Organisational Self-Assessment Questionnaire

ORGANISATIONAL SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
Section 1: Governance
1.1 Please rate the effectiveness of your organisations Board, should you have one if there is no established Board, please rate yourself at level 1.
1.2 Does your organisation have a clear overall strategy/vision/mission/values? If so, please rate the extent to which this strategy drives the work of
the organisation. If no strategy as yet, please rate at level 1 and comment on what work has been done towards establishing a strategy
1.3 Please rate the extent to which staff work efficiently across teams. If you have too few staff to answer this question please rate yourself at level 1.
1.4 To what extent are staff involved in decision-making?
1.5 Does your organisation have legal status? Please rate according to the examples provided. Please provide supplementary info as appropriate.
1.6 Does your organisation have office premises?
Elements
1.1
Board
LEVEL ONE
Clear need for increased
capacity
No established board, or no
clear function; no financial
role; no formal procedures;
low direction/support
LEVEL TWO
Basic level of capacity in
place
Clear role; reviews finances
& occasionally sets
direction / targets; no
regular review of Director
Generals performance;
Strategy exists but not
clearly linked to mission or
lacks coherence; rarely
directs activities;
1.2
Overall
Strategy/
Vision /Mission/
/Values/
Strategy non-existent, unclear

or incoherent; no influence
over day to day; little shared
understanding; no written
mission;
1.3
Team Working
Little or no team working;

work is individually focused
No team review systems exist
Basic level of team work in

place; team meetings; few
structures to promote team
working; limited monitoring
1.4
Participation/
Decision
Making
Processes
1.5
Legal status
Participation low; largely ad

hoc, by one person or
whomever accessible; highly
informal
1.6 Office
premises
No premises
Appropriate decision
makers known; process well
established & generally
followed; but often becomes
informal
Some work on finding out
about procedures to get
legal status
Basic premises, on short
lease
No legal status
LEVEL THREE
Moderate level of capacity in
place
Functions well; reviews
finances/audits/tax;
nominated; co-defines targets;
annual review of DGs
performance; direction
Coherent strategy, linked to
mission and vision but not
fully acted upon; strategy
known & drives activities,
used to direct actions & set
priorities;
Variety of team working
practices; team review
systems in operation (e.g.
peer review; feedback from
stakeholders etc.);
Clear, largely formal systems,
but decisions not always
appropriately implemented;
could improve
communication of decisions
Application to the appropriate
authorities pending approval
LEVEL FOUR
High level of capacity in
place
Board / managers work well
together; defines targets and
holds DG accountable;
empowered; periodically
evaluated; strong direction
Multi-annual strategy that is
both actionable & linked to
vision & prime goals;
strategy widely known and
drives activities;
Good standard of premises
Fully functioning and

sufficient office space
RATING
MITIGATING ACTIONS
Variety of practices; formal

& regular team /
organisation review
systems; team appraisal,
peer review
Clear, formal systems that
involve as broad
participation as practical &
appropriate, with sharing of
decisions
Legal status approved by
appropriate authorities

Section 2: Management Practices
Please rate in the table below the current level of your organisation, in response to the following questions:
2.1 How formal is the structure of the organisation? Is the organisational chart, where it exists, up to date? Please provide a copy if possible.
2.2 What thought has been given to the information systems available within the organisation?
2.3 Are administrative procedures formalised and documented? Please rate 1 where none exist
2.4 What is the staffing situation of your organisation? Please rate 1 also where staffing largely voluntary, and note this in comments column.
2.5 Does your organisation plan in a comprehensive way on a regular basis?
2.6 How does your organisation design or establish programmes?
2.7 How is reporting (both internal and external) undertaken within your organisation?
Elements
2.1
Organisational
Structure
2.2
Information
system/technology
LEVEL ONE
capacity
No organisational chart;
Limited tel./fax/modem
facilities: effectiveness and
efficiency impeded by lack of
technology; no web site; no
financial tracking systems
2.3 Administrative
procedures
No formal procedures exist
2.4
Personnel
2.5
Planning
Positions unfilled, and/or

poor attendance;
Operations run on day to day
basis with no short or long
term planning activities; no
experience in operational
planning
Programmes developed on an
ad hoc basis with little
forward planning
Reporting procedures very
weak; little analysis
2.6
Programme
Development
2.7
Programme
Reporting
LEVEL TWO
place
Organisational chart complete
but outdated; structure
historic, no analysis
Basic technology; accessible
to most staff; moderately
reliable / lacks certain
features, / may not be easily
accessible to some staff
LEVEL THREE
place
Organisational chart complete
but outdated; appropriate org.
structure.
Solid technology accessible to
all staff with no problems;
databases & management
reporting systems exist where
necessary
Some procedures are written

down and implementation
occasionally monitored
Limited turnover / attendance
problems
Some ability/tendency to
develop operational plan,
internally/with external help;
operational plan loosely/not
linked to strategic plan
Programmes developed
reactively with some attempt
at mid-term planning
Reporting variable, little
analysis of impact or
challenges
Most procedures are written

down, and implemented by staff,
with regular monitoring
Almost all positions filled; few
turnover / attendance problems
Ability & tendency to develop
concrete, realistic operational
plan; access to expertise;
planning on near regular basis;
linked to strategic plan
Programmes developed
coherently, with some long term
(LT) planning & link to strategy
Reporting generally adequate,
with some impact analysis
LEVEL FOUR
High level of capacity in place
RATING
MITIGATING
ACTIONS
Organisational chart up to date;

structure appropriate
Sophisticated, reliable
accessible by all; increases
staff effectiveness;
comprehensive electronic
database and management
reporting systems exist
Staff handbook and other
operational manuals exist and
implemented / monitored
All positions filled, minor
turnover/attendance problems
Concrete, realistic & detailed
operational plan; involves
teams to widen expertise; links
to strategic plans; staff trained
in planning
Programmes tie into strategy
and relate to objectives of the
organisation and LT planning
Coherent, timely reporting with
analysis of impact

Section 3: Human Resources
3.1 Does your organisation undertake any regular HR planning? Are the appropriate administrative procedures followed? Please rate below.
3.2 Please rate to what extent you think that staff within the organisation understand their roles. Please rate below.
3.3 How does your organisation carry out recruitment? Are the procedures basic and ad hoc, or is there a rigorous process linked to induction?
3.4 Are regular supervisions (appraisal and review) undertaken with all staff? Please rate the level to which such procedures exist.
3.5 Do any possibilities exist within the organisation for staff to develop their skills? Please rate according to the scale provided.
3.6 What skills gaps exist within the staffing of the organisation? Please provide additional information where appropriate or necessary.
Elements
LEVEL ONE
capacity
No experience in HR
planning; few staff have
contracts;
LEVEL TWO
Basic level of capacity in place
3.2
Staff roles
No Job Descriptions exist
Limited understanding &

analysis of roles; JDs not very
clear
3.3
Staff
recruitment
3.4
Supervisory
practices
3.5
Staff
development
3.6
Skills and
experience of
staff
Basic recruitment
practices in place
Recruitment subjective; some

formal recruiting networks are in
place
Ad hoc performance reviews
3.1
Human
Resources
Development
No regular performance
reviews
Some ability to develop HR plan;

contracts not always available for
staff; few have Job Descriptions
(JDs)
No staff development
plans exist;
Some development plans for

staff
Key staff have skills in a

few specific areas;
experience limited
Some diversity, but still limited

to a few areas, with little
experience outside the sector
LEVEL THREE
Moderate level of capacity
in place
Concrete, realistic HR plan;
in-house expertise; plans
linked to strategy; contracts
& JDs for some staff
Understanding and analysis
of roles; JDs fully
developed, but not always
up to date
Recruitment rigorous;
induction + other training
Consistent performance
appraisals;
Systems in place to support
and provide feedback to
staff
Diversity of skills,
experience still limited to
carry out all organisational
activities
LEVEL FOUR
place
Developed, concrete
realistic, integrated, detailed
plans; in-house expertise,
regular planning; most staff
on contracts & JDs
Fully developed
understanding of roles; JDs
clear and up to date
RATING
MITIGATING
ACTIONS
Integrated HR process to
recruit develop and retain
staff
Performance appraisal;
regular reviews
Training/development plans
for staff exist
Staff have a broad range of
skills and experiences

Section 4: Financial Resources (Financial management and fund development)
4.1 To what extent does your organisation have experience of financial planning?
4.2 What kind of financial operational procedures exist within your organisation? Is there any formalised system for financial operations?
4.3 What kind of funding sources does your organisation currently have? Are the main sources of funding limited to a few donors or sectors?
4.4 To what extent does your organisation have the appropriate in-house capacity and skills with which to raise funds?
4.5 Does your organisation have a financial strategic plan, incorporating ideas for the short, medium and long term?
Elements
4.1
Financial
Planning/
Budgeting
4.2
Financial
Operations
Management
4.3
Funding
Approach
4.4
Fund Raising
(FR)
4.5
Fund
Development
Planning
LEVEL ONE
capacity
No or very limited
financial planning;
performance against
budget not monitored
Grants deposited and
acknowledged; bills paid;
supporting documentation
colleted/retained; no
manual exists
LEVEL TWO
Basic level of capacity in place
Highly dependent on a few

funders largely of same
type (e.g. government or
foundation or private)
Generally weak fundraising skills and lack of
expertise (either internal or
access to external
expertise)
Access to multiple types of

funding; limited range of
funders;
Fund-raising needs covered by
combination of internal skills
and expertise, and access to
some external fund-raising
expertise
Fund-raising needs
adequately covered by well
developed internal fundraising skills, occasional
access to external expertise
No systems in place for

long term (LT) planning
and diversification of
sources; FR reactive
Recognize need to develop

systems for LT planning;
Some systems in place for

LT planning; such as draft
FR strategy
Limited financial plans;

periodic budget monitoring
Financial activities transparent;
clearly and consistently
recorded and documented;
include appropriate checks and
balances
LEVEL THREE
Moderate level of capacity
in place
Solid financial plans; budget
reflects organisational needs;
regular monitoring
Formal internal controls
governing all financial
operations fully tracked,
supported and reported;
annual audit; attention to
cash flow management
Solid base of funders; some
income generating activity
LEVEL FOUR
place
Very solid financial plans;
integrated into operations as
strategic tool; close
monitoring
Robust system/controls in
place; cash flow actively
managed; financial manual
exists; clear segregation of
duties
RATING
MITIGATING
ACTIONS
Highly diversified funding

across multiple sources;
income-generating activities
fully developed;
Highly developed fundraising skills/expertise in all
source types to cover needs;
access to external expertise
for additional extraordinary
needs
Well developed system for
LT planning; multi-pronged
FR strategy is proactive and
integrated

Section 5: External Relations
5.1 What kind of approach does your organisation have in relation to its external communications, in terms of planning?
5.2 What kind of relationship does your organisation have with donors?
5.3 What kind of contact does your organisation have with other NGOs?
5.4 Similarly, what kind of working relationship does your organisation have with the government? Please provide additional information
5.5 What kind of collaboration does your organisation have with the media?
Elements
5.1
Communicatio
ns plan
5.2
Relationship
with Donors
5.3
Collaboration
with NGOs
5.4
Government
Relationships
5.5
Media
collaboration
LEVEL ONE
capacity
No communications plan
exists; Relations initiated
in a sporadic ad hoc
manner
Funds accepted - limited
dialogue or
understanding of
respective goals; little
accountability, low level
of mutual trust; donor
-driven
Little or sporadic contact
and / or collaboration
with other NGOs
Minimal or no working
relations with relevant
Govt. agencies; little
participation in official
events
No systematic
identification of media
contacts; ad hoc contacts;
lack of understanding of
the importance of the
media and of their
requirements.
LEVEL TWO
place
No communication plan but
key messages are defined &
stakeholders are identified
Developing dialogue with
donors on respective goals,
low level of trust;
organisation has little
recognition of need for
accountability or donor
management.
Regular contact and sharing
of information with other
NGOs; few collaborative
joint activities.
Good relationships developed
with some relevant Govt
agencies; limited lobbying
skills developed but not
always influential
Up to date info on key media
contacts / interests. Regular
contacts and limited nurturing
of personal relationships;
understand requirements of
media, limited capacity to
respond.
LEVEL THREE
place
Consistent, systematic
approach; key messages are
defined and stakeholders
identified;
Good, well-managed
relationships based on
developing trust and
transparency; able to influence
donor agenda; donor respect
for the organisation is growing
LEVEL FOUR
place
Consistent approach; reviews
& renegotiates relationships;
consistent communication.
Regular contact and info

sharing with others; good
working relations with several;
some joint activity
Good relationships developed
with many relevant Govt
agencies; organisation has
developed lobbying skills and
is listened to by Govt
Up to date info on key media
contacts; regular proactive
contacts, and relationship
nurturing; contacts are not fully
exploited to achieve goals;
sometimes used as a source of
information.
Close working relations;

regular collaboration on
activities / issues of common
interest; broad alliances
Well respected / accepted by
all relevant Govt agencies;
exerts strong influence on
policy through good working
relationships at all levels.
Extensive contacts with
media, which are nurtured,
maintained and exploited to
achieve goals; organisation is
used regularly as a respected
source of information.
RATING
MITIGATING
ACTIONS
Strong relationships based on

mutual trust and
transparency; well respected
by donors (professional,
accountable, & able to
deliver), able to influence

Section 6: Programme design, implementation and evaluation
6.1 How does your organisation set about designing its programmes? Are appropriate stakeholders involved at the appropriate moments? Are
appropriate tools regularly used? Please rate your level and note any additional comments in the appropriate column.
6.2 How does your organisation measure its performance? Is there any indication of level of impact achieved through procedures put into place?
6.3 Are your organisations programmes relevant to the context? How do they link in with the organisations strategy, where it exists?
6.4 Does your organisation regularly monitor the external environment and ensure that its programmes are the most appropriate for the context?
6.5 Is any regular assessment made of the areas for potential growth and possible replication of your organisation?
Elements
6.1
Programme
Design
6.2
Performance
Measurement
6.3
Programme
Relevance &
Integration
6.4
Monitoring of
Environment
6.5
New
Programme
Development
LEVEL ONE
capacity
Programme design lacks
coherence; few people
involved; no knowledge of
tools
Very limited tracking; based
on anecdotal evidence some
data collected
Core programme and
services vaguely defined;
scattered and unrelated
Minimum knowledge of
other players & different
programme models in
programme area
No assessment of gaps to
meet needs; limited ability
to create new programmes
or only in response to
requests from donors
LEVEL TWO
place
Some attempt to involve
stakeholders; tools used, but
inconsistently, with unclear
indicators
Partially measured and
progress tracked; regularly
collects solid data on
activities /outputs
Most well defined and
linked with mission and
goals; not fully integrated
into clear strategy
Basic knowledge but limited
ability to adapt behaviour
based on acquired
understanding
Limited assessment of gaps;
some ability to modify
existing programmes and
create new programmes
LEVEL THREE
place
Stakeholders involved,
perhaps a little late; some
tools used consistently,
indicators not clear
Measured & progress tracked
in multiple ways, several
times a year; considers
impact;
Core programmes and
services well defined and
linked with mission/goal;
clear fit with strategy
Solid knowledge; ability to
adapt, but only occasionally
carried out
LEVEL FOUR
Occasional assessment of
gaps; demonstrated ability to
modify existing programmes
and create new programmes
Continual assessment of gaps;

adjustments always made;
tendency to create new, truly
innovative programmes in local
or other areas.
RATING
MITIGATING
ACTIONS
Designed involving
stakeholders, clear impact
indicators; Logframe, or other
approaches, regularly used
Developed, comprehensive,
integrated system; impact
measured based on concrete
data collected
Well defined and fully aligned
with mission; clear link to
overall strategy, synergies;
Extensive knowledge; refined
ability and systematic tendency
to adapt behaviour

Section 7: Advocacy/campaigning
7.1 What level of capacity does your organisation have for campaigning/advocacy at the national level?
7.2. What level of capacity does your organisation have to become involved in high profile campaigns?
7.3 What degree of impact do your national level campaigning/advocacy activities have?
7.4 What level of planning does your organisation undertake for campaigning/advocacy?
Elements
7.1
Organisational
capacity for
campaigning /
advocacy at
the national
level
7.2
Capacity for
involvement
in CI global
campaigns
LEVEL ONE
capacity
No campaigning or
advocacy activities
undertaken; organisation
does not include campaigns
within its mandate
No campaign or advocacy
activities; organisation does
not include campaigns
within its mandate
LEVEL TWO
place
Campaign/advocacy
activities are limited, with
little impact; activities
undertaken by non specialist
staff; activities reactive, or
not contained in a preplanned strategy
Interested to be involved,
but very limited staff
capacity/resources; or
insufficient knowledge of
issues; or capacity/interest,
but yet to participate
LEVEL THREE
place
Campaign/advocacy strategy
planned and implemented;
activities undertaken on
regular basis, with some
impact; some tools are used to
measure impact
Some involvement in high
profile campaigning activities;
further involvement limited by
resources, staffing and lack of
knowledge of issues
LEVEL FOUR
RATING
MITIGATING
ACTIONS
Full campaign/advocacy
strategy developed and
implemented; activities have
high impact; assigned staff
within organisation for these
activities; impact measured
and monitored regularly
High involvement in high
profile campaigning; high
institutional campaigning
capacity in terms of staff,
knowledge and resources
7.3
Impact
Outputs have no (or

minimum) impact; no
systems to monitor or assess
impact
Outputs have some impact;

organisation has some
influence on national policy
decision-making; systems
for monitoring and
assessing impact need
further development
Systems exist to monitor and

assess impact; organisation
widely respected in location/
sector of activity; has
influence over policy
decision-makers
Organisation perceived as lead

in location or sector of
activity; impact assessments
regularly occur; organisation
is highly influential
7.4
Campaigning
planning
Activities on an ad hoc basis

or solely reactive; no
campaign / advocacy
strategy
Sporadic activities; mostly

reactive; some idea of
outcomes/use of tools,
minimum strategising /
planning
Regular activities, with

moderate degree of proactivity; moderate level of
planning and strategising
Regular activities in a
proactive way; campaigns
created as part of a thorough
planning process; clear idea of
outcomes/tools to be used

Organisational Self-Assessment Questionnaire

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Organisational Self-Assessment Questionnaire

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ORGANISATIONAL SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

Strategy non-existent, unclear

Little or no team working;

Basic level of team work in

Participation low; largely ad

Good standard of premises

Fully functioning and

Variety of practices; formal