus on closing the vision ( culture ( reputation gaps thereby increasing the effectiveness of the Communication function. Step )% Develop a commu icatio &rame*or+. )trategy development is transformed into strategy implementation by means of the communication framework. The latter provides an opportunity to indicate which communication plans will be developed around each of the goals. Step ,% Set commu icatio budget. bud!et" . The communication framework is resourced by deploying a

Step -% Set evaluatio met.odolo!'. The measurement of delivery on communication goals and efficiency targets are planned here. Step /% Ge erate commu icatio pla "# *roperties defined in the Communication strategy for each of the intended Communication plans (e.g. descriptions communication goals planning hori+ons and responsible people) will feed automatically through to the new Communication plans.

",-,./* '",.!0,12T,' C/3345!C2T!/5 6/2.)

!n )tep 7 the organisation's key (strategic) priorities are reviewed and a series of communication goals and themes determined that are aligned to these priorities. This represents the development of 'deliberate' Communication strategy.

Review the organisations key (strategic) priorities

2s a point of departure you must review the organisation#s key (strategic) priorities. 3ost organisations have an annual strategy development process linked to its budgeting cycle. "iffering from organisation to organisation the result of this process is called corporate strategy enterprise strategy business ob8ectives or strategic intent from which the key strategic priorities of the organisation for a specific period can be deducted. These strategic priorities (also called strategic goals) serve as the umbrella under which the rest of the organisation#s functional strategies belong.

Develop communication goals and themes

0ased on the key (strategic) priorities you are to develop a series of communication goals (and themes) outlining the deliberate strategy of the Communication function. These communication goals will provide the Communication function with a sense of purposeful direction ensuring that it focuses its resources on doing the right things. Communication goal-setting is the most important step in linking Communication strategy to higher-level strategic priorities. 2 communication goal is the destination an organisation wants to reach through its communication with regards to strategic priorities and their implications for stakeholders. !t provides the link with lower-level communication plans that are developed to implement these goals. Communication themes are also developed as broad messages that the organisation wants to communicate about specific strategic priorities. /ften organisations refer to themes as position statements. 9ell-formulated communication goals and communication themes are central to communication strategy development and should focus on closing the vision ( culture ( reputation gaps that e%ist between organisations and their internal and e%ternal stakeholders.

Close gaps to realise the organisations strategic priorities

"eliberate (and emergent) communication strategies no matter in which industry or conte%t usually have one aspect in common namely the need to address the vision ( culture - reputation gaps that e%ist in modern organisations. 4nderstanding the core business of communication management in this conte%t makes it much easier to identify the function#s role in working with the rest of the organisation towards a desired future (the so-called strategic intent). :rom the vision ( culture ( reputation gaps issues arise that need to be dealt with appropriately. The way in which an issue will be addressed depends on the nature of the issue. 5ot all issues can be solved by communication alone. !t is therefore important to classify issues that arise from these gaps in order to direct one#s communication. There are five issue types&

Organisational issues Type 1. Communication is not the cause of the problem but can provide a solution (e.g. organisational change such as transformation or a merger). Organisational issues Type . Communication is not the cause of the problem cannot provide a solution but can e%plain the issue (e.g. budget cuts or new legislation). Corporate communication issues. 9here too little or no communication with e%ternal stakeholders is the problem (e.g. with the media in case of negative publicity; or with investors in case of a volatile share price). !anagement communication issues. 9here too little or no (internal) communication between managers and employees is the cause of the problem (e.g. communication about the organisation#s vision or staff reductions). (Tactical) communication issues. 9here messages are not reaching target audiences (e.g. because of inappropriate communication channels such as television to reach a rural population; or email to reach factory workers; or difficult and technical language used to reach people who are communicating in their second language).

The Communication :unction#s strategic mandate is to support the C,/ in achieving the organisation#s strategic priorities through its core competence of corporate brand or reputation management. ,ffectively managing the organisation#s reputation and/or brand re;uires perfect alignment of the organisation#s vi"io (the leadership#s aspirations for the future of the organisation which is much more than a one-line slogan -- it is the story that clearly paints the picture of the organisation#s desired future); culture (the way in which the organisation presents itself through the behaviour of its employees); and reputatio (the collective perception of the organisation among its key stakeholders built over time). !n striving for the perfect balance between these three elements the 8ob of the Communication function is to close the gaps that may e%ist between them. There are potentially three different gaps that need to be closed& 7. The vi"io 0culture !ap develops when the leadership moves the organisation in a strategic direction not understood by employees (a management communication issue) or not supported by employees. (!n a worst case scenario the latter is an organisational issue Type < where communication cannot provide a solution but can be used to e%plain the issue. !n a best case scenario this is an organisational issue Type 7 where communication proves successful in obtaining the support). The reputatio 0culture !ap is caused by a misalignment between the organisation#s reputation and culture. !t usually means an organisation does not practise what it preaches and therefore inevitably leads to confusion about what the organisation stands for. (This is an organisational issue Type 7 where communication in the form of perception surveys amongst stakeholders will bring the confusion and its cause to light. This is also a management communication issue in bringing to employees/managers# attention the importance of $walking the talk#. This can also be a corporate communication issue when e%ternal stakeholders do not understand the vision because of insufficient communication from management.) The reputatio 0vi"io !ap is the result of conflict between what the leadership of the organisation sees as its future and key stakeholders# perceptions/e%pectations of the organisation. (This is a corporate communication issue when stakeholders have the wrong perception of where the organisation is going because of insufficient communication by management to them. !t is however an organisational issue Type 7 when stakeholder e%pectations of where the organisation should be going are in conflict with where the leadership thinks it should be going. !n this case communication can be used to provide a solution by bringing the societal or stakeholder perspective to management in order that organisational strategies can be ad8usted).

<.

=.

:rom the above it is evident that the Communication strategy is much more than one-way communication from the organisation to its internal and e%ternal stakeholders to communicate t.e or!a i"atio 1" de"ired &uture a d it" "trate!ic prioritie". 1ather it is two-way communication to create mutual agreement and understanding of the organisation#s desired future and its strategic priorities. 9hen employees (internal stakeholders) have a clear understanding of the vision and strategic priorities of the organisation and they know what behaviour is e%pected of them in order to achieve it they are likely to behave accordingly (closing the vision-culture gap). 9hen the relevant e%ternal stakeholders understand e%actly where the leadership of the organisation is taking it (vision) and what it will focus on to get there (strategic priorities) and as they see its employees behaving in a manner congruent with their understanding of where the organisation is heading (closing the reputation-culture gap) they are likely to e%perience the organisation more positively (closing the vision-reputation gap). The challenge in the development of Communication strategy is to gain insight regarding the relation between the organisation#s strategic priorities and its internal and e%ternal stakeholders# agendas needs and wants. /btaining this insight will enable you to define the uni;ue contribution of the Communication function resulting in three to five key priorities for the Communication function. -iew an e%ample of key priorities.

Close the vision"culture gap

!n order to develop strategies to close this gap the Corporate Communication strategist as a starting point has to have a clear understanding of the organisation#s strategic intent and priorities. 3erely repeating to employees the words used to capture the leadership#s thinking in the corporate strategy document is not enough. The idea is to delve deeper and to unpack the underlying intent of the vision and each of the strategic goals (sometimes called business plan ob8ectives or a variety of other terms) so that employees can truly understand and therefore support it. 2nother step towards closing this gap is to define enterprise values that are in support of the vision and strategic goals and to develop a Code of Conduct that captures the desired behaviours for living those

values. The communication strategy will seek to create ma%imum understanding and enterprise-wide buy-in for the values and behaviours.

Close the vision"reputation gap

The primary focus of the communication strategy in closing this gap is effective stakeholder relationship management. To perform this function effectively the Communication strategist needs to be involved in the formulation of the vision (organisation#s strategic intent) and strategic priorities as these have to be informed by insights on stakeholder needs e%pectations and perceptions. /nce the organisation#s strategy is developed and the vision and strategic goals are clearly articulated (or implicitly understood) it becomes a function of the communication strategy to identify the most relevant stakeholders not only for the organisation as a whole but more importantly for each of the strategic goals. The communication strategy then has to specify the ways in which the relationship with each of those stakeholders will be managed to ensure common understanding among stakeholders and the organisation of where it is heading and what it will focus on to get there. !t is part of the communication strategy development phase to specify the measurement tools that will be employed to determine and track stakeholder perceptions thereby determining the si+e and nature of the gap that still needs to be closed.

Close the reputation"culture gap

This becomes almost a natural conse;uence of the success achieved in closing the other two gaps. 9hen employees behave in a way that is congruent with the organisation#s vision and strategic goals (closing the vision-culture gap) and the organisation and its key stakeholders have a commonly shared view and understanding of the vision and strategic goals (closing the vision-reputation gap) there should be no gap between what the stakeholders e%pect of the organisation and how they e%perience the behaviour of its employees.

SET E22ICIENCY TARGETS A i du"tr' u der &ire

!n *ublic 1elations and Communication 3anagement strong emphasis has been placed on the effectiveness of progammes plans and campaigns and with very good reason. 2t the end of the day what matters most are the results achieved. !n spite of attempts to move from a cost to profit centre in the 7>>?s more than @AB of all Communication functions are operating as cost centres suggesting an assigned budget to be spent in line with a given mandate from the top with or without the potential to realise income. )ome Communication functions operate as in-house agencies supplying communication products and services at a charge to other units of the organisation. /thers are managed purely as support functions without any e%pectation to generate income. 9hatever the case may be the reality of being held accountable for how the organisation#s resources are spent ( the accumulated costs - is undeniably wide-spread and prevalent not only in private organisations but also in the public services sector. !n an era of downsi+ing characterised by the ;uest for enhanced efficiencies communication functions are not escaping the demand to 'do more with less'. ,ven worse there seem to be an embedded understanding that cost centres are fair targets of reduction and elimination if the going gets rough. 1esponding to the pressure the Communication industry has reacted mainly in three ways& 7. <. =. 2 renewed focus on effectiveness ( understanding what should be achieved by communication products programmes campaigns etc. 2 search for proving the illusive 1/! case ( substantiating the overall value of managed communication in terms of the value created for the organisation 2 closer look at the management of operations ( managing time ;uality and cost in line with the ;uest for enhanced efficiency

)tep 7 and = of the Communication strategy are concerned with developing communication goals in a manner that will facilitate the effectiveness of the communication function. This is done through alignment with the organisation#s strategic goals as well as issues and stakeholders in the environment. )tep < places the spotlight on the way in which the function manages its operations and offers the user an opportunity to supplement the set communication goals with efficiency targets. )tep C offers the communication framework as a catalytic mechanism to transform strategy development into strategy implementation. )tep A resources the implementation by deploying a budget. )tep D leads into the building of a 1/! case by ensuring that what could have been $big hairy audacious goals# and vastly general efficiency targets are specific enough to be measured.

Operatio al E3celle ce
:or a period in the late twentieth century many scholars and companies believed that managing operations was the most critical component of any organisation#s strategy. !nspired by the remarkable results achieved by Eapanese companies most organisations and their consultants placed a high priority on redesigning reengineering and continuously improving their processes. Company#s efforts to achieve operational e%cellence were largely successful. 3any en8oyed dramatic improvements in the ;uality cost and responsiveness of manufacturing and service delivery processes. 0ut there were also huge sacrifices made and several healthy business practices became casualties of this development. 2s with every development in business criticism mounted and through the pen of the gurus the pendulum have since swung from evolution to revolution from process to people from step-wise improvement to shifts in performance and from operational e%cellence to sustainable strategy. 9isdom gained from the above is never to pursue efficiency at all cost. Fet managing operations as a priority is as critical as it was A or 7? years ago. 9ithout e%cellent operations organisations find it difficult to e%ecute any strategy. !n the final analysis the ultimate challenge lies in a combination of Gey )trategic *riorities (do the right things) and /perational ,%cellence (do things right).

Drivi ! e&&icie c' i

Commu icatio

Ma a!eme t

-ery little has been done in terms of unpacking efficiency for Corporate Communication which in part e%plains why efficiency measures have been disregarded for so long. However taking a few sheets from the general management book it seems that setting efficiency targets ( like setting goals and ob8ectives ( vary depending on the level of planning. 3ore specifically applied to Communication 3anagement the

nature of efficiency targets set in the communication strategy communication plan and communication activity will change.

The focus in the Communication )trategy will be placed on strategic management (e.g. strategic alignment meta-planning financial /resource allocation continues learning and improvement and information system deployment);

-iew an e%ample of efficiency targets

the emphasis in the Communication plan will be on pro8ect management (utilisation of resources supplier management client satisfaction) and in planning Communication activities it will be inputs and throughputs that count (e.g. process ;uality task time cycle time activity cost).

*lanning for operational e%cellence should therefore happen on every level of planning. The ;uestion to ask is how we can improve the utilisation of our scarce resources in bringing about the desired results (achieving our goals ob8ectives and deliverables). /ften this boils down to cost reduction or process improvement. 9hen setting efficiency targets it is important to consider the typical measures to be used in determining success. !n order to stimulate thinking and demonstrate the intention with efficiency target setting a list of targets and measures taken from 1obert Gaplan and "avid 5orton#s )trategy 3aps were adapted for the Communication function. E&&icie c' tar!et 0ecome the industry cost leader Met.od

Cost per unit (e.g. staff newsletter) benchmarked against competitors *ercentage of annual reduction in cost per output *ercentage of cost budget variance *ercentage of employees trained in the five core competencies 5umber or percentage of employees ;ualified with professional status *ercentage of employees with knowledge and training in the core competencies identified for the team ,mployee survey on culture for continuous improvement and knowledge sharing 5umber of new process improvement ideas generated *ercent of employees process improvement suggestions adopted 5umber of ideas for ;uality and process improvement shared across multiple business units *erformance improvement from employee suggestions and actions (cost savings process time reductions). .ead time from re;uest to supplier to receipt of product / service /n-time delivery percentage *ercentage of transgression on delivery timelines 5umber of innovations from suppliers 5umber of suppliers providing communication services directly to internal customers 2ctivity-based cost per communication product Cost per unit of output (printed newsletter) 5umber of processes with substantial improvements

"evelop capacity

!nstil a culture of continuous improvement

2chieve 8ust-in-time supplier capability

4se new ideas from suppliers 2chieve supplier partnership .ower the cost of producing communication products Continuously improve processes


!mprove process responsiveness "eliver responsively to internal customers (other business units) !ncrease account share with internal customers (other business units)

5umber of inefficient or non-value added processes eliminated Cycle time (from start of production to product completed) .ead times from re;uest to delivery per proposal /n-time delivery percentage *ercent of growth in e%isting customers# business

DE4E5O6 'EMERGENT' COMMUNICATION GOA5S

!n )tep = constantly emerging societal and stakeholder issues that are identified in the organisation's issues and stakeholder management process are addressed in a series of communication goals and themes that represent 'emergent' Communication strategy.

#ssues and stakeholder management

:or the Communication function the process of formulating emergent (also called emerging) strategy is a continuous process of detecting identifying interpreting and monitoring issues in order to pre-empt the implications of these issues on the organisation#s stakeholders its policies and its strategies. The outcome of regular structured and systematic analysis of the environment is an !ssues 3ap. This !ssues 3ap results from the prioritisation of issues based on conse;uences for stakeholders. -iew an !ssues 3ap. :or each of the issues taking into consideration the issue analysed and the stakeholders impacted communication goals and themes are to be developed in order to cope with a problem/opportunity inherent to the issue. The formulation of a set of communication goals and themes in emergent strategy formulation is similar to the process followed with deliberate strategy formulation in )tep 7. :or e%ample an organisation may decide to focus on its human capital as a highly valued resource by consistently communicating to employees that they are the organisation#s competitive edge -- not an issue but rather a communication opportunity for the leadership. This is an intended (deliberate) strategy with a related communication programme to achieve this strategic goal. However through a culture and climate study the organisation may realise that the trust gap between management and employees has actually widened instead of closed. 2s a result the organisation may turn its attention to unaddressed underlying issues (e.g. perceived ine;uality and preferential treatment) important to employees instead of the constant feed of Ifeel good messagesJ (the so called Company speak). This becomes an emergent strategy dealing with a detected issue arising from the internal environment. /rganisations must be alert to recognise advantageous emergent strategies and fle%ible to accept them. /therwise an ineffective intended strategy may not bring the desired results and a beneficial emergent strategy will not be allowed to thrive.

$nalyse the environment

9ithout a research orientation communication practitioners cannot play a part in !ssues or 1isk 3anagement and therefore in the formulation of emergent strategy. There are two types of research in communication& environmental scanning which provides information needed for strategy formulation; and evaluation research which assesses the achievement of communication ob8ectives. !n practice the focus is on the latter. However it is by conducting environmental scanning and analysis that the Communication function will make its biggest contribution to strategy formulation at the 0oard and top management level. The credibility and impact of the Communication function in the strategic management process is increased by continuous scanning of the internal and e%ternal environment. This may entail the following&

Conducting advanced media analysis at regular intervals to understand the agenda and behavioural patterns of key decision-makers (editors and 8ournalists) and publications (electronic and print) in the mass media. ,ngaging in rigorous monitoring of relevant government decision-makers on all identified issues. Conducting opinion audits (formal or informal surveys) amongst strategic stakeholders influencers and opinion leaders to determine their opinions on identified issues. Creating channels to track the opinions of stakeholders on these issues over time. !dentifying any (all) interest groups or activists that campaign for or against or have a vested interest in any of the identified issues.

I""ue a al'"i"
1esulting from environmental scanning analysis of an issue consists of&

)howing insight into the main problem and/or opportunity inherent to the issue (e.g. How does this issue affect the organisation now or will it impact on the organisation in futureK).

4nderstanding the issue in the conte%t of its life cycle development in order to indicate its status (the Traffic .ight )tatus tool may be used to indicate status). 2n honest assessment of the type of issue/ risk we#re dealing with as not all identified issues can be solved solely through communication interventions (the !ssue Typology tool of )teyn L *uth <??? is often used to manage e%pectations upfront and lay the foundation for realistic goals and ob8ectives to follow).

-iew an e%ample of !ssues 2nalysis.

%takeholder assessment
!f environmental scanning is a starting point for the formulation of emergent strategy then stakeholder assessment is its control focus. The first step in setting communication goals and themes is to identify the relevant stakeholders to an issue. 2ny issue without an affected stakeholder group is really not an issue at all. The motivation to constantly analyse the internal and e%ternal environments of an organisation lies in tracking stakeholder reactions to current issues and detecting new issues. !ntelligence gained from environmental scanning may entail&

The opinions knowledge and e%pectations of both internal and e%ternal stakeholders such as employees communities and customers. The agenda of the media as gatekeepers and advocates of particular viewpoints. The agendas of interest groups and activists who directly seek to influence public policy. The government#s position. The implications of an issue on a stakeholder group and the likely behaviour of the stakeholder group as a result. (9hat are the implications on stakeholder MK 9hat is the likely behaviour of stakeholder MK *ossible actions they may takeK). The degree to which a stakeholder is already aware of the e%istence of an issue (usually rated on a A-point .ikert scale). The e%tent to which the organisation is vulnerable to the likely stakeholder reaction (usually rated on a A-point .ikert scale). !t is important to determine the amount of power a stakeholder group has in relation to a specific issue. The amount of power depends on the organisation#s dependency on that stakeholder group as well as the access that the group has to political processes and to the mass media.

!n linking issues to stakeholders there are four important elements to consider&

The relative strategic importance of the stakeholder to the organisation. (!s the stakeholder labelled as a primary or secondary stakeholderK)

-iew an e%ample of )takeholder !nterpretation.

%takeholder relationships
There are four approaches in dealing with stakeholders& Approac. 1 0 I activit'% The first approach inactivity involves ignoring the opinions and values of stakeholder groups and continuing Ibusiness as usualJ. :or instance this would be the case when a company starts receiving complaints from customers about defective tyres that they are manufacturing. The company however decides to ignore the complaints and continues selling the tyres. Approac. $ 0 Reactivit'% The second approach reactivity involves waiting for something to occur (usually stimulated by a stakeholder group) and responding to that. Continuing the e%ample& 2fter a series of accidents and the loss of lives the 6overnment ("ept. of Transport) commissions an in;uiry. /nly now does the organisation withdraw its tyres from the market. Approac. ( 7 6ro0activit'% The third approach pro-activity is anticipatory. !t involves trying to predict the behaviour of stakeholder groups the e%ternal changes that may occur and positioning the organisation appropriately. !n the above e%ample if the organisation had been in touch with its customers or dealers through research they could have investigated the matter before it became public knowledge. This could have

resulted in fi%ing the problem or recalling the tyres. However government intervention led to a loss of credibility and reputation. Approac. ) 7 I teractivit'% The fourth approach in dealing with stakeholders is the interactive mode that entails active involvement with the stakeholder groups that can influence the future of the organisation. !f the organisation had good two-way communication with their stakeholders they would have identified the problem in its early stages. ,ven more effective would have been to follow a partnership approach with stakeholders. *artnering would have involved the affected customers dealers or government in the problem-solving and decision-making processes of the company with regards to the defective tyres. 2 partnering approach could have strengthened relationships with stakeholders rather than antagonising them.

%&T CO!!'(#C$T#O( )R$!&*OR+

"uring the formulation of deliberate and emergent strategy in )teps 7 and = only broad communication goals are set indicating the desired future outcome (mini vision) for communication interventions. !n this step in the Communication )trategy ()tep C) an opportunity is provided to indicate which communication plans will be developed around each of the goals. This framework for all the communication plans visibly demonstrates the link to strategy while at the same time enables budgeting. !t is the point of departure for the communication planning phase to be discussed in the ne%t plan type& Communication *lan (C*). -iew an e%ample of a Communication :ramework.

),T C/3345!C2T!/5 04"6,T)

SET E4A5UATION MET8ODO5OGY Mea"uri ! t.e value o& Commu icatio Ma a!eme t

!n )eptember <??C in what has been labelled as Ithe largest and most comprehensive survey of the *1 profession ever attemptedJ (0enchpoint !ntelligent 3easurement <??C) -9: of 7?C? respondents from <A countries said they measure the effectiveness of what they do. //: of those who do not currently engage in any form of measurement stated they plan to do so in future. Those spearheading the move towards increased measurement were no other than the 0oard of "irectors and C,/s of the surveyed companies. !n the same study ;;: of all respondents said they would be interested in the development of a 1eturn-on-!nvestment (1/!) tool. The possibility to substantiate the value of communication with numbers is a compelling thought for practitioners. !n both the 4)2 and ,urope much has been published on the elusive 1/! case for public relations and communication management. The common thread that runs through discussions on measurement and evaluation appears to be the ;uestion of accountability. 9ell-managed organisations that are accountable to their shareholders members or ta%payers view e%penditure on Communication 3arketing and Human 1esources as an investment. 2s such these functions should yield a 1/!. :rom the perspective of senior management and shareholders the most desired and attractive form of 1/! has always been a direct monetary return demonstrated in increased sales share price market share or increased membership sponsorship funding and other financial criteria. 6iven these criteria some management disciplines such as the Communication function preferred to think about themselves as IintangibleJ and therefore not sub8ect to 1/! e%pectations. However mounting pressure for increased accountability and the robust shift towards triple bottom line performance not only introduced new forms of 1/! measurement but e%tended the 1/! criteria beyond the financial bottom line. )ystems such as Gey *erformance !ndicators (G*!s) or Gey 1esults 2reas (G12s) 0enchmarking and 0alanced )core Cards used widely by organisations are no longer concerned with financial results only. )ound social and environmental performance is becoming prere;uisites to obtain and maintain a $licence to operate#. !ntangible assets of organisations such as intellectual capital customer satisfaction and loyalty corporate reputation positive stakeholder relations employee satisfaction and loyalty and corporate culture are now estimated to account for N?B of an organisation#s worth. :or some companies the estimation is even higher. The current concept of bottom-line a 7Ath century method of accounting for an organisation#s tangible assets (land buildings machinery raw materials an inventory of finished products capital etc.) cannot recognise intangible assets or for that matter the contribution of any function towards intangible assets. !f growth and prosperity in present-day business no longer depend on financial performance alone and if value creation in the new economy is fuelled less by physical or tangible assets and more by intangible assets then clearly delivery on 1eputation 1isk 3anagement Corporate )ocial 1esponsibility and )takeholder 1elationship 3anagement resides within the core of this $new 1/! criteria#. This argument does not only make the evaluation of a Communication :unction possible it puts building a 1/! case through the systematic accumulation of measurement results well within the reach of users of this software system.

The com,ro ,er-ormance !easurement %ystem

0orrowing from thought leaders on communication measurement and evaluation a performance measurement system has been developed consisting of a generic framework for evaluation that can be customised for an organisation#s strategic intent own conte%t or specific organisational needs. The system asks of the user to choose from a list of metrics and methods to evaluate (7) e--ectiveness and (<) e--iciency on three levels&

.evel 7& ,valuating communication activities products and events (against pre-specified deliverables). .evel <& ,valuating communication plans programmes and campaigns (against ob8ectives). .evel =& ,valuation the communication strategy (against goals).

The primary aim of the performance measurement management system is continuous improvement and organisational learning through constant feedback. !nvolvement of all practitioners is important and therefore the system is designed to be accessible transparent and easy to understand and use. There are three critical principles&

6ri ciple 1% Evaluatio

i"

ot re"earc.

)ome of the main reasons offered for the lack of communication evaluation are $lack of research budget# $lack of time to do research and $lacking research skills# suggesting some kind of confusion between research and evaluation. ,valuation does not e;uate formal research. There are many evaluation techni;ues such as self-assessment peer group ratings and one-on-one client or management feedback that can fairly and easily be applied without any formal research. 9hile the importance of formal structured research is not to be debated it is not evaluation per se. !f measurement and evaluation can only take place when research is possible 1/! will forever be elusive. 1esearch is a strategic tool that feeds into planning implementation and evaluation and a valid and reliable tool it can indeed be. 3easurement and evaluation on the other hand is a management process not a once-off or bi-annual pro8ect. !n the absence of a research budget or time measurement and evaluation should still carry on.

6ri ciple $% Evaluatio

i" a

o !oi !< "'"tematic proce""

0y evaluating activities plans and strategies in a continuous integrated and systematic process and by using a range of formal and informal methods evaluation can be more strategic and valuable to management. !nstead of attempting one large research pro8ect when money and time is available $lots of little bits of evaluation# make the process more valuable manageable and cost effective.

6ri ciple (% Evaluatio

i" a &or*ard loo+i ! activit'

The reason we systematically measure everything boils down to reducing uncertainties improving effectiveness and enhancing decisions. The purpose and focus of evaluation is learning to improve future performance. 5aturally the collection of historical data is an essential prere;uisite but when perceived simply as looking back to 8udge past performance evaluation can be threatening. 9hen used as a process to gather information in order to advise management and contribute to the cycle of continuous improvement measurement and evaluation are much more constructive. *ractitioners may feel uncomfortable if they have the perception that they are being I8udgedJ by their immediate managers but seldom ob8ect to having a process measured by a tool. This shift in focus to see evaluation as a forward looking activity is important to resolve the $fear of being evaluated# which has kept many communication practitioners from embracing evaluation more enthusiastically.

5evel" o& evaluatio

2 ;uestion often asked is I9hy $setting an evaluation methodology# should be part of planningKJ The answer to this ;uestion lies in the essence of strategic alignment. )trategic alignment is a process whereby the imperatives in the organisation#s top-level strategies (e.g. ,nterprise and Corporate strategy) are translated into a functional strategy (e.g. Communication strategy). Consecutively the functional strategy is deployed into cascading levels of planning and implementation. The number of levels in the planning system is of little importance as long as every subse;uent plan pro8ect programme or activity is in line with the strategic intent. !n the process of strategic alignment planning is $rolled down# and evaluation is $rolled up# along the same strategic line. Therefore strategy development and planning are integral parts of the performance measurement system. The evaluation process to measure the success of a Communication function cannot be initiated at the end of the financial or calendar year or even half way through. The measurement criteria must be built into the strategy development and planning. 9ithout $something to measure against# measurement provides results in isolation with little or no value for evaluation. 3easurement becomes evaluation only when compared to a specific norm such as a communication goal ob8ective target or deliverable. The yardstick for performance measurement will always be imbedded in the communication function#s planning architecture.

Metric" a d Met.od"
The first step in evaluation is to determine $what# to measureK The strong emphasis in e%isting literature on measurement techni;ues methods and tools is concerning as too much energy is spent on discussing the $how to# of communication measurement instead of focusing on the $what# that should be measured. 2ll too often instead of conceptualising the $what# of measurement practitioners seem to be

locked in discussions on the merits of focus groups media content analysis and opinion surveys or defending the ob8ectivity and randomness or timing of methodologies deployed. The $what# to measure in communication evaluation is referred to as metrics. 3etrics are therefore the various constructs (things) that are to be measured. -iew list of metrics. 3ethods on the other hand describe the $how to# (techni;ues) of communication measurement. !n most cases the $how to# of communication measurement involves $ asking the relevant stakeholders# be it with a focus group or survey or interview. -iew list of methods. To set realistic metrics communication practitioners need lots of common sense and at least an elementary understanding of communication theory. 3easuring intangible assets like corporate reputation brand e;uity relationships and corporate citi+enship is not an easy task. Clustered within terms such as reputation and relationships are many different more basic constructs like loyalty trust satisfaction faith and admiration. 9e need to understand what we want to measure before we can ask. !ll-conceived assumptions about what communication can achieve sometimes lead to misguided and overly optimistic goals that make evaluation risky and problematic. This is best achieved with a conceptual construct that displays the full $what# of measurement in a framework (.ikely <???&<C). The $how# (techni;ues of measurement) is an operational matter for which e%ternal advice can be sought.

5evel ( Evaluatio
The third level of evaluation planned in this step of the Communication strategy measures the performance of the function against its set strategic goals in the longer term. 4sually these measures cannot be linked to one specific activity or plan but relates to the collective performance of the function over time. 3ovement on indicators such as reputational value and relationship health is a conse;uence of the value created by Communication 3anagement over a longer period of time. !t therefore is known as the measurement of $outgrowths# or the cumulative effects of the performance of Communication 3anagement on the previous two levels (activities and plans). ,::,CT!-,5,))& 3easurement of the Communication function#s effectiveness is critical to link its performance with organisational goal achievement. The ma8ority of communication goals do not directly contribute to increased market penetration market share sales and ultimately profitability (the bottom line). Communication 3anagement is often called upon to influence areas important to long-term sustainable success such as key stakeholders# perceptions of the organisation. !f a communication goal was set in a $straight strategic line# with an organisational goal then achieving that communication goal will positively impact on achievement of the organisational goal ( thereby contributing to the new 1/! criteria or triple bottom line. 2ccordingly the contribution of Communication 3anagement must be measured in more than direct monetary returns even in financially(orientated public and private companies. -iew an e%ample of selected metrics and methods for measuring effectiveness.

,::!C!,5CF& ,fficiency metrics comprise the areas in which top management would like to see improvement of the overall management (time cost and ;uality) of the function. 3etrics can include process improvements productivity improvements cost containment or people development ( culminating in a process of continuous improvement. -iew an e%ample of selected metrics and methods for measuring efficiency.

GENERATE COMMUNICATION 65ANS

The strategic intent articulated in the Communication )trategy (C)) cascades into a combination of Communication *lans created in )tep C of the C). The number of Communication *lans is of little importance as long as every subse;uent plan pro8ect programme or activity is in line with the function#s strategic intent. 6enerating these Communication *lans release the needed planning vehicles for teams in the Communication function to plan e%actly how communication goals will be achieved. /nce generated a Communication *lan becomes part of the list of plans in the software system. *roperties defined in the Communication )trategy for each of the intended Communication *lans (e.g. descriptions communication goals planning hori+ons and responsible people) will feed automatically through to the new Communication *lan. This feature of the software enables strategic alignment between the functional strategy of a Communication division and its subse;uent planning activities.