Category Archives: Chapter 10

Quantitative Metrics for Nonprofits: Less or More?

p275n157

Okay, okay: it was not the entire purpose of this essay on CMM to lead up to a polemic against the overuse of bogus, unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable quantitative metrics in the nonprofit assessment arena.  It was only 86.59203% of the purpose.  Consequently, 13.40797% of the purpose of the CMM essay went directly to program, meaning, the application of CMM to nonprofits, and those lessons are valuable!  Of the 86.59203% that went to discussing troublemaking topics like why the term “overhead” is necessarily devoid of meaning in nonprofit contexts, those who make their bread and butter from utilizing such statistics might prefer I not speak.  But I stand by my statement in Growth through Governance (p. 278):

“Unjustified precision is a statistical fib.  And claims to measure percentage operational efficiency seem like unjustified precision par excellence to me.  I am not about to believe it is possible to distinguish 90% from 91% efficiency in any operating organization.  If indeed not, then such numbers ironically cause a great deal of inefficiency and waste.”

What do you think?  Discuss!

Further Detail on Capability Maturity Models (CMM)

Cp269ref

Okay, I know you think I’ve completely lost my mind for talking about Capability Maturity Models (CMM) and nonprofit governance in the same sentence.  (And there I go doing it again.)  As I explained in Growth through Governance (p. 269), software engineers will very likely think I’ve lost my marbles for talking about CMM in 2016 at all.  You’re not going to apply for or achieve CMM certification, so let’s forget that and move on.  But I devote a lengthy essay in Growth through Governance to CMM because CMM provides a framework for a useful way of thinking about nonprofit capacity.  As I explained in the case of the two organizations with identical bottom-line (tactical) results but with very different capacity (p. 272), the idea of capability maturity helps us see vital information about nonprofits that budget statements can’t provide.  And, I submit that a capability-maturity way of thinking offers major advantages over the blundering charade of currently prevailing capacity and efficiency “metrics.”

In Growth through Governance, Chapter 10, I explain how I believe a CMM framework of thinking can inform fresh, relevant ideas about nonprofit capacity and efficiency that would offer a breath of fresh air in a sector too often dominated by bogus numbers such as “overhead” (see p. 277).  I think the explanation in my book probably suffices for managers and fiduciaries wishing to think about their organizations through a CMM lens.  This blog post is for readers who wish to have more in-depth information about CMM as it is currently used in industry.

First of all, I was mistaken in the book about the date of CMM’s appearance: this Carnegie-Mellon University report on CMM version 1.1 by Paulk, Curtis, Chrissis and Weber is dated February 1993.  What I got right was the date of their publication in book form, 1995.  In any case, CMM became popular in the mid-1990s and, in my opinion, sort of jumped the shark in the mid-2000s, as I explained in Growth through Governance (p. 269, see footnotes).  Essentially, the introduction of CMM Integration led to the proliferation of new CMM adaptations for particular process areas.  That enabled publishers to sell books, but — to my mind — unfortunately obscured the clarity and universality the original model had going for it, to the point where we found ourselves talking about how to build airplanes well, or how to build software well, or how to deal with people well, or how to do a confusing myriad of other things well, instead of how to do processes well in general.  It seems to me that a paradigm worth learning ought to last a while, so I really just base my thoughts on the version published in 1995 and cited in my bibliography.

In a way, the drawbacks of CMM help us understand the intention and value of CMM.  By showing where CMM falls short of its vision, the parody Capability Immaturity Model (CIMM), in addition to being hilarious and instantly recognizable by most of us, helps us see both the vision and the difficulty of achieving it.  CIMM, in fact, was introduced in a humorous but serious academic paper by an author who worked in the U.S. military.  In some ways, inasmuch as it is instantly recognizable, CIMM actually helps put in focus the topic we’re trying to talk about, that of doing processes well.

Greater depth on CMM is provided by Select Business Solutions as well as the Wikipedia article.  Finally, Karl Wiegers of Process Impact presents a concise, spot-on paper addressing common misconceptions about CMM; although it has a software focus, the misconceptions Wiegers addresses seem much more broadly applicable, and he introduces his paper with a brief, readable introduction to the five CMM levels.  (You may need to know that KPA is an acronym for Key Process Area.  For the purposes of Growth through Governance, never mind that; it’s too specific.  Application to nonprofits is more to be found in the general worldview of CMM than in the lower-level particulars of how it has been implemented and assessed in software companies.)

A Couple Sample Procedures

p266ref

So I’m actually the guy who mostly maintains the website and sends out the blast e-mails for my longtime teacher, Rabbi Natan Margalit over at Organic Torah.  Organic Torah, Inc., is a small nonprofit organization centering around Rabbi Natan’s teachings, including his “organic torah” (click over there to read more) as well as courses he teaches each year on rabbinic text with a focus on the “organic” structure of Mishnah.  It’s a typical startup nonprofit situation.  As I progressed toward my own rabbinic ordination, and especially during my year of study in Israel, it became necessary for people other than me to maintain the website and send out blast e-mails.  So, I developed a couple of procedures — as I explain in the Documentation essay within Chapter 10 of Growth through Governance — to help someone unfamiliar with the process carry out the periodic tasks on the website that need doing.

Click here to view two of the procedures I made for Organic Torah.  The idea of procedures is to use quite a lot of detail, but to use plain English and explain any jargon terms.  A procedure should be useful to a reasonably intelligent person who has no prior experience with your organization or the software products it uses, beyond basic ability to use office software.  In this case, my procedures were designed to be useful to Natan in case he needed to do his own website updates, but also to a brand-new volunteer who may not have seen our website in depth before and may not be familiar with Natan’s specific teachings.

What do you think, are these procedures useful, or is anything unclear?  If you desired to volunteer for Organic Torah, do you think you’d be able to complete a blog post or a change to a widget just by reading these procedures?  The point of organizational knowledge is for you, me, or anyone to be able to pick up a procedure (that’s explicit knowledge) and do the task, and learn by doing through iteration to become good at the process (that is, to create tacit knowledge in our heads).

Stringing Pearls

p260n143

Here is one of the most beautiful, mysterious, and compelling source texts in Judaism.  I learned this text from my longtime teacher Rabbi Natan Margalit at Organic Torah.  The translation below is my own:

Ben Azai was sitting and expounding [exegeting, finding meaning in the Torah] and there was fire around him. They [ben Azai’s fellow students] went out and said to Rabbi Akiva [their teacher]: Rabbi, ben Azai is sitting and expounding, and the fire is blazing around him.  He [Akiva] went to his [ben Azai’s] house and said to him: I heard that you were sitting and expounding, and the fire was blazing around you!  He said to him: Yes.  He said to him: Perhaps you were engaged in the Chambers of the Chariot [a tightly restricted mystical practice]?  He said to him: No, rather, I was sitting and rhyming [corresponding, making a song out of] the words of Torah, and from Torah to the Prophets, and from the Prophets to the Writings, and the words were as happy as when they were given at Sinai.  And they were as mixed as when they were originally given.  For was their original giving at Sinai not given in fire?  This is according to the text (Deut. 4:11) And the mountain was burning with fire. בן עזאי היה יושב ודורש והאש סביבותיו. אזלון ואמרון לרבי עקיבא, ר’ בן עזאי יושב ודורש והאש מלהטת סביבותיו. הלך אצלו ואמר לו: שמעתי שהיית דורש והאש מלהטת סביבך! אמר לו: הן. אמר לו: שמא בחדרי מרכבה היית עסוק? אמר לו: לאו, אלא הייתי יושב וחורז בדברי תורה. ומתורה לנביאים, ומנביאים לכתובים, והיו הדברים שמחים כנתינתן מסיני, והיו ערבים כעיקר נתינתן. וכן עיקר נתינתן מסיני לא באש היו נתנין?! הדא הוא דכתיב: (דברים ד) וההר בוער באש.

In this text, ben Azai, one of Rabbi Akiva’s outstanding students, finds the joy of the original revelation at Mt. Sinai by stringing biblical texts together in new juxtapositions.  Several examples of this method appear in the shiurim which begin each chapter in Growth through Governance.  The present shiur, for Chapter 10, is as good an example as any.  To the extent that we derive new religious meaning from the citations of Hosea, Isaiah, Deuteronomy, Exodus, and the Song of Songs within (what I hope is) a topically coherent essay, the words of Torah come together for us in ways we haven’t seen before, and it is as if those shades of meaning were just now being revealed.  I don’t claim to be a prophet; to the contrary, the revelation of Torah meanings never before heard by juxtaposing texts to make a point is very much what Jewish biblical study has been all about for 2,000 years.  This method is called stringing pearls, after Song of Songs 1:10, on which our text above is a rabbinic commentary: “Your cheeks are lovely with circlets, your neck with pearls.”  The word for “pearls,” or “beads,” in the verse is חרוזים/charuzim, which is from the same root as “rhyming,” חורז/chorez.  The idea of topically “rhyming” one text with another, deriving new meanings from them, is likened to making a beautiful string of pearls.

When we derive new meaning from our texts in this way, the words are joyful — as joyful as when they first appeared.  In our excerpt above, the fire seems really to be of the original fire on Sinai.  It is alarming to ben Azai’s fellow students, who mistake it for something dangerous.  Even the great teacher Rabbi Akiva is taken aback, apparently assuming that such intense spiritual energy could only be the result of restricted mystical practices.  But the beauty of Jewish biblical study is that there’s nothing at all restricted or secret about stringing pearls.  Everyone can do it, by juxtaposing passages from different parts of the Bible which together seem to support a point.  In this way, stringing pearls leads to the discovery of new meanings that may never have been heard before, and those meanings are as joyful to be heard as the words were joyful to be heard on Sinai when they were given.

Another twist here in ben Azai’s reframing of the appearance of God in fire on Mt. Sinai.  We might very well read Deuteronomy as yet another text establishing God as threatening, forbidding, dangerous, alien to human experience, more to be dreaded than loved, and at the same time fantastical, improbable, utterly supernatural.  The great theologian Martin Buber could not believe in this, calling it a “sacrifice of intellect,” and rhetorically asking, “What meaning are we intended to find in the words that God came down in fire . . . ?” (“The Man of Today and the Jewish Bible,” 1948).  Buber, in his essay, focuses on his disbelief in the reported supernatural event, and suggests we glean from it that the Sinai incident may have been due to a naturally occurring volcano.  But I prefer ben Azai’s experience of beauty in the text to Buber’s speculative geology as an explanation of the fire of Sinai.  (In 2015 I gave a paper at a Tel Aviv University conference critiquing Buber’s view.)  Ben Azai’s fire is certainly special, it is definitely magical, but its magic is accessible to all of us when we gain new insights of meaning during Torah study.

For much more on stringing pearls, click over to Organic Torah and read some of Natan Margalit’s writing.  Natan teaches on this topic every so often; those classes are worth experiencing.