I need help writing an executive summary for my own assignment:

Customers and Products

Strengths

(1.1 a) DCC's systematic and proactive approach to collecting and analyzing client data based on the calls they receive ensures that the organization can identify the needs of current clients and plan for the future effectively. DCC's long history spanning over 50 years in supporting diverse community segments helps to understand their customer needs. Starting as a drug information center and evolving to support crisis and addiction challenges for all age groups has given DCC an excellent understanding of its clients' needs. Proactively addressing these needs helps meet current client requirements and contributes to future planning, reducing the risk of client dissatisfaction and potential business losses while supporting continued growth (The Bridgespan Group, 2016).

(1.1 b) Another strength related to understanding their customers stems from the nature and duration of the calls that DCC receives, along with the contact volume through partnerships. This approach, in line with DCC's Strategic Plan, ensures that customer needs are well-defined. DCC's workforce primarily consists of highly trained social workers whose expertise is pivotal in identifying and proactively addressing their clients' needs. This strategic alignment enhances their ability to meet customer requirements and reduces the risk of customer dissatisfaction and potential business loss while supporting continued growth. (DCC Strategic Plan 2022-2025)

(1.2 a) Over the last 30 years, DCC has enhanced its services by leveraging the data it receives from clients, feedback from staff, and collaboration with community partners. These improvements encompass technological advancements, service expansion, and partnerships with other community organizations. DCC leverages independent research, community partnerships, post-secondary relationships, and service user experience to inform the design of new services and the enhancement of existing services.

(1.2 b) DCC takes a defined and repeatable approach to monitoring service quality and performance. This approach proactively anticipates service user satisfaction in the crisis and 211 programs. DCC leverages leading KPIs such as wait times and call monitoring scores as indicators of the reliability and quality of the service. This, in turn, supports the organization in predicting customer satisfaction with the service they are receiving.

Opportunities for improvement

(1.1 a) While DCC has a good understanding of their client base and the needs of those clients, there is no formalized approach to customer segmentation. Without a clear, systematic method of defining groups of service users and understanding their requirements for service, the organization risks spending resources on programs that do not fully satisfy the needs of certain service users or miss groups of potential service users entirely. One option to address this issue is to design a framework for analyzing customer needs using the instruction provided by Latham (Latham, 2016, pp. 53-60, 72-78). For more ideas on how to address customer segmentation, K&N Management (2010) outlines their process for identifying customer segments (p. 20) and products for those segments (p. 13).

(1.1 b) DCC has a defined and repeatable process for gathering customer satisfaction data that is aligned with the strategic plan. Still, the process for analyzing results is not fully integrated with the organizational scorecard. By not fully integrating customer feedback with the organizational scorecard, DCC misses opportunities to improve service quality and better meet service user needs. As described by Latham, many methods exist for analyzing customer data to gain deeper insights into greater customer value (Latham, 2016, pp. 76-77). For more ideas on integrating customer satisfaction data with the scorecard, see CORE's example of gathering, benchmarking, and using client satisfaction data (CORE, 2016, pp. 15-16).

(1.2a) DCC leverages its data and partnerships to inform the design of new services and improve existing ones, but the process is not systematic and relies on current ideas rather than a defined and repeatable approach. By not taking a systematic approach to designing new services, DCC struggles to repeat the process and find additional opportunities to assist service users better. One option to address this is to design a process based on Strickdorn et al.'s framework (Strickdorn, Hormess, Lawrence, & Schnieder, 2018, pp. 330-367). For additional ideas on addressing this issue, see CORE's approach to designing new services for its service users (CORE, 2016, p. 13 & 16).

(1.2 b) DCC takes a proactive and systematic approach to ensuring service user satisfaction in the crisis and 211 programs by gathering leading key performance indicators (KPIs) in the form of wait times and quality assurance - which measure reliability and quality - but these KPIs are collected in isolation. They are not integrated with other systems, such as workforce planning systems to address wait times and the learning and development system to address quality issues. Not integrating leading KPIs with workforce planning and learning and development systems limits the organization's ability to proactively address service user satisfaction issues. One approach to address this is to adapt the workforce planning and learning and development systems to integrate leading KPIs from the crisis and 211 programs. Another option is to use the model presented by Latham and Vinyard (2011, pp. 266-268) for analyzing and integrating customer satisfaction data. For more ideas on leveraging metrics and KPIs to meet or exceed customer expectations, see K&N Management (K&N Management, 2010, pp. 19-20).

2. Operations and Production

Strengths

(2.1a) DCC uses a repeatable, systematic approach and is consistently applied to planning and organizing production and delivery activities. A systematic approach positions the organization such that it can begin to proactively address problems, make improvements, and reliably measure outcomes (Latham & Vinyard, 2011, p. 100). DCC uses action plans tied to the strategic plan to determine activities to further the strategic initiatives. DCC forecasts service requirements using service users' current volume of access, such as call volumes and number of people served, to predict future service requirements. DCC then uses those service requirements to calculate minimum requirements for personnel to meet service user needs and maintain satisfaction.

(2.1b) DCC uses a systematic approach in the monitoring and measuring of service delivery. The approach is aligned and integrated with the workforce development and performance management system to ensure that workers provide sufficient quality of service and satisfy service user needs. Pre-emptively anticipating and addressing service user needs ensures service users are satisfied and provides evidence for support for continued funding for the organization.

(2.2 a) DCC employs a systematic approach to processing customer complaints that is defined and repeatable. A more robust systematic approach is evident in the Coordinated Access and Assessment (CAA) complaint procedure within the Coordinated Entry Program. This procedure is well-defined and provides clear guidance on processing and responding to complaints, considering factors like the nature, severity, and individuals involved in the complaint. This proactive alignment helps mitigate the risk of client dissatisfaction and contributes to overall growth.

(2.2b) DCC leverages the knowledge and expertise of staff, volunteers, and service users to improve processes throughout the production and delivery system. DCC uses stakeholder input, such as feedback and suggestions, to adjust service delivery ad hoc through the service delivery committee.

Opportunities for Improvement

(2.1 a) DCC takes a proactive approach to planning service delivery activities using annual action plans, but this approach is not aligned with the budgeting process. This creates a disconnect between the planned service delivery activities and the resources needed to support those activities, creating the risk of insufficient financial support for programs to meet service user needs. One option to address this would be to adapt the systematic approach to the budgeting system to align with the system for planning service delivery. Another option would be to use the model provided by Latham (2016, pp. 147-149) for analyzing inputs and outputs in designing systems. For more ideas on addressing this issue, please see the CORE example of action plan development and deployment (CORE, 2016, p. 9).

(2.1 b)DCC's approach to monitoring and measuring service delivery is to proactively address service user needs and work to achieve established outcomes by applying a learning loop that addresses behaviours impacting those outcomes; however, there is no mechanism to improve the system. Without a method of evaluating the system itself or reevaluating the metrics selected to monitor that system, DCC risks working towards outdated goals. One option to address this issue is incorporating a double learning loop that assesses the behaviours driving the outcomes and reevaluates the outcomes themselves. For more information on double-loop learning, see (Latham, 2016, pp. 251-252). For additional ideas on incorporating learning into monitoring and measuring service delivery, see K&N's example of annual evaluation and improvement (K&N Management, 2010, p. 15).

(2.2 a) The complaint process for Crisis 211 and counselling programs could undergo regular evaluation to ensure they are effectively utilized to improve responses. Given the significant variation in the nature, immediacy, and types of calls, adopting a systematic and proactive approach to evaluating this process can be particularly beneficial. This regular review process aligns with the goal of continuous improvement. It ensures that DCC remains dynamic and well-prepared to address the unique challenges faced by individuals seeking their support, enhancing client satisfaction and the quality of services provided. Further ideas for a customer complaint system can be found in K&N's Guest Complaint Management System (K&N Management, 2010, p. 18).

(2.2b) DCC has no systematic process for analyzing and improving processes throughout the production and delivery system. Without a systematic process, the organization risks being reactionary rather than proactive in its approach to service delivery improvements, which further risks overlooking opportunities for improvement and could result in service user dissatisfaction. One option to address this would be to design a system for process improvement for the service delivery system based on Latham (2016, pp. 251-266). For further examples of process improvements for production and delivery, see K&N Management (2010, p. 38).

1. Workforce

Strengths

(3.1 a) DCC has a defined and repeatable approach to identifying workforce capability and capacity. This systematic approach is aligned with the service delivery systems to ensure that the organization has the right number of people with the right skills to achieve DCC's strategic goals. DCC conducts a job analysis for new roles that define the required knowledge, skills, and abilities and maintains this information in job descriptions for all positions in the organization. The service delivery system determines the number of people required based on calculated service numbers. This ensures there are enough people to do the work and that those people can do it.

(3.1b) DCC has a systematic process for attracting, recruiting, and selecting the best talent. This approach is aligned with the organization's strategic goals to ensure it has a capable and sufficiently resourced workforce to support its expanding services. DCC leverages its employee value proposition to attract talent and uses a defined and repeatable process for selecting the best candidates. A systematic process ensures the organization has a talent pool to draw from and chooses the best people. This ensures the organization has the workforce knowledge, skills, abilities, and capacity to meet its strategic objectives.

(3.2a) DCC takes a systematic approach to the training and development of its workforce. The in-house training is aligned with the service delivery system to ensure the workforce has the skills and knowledge required to perform their duties. DCC also provides a staff development fund. This fund is a financial support system for employees to engage in external training and development activities. By providing this resource, DCC encourages continuous learning and development among its staff. This fosters a culture of lifelong learning and ensures that employees have the means to invest in their growth and development. Providing a yearly budget for full-time and part-time employees to attend development activities is a proactive approach to talent development. This approach contributes to a well-rounded and capable workforce with the latest insights and skills required to excel in their roles.

(3.2b) DCC conducts annual Employee Engagement Surveys, which serve as a systematic method to assess and measure workforce engagement. This proactive approach to understanding employees' feelings about their work, job satisfaction, and connection to the organization enables the organization to monitor engagement and address dissatisfaction. Using year-over-year comparisons and overall satisfaction rates for measuring engagement demonstrates its commitment to continuously improving the work environment. The executive analyses the survey results to identify areas of most significant concern and opportunities for improvement. This analysis is integrated with the annual action planning process. This systematic approach to promoting workforce engagement ensures that DCC remains attuned to its workforce's evolving needs and sentiments, fostering a positive and inclusive work environment.

Opportunities for Improvement

(3.1a) Although DCC has a proactive and systematic approach to defining workforce capability and existing capacity, it does not have a formal process for anticipating workforce needs for program growth or expansion. DCC is capable of backfilling existing workforce gaps due to departures or leaves, but without a system for anticipating and defining workforce needs for program initiatives, this can create workforce capacity challenges and risks, both increasing burnout among the existing workforce and decreasing service user satisfaction. One option to address this would be to develop a growth strategy that includes workforce requirements and timing. Another option would be to use the model provided by Doe (2019). For additional information on workforce planning, see K&N Management (2010, pp. 31-32)

(3.1b) DCC has a systematic approach to talent attraction, recruitment, and selection that is aligned with the service delivery system but does not include mechanisms for learning and improvement. Without a method of improving the recruitment and selection system, DCC risks falling behind competitors in attracting and recruiting talent and failing to select the best talent. One way to address this would be to design mechanisms to analyze, evaluate, and improve the recruitment and selection system. Latham (2016, pp. 251-266) provides a guide for incorporating learning loops into systems. For more ideas, see K&N Management (2010, p. 32)

(3.2a) DCC has a systematic training and development approach aligned with the service delivery system but is not fully integrated. By not fully integrating learning and development with service delivery, there is a risk that skills gaps will emerge as service requirements change and service user satisfaction will suffer. One option to address this is to develop feedback mechanisms between the service delivery and learning and development systems. Another option would be to design a system using the framework provided by Haccoun (2016, p. 26). For more ideas on training and development, see CORE (2016, p. 27).

(3.2b) DCC systematically monitors engagement through annual surveys, but there is no formalized organization-wide performance management system. While the organization may have information about workforce satisfaction, it lacks information about discretionary effort and cannot connect initiatives to address employee satisfaction with performance results. One option to address this would be to develop a performance management system for the organization. Colquitt (2017) provides a framework for how to develop a performance management system. For more information, see CORE's approach to performance development (2016, pp. 25-27).

1. Measurement and Analysis

Strengths

(4.1 a) DCC has a systematic process for aggregating data on performance in the form of monthly and quarterly board reports. This approach is aligned with its strategic direction. This includes adherence to the process (regular follow-up, surveys), efficiency and optimization (willingness to analyze the results and report back to the board), data-driven decision-making (prioritizing the technological advancements as part of the strategic plan), cross-functional collaboration (with other Government and non-governmental organizations), staff development (staff surveys, benefits) and client feedback (client surveys). These metrics are regularly monitored and reported to the board as part of the dashboard.

(4.1 b) DCC has KPIs that are regularly monitored and reported. The CEO's KPIs are conducted twice a year, and multiple leadership roles are responsible for reporting the performance of their portfolio. An external review for financial audit is completed by the audit firm (KPMG). A balanced budget ensures that the organization maximizes its resources while staying within its means. This is also a measure of the financial performance of the organization.

(4.2a) DCC has a systematic approach to measuring financial performance that is defined and repeatable. This approach is aligned with the organization's and its stakeholders' unique context to ensure that DCC's financial performance supports its ongoing operations. A balanced budget ensures that the organization maximizes its resources while staying within its means. Expending the full cost of its restricted funds reduces the risk that the organization will experience funding cuts due to underspending while ensuring it does not exceed the budget and safeguards DCC's solvency.

(4.2b) DCC has defined policies around investment and the acceptable risk level for those investments. This approach is aligned and integrated with the strategic plan through the operational enablers to ensure the organization's long-term financial stability. Investing in both short and long-term financial instruments maximizes the resources available to the organization. A 3-to-12-month runway ensures the organization can maintain operations in unforeseen emergencies.

Furthermore, DCC demonstrates expertise in budgeting and resource allocation. The organization excels at prioritizing financial resources to align with its strategic priorities and operational requirements. This includes allocating funds to critical areas such as client services, staff development, and program enhancements. Through this efficient budget management, DCC ensures that resources are directed where they are most needed, ultimately enhancing the organization's capacity to fulfill its mission effectively and sustainably.

Opportunities for Improvement

(4.1a) DCC has a systematic approach to collecting and reporting on performance aligned with the strategy, but the measures are not integrated. Not integrating with performance measures across the organization means that the organization has snapshots of performance in different areas but no comprehensive view of how those different parts of the organization influence one another. In sum, the organization knows how its parts are doing, not the whole. One option to address this would be to use the model provided by Latham (2016, pp. 185-209) to develop a comprehensive scorecard for the organization. See how CORE (2016, pp. 16-17) manages their scorecard for more information.

(4.1 b) DCC does not have a systematic approach to analyzing the organization as a whole. Without a systematic approach, DCC evaluates different areas of the organization in isolation and cannot fully map areas of interconnectedness. As such, interventions in the system are difficult to assess, and leverage points are challenging to find. One option to address this would be to develop a process for analyzing the system as a whole. Latham (2016, pp. 136-149) provides a framework for systems analysis. For more ideas on analyzing the system, see CORE's approach (2016, pp. 16-21).

(4.2 a)Ensuring a balanced budget addresses the organization's financial health. However, this information is not integrated with the knowledge management system to ensure that all necessary stakeholders are informed of the organization's current financial status. Without a systematic approach to informing critical internal stakeholders, such as the executive leadership team, about the current financial position, DCC cannot implement interventions in time if spending or earnings are off track, which places the financial health of the organization at risk. One option is to adopt a consistent and systematic approach to ensuring that all key stakeholders are informed about the current financial status. Another option is to use the framework presented by Owlia(2010). CORE provides an example of how they incorporate financial metrics into their knowledge management system (CORE, 2016, p. 17).

(4.2b) While DCC excels in financial transparency and reporting, there may be an opportunity to refine the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to assess financial performance. The existing metrics may not fully capture all relevant aspects of the organization's financial health, potentially limiting the depth of insights available for strategic decision-making. By refining and expanding the performance metrics and KPIs set, DCC can gain a more nuanced understanding of its financial performance. This enables the organization to monitor critical indicators such as liquidity, efficiency, and solvency, providing a comprehensive view of its financial well-being and resilience (Titman et al., 2017). For example, DCC could consider incorporating metrics like the quick ratio or days cash on hand to assess liquidity and short-term financial stability. Additionally, the debt-to-equity ratio or operating margin can offer valuable insights into long-term financial sustainability and operational efficiency (Gibson, 2018). For more ideas, see CORE's example of leveraging financial measures to optimize organizational performance (2016, p. 17).

5. Strategic Leadership

Strengths

(5.1 a) DCC has a defined and repeatable process in developing and revising its vision, mission and values, providing a framework for its organizational culture (DCC Strategic Plan, 2023). This approach is integrated and aligned with the strategic planning process, ensuring continuity between the vision, mission, and values and the organization's actions in the near term.DCC's mission and vision align with its core duties, dictating how the organization seeks to perform its functions. The clear mission, vision and organizational values provide employees with important information on how they should carry out DCC's functions and focus on customer-centred actions for better customer satisfaction.

(5.1 b) DCC systematically incorporates both internal and external environmental analysis in developing its strategies, goals, and objectives.This approach is integrated with the strategic planning process and utilizes focus groups to get input and feedback from internal and external stakeholders. Engaging stakeholders in the strategic planning process ensures that multiple viewpoints are incorporated and the needs of stakeholders are centred in the strategic development process (Latham, 2016, p. 99).

(5.1c) DCC has a systematic process for developing its strategies, goals, and objectives. This approach uses a series of focus groups, drafts, and feedback, which provides enough structure to gather large quantities of information but is minimal enough to allow for creativity (Latham, 2016, p. 100). DCC has a set plan with timelines spanning three years from 2022 to 2025 (DCC Strategic Plan, 2023). The plan and timelines provide clear information on what should be done within the periods. This plan reduces time wastage and makes it easier to implement the planned action plans with set resources as allocated within the strategic plan.

(5.2 a)DCC uses a systematic approach on an annual basis to translate strategic initiatives into action plans. This approach is repeatable and deployable to other areas of the organization and integrates action planning with strategic initiatives. A defined and systematic approach to action planning ensures that the organization's activities further its strategic objectives (Latham, 2016, p. 107).

(5.2b) DCC has a systematic approach to measuring, tracking, and managing action plans. This approach is repeatable and utilized on an annual basis. The action plan template includes sections to plan for timing by fiscal quarter, budget, and metrics for success. The action plan incorporates the five factors for strategic initiatives: objectives, scope, deliverables, resources, and evaluation (Latham, 2016, pp. 110-114).

(5.2c) DCC uses a systematic approach to measuring results through an annual review of the strategic plan and assessment of progress on strategic initiatives. Each director provides an update to the executive team and board on progress toward their assigned strategic priorities. The CEO and directors assess the overall strategy to evaluate if the objectives and initiatives are still relevant and achievable. Measuring performance aids the organization in evaluating whether the strategic plan is effective, allowing for adjustments to make improvements (Latham, 2016, p. 186).

Opportunities for Improvement

(5.1 a) DCC systematically develops its strategic plan, but the vision, mission, and values are not fully embedded in all decision-making processes across the organization. This leaves areas where decisions may not reflect the organization's values or align with its mission, resulting in decision inconsistencies and creating confusion and reputational risk. One option to address this would be redesigning the decision-making process to ensure that the organization's vision, mission, and values are embedded. One opportunity to address this would be to adapt the framework for strategy deployment found in Latham (2016, pp. 99-118) for DCC's context. For additional ideas, see CORE's (2016, pp. 9-11) approach to strategy deployment.

(5.1b) DCC has a systematic process that engages internal and external stakeholders in focus groups to analyze its external and internal environment. Still, the process is not aligned with the unique context of the organization in that it does not leverage additional sources of information to get a complete picture of the environmental scan, such as comparisons to partner or competitor organizations. Not using different sources of information beyond the focus groups limits the understanding of the external and internal environment and could result in blind spots in the strategic planning process. This, in turn, exposes the organization to a greater risk of focusing on the wrong things or not sufficiently mitigating risk. One option would be to redesign the process to include additional sources of information to get a more comprehensive environmental scan. For an option on how to do this, see the process outlined by Latham for collecting and analyzing inputs to the strategic planning process (Latham, 2016, pp. 101-106). For additional inspiration, see CORE's strategic planning process (CORE, 2016, p. 7)

(5.1c) DCC has a systematic process for developing its strategic plan, but it is not as thorough and comprehensive as it could be. A process that is not thorough and comprehensive leaves gaps that expose the organization to unforeseen risks. To address this issue, DCC could adapt the existing process to include additional tools to ensure a greater range of options have been explored, such as stakeholder analysis or a SWOT analysis. Latham provides direction for strategy development (2016, pp. 53, 85-96).For additional examples, see the process employed by Tata Motors (Latham & Vinyard, 2011, p. 180).

(5.2a) DCC has a systematic process for developing action plans to achieve its strategic priorities; however, the process does not include a method of aligning action plans across the organization to contribute to the strategic priorities systematically, leaving gaps where strategic initiatives within one area may rely on inputs from another area that have not yet been completed. Without a system to prioritize and align action plans, different areas may work towards different strategic priorities at different times, resulting in a disconnect between activities that causes friction in the process and creates inefficiencies while delaying outcomes. One option to address this would be to develop a mechanism in the action planning process to align and integrate activities from different areas across the organization to support strategic initiatives that span multiple systems. Latham provides a framework for redesigning and aligning systems (2016, pp. 135-181).For additional examples, see K&N Management's approach to deploying their strategic plan (2010, pp. 10-12).

(5.2b) DCC takes a systematic approach to action planning but does not have mechanisms to ensure that action plans are carried out. Not incorporating accountability mechanisms into the action planning system results in action plans that are incomplete or abandoned altogether. One option to address this would be redesigning the system to ensure that action plans are measured, tracked, and managed. Latham provides guidance on ensuring effective management of action plans (Latham, 2016, p. 146). One example of an organization leveraging action plans to achieve strategic priorities is K&N Management (K&N Management, 2010, p. 13).

(5.2c) DCC has a repeatable and systematic approach to measuring progress toward the strategic initiatives; however, there is no process to evaluate whether the overall strategy is working comprehensively. Without evaluating the strategy on a comprehensive, organization-wide level, ensuring that the organization achieves its overall strategic outcomes rather than just the strategic initiatives is difficult. One option to address this would be to develop a holistic method to measure and evaluate the organization's performance. Latham provides a framework for measuring organizational effectiveness (2016, pp. 213-232). For more ideas, see K&N's approach to evaluating strategy (2010, pp. 12-13).

6. Governance

Strengths

(6.1 a) DCC has a proactive approach to ensure the workforce is well-informed about compliance and alleviates some organizational risks. DCC conducts regular compliance training sessions that educate employees about the legal, regulatory, and ethical requirements. A strong compliance culture is critical for any organization. It supports preventing any legal and regulatory infractions, protects DCC's reputation, and promotes a positive work environment.

(6.1 b) DCC takes a proactive approach to anticipating changes to regulatory and legal requirements. The organization does this through subject matter experts, partnerships, professional associations, and accrediting bodies. DCC leverages partnerships and subject matter experts to predict possible changes through their expertise in the field. Professional associations and accrediting bodies help inform the organization of impending changes through newsletters, compliance updates, and audits. DCC has also adopted the strategy of hiring employees with professional qualifications and designations for certain positions. This strategy enhances DCC's ability to navigate complex legal and regulatory requirements in the respective professional domains. This also indicates to clients, prospective employees or other organizations that DCC is committed to transparency and ensuring adherence to all regulatory compliance.

(6.2 a) DCC takes a systematic and proactive approach to ensuring managerial and fiscal accountability. This approach is aligned and integrated with leadership activities and approval procedures to ensure that proper checks and balances are in place to reduce opportunities for errors or dishonesty and improve stakeholder trust. DCC leverages the division of duties and approvals, publicly sharing information, and independent auditors to do this.

(6.2 b) DCC takes a proactive and systematic approach to assessing risk. DCC uses a risk matrix to diagnose exposure areas and proactively plan how those areas will be addressed. This reduces the likelihood that unexpected disruptions will blindside the organization and aids the organization in determining its comfort with the level of exposure to different degrees of risk. This allows the organization to operate within its comfort level but not be confined by too little risk tolerance.

(6.2 c) DCC prioritizes a systematic approach to providing economic and social sustainability. DCC's long-term sustainability approach is integrated and aligned with its strategy, financial systems, and organizational performance management, ensuring the organization's longevity and sustained program delivery. DCC engages numerous stakeholders to ensure the organization delivers quality programs that benefit the social good. DCC also utilizes careful financial controls to ensure financial longevity for the organization.

Opportunities for Improvement

(6.1 a) While DCC conducts internal audits and has external audit processes to maintain accreditation, the results and outcomes are implemented in individual departments. Failure to implement system-wide changes, where identified, could result in DCC inadvertently violating legal and regulatory requirements, leading to fines, penalties, or legal actions. Non-compliance can result in financial losses and damage DCC's reputation. Furthermore, accreditation bodies often require organizations to maintain compliance standards, and DCC could potentially lose its accreditation, which could impact its ability to obtain funding or support from further sources. One option to address this would be establishing a more systematic approach to evaluate and monitor compliance across all areas regularly. Conducting and creating a more robust gap analysis could help identify the differences between current practices and the new legal and regulatory requirements and would cover all relevant areas of the organization, which could help close the gaps and mitigate some risks. For more information, see K&N Management (2010, pp. 6-9)

(6.1 b) DCC utilizes a proactive approach to anticipating changes in legal and regulatory requirements, but this approach is not systematic. DCC does not have a comprehensive overview of all legal and regulatory requirements governing the organization. As such, the organization does not systematically ensure that it monitors for changes, which risks the organization unknowingly failing to comply with requirements should changes be enacted. One option to address this would be to create a comprehensive system to review and monitor legal and regulatory requirements regularly. Another option is to adapt Stephen Martin's (2021) framework for DCC's context. For an inspiring example, see K&N Management (2010, pp. 7-9).

(6.2 a) DCC's financial processes and procedures are not fully integrated with all areas of the organization. Not integrating managerial and financial accountability systems with other systems and areas of the organization means that one area is vital and performing well. However, this is not being leveraged in other areas to learn and improve using those strengths. One option to address this is to use the framework provided by Latham and Vinyard to leverage strengths in one area across the organization (2011, p. 103). For further examples of integrating process improvements across systems, see K&N Management (K&N Management, 2010, pp. 6-7).

6.2 (b) DCC's risk matrix tool is not fully integrated throughout the organization. The limited application of the risk matrix leaves the organization exposed to areas that may not yet be covered by the current tool. One option to address this would be redesigning the risk management system to provide more comprehensive coverage for the organization. Another option would be to adapt the guidance supplied by the Canadian Government (n.d.) For more information on addressing this, see K&N Management (K&N Management, 2010, pp. 7-8).

6.2 (c) DCC's approach to sustainability incorporates close financial controls to manage fiscal growth. Still, it is not integrated across all systems, leaving some areas struggling to catch up with the growth rate. A swift upward growth trajectory could expose the organization to risk if it grows too fast and existing systems, such as leadership, workforce management, and quality controls, cannot keep up. This risk exposes the organization to understaffing, lack of skills and abilities, and lack of proper controls, which may result in customer dissatisfaction. One option to address this issue is to use the framework provided by Liedtka and Ogilvie to design for growth (Liedtka & Ogilvie, 2011). For more ideas on addressing this issue, see K&N Management's approach to maintaining growth (K&N Management, 2010, pp. 2-5).

III. Prioritized Opportunities for Improvement

The opportunities for improvement were analyzed to determine the impact on strategy and the cost. Impact on strategy was evaluated based on the following criteria:

1 - lowest impact on strategy. Addressing the opportunity for improvement will have little to no effect on strategy and minimal impact on operations.

2 - moderate impact on strategy. Addressing the opportunity for improvement will have a small to medium effect on the process. This may necessitate updating existing strategic initiatives and the impact on operations for up to 25% of the organization or a single department.

3 - highest impact on strategy. Addressing the opportunity for improvement will have a significant impact on strategy. This may necessitate updating strategic goals or operational enablers and impacting operations for over 25% of the organization or more than three departments.

Cost was assessed based on the amount of time required and financial requirements.

1 - minimal time and minimal financial cost. The time required could be absorbed into existing positions and taken on as a "side of the desk" project. Cost is less than $5,000.

2 - moderate time and financial cost. Requires dedicated time from one or more employees that would necessitate the adjustment of other duties to accomplish. Cost is $5,000 - $10,000.

3 - significant time and financial cost. Requires a dedicated role focused on the recommendation. The cost is in excess of $10,000.

OFI Scoring: Impact vs. Cost

OFI Code # + Short Label	Impact on Strategy	Cost (Time + $$$)
1.1 a - Customer Segmentation	2	1
1.1 b - Client Feedback	2	2
1.2 a - Service Design	2	2
1.2 b - KPI Integration	2	1
2.1 a - Action Plans	2	1
2.1 b - Service Delivery System Analysis	3	1
2.2 a - Client Complaint Assessment	2	2
2.2b - Service delivery process improvement	2	3
3.1 a - Growth Strategy for Workforce	3	1
3.1 b - Recruitment, retention and development system improvement	3	1
3.2 a - Integrate service delivery and training	2	2
3.2 b - Performance Development	3	1
4.1 a - Performance Measures	3	2
4.1 b - Reporting Tools	3	2
4.2 a - Financial Monitoring	2	1
4.2 b - Financial Reporting	1	1
5.1 a - Strategic Planning and decision-making alignment	3	1
5.1 b - Strategic planning environmental scan	3	2
5.1 c - Strategic Planning Process	3	1
5.2 a - Align Action Plans	3	1
5.2 b - Action planning accountability	1	1
5.2c - comprehensive strategy assessment	3	3
6.1 a - Internal and external audits	2	3
6.1 b - Systematic analysis of regulations	2	2
6.2 a - Integration of finance with other areas	3	2
6.2 b - Risk matrix tool utilization	2	1
6.2 c - Financial sustainability	2	1

Once each opportunity for improvement was assessed, aggregate scores for each broader category (i.e. 1.1, 1.2, etc.) were calculated and plotted on a prioritization matrix. The prioritization matrix presents a visual analysis of the cost and impact of each improvement opportunity. This analysis aids in prioritizing which options for improvement DCC should invest in. Opportunities for improvement that have the most significant impact with the lowest cost are located in the upper left-hand corner. The matrix below this block is designated as "Just Do It!" indicating this will provide the organization with the most significant impact with the lowest investment. Items in the lighter green boxes should also be prioritized as they have the subsequent greatest impact with the next lowest cost. Items in the yellow boxes should be evaluated more carefully as the cost-to-impact ratio may not be worthwhile for the organization to pursue. Items in the pink and red boxes are likely not worth the cost for the level of impact they will have.

Impact on Strategy High In Low Just Do It! High + Low Question ??? Low + Low Question ??? Med + Med 2 Cost (Time + $$$) Question ??? High + High Not Worth It? Low + High 3 High