Application Workshop – Session Five June 21, 2011

Sponsors

Workshop Agenda• Opening Comments, Introductions• Category 3 – Questions

• Application Preparation• Format & Style• Space Allocation• Organizational Profile• Categories 1-3 – Approach-Deployment

• Best Practices, Traps to Avoid

• Categories 1-3 – Results• Best Practices, Traps to Avoid

• Questions, Next Steps

Session Objectives

• By the end of the session, participants are expected to understand how to:• Present responses that address criteria

requirements• Emphasize the “key” elements in both the Approach-

Deployment and Results items• Use visuals – diagrams, tables and graphs – to

strengthen application quality• Help the examiners find the information they need to

provide quality feedback

Format and Style

Format and Style

• Organizational Profile – 2 page maximum• Category Responses – 6 page maximum• Space allocation within those limits up to you• 11pt. Font, ½ inch margins all around• Footer – organization name, date, page #• No supplemental materials• Examiners may not contact you or review your

web site – please don’t refer them there• Use prose, bullets, highlighting, diagrams, tables,

graphs, etc.

Space Allocation

• The space allotted for your application/response to the criteria is barely sufficient

• The challenge is to share the most important and relevant information, not just share information

• Plan before you write – decide what responds to the criteria and then put it in writing

• Include only what responds to the criteria

Organizational Profile

• Bullet-point responses encouraged • Tables are effective for matching segments and

their requirements• Stick to the criteria requirements only• Make sure you leave sufficient space for the

Competitive Environment and Organizational & Strategic Challenges section

• Prioritize – “key” factors/information only

Categories 1-3 – Approach-Deployment

• Label your Category/Items responses clearly (1.1, 1.1-1, etc.)

• Diagrams are often an excellent way to reflect a process or describe a system

• Use examples to further illustrate an already-described process approach/deployment, not as a substitute for explaining the process

Categories 1-3 – Approach-Deployment

• Item level responses covering multiple related Areas to Address are usually more effective and more reflective of a system rather than a checklist

• Grouping consecutive, related items (i.e. Items 1.2 & 1.3) can be an effective option – address multiple items in a multi-sentence/multi-paragraph response

Categories 1-3 – Approach-Deployment

• Best Practices • Responses directly reference related criteria

item

• Fully planned prior to writing – latter part of criteria not shortchanged

• Use criteria language

• Combination of text/prose and tables, diagrams

• Prose/text provided to explain what is important in tables/diagrams

• Approach and deployment are both addressed

Categories 1-3 – Approach-Deployment

• Traps to Avoid • Marketing/promoting your organization

• Telling stories to mask gaps – acknowledge and talk about plans

• Describing approaches without demonstrating deployment

• Substituting examples for processes/systems

• Trying to include everything you can think of

Categories 1-3 – Results Items

• Don’t leave results items for last in the drafting process and squeeze them in – results are most heavily-weighted part of the review process

• Include actual data – don’t limit response to a statement that “results are strong” or “performance levels are high”

• Simple tables and graphs (Excel) are excellent for presenting data – show trends and/or comparisons

• Tell the examiner to what to see in the results

• Include results for critical organizational priorities

• Show results for all three categories

Categories 1-3 – Results Items

• Best Practices• 2-3 key results (top 2-3), well-presented, per

category – balance across categories emphasized as opposed to volume in one category

• Levels and trends (actual data!), comparisons where available

• Clear explanation (brief) of what the result is/what the reviewer needs to know

• Results directly linked to mission (customer and impact), strategic objectives, sustainability goals, community impact

• Indicate that other results are available “on-site” (when accurate) to manage results volume – don’t overdo!

Categories 1-3 - Results Items

• Traps to Avoid• Attempting to include too many results – data you have

versus what should be included• Unbalanced results distribution, not addressing

process-related results • Providing summary statement about results in lieu of

the actual data• Using percentages rather than actual data to “prop

up” results• Characterizing the organization’s focus on “mission-

driven impact” but not reporting performance data to demonstrate such impact

Application Questions

Open Forum - Questions

Application Workshop – Session Five June 21, 2011