Success Metrics for Charitable vs Commercial Projects

Revenue ≠ Impact. Funding ≠ Success. Yet we keep measuring inputs like they’re outcomes. Startups brag about funding rounds like it’s their KPI. Nonprofits showcase money raised like it’s a win. Revenue doesn’t mean market growth. Donations don’t mean lives changed. So why do we confuse funding with success? Because inputs are easy to measure. Outcomes? Hard. But the organizations that actually succeed? They obsess over outcomes: Startups like Tesla didn’t focus on raising capital, they focused on disrupting entire industries. Nonprofits like Charity: Water measure clean water delivered, not just donor dollars collected. Here’s why outcomes > inputs: Inputs don’t guarantee results. Research shows that nearly 75% of VC-backed startups fail, even with millions in funding. Why? They burn cash without solving real problems. Nonprofits that report impact, like how many children were vaccinated or how much carbon was reduced build donor loyalty 3x faster than those that focus on money raised . It’s hoe. Startups measuring customer growth, retention, or lives impacted are better positioned to scale sustainably. Fundraising is the byproduct of impact, not the other way around. How can you make the shift? Replace vanity metrics (funding raised, hours worked) with outcome metrics (lives impacted, user retention). Use OKRs (Objectives and Key Results) to tie every input to measurable outcomes. Share your impact data openly. Transparency builds credibility. So let’s stop the funding obsession. With purpose and impact, Mario

What is the vision problem in CSR? CSR is not about how much money you spend. Yet, many projects still measure success by funds deployed or events conducted. Not by what actually changed on the ground. That’s the problem. We keep celebrating how much was done instead of asking what actually worked. A ₹5 lakh literacy program that improves learning is better than a ₹50 lakh conference with no follow-up. Training 100 farmers where 80% apply new techniques is better than handing out 1,000 certificates. But this is shifting. What’s Changing? 1. Defining success by real behavior change   - "How many families are still using the clean cookstoves six months later?"   - "Has open defecation actually reduced after building toilets?" 2. Telling real stories, not just reporting activities   - "X’s solar microgrid cut household costs by 60%" is a real impact.   - "We hosted 10 awareness sessions" is just a report. 3. Dropping vanity metrics   - High attendance and media coverage don’t mean success unless they lead to action. The Hard Truth It’s easier to show big numbers than to ask tough questions. - Did this initiative actually solve a problem? - Would the community sustain it if we left? Your Next Step? Swap one input metric for an outcome metric in your next report. Instead of “500 people attended,” track “47% applied what they learned within 30 days.” It’s time to stop measuring effort and start measuring impact.

ASSOCIATIONS and NON-PROFITS How is Strategy Different from Corporate Strategic Planning? If you have done strategic planning for businesses and also for associations and non-profits, you know that there are some significant differences. What are the differences and why is the difference even relevant? Here are four significant differences I have found. 1: The Key Driver While the key driver for a business is typically driving profit, the key driver for associations and non-profits tends to be achieving their mission. Whether the mission is addressing homelessness, improving health outcomes related to a disease, or raising professionalism in an industry, these key drivers take a back seat to the profitability motive of corporations. Implication: Some associations and non-profits can get so consumed with mission, that sustainability becomes an ongoing issue. In strategic planning it can be helpful to intentionally balance mission and money strategies. 2: Key Performance Metrics While businesses tend to measure their success based on three things: revenue growth, market share, and profit, associations and non-profits tend to measure success based on mission outcomes, membership growth, and reserves. Implication: Mission outcomes are often more difficult to measure than the more tangible business performance indicators. Despite the difficulty, we find that it is essential that the strategy includes outcome metrics to avoid a major strategy pitfall: measuring activity instead of results. 3: Key Funding Sources Businesses generally are funded through their products and services and investment capital. Associations and non-profits are often funded partially through their products and services. But the major share of funding often comes through membership, grants, and fundraising. Implication: Associations and non-profits often need different and diverse strategies to achieve their ends. 4: Key Stakeholders For success, businesses know that they must focus first and foremost on their customers, while also satisfying the needs of investors, employees, and suppliers. Associations and non-profits tend to have significantly more stakeholder types, including: members, clients, donors, other funders, partners, employees, and volunteers. And for organizations that rely heavily on volunteers for success, volunteer management becomes a significant skillset to foster. What about You? Have you found these same differences between strategic planning for businesses versus associations and non-profits, or are there other differences that you have found even more significant? And if you are available, join us for Thursday’s webinar on Strategy for Associations and Non-Profits. See the link in the comments. #effectivefacilitator #strategy #MichaeltheFacilitator

𝐋𝐞𝐭’𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐧𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐝𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝. Fundraising totals are easy to count. But they don’t tell you if someone was credited, paid, or asked for consent before their story was shared. 𝐀𝐭 𝐂𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐬 𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐆𝐢𝐫𝐥𝐬, 𝐰𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐬—𝐰𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞. 𝐖𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲: ✅ Informed consent for every story we publish ✅ Paid work for graduates within 12 months ✅ Credited bylines and photo credits (not “images courtesy of”) ✅ Participant-led stories pitched and produced by students ✅ Alumni mentorship—graduates training the next cohort 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬: Our program has trained 200+ women in Uganda and Tanzania, and 80% are now working in media, journalism, or communications. The money helped us get there; the dignity metrics tell us how and for whom it’s working. 𝐀 𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐜𝐤 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞: Vanita moved from campus newsroom to paid assignments with credit and editorial say. That’s not a vanity metric. That’s an impact you can feel. 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐝𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞? 𝐈’𝐦 𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠. #NonprofitLeadership #EthicalStorytelling #CamerasForGirls

💥 Boom! A recent LinkedIn discussion sparked a simple but powerful way to classify projects: 👉 EARN vs. SPENT projects Both types require investments (financial) to convert them into resources to deliver, but their purpose is very different. 🔹 EARN projects are initiated to create outcomes that generate profit. Their success can be measured with financial metrics: ROI, NPV, IRR, etc. Schedule optimisation should prioritise acceleration that maximises returns. 🔹 SPENT projects are initiated to create outcomes that may not produce direct financial gain. Think public infrastructure, regulatory compliance, education, research, personal and philanthropic projects. Their benefits are often harder to quantify and require non-financial metrics such as service levels, safety improvements, or social value. This distinction matters because it influences: ✔️ Project benefits definition – what exactly counts as “value”? ✔️ Success criteria – profit vs. impact, compliance, or reputation. ✔️ Planning & scheduling – how much is speed worth? ✔️ Decision-making algorithms – optimisation methods differ for EARN vs. SPENT contexts. Sometimes it is difficult to recognise the difference as EARN project also produce values and the SPENT projects may have financial return. The difference is in the priority. And here’s the paradox: sometimes the project initiator doesn’t even explicitly understand whether they’re starting an EARN or a SPENT project. Such projects are set to fail as conflicting priorities will drag the project apart. Recognising this distinction upfront could help organisations align expectations, choose the right metrics, and avoid misplaced investments. What do you think? 👉 Do you see your projects as EARN or SPENT? 👉 And how do you measure success when money isn’t the main driver? #PredAptivePM #PMI #Bebefits