Measuring Success in a Membership Organisation
The Chartered Institute of Facilities Management (CIFM), a professional body with 24,000 members, launched a three-year strategy to double its influence on government policy, grow membership by 15%, and improve member satisfaction from 68% to 80%. Two years in, membership is up 6%, satisfaction is 71%, and policy influence is claimed through 14 consultation responses and two parliamentary roundtables. However, a member survey found that only 31% of members are aware of the institute's policy work, and renewal rates among younger members have fallen from 82% to 74%. The board is preparing its final-year review and the CEO wants to declare the strategy largely successful. The finance director notes that the membership growth has come mainly from a discounted student category with low renewal rates.
1. Critique the current approach to measuring strategic success and propose a more balanced set of measures.
Read the worked answer
The current measurement is activity-based rather than outcome-based. Counting 14 consultation responses and two roundtables measures effort, not influence. Influence would be better evidenced by changes in policy text, invitations to advise, or citations of the institute's positions.
The membership target is also being met in a way that flatters the headline. Growth driven by a discounted student category with falling renewal rates raises a quality question: the organisation may be adding members who do not stay, which erodes future revenue and undermines the 15% target's intent.
Satisfaction at 71% is progress toward 80% but says little about which members are satisfied and why.
A balanced set should combine four perspectives: member outcomes such as renewal by segment and satisfaction by tenure; influence outcomes such as documented policy changes; internal process measures such as consultation turnaround; and financial sustainability such as revenue per member and category mix. The board should also track leading indicators, such as awareness of policy work, since only 31% awareness suggests the influence strategy is not reaching the membership it is meant to serve.
2. The CEO wants to declare the strategy largely successful. How should the board respond?
Read the worked answer
The board should resist a binary verdict and instead separate genuine achievement from measurement weakness.
Genuine progress exists: membership is up 6%, satisfaction has risen three points, and the institute is visibly more active in policy debates. These are real gains and should be acknowledged.
But three findings undercut a claim of broad success. First, the policy work is not reaching members, with only 31% awareness, so the link between influence and member value is weak. Second, younger member renewal has fallen eight points, which threatens the future membership base. Third, growth is concentrated in a low-renewal discounted category, so the headline figure overstates durability.
The board's response should be to reframe the final-year review around leading indicators and quality of growth, not headline totals. It should ask management to present renewal by segment, awareness trends, and evidence of policy impact. Declaring success prematurely would remove the pressure needed to address the awareness and retention problems in year three, and would weaken the board's credibility if renewal rates continue to fall.