The document discusses the importance of collaboration and performance evaluation among multiple stakeholders to improve organizational effectiveness. It outlines a structured methodology for assessing performance drivers, encourages communication, and provides insights into client-agency relationships through a survey tool called evalu8ing. Additionally, the document highlights key issues identified in a case study involving marketing agencies and emphasizes the need for clarity in feedback and timelines to enhance creative processes.

1. Evalu8ing Why Evalu8 collaboration, relationships, performance? Evalu8ing August 2009

2. We no longer work in isolation

3. Sometimes we work one to one…

4. And sometimes one to many…

5. But mostly it is many to many

6. Be that within your organisation…

7. Or between organisations in one city…

8. Across the region or around the world

9. Innovation and performance improvement requires… Communication Co-operation Collaboration

10. But how do you improve these drivers?

11. You can no longer rely on ad-hoc feedback

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

13. Evalu8ing lets you manage multiple relationships To foster and develop collaboration To encourage alignment to objectives To develop shared values To optimise communication and co-operation To ensure alignment of performance expectations To facilitate improved performance

14. During mergers and acquisitions

15. During organisational restructure

16. When commencing major alliances or projects

17. When engaging in new relationships

18. Refreshing long term relationships

19. When introducing new suppliers

20. Evalu8ing lets you measure, manage, maximise…

21. up to 8 stakeholder groups in one survey

22. 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

23. 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 complete the survey in their own time and log out and back in at any time. Participants can provide comments for every question and every relationship.

24. And the entire process turned around in 2 weeks

25. An Evalu8ing example Start: Sun-26-Jul-2009 End: Sat-01-Aug-2009 People: 24 Complete: 95.6% Average Score: 65.1 Categories & Questions 5 categories Planning Time Management Cross Functional Collaboration Budget Management Production Management 4 questions per category = 20 questions Client: Technology services Client with significant retail and direct response focus Participants from the Marketing Communications Team Agency 1: Recently appointed independent creative agency to execute brand / communications strategy through primarily offer based marketing Strong services industry experience with many similar retail clients Agency 2: Incumbent design / print agency has long history with the client Responsible for designing brand / corporate identity Develops and produces all print collateral including retail and media Agency 3: Digital agency appointed 12 months earlier on a project basis Agency 2 & 3 owned by same holding company

26. 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

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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 thing and another says another.

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. 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: More information on the system and applications @ http://www.evalu8ing.com/ Your own system login @ http://survey.evalu8ing.com/ 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.

34. For more information… Evalu8ing Pty Ltd Sydney +612 8399 0922 Melbourne +613 9682 6800 Hong Kong +852 3589 3095 Singapore +65 6884 9149 [email_address] www.evalu8ing.com