Connecting inputs to outcomes
16th March 2006 by Angela Sinickas, ABC
A lot of communicators ask me where to start with their measurements, how to connect what we do to the outcomes our organizations are trying to achieve, and how to take the right amount of credit for communication’s impact versus other things the organization is doing to achieve the same outcome.
To link communication impact to a business result, I work backwards from outcomes in developing the communication approach:
1. Identify a measurable business outcome that communication can impact.
2. Break out specific behaviors/actions for different key stakeholders that need to change in order to achieve the business outcome. (This is the step most communication plans skip over.)
3. Use qualitative research with the affected stakeholders to identify what knowledge and attitude changes are required before they would change their behaviors, and which communication channels would be preferred for knowledge and for attitude inputs.
4. Develop your communication tactical plan with specific messages and channels you will use to influence #3 to change #2 that will result in #1.
Then you switch to quantitative measurement mode. You plug into the measurements others in your organization are already doing to track business results (#1) and key audience behaviors (#2) against your own inputs. You as a communicator measure changes in knowledge and attitudes and actual exposure to the preferred channels (#3), and track the actual volume and frequency of content of the needed messages you’re sending out through the preferred channels (#4).
You can isolate the impact communication has versus other organizational inputs in several ways:
1. Do a pilot test where communication is the only variable and all the other inputs are the same for all groups.
2. Track the timing of your communication inputs versus the timing of improvements in knowledge and attitudes and behaviors. A pattern of spikes and valleys that matches the inputs and outcomes becomes a compelling argument for the amount of impact communication has.
3. Ask the people whose behavior changed to what extent they credit the communications they were exposed to for their behavior change.
March 17th, 2006 at 9:46 am
[...] One gem in particular caught my attention - Connecting inputs to outcomes, a common-sense and concise view of communication measurement by Angela Sinickas posted to IABC Measurement Commons. [...]
March 27th, 2006 at 8:38 am
Angela,
Thanks for setting out an understandable road map. Let me offer an alternative “#1″ as the first step, and that is rather than “Identify a measurable business outcome that communication can impact,” I would suggest that the communication team work with senior management to uncover the biggest, hairiest challenges the organization faces, and then determine with them whether communication can have a measurable impact on that business outcome. I’ve seen Communication help to solve some major issues, the solutions to which would have appeared to be found elsewhere.
Also, generally speaking, it is a good idea to gain confirmation from the people who are funding the research that the business outcome you’re seeking to change is important, that it is measurable and that it is reasonable to achieve.
Thanks again for the opportunity to expand up an already great comment.
Mark
March 27th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
[...] On Friday I read Angela Sinickas’ blog called Connecting inputs to outcomes. I’ve been thinking about it all weekend. [...]
March 28th, 2006 at 12:07 am
[...] IABC Measurement Commons: Connecting inputs to outcomes The holy grail in public relations is measurement. It’s a question that always comes up for me during blogging presentations … that’s great, how do you measure influence … but here’s a great post on how to measure qualitatively and quantitatively … which just might work for blogging as well. [...]
March 28th, 2006 at 7:20 am
Hear, hear!
Angela has nailed the the issue of communication measurement in a practical way that makes a lot of sense. I just have to add my two cents worth. In my experience, communication professionals often forget that communication, itself is an enterprise-wide system, not a one-off that depends on the success of the latest initiatives - internal or external. By viewing communciation as an enterprise-wide function we are able to expand the scope of influence and impact informal communication within an organization - i.e. what leaders do and say and how that influences the desired business outcome. In this area we start playing with communication as a key driver of culture and a mainstay of change management.
This transition to systems-thinking opens up a whole a new field of possibilities for the future of our profession. Not only does communication become part of the mainstream, but we gain ground on “business” part of “Business” communication. It’s like lining up all your ducks in a row or (dare I say?) playing with a full deck. Develop a bold strategy that targets desired behaviours that lead to business outcomes and you have made a shift to aligning with business needs.
Here at FCC, communication is widely recognized as an essential business process. Out role in influencing employee engagement, the reputation index, media favourability, the customer and employee experience (all lagging indicators on our balanced scorecard) is widely recognized and sought after as an essential piece of the puzzle. We have leading indicators for all of our major strategies to let us know if we are headed in the right direction.
Here’s a lesson learned:
If you want to deliver meaningful results against desired business outcomes - read everything you can get your hands on about enterprise-wide thinking and the balanced scorecard. Then, apply it to your communication knowledge and moxie. It is the future of our profession and we need to be there.
A quick note for Mark. I agree that working with senior management is essential. To do that in any meaningful way they need to see communciation as part of the business. On the other hand - if trust and respect for communication doesn’t already exist in an organization, I wouldn’t go in there with both guns blazing looking for the “biggest, hairiest challenges.” Start with small, quick wins and defy the “shoemaker’s kids” analogy - put your own strategy around how you might build a good reputation for communication before you ask for a seat at the boardroom table. Borrowing a quote from Aesop, “Slow and steady wins the race.”
One of the best models I have seen to describe communication in a holistic sense is Watson Wyatt’s Heirarchy of effective communication. Unfortunately you have to subscribe to see it and apply it.