SVP AUSTIN

TO: MARISSA VOGEL, DENIS CAVNER

FROM: ROB

SUBJECT: SVP AUSTIN ENGAGEMENT/ADVISORY CAPABILITIES – DRAFT 2

DATE: 1/3/2023

CC:

INTRODUCTION

SVP Austin wants to start up a scalable advisory capability to meet an array of non-profit needs. There
has been significant discussion around tools and templates, presumably to create structure and to embed
some process quality. Robust tool definition and situational application of those tools will come later. As
a start-up we first need to answer three questions: (1) What are the non-profit needs we wish to serve?,
(2) What discrete capabilities can we deploy against those needs?, (3) What organizational
structure/processes does SVP adopt to deliver reliably high quality both to non-profit clients and to its
members?

The proposal below seeks to balance structure and accountability with accessibility and inclusion because
without structure and accountability delivering quality advice is impossible but too much risks alienating
broader SVP membership (though, as discussed, only a fraction of the membership wants to really work).

NEEDS & CAPABILITIES

The figure above shows a comprehensive set of non-profit needs and another comprehensive set of SVP
Engagement Capabilities below them. The needs are fairly self-explanatory with the possible exception
of Ongoing Oversight which is intended to denote a multi-year (potentially) posting providing cohesive,
comprehensive, operating advice generally in the role of a board/advisory board member, for instance at
an SVP Investee.
The SVP Capabilities are broadly:

1. Program Optimization. Focused engagements scoped cooperatively between SVP and the non-
profit into an (approximately) 8 week ‘tiger team’ type project. The SVP team would be
comprised of an experienced team leader and 1-3 additional SVP members (lesser or
inexperienced) who have interest in the cause or the type of project. The project would be
overseen and backstopped by the SVP Advisory Head.
2. Ideation. A workshop based engagement intended to help existing non-profits explore Earned
Revenue concepts.
3. Planning. A multi-month process of creating a business plan for Earned Revenue or a strategic
plan for starting a non-profit or for guiding an existing non-profit. An experienced SVP Planning
practice leader would oversee each engagement and staff them with 1-2 SVP members.
4. Fundraising. A strategic assessment of targeting philanthropic $ along with Pitch design (after
creation of a Plan) as well as Pitch practice (either alone or as part of a workshop). Led by the
Fundraising Practice Leader who would oversee engagements and staff them with 1-2 SVP
members.
5. Mentoring. Either oversight to an Investee or as a member of the Board or an Advisory Board
(could be targeted at Earned Revenue only) or as an Executive Coach. This capability is for
organizations who will confront ongoing/unpredictable issues typically encountered during
periods of change or rapid growth. The SVP serving as a Mentor could also be a conduit for
project work in the other four capability areas that would provide broader engagement
opportunities to the SVP membership through the various Practice areas/Leads.

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

The figure above is a proposed SVP Austin alignment around the Engagement Capabilities described
earlier. Conceptually every discrete engagement will only begin after it is scoped and agreed to in writing
in a Project Charter by 4 parties: (1) The ED, (2) The Advisory Head, (3) The Capability Lead, and (4)
The Client ED. The role of each party is:

2
 1. ED – Typically the ED will be the primary source of projects through direct marketing efforts
into or incoming requests from the non-profit community and/or organizations serving that
community.
2. Advisory Head – The Advisory Head will meet with the non-profit for in a preliminary vetting
process to determine which SVP Austin capability, if any, best meets the needs of the non-profit.
3. Capability Lead – Scope out a project with the non-profit, determine resource needs including
SVP membership availability and create the draft project charter and workplan.
4. Client ED – Ensure adequate access and participation from the non-profit client.

Once a Project Charter is signed by all three SVP parties AND the non-profit leader a workplan will be
created by the Capability Lead and executed until project completion with weekly updates being provided
by the Project Lead to the Advisory Head. The Advisory Head will update the global Project Tracking
document and provide to the ED.

Projects will be finalized with a short Close Out Report that will be completed by the Capability Lead
with feedback from the SVP project team members and the Client ED. Not only will the Close Out
Report serve as an organizational tool, it will also be a source of feedback for the Capability Leads, the
Advisory Head, and the ED.

CONCLUSION

This memo envisions creating SVP Austin organizational structure and processes that are centered around
fixed roles (like ED and Advisory Head and Capability Lead). In reality, since we are small, all of these
roles will be built around specific people, some of whom may play more than one role (e.g. the Advisory
Head could also be the Program Optimization Lead or the Planning Lead and the Ideation Lead could be
the same person).

Right now, as we begin building roles and processes that will hopefully outlast individuals, we still need
to focus on individuals who have the experience and bandwidth to do good work, essentially
unsupervised. The ‘boxes’ are one thing. Finding great people is another.