Case Study: British Pest Control Association
Background
The British Pest Control Association (BPCA) is a not-for-profit trade Association with over 700 members. The Association was established in 1942. In its 80 years it has developed from an organisation that was established to preserve the nation’s food stocks in time of war and maintain public health through the stewardship of the limited stock of pyrethrum, to a not-for-profit organisation that acts in the interest of its members and on behalf of the pest management industry in the UK.
The Association’s governance structure has developed to include an Executive Board made up of individuals from its membership and is supported by five committees that are responsible for the delivery of the strategy. The Executive Board and Committees are supported by a staff team including a senior leadership team and several sub teams that engage directly with members.
What was the issue?
Five years ago, the Association appointed the current Chief Executive, Ian Andrew, and under his leadership the Association has developed a new strategy, transformed its culture, values, and has developed its ethos in how the organisation relates to its members. This revised approach has sought to drive membership engagement.
With the arrival of Covid 19, it adjusted the focus of the work again and shifted to a more public affairs agenda, gaining agreement from Government that pest control technicians should be classified as key workers. Increasingly the public affairs work has proven to be an important growth area of work for the Association.
What was the assignment?
The proposal for the assignment was to undertake a discrete piece of collaborative diagnostic work that establishes the journey the BPCA has taken over the last five years. It sought to secure qualitative and quantitative data that could be processed into meaningful information about the organisation, including successes and opportunities, to enable the organisation to continue to be successful and to inform decisions over the next five years.
The diagnostic intervention was underpinned and assured by the collaborative consulting cycle and utilised its five phases to provide a visible road map of activity.
Phase 1 - Gaining Entry and Contracting
A contracting meeting was held in late spring with Ian Andrew, BPCA CEO. This initial meeting explored what success would look like and the rationale for undertaking the diagnostic. It also considered the indicative approach and timescales. Importantly, the conversation identified that there were multiple “clients” that the report would be serving, including the CEO and his leadership Team, the Executive Board, the wider staff team, BPCA members and partners.
Phase 2 - Joint Diagnosis
As a next stage, the intervention was designed and involved a series of 1:1 conversations lasting around 45 minutes each. These took the form of semi-structured interviews, pursuing key areas of interest about the organisation over the last five years; majoring on highlighting and appreciating contributions and successes, and switching attention to the current strategy, structure, processes/systems, people, and culture.
This specifically involved reviewing the organisation’s KPI’s, other performance information and the current and future structure to understand where the organisation was at present in terms of its culture, people, and processes/systems.
To do this, engagement with the leadership, executive board and staff members was important to understand the journey BPCA have witnessed over the last five years and what changes they saw as being advantageous for the organisation to put in place for the future.
Central to the diagnostic work was seeking clarity through discussions of the priorities and organisational goals and alignment to organisation strategy for the next five years.
Phase 3 - Recommendations and Decision to Act
Following a review of the qualitative data, work was undertaken to triangulate/validate the quantitative data covering the performance of the organisation. This was used to prepare a diagnostic report, presenting findings and recommendations that would be shared with all identified client stakeholders.
Phase 4 - Bringing About Change
The report was initially shared with the Chief Executive who gave his feedback. His initial feedback was positive. He shared his views and provided feedback.
‘As a consultant it is sometimes easier to work in an organisation that is clearly broken and is on a journey to being good. Your report captured that we are in a different place and on a journey from good to great and that can be a journey that many consultants find difficult to find their space in. You have achieved that with your report and conclusions.
The fact that there were no real surprises in the report is good from my perspective and it is even more encouraging that some of the recommendations you identified, we are already making progress with. The challenge with all consultancy interventions is ensuring they do not gather dust on a shelf, and I am certain that your report will be engaged with and acted upon and will make a difference to BPCA, the people who work here and ultimately for the members we support.’
It was understood that BPCA’s CEO and Executive Board were considering other options and opportunities that fit with their strategy, all of which were discussed in the report. The finding of the report supported the progression and formalised this into a clear development plan.
Phase 5 - Evaluation and Next Steps
The evaluation used the Kirkpatrick 1959 model and evaluation was undertaken throughout the diagnostic work. This included the completion of a questionnaire and discussion with the clients involved.
Following consideration of the report and agreeing the actions required, an evaluation of the intervention took place to ensure that it delivered a return on the investment of time by all parties involved in the diagnostic process.
Return on Investment Evaluation
This evaluation is important because helps the organisation to understand the difference the investment made and the benefits to the organisation of the work undertaken. The formula for working out ROI is the benefits minus costs divided by costs times 100. On this occasion as not all the information was available, I used an alternative measure of return on expectation (ROE).
Were the CEO’s expectations met and was the proposal achieved?
His expectations were met, evidenced by the results of the presentation of the report – the CEO was happy that the report as an intervention has delivered and validated the board’s belief about the strategy and the design of the structure. The report included recommendations that were very tangible things the organisation could work on strategically and operationally. There were five strategic recommendations for the board and ten operational recommendations, all of which were being taken forward.
The CEO agreed with the board that specific aspects of the strategy and how they impacted the future and more detailed plan of the leadership and team development work for the staff would be taken forward.
The comments received from the senior team and staff were consistent that the report delivered on the expectation, and it was helpful to see the difference over the last 5 year. Most importantly, the report provided no shocks or surprises.