Building a “value portfolio” for internal communication?

One of the biggest challenges facing internal communicators involves demonstrating the value that we create through our activities and expenditures. This isn’t merely a problem when it comes to justifying budgets, it makes the process of prioritizing activities and resourcing them operationally – and politically – challenging.

Compounding the problem is the diversity of tasks that stakeholders ask of an internal communication team, ranging from the management of technical platforms and communication channels to event planning to the preparation and delivery of written and video content and often also including the analysis of surveys and other metrics.

An additional complication is the lack of consistent methodologies or measures that allow for an apples-to-apples demonstration of how a dollar, euro or Bitcoin spent on one activity delivers more punch than the same dollar or Bitcoin spent on something else.

Even though like-for-like comparisons of value add are difficult, I am proposing an initial step, a classification of communication activity against the most popular desired outcomes I’ve seen in my 15+ years as an internal communication pro:

Financial impact: does this communication activity directly target financial performance, and to what extent does it succeed in adding more cash to the bottom line, minus costs involved?

Organizational alignment: does this communication activity help the organization focus on common objectives and desired outcomes, and increase its speed in doing so

Visibility: does this communication activity measurably raise the profile of intended beneficiaries (and ideally, does that higher profile help deliver tangible benefits beyond the visibility itself)

Positivity: does this communication activity increase employee confidence in the organization and enthusiasm for participating in its direction of travel

Infrastructure development: does this communication activity increase the resilience, utility, or the return on investment of communication infrastructure?

Network effectiveness: does the activity make the informal communication network stronger, faster, better informed or more consistent?

In proposing these classifications, I’m not as much focused on quantifying the value add each delivers at the moment, but instead on being able to identify specific activities and demonstrate whether the organization’s “value portfolio” is appropriately balanced.

Once activities are organized and classified, the process of developing viable metrics within a company, and perhaps comparing activities in one category across companies could also become possible.

I also think using this approach to build a self-evaluation or team evaluation tool could be useful – I tend to focus on organizational alignment and network effectiveness, and sometimes my own approach can skew away from things like visibility and positivity.

This type of tool could also help integrate missing elements consciously while avoiding sudden shifts in tone or messaging.

This is a work in progress – do you think this approach makes sense, and how would you improve and quantify it?

5 thoughts on “Building a “value portfolio” for internal communication?

  1. I talk about the 4Ps that sound similar Michael – Performance (does this activity enhance business performance?) – Participation (does it clearly articulate expectations and encourage action from employees), Promotion (Does this encourage employees to promote the organization with consistent messaging and Pride (Does it inspire and engage employees on an emotional level. In order to create value, we need to ensure we’re creating clear goals, measuring the right things and holding ourselves accountable.

    Like

  2. There are some similarities–your’s seem to focus on “does this have impact,” mine deviates slightly by asking “what impact (if any) does this have?” The context here is to address the drive for channel proliferation and ubiquitous presence–is there impact to what we are doing, or are we doing it for its own sake or because it’s easy to measure and display?

    Like

  3. Hi Mike
    I think highlighting the different kinds of impact that internal comms activity can have makes a lot of sense. I think ‘business performance’ might be a better definition for your first category than financial impact – because I guess you would want to include in that category things like risk mitigation – e.g., employee safety campaigns in basic materials companies / the oil & gas industry, and cyber-security awareness campaigns in pretty much any company that holds customer data. Or would you put those things elsewhere?

    Like

    • Hi Rose…

      Appreciate your comment and question… My take is that the nomenclature is not particularly important as long as the distinction between the activities and the definition of their intended impact is sufficiently rigorous.

      Does that make sense?

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s