a feasibility test for corporate vision

Martin JohnsonGeneral Manager, Pasque Hospice, GreatBramingham Lane, Luton, Bedfordshire LU3 3NT

A feasibility testfor corporatevision

. The ®ndings of research intocorporate vision in the foundation ofthe modern hospice movement inBritain are reported.

. A de®nition of corporate vision isoffered.

. Means of establishing the relativefeasibility of visionary projects areexplored.

. Measures relevant to feasibility areidenti®ed.

. Attitudes of hospice founderstowards ®nancial targets andleadership patterns are shown to becounter-intuitive.

. A test based on application of these®ndings is assembled, showing anindication of feasibility, and a

correlation between the test scoringand time to completion.

. The only known example of a failedhospice is well separated from thosewhich have succeeded.

. The application of the test to twolater projects is discussed, andpredictions made about feasibilityand possible completion dates.Copyright # 1999 John Wiley &Sons, Ltd.

Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strategic Change, Sept±Oct 1999

Strategic ChangeStrat. Change, 8, 335±348 (1999)

Introduction

This paper reports some ®ndings of researchinto the role played by corporate vision in thefoundation of the modern hospice movementin Britain. A working de®nition of corporatevision is discussed, and then means ofestablishing the relative feasibility of suchprojects are explored. The research produceda number of ®ndings relevant to feasibility. Atest is described based on application of these®ndings, which shows not only an indicationof feasibility, but also a correlation betweenthe test scoring and time to completion. Theapplication of the test to two later projects isdiscussed, and wider applications considered.

Research methodology

Evidence covering corporate vision in hospicefoundation was gathered during the period1994±1997. There were case studies of12 hospice projects (Figure 1) using minutes,accounts, correspondence, other records heldby the founding groups, and interviews withfounders. The case study ®ndings were usedto establish the questions for the question-naire survey. Written histories were obtainedfrom 14 hospices. 130 similar-sized indepen-dent hospices were identi®ed for the survey,all charities (supplying care free of charge tothe patients and families), and not part of anylarger organisations. Questionnaires were re-ceived from 140 founders of 72 hospices(maximum of 3 respondents per hospice).

De®ning corporate vision

Corporate vision is generally used to describea form of organisational vision that wins thecommitment and compliance of those peoplewho are needed to implement it. Research ledto the preliminary conclusion that a workingde®nition of corporate vision must contain thefollowing key features (Johnson 1998):

1. That vision is a visual image of a futurestate that would not exist without thecreative activity of the people concerned.

2. The concept of sharing in the creation anddevelopment of the vision.

3. The vision will involve bene®cial effectsfor people affected by it and also incorpor-ate personal values of the participants.

Working de®nition

A working de®nition was selected to establisha parameter for respondents to the question-naire survey, and among the various de®-nitions already in existence, the one found tobe closest to these criteria was the one offeredby Peter Senge (Senge 1990). This was theworking de®nition of corporate vision usedthroughout this research:

The capacity to hold a shared picture of thefuture we seek to create . . . The practice ofshared vision involves the skills of unearth-ing shared pictures of the future that foster

Hospices case-studied

. One for which no identi®cation may be given

. Lakelands Hospice, Corby, Northamptonshire

. Home Counties Hospice Project (a descriptive name for a failed hospice project near London)

. Ian Rennie Hospice At Home, Tring, Buckinghamshire

. Isabel House Hospice, Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire

. Katherine House Hospice, Banbury, Oxfordshire

. Luton and South Bedfordshire Hospice, Luton, Bedfordshire

. Myton Hamlet Hospice, Warwickshire

. St Francis' Hospice, Berkhamstead, Hertfordshire

. St Luke's Hospice, Harrow and Brent, Middlesex

. St Nicholas' Hospice, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk

. Willen Hospice (formerly the Hospice of Our Lady and St John), Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire

Figure 1. Hospices case-studied.


336 Martin Johnson

genuine commitment and enrolment ratherthan compliance.

Existence of corporate vision

Hospice founders were offered this de®nitionbefore being asked: `Did corporate vision existin the planning and development of yourhospice?'. Questionnaire opinion scoringoffered a range from 1 to 7, with 1 forirrelevant/not at all to 7 for vital/completely.93% of hospice founders scored answers of5 or higher, the median answer was 7.Nearly 80% of respondents reported acceptinginputs to their vision from external sources.Certainly, if the opinion and experience ofthese 140 people is to carry any weight, thenthe phenomenon of corporate vision isvalid. The respondents to the questionnairesurvey were, between them, able to identifymore than 1,000 individual members offounding groups who had participated in theconstruction and establishment of seventytwo hospices.

Respondents were asked if there was a pointat which their project `jelled' into a corporatevision. 65% named a speci®c event, while afurther 30% identi®ed a speci®c time. 95% ofrespondents therefore associated the for-mation of the corporate vision with a speci®ctime or event at a point other than the ®rstproposal of the idea. This was explored in thecontext of fund raising, after case studies hadshown distinct change points in the rate offund raising associated with `visual' stages ofthe project (publication of drawings, start ofbuilding work, etc.). Respondents were askedto recall speci®c factors affecting the `take-off'in fund raising. 70% said that this hadhappened in connection with speci®c events,while only 12% felt that there was no ident-i®able `take-off' of fund raising. In general,these answers support the concept of corpor-ate vision in the context of these hospiceprojects. Although the origin of the modernhospice can easily be traced to the work ofDame Cicely Saunders (Du Boulay 1994), hervision was not a prescriptive plan for all thehospices that followed, and was itself a

combination of separate factors that were allin existence before Dame Cicely founded StChristopher's Hospice.

Qualities of successfulcorporate vision

The qualities of successful corporate visionevident from the research con®rmed thepreliminary view, showing that:

1. It shows a future achievement aim thatcan be readily visualised.

2. It receives contributions from a variety ofsources.

3. It attracts the involvement of individualswith the specialist skills needed.

4. It can be communicated easily and indetail.

5. It is powerfully motivational in effect.6. It intends to serve an important need for

other people.7. It is in accordance with the personal

values of the prospective supporters.

It is not suf®cient to regard corporate vision assimply any kind of plan for a future achieve-ment target requiring the co-operation of agroup of people, or any form of future statedesired by one or more people. A validde®nition must refer to all the qualities listedabove.

A de®nition of corporate vision

Corporate vision is: a clearmental picture of a future goalcreated jointly by a group forthe bene®t of other peoplewhich is capable of inspiringand motivating those whosesupport is necessary for itsachievement.

Feasibility

A feasibility test for corporate vision needs toestablish means of measuring the qualities


A feasibility test for corporate vision 337

identi®ed above. If this can be achieved, itcould be applied to visionary projects carriedout by voluntary sector organisations. In myexperience with churches, youth organisa-tions, and the hospice movement, it is notuncommon for volunteer management groupsto contemplate ambitious projects. Manysuch projects involve building, or gatheringresources to create something visible andtangible (e.g. sailing vessels), and a fewinvolve a new form of organisation without abuilding as focus, such as home-care nursingservice. People often become very committedto such schemes, and vast amounts of timecan be expended, not to mention funds andother resources. Charles Handy observes`These organisations to which we give ourlives, or a great part of them, with excitementand energy and enthusiasm are the oneswhere we have the power to make a differ-ence' (Handy 1997).

The purpose of a feasibility test is to helpsuch people assess the project before them,and possibly to vary aspects of it to improvefeasibility. This is quite distinct from projectplanning, because here we are concerned toestablish whether there is a project ®t to plan.In addition, one of the essential qualities ofsuch projects is that successful ones generatethe necessary resources from their supportingcommunities, and in this they differ sharplyfrom projects carried out by business or state-sector organisations.

I had personal experience of projects whichwere each substantial for the organisationslaunching them during the 1970s, a ScoutDistrict camping ground, and an ambitioustown-centre church reconstruction. In the late1980s I belonged to another church which hadfor some years been talking about constructinga building of its own, but when an opportunityarose to acquire land and make a start, initialenthusiasm soon foundered ostensibly on abelief that the scale was beyond the capacity ofthe organisation. (In the light of this researchand hindsight I now hold the view that therewere irreconcilable differences in the visionsof the leadership.) I came across a number ofsimilar projects, carried out by voluntaryorganisations, but unfortunately, the diversity

of the groups and projects made it dif®cult tomake any effective comparisons. The useful-ness of the hospice movement was that itoffered a large number of organisations of asimilar type which had been founded in arelatively short period of time (between 1967and 1997), and for which a large number oforiginal founders were still available.

Findings relating to feasibility

I had expected that a number of measurablefeasibility factors would be identi®ed,including:

. the clarity of the founding vision;

. a range of ®nancial targets which wouldbe perceived as feasible, above which amajority of groups would not considertheir project feasible;

. that major increases to ®nancial targetswould prove to be very demotivating;

. a dependence on strong personalleadership.

Summary of ®ndingsÐcausesof problems

Delays

Questionnaire ®ndings on the causes of delaysare summarised in Table 1. In the case studies,one hospice (identity withheld) was observedto suffer extreme upset among the founderswhen it was made clear that the building theyhad hoped to acquire and convert would notbe suitable. From the minutes, it appears thatthis set the group back at least 2 years. At theHospice of St Francis, the founders focusedtheir plans on a redundant convent, andsuffered a series of delays over the sale of

Table 1. Experience of delays.

Experience % response

No signi®cant delays 68%Site/building delays 14%Finance delays 7%Partner/participant delays 3%Other events 2%

Total reporting 94%


338 Martin Johnson

the property and subsequent planning prob-lems. At St Nicholas' in Bury St Edmunds,Myton Hamlet in Warwickshire, and Luton,property identi®ed by the founders at theoutset was rapidly transferred or purchased,and the projects proceeded very quickly. AtCorby, the Lakelands Hospice project wasstalled for some 6 years as a result of thefailure of the joint founding group (NHS/Health Authority staff, Corby Cancer Caretrustees) to reach agreement.

Financial targets

The question of ®nancial targets andperceived or experienced feasibility wasexplored in a number of different ways.Interesting, if unexpected, ®ndings includedthe signi®cant number of who could not recallthe targets, the sheer scale of changesexperienced and accepted by many groups,and the inconsistency in the feelings ofmembers about the importance of ®nancialtargets generally. These are summarised inTables 2 and 3.

Financial targetsÐsummary

. Given the average group size reported of12, between one and two people in eachgroup had no real interest in the ®nancialtargets.

. The majority of projects experienced ®nalcosts higher than their original targets, butreactions to these increases variedmarkedly.

. The majority view was that initial costestimates are not important in themselves.

. There is no evidence for any correlationbetween initial fund-raising targets andproject feasibility overall.

. The majority of those experiencing severeincreases (100% or more) did not regardthe increase as an important factor in thecompletion of the project.

It does not seem possible to draw any ®rmconclusion about correlation between feas-ibility and ®nancial targets, or between feas-ibility and cost increases, except to note thatthe majority of respondents do not seem tohave regarded ®nancial targets or ®nal costs asmatters of major importance in relation toultimate successful completion of theirprojects.

Effects of changes to the vision

For the question: `Were there any majorchanges to the project after it had been clearly

Table 2. Ability to recall targets.

8.6% Could not recall initial target11.4% Could not recall ®nal target achieved13.6% Could not recall either initial or ®nal targets

or both

Table 3. Financial targets and changes reported.

Amount Detail

£500,000 Median initial target£683,156 Mean initial target£10,000 Lowest target ®gure

£3,250,000 Highest target ®gure£10,000±£1,500,000 Range of targets felt `important in encouraging group to launch project'

£297,644 (33%) Average (median) increase in cost31.4% Reported initial targets of £750,000 or more10% Of those with initial targets £750,000 or more felt initial target important

Completion details

22% Completed for initial target cost7% Completed for less than initial cost

57% Reported increases in cost above initial target22% Reported increases in cost above initial target greater than 100%32% Of those reporting increases greater than 100% felt increase was important2/72 Projects reported 9,900% increases



de®ned?', only 21% reported `yes'. For: `Werethe changes (if any) at (the previouslyreported question) important factors affectingthe success of the project?', 69% of thosereporting major changes felt them to beimportant. Therefore, the majority of majorchanges were considered important factorsaffecting the success of the project. As far asfeasibility is concerned, major changes appearto adversely affect the success of a project.They will either be responses to unforeseencircumstances or to defective planning. There

were no instances of changes in circum-stances that affected the need for the serviceto be provided, so it is more likely that this isthe result of defective planning.

Final achievement

When the question of ®nal achievement isconsidered, only 6% of respondents reportedcompleting their projects with fewer servicesthan originally intended. Failure to completethe project as originally envisaged is a reason-able contraindication of feasibility.

Sources of support

Sources of support were examined in anumber of different ways. In the case studies,it was observed that there was typically asustained upsurge in support following major`visual' stages of each project. In the case ofthe Lakelands hospice project, despite thefailure of the group to reach agreement, fundraising was highly successful, and was trig-gered by a local press campaign on behalf ofthe project. Some projects (Luton, Willen,St Nicholas') showed the wider bene®cialeffect of large lump-sum gifts, but these alsoappeared to form a part of a much widersupport.

Respondents were asked about support®rstly on a general basis, and then speci®callyon a ®nancial one. The distinction is important,because the wider form of support coversforms of support many of which are essentialbut not directly measurable. The successfulvisionary projects studied showed the consist-ent ability to attract supporters to themselvesand to generate commitment. The same factorsthat generate ®nance and other forms ofsupport also appear to attract the peoplewith all the skills needed for success. Theresults are shown in Tables 4 and 5. Theseresults conform closely to the patterns ofsupport observed in the case studies.

General and ®nancialsupportÐsummary

. General support appears to come mainlyfrom many small local organisations.

. The dominant sources of ®nancial supportare private individuals and clubs and socialorganisations.

. Local government plays a small direct role,though case studies indicated a usefulnetworking effect.

. Central Government (NHS) funding onlyassisted 19% of hospice founders in theirtask.

Leadership

It was found in both the case studies and thequestionnaires that approximately 40% ofgroups changed their leaders during theproject, and yet all groups experiencing suchchanges went on to successful completion.

Major changes appear toadversely affect the success

of a project

Table 4. Organisations reported to have played asigni®cant role in hospice foundation.

Organisation No.reports

% oftotal

Community clubs 59 31Charitable trusts and foundations 35 18Churches and religious orders 28 15Local businesses 19 10NHS authorities and trusts 17 9Local government bodies 17 9Press, media 6 3Others 9 5

Total 190 100


340 Martin Johnson

Perseverance and determination in hospicefounders seems to count for more than domin-ance of personality, but the vision remainsuppermost. The necessity of hospice foundingteams appears to be of having something theybelieve in rather than someone. In thesesituations, the leader is secondary to the task.

Property

The availability of land or property had apowerful effect on the progress of a project,and while the only project to fail completely(The `Home Counties Hospice Project',HCHP) did so in possession of suitableproperty, it was property that it could notafford to maintain and operate. All projectsultimately acquired suitable land or property,but problems in this area were the principaldelaying factor identi®ed by respondents.

Major public events

The range of events described was wide, fromnewspaper campaigns to public meetings andhigh-pro®le fund-raising events of everydescription. The common factor in everycase was communication with a large bodyof the public.

Establishing main priorities

I had originally assumed that there would be adirect correlation between the size of the®nancial targets involved and the perceivedfeasibility, but this was manifestly not the case.Neither was there any demonstrable relation-ship between the scale of increase of ®nancialtargets and feasibility, a relationship I had alsoexpected to ®nd. There is a direct relationshipbetween clarity and communicability, butthere are different considerations that can beapplied to these two issues. Logically, if anidea is clear it must also be potentially com-municable. The ®rst stage in the process ofvision development must be the vision itself. Arange of factors relating to clarity of visionwere identi®ed from the evidence. The mostfrequently observed were:

. existing buildings (as an originating pointof vision);

. detailed models and/or drawings of pro-posed buildings;

. detailed descriptions of planned services(output descriptions);

. project management plans;

. operating plants;

. fund-raising plans.

The evidence from the case studies suggestedthat making an existing building an originatingfocus of vision can be a two-edged sword. AtMyton Hamlet and St Nicholas', the buildingsidenti®ed at the outset were both suitable andavailable, and everything proceeded very well.At St Francis', the availability of the desiredproperty was in doubt for some time, and thiscaused problems. At the ®rst hospice case

Table 5. Main sources of ®nancial support.

Source No. reports % of total sources % respondents reporting

Private donations 127 25 91Clubs and social organisations 111 21 79Charitable trusts 84 16 60Small and medium companies 59 11 42Large companies 30 6 21Local authorities 29 6 21Central government (NHS) 27 5 19Trading activities 25 5 18Other 25 5 18

Approximately 40% ofgroups changed their leaders

during the project



studied, the desired building was found to beunsuitable, and this caused major upset amongthe founding group. Having said that, all thesestudies show that having an existing building atthe start of a project has a powerful motiva-tional effect on a founding group. Also, thevalue of visual presentation means that thefactoring for models or drawings should berated highly. (Case studies gave severalexamples, question 14 (Were visual images/models of the proposed buildings used at fund-raising events?), 64% answered `yes'.) Theability to explain the intended outcomes ofthe project (the bene®ts of the service) isimportant in generating support, while thethree main planning factors listed serve toshow the extent to which the vision has beendeveloped in detail.

Assembling the test

Clarity relates to the degree of detail in whichthe vision is developed before it is initiated.Once a corporate vision has been developed,its feasibility is then affected by the threeprincipal factors of communicability, commu-nity, and the availability of property. Theselatter three do not have the ability to create avision where none exists, but they eachappear capable of damaging the prospects ofa vision if they are not satisfactory. A logicalway to deal with this, then, is to derive a scorefor the vision itself, and then measure itagainst these other three testing factors.Each of these factors appears to have thecapability of reducing feasibility to nil.

Clarity

Under this section, which covers the de®ningcriteria of the corporate vision, measurablefactors are used which relate to the followingqualities of successful vision identi®ed at theoutset:

. a future achievement aim that can bereadily visualised;

. contributions (to the visionary idea) froma variety of sources;

. the involvement of individuals with thespecialist skills needed.

Measures

1. Existing land or buildings. This re¯ects thedegree to which a project is at the outsetfocused on an existing property, providinga visible and tangible focus (range 0±25).

2. Detailed models and/or drawings. Theability to produce detailed models, draw-ings, or plans of a project also means thatthe vision has been very clearly conceived(range 0±25).

3. Detailed services plans. A full understand-ing of the actual bene®t to the communityof the project can only come if as muchthought has been given to service deliveryas to building design (range 0±15).

4. Project management plans. Project man-agement is also a primary demonstrationof the existence of management skillsamong a founding group (range 0±10).

5. Operating plans. There are many profes-sional and statutory issues that need to bedealt with, so operating plans demonstratethe degree to which the vision has beenthought through (range 0±10).

6. Fund-raising plans. The scale of fundraising required for a hospice project isusually found to be outside the previousexperience of the groups. As with allmajor tasks, however, planning not onlyreduces the perceived challenge to man-ageable proportions, it also demonstratesthe essential feasibility of the task (range0±15).

Communicability

Measurable factors are used which relate tothe quality of successful vision identi®ed atthe outset that `it can be communicated easilyand in detail'. The total scores in this sectionwill be divided by 100 to give the factor forcommunicability.


342 Martin Johnson

Measures

1. Pictures. Are there pictures that can beused to communicate the project? Theseneed not be just of buildings, but couldalso illustrate the need for the project, orthe delivery of the service (range 0±25).

2. Media interest level. Is the project one inwhich the media may reasonably beexpected to take an interest? This wouldinclude human interest or even politicalissues. An appreciation of this issue isimportant, because if the media have nolikely interest in a project, obtainingwidespread publicity will be much moredif®cult and costly (range 0±25).

3. Familiarity of idea. If the idea for the projectis one which the general public may beexpected to understand, even if only in ageneral way, then the likelihood of theirresponding is greater (range 0±20).

4. Accessible language. Can the project, itsaims and planned bene®ts be described insimple language? Does it of necessityinvolve dif®cult technical terms, e.g. fortypes of disease or treatment? In the caseof hospices, although much of their workconcerns terminal illness, a matter well-known to the public, the description`palliative care' for hospice care must beconsidered a technical term. In the 1960sand 1970s, the word `hospice' itself wasnot widely understood (range 0±10).

5. Word of mouth. Is the project idea onewhich can easily be disseminated by wordof mouth? In this case, then it may bespread through a wide variety of commu-nity and social groups, wherever peoplecome together of their own volition (range0±10).

6. Event potential. Is the project one forwhich major public events are an appro-priate means of gaining support? (range0±10).

Community

Under this section, which covers the de®ningcriteria of the corporate vision, measurablefactors are used which relate to the following

qualities of successful vision identi®ed at theoutset:

. It is powerfully motivated in effect.

. It intends to serve an important need forother people.

. It is in accordance with the personalvalues of the prospective supporters.

The total scores in this section will be dividedby 100 to give the factor for community.

Measures

1. Size of community. This is a simple andrelative consideration: has a community ofthis size typically proved able to support avoluntary project of the scale proposed insimilar circumstances? It is an informedestimate based on pre-existing models(range 0±25).

2. Stability. Is the community stable in termsof population movement? This will affectthe likelihood of people giving long-termsupport to a project, by accepting therelevance of a long-term project for theirown possible future needs. There isevidence from the USA that demographicshave an important effect on the supportfor non-pro®t and voluntary organisations(Bielefeld, Murdoch and Waddell 1997)(range 0±15).

3. Sense of identity. This allows for thepossibility of local pride becoming afactor in a community's belief in theimportance of a project. Sense of commu-nity identity can include a variety offactors, ranging from history to prominentsporting teams (range 0±10).

4. Scale of need. What is the probabilityof the members of the communityhaving been affected by the problem thatthe project is designed to address? (range0±25).

5. Acceptability of need. Some social needsare perceived as being more acceptablethan others, and this is a factor that varieswidely. AIDS is the only known example ofa `social disease' bene®ting from thedevelopment of large-scale charities. The



issue of the relative `marketability' ofdifferent diseases is familiar amonghealth charities in the USA, where supportfor charities aimed at speci®c diseaseshas been noted to relate to `historicalaccidents', such as President Roosevelthaving polio. In the USA, sickle celldisease is represented by a small associa-tion, presumably because it affects African-Americans, and where there are nocharities representing venereal diseases ifAIDS is not counted (Milofsky 1997)(range 0±15).

6. Acceptance of the value of the project.Even though a project may be designed tomeet a clearly identi®ed social need in acommunity, there is still the credibilityfactor to consider. Is this project actuallygoing to be likely to make an impact of anyvalue on the need? Is there likely to besupport or opposition? Will the responsebe `Yes, something should be done, but nothere!'. There needs to be some evidencethat the general public will actuallywelcome this project. An illustrationwould be the public concerns over pro-jects for homeless, or the dif®culties inlocating community homes for the men-tally ill. An incident of this kind occurredin Luton June±July 1997. A planningapplication for Keech Cottage children'shospice met with massive public supportwhen it appeared that planning consentwould be refused. A community mentalhospital planned for a nearby location wasmet with public petitions and meetings inopposition. This is a measure of the risk ofa NIMBY factor (Not In My Back Yard!)(range 0±10).

Property ®lter

The property ®lter factor re¯ects the like-lihood of a project being successful in its realestate aims. This factor compensates for thepossibility of a project identifying a propertyat the outset (as noted under property as anoriginating point of vision), which later turnsout to be less than fully suitable for the

project, or for which the acquisition proves tobe a problem. It also compensates for visionswithout building aims. The evidence showsthat in Britain it is more dif®cult to acquiresuitable property in urban areas than in ruralones, but in rural areas planning legislationcan cause problems. Evidence from MiltonKeynes and Corby shows that new town ordevelopment corporations are effective atidentifying or providing sites for suitableprojects, so for these types of community,this factor can also compensate for low scoresunder the stability factor (range 0±1.0).

Scoring

From the case studies, there are two extremeexamples. On the one hand, there is the MytonHamlet project, which demonstrates verythorough conceptualising and planning at theoutset, and which was completed in a fastertime than any of the others studied (despitebeing the largest in size), and on the otherHCHP, which failed soon after opening for in-patients. A valid scoring system should showthat Myton Hamlet had a high score, whileHCHP had a lower score than any of the others.

Related to the scoring is the question of startdates for each project. In each case, I used thedate of the ®rst recorded formal meeting foreach project, when a founding group as-sembled and determined to proceed with thefoundation of a hospice.

Control

The Ian Rennie Hospice At Home project wasincluded as control, to see how a projectwould fare even though the (high) scoresavailable to a building-based project would notapply. Two new projects were included,Keech Cottage Children's Hospice, and NewTown Hospice, a hospice project for adoles-cents (identity withheld).

Keech Cottage

Keech Cottage was launched as a projectin December 1996, following the award of anational lottery grant. The project had been


344 Martin Johnson

conceived on the basis of a need identi®ed inplanning by the management team of theLuton & South Bedfordshire Hospice (foradults), but the risk of a capital appeal forchildren damaging the fund raising for theexisting hospice had meant no action hadbeen taken, until an offer was made of a majorcapital donation for the speci®c purpose of achildren's hospice. In this instance, theproject was taken on by the existing charity.The main advantages of this approach werethat an established hospice management teamwas in situ, thereby relieving the volunteergoverning body of much of the day-to-daywork on the project, and there wouldultimately be savings in running costs becauseof the shared overheads. That same team,however, were also heavily committed to theirprimary task of running the existing hospice.Other factors of note are that the children'shospice is intended to serve a much widerarea than the existing service. This causedquite a few complications, particularly con-cerning fund-raising activities for the chil-dren's hospice in areas served by other adultvoluntary hospices. In other respects, how-ever, the project has the advantage of being achildren's hospice, which is a well-recognisedconcept with a high level of public approval.Opening is now planned for late 1999.

New Town Hospice

New Town Hospice was intended to meet anunfortunate gap caused by health care proto-cols which generally regard children (for thepurpose of admission to a hospice service) asup to the age of 16, while most adult hospicesare registered as nursing homes for adults overthe age of 21. The low incidence of youngpeople in this age bracket needing hospicecare is probably responsible for the lack of adedicated hospice care focus on this agerange. The leaders of the New Town Hospiceproject have at times allowed their project tobe described as a children's hospice, causingsome confusion, but they have also achievednational publicity in the press for theirproject. Locating the project in a new townarea meant that the availability of land was

likely to be good (because of developmentcorporation priorities and policies) (Johnson1996), and this proved to be the case. Theappeal was targeted on the ®ve countiessurrounding the new town, an area withno signi®cant regional identity, historical,economic or social.

Observations

. The only project scoring below 20 failed(HCHP).

. No project scoring below 45 was com-pleted in less than 84 months.

. All projects scoring over 80 were com-pleted within 41 months.

. Projects scoring between 45 and 65represent a median group with widetime dispersions.

. Ian Rennie Hospice At Home scoring 45with 60 months to stable operation ®tswell within the median group of other-wise comparable hospices, i.e. the com-pensating scores for property are broadlycorrect.

Predictions

The score of 89 for Keech Cottage wouldsuggest a completion period of 36±40 months,which is what now appears to be happening,while New Town Hospice's score of 23.5 putsit among a group of projects which have takenover 135 months to reach completion, andslightly behind Lakelands Hospice, which isonly now proceeding satisfactorily after amajor change to the vision and the separationof the founding group from the NHS organisa-tion they were originally partnered with. Thisindicates that New Town Hospice is a projectthat will undergo substantial change before itsucceeds, and that completion will not bebefore 2005/2006 at the earliest, if at all. Thisimplies that Keech Cottage is a highly feasibleproject, while New Town Hospice is onlymarginally feasible at best.

Comment

As the leader of the management team forKeech Cottage, I attempted to relate the



Table 6. Feasibility test scoring.

Range Myton KeechCottage

StAnn's

StNicholas'

L&SBH StJohn's

StElizabeth

Willen Isabel King'sMill

IanRennie

Katherine StFrancis

Wake®eld StLuke's

StColumba's

StChristopher's

Corby New TownHospice

HCHP

ClarityExisting land/bldg 0±25 25 25 25 25 15 15 0 5 25 0 0 5 25 0 0 0 0 10 0 25Detailed models/drawings 0±25 25 25 25 25 25 25 20 25 15 15 0 25 25 15 10 15 15 10 25 15Detailed svcs (output) 0±15 15 15 15 12 10 15 15 12 15 10 15 15 12 15 15 15 15 12 8 5Project mgmt plans 0±10 8 8 8 6 5 8 8 8 8 7 10 2 5 5 10 5 5 6 6 2Operating plans 0±10 8 8 8 5 2 8 8 8 8 7 10 7 8 5 10 8 8 7 4 2Fund-raising plans 0±15 15 15 15 12 15 10 15 15 12 15 15 12 10 15 15 10 10 15 12 5

Total clarity factors 96 96 96 85 72 81 66 73 83 54 50 66 85 55 60 53 53 60 55 54

CommunicabilityPictures 0±15 25 25 25 25 25 25 20 25 20 25 20 25 25 20 20 20 20 20 25 15Media interest 0±25 25 25 25 25 25 20 25 25 25 25 20 20 20 25 20 20 20 25 20 10Familiarity of idea 0±20 20 20 15 20 15 15 15 10 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 15 10 20 10 10Accessible language 0±10 8 8 5 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 5 8 5 8Word of mouth 0±10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 5 8 5 8Event potential 0±10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 10 10 10

Communicability 0.96 0.96 0.88 0.96 0.91 0.86 0.91 0.86 0.91 0.96 0.9 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.86 0.81 0.68 0.91 0.75 0.61

Community factorsSize of community 0±25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 20 25 5% aware need 0±25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 10 15Stability 0±15 15 15 15 15 13 15 15 10 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 5 15Acceptability/need 0±15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 10 15Sense of identity 0±10 10 7 10 10 8 10 10 5 8 10 10 10 10 10 5 10 10 10 2 5Acceptce project val 0±10 10 10 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 8 10 5 5

Community 1 0.97 0.98 1 0.96 1 1 0.9 0.98 1 1 1 1 1 0.95 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.57 0.6

Property ®lter 0±1 1 1 1 1 1 0.9 1 1 0.7 1 1 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.5 1 1Feasibility % 92.2 89.4 82.8 81.6 62.9 62.7 56.8 56.5 51.8 51.8 45.0 42.0 38.7 35 34.3 29.4 28.3 25.9 23.5 19.8Time (months) 40 36 41 54 67 75 61 48 94 60 90 84 113 135 104 96 138 150

Co

pyrig

ht#

19

99

Joh

nW

iley

&So

ns,

Ltd

.Stra

tegic

Ch

an

ge,

Sep

t±O

ct1

99

9

346

Ma

rtinJo

hn

son

proposed feasibility test factors to the projectat an early stage, and hoped that it could becompleted originally by late 1998 (a 24/28-month time scale). Factors causing the delayincluded planning dif®culties: the site was ongreen belt land, a major archaeological interestdeveloped, and there were unexpected pro-blems in negotiating the diversion of afootpath. The con®rmation of the majordonation was delayed by some 12 months,but by the time it was con®rmed, thegoverning body had accepted that the projectwould proceed in any event and were plan-ning accordingly.

Summary of ®ndings

1. The above model has demonstrated that itis possible to devise a feasibility test appro-priate for assessing voluntary hospiceprojects prior to commencement.

2. The tests showed that there is relationshipbetween feasibility as scored and the easeof implementation by the simple corre-lation between feasibility score and timeto project completion.

3. The design of the test demonstrated that itwas able to include a project that did notinclude a building, but was for the deliveryof a nursing service only (Ian RennieHospice At Home). The Ian Rennie projectfell within the median band of otherwisesimilar hospices. This indicates theinherent balance of the model.

4. The test format should prove applicable tovoluntary projects other than hospices,but it would not be expected that thesame time correlation would necessarilyapply to different categories of project.

5. The Keech Cottage and New Town Hos-pice data enable further validation of thetest.

Wider applications

There seems to be no reason why this testshould not prove applicable to any voluntarysector project dependent upon publicsupport and approval for its success. Possibleprojects would need to be aiming at someform of public service, but that could be inhealth care, education, youth work, com-munity support, etc. It is not likely that therelationship between score and time would

Figure 2. Feasibility scores against time to completion.



prove the same as for hospices, and perhapsdifferent categories of project would showdifferent ranges of time to completion.

Conclusions

The feasibility test was developed in order toattempt to assess the essential feasibility of anew corporate vision. A close correlation wasalso demonstrated between the feasibilityscore and the project time to completion.This demonstrates that the test could indeedprove a useful tool for groups planning tolaunch visionary projects dependent onvoluntary support. The inclusion of theKeech Cottage and New Town Hospiceprojects offers an opportunity to furthervalidate the test, but ideally several moreprojects are needed.

Biographical note

Martin Johnson has worked as a seniormanager in both the public and private sectorsbefore starting a third career as a chief

executive of a hospice charity in 1994, buthe has been an active volunteer worker andleader in many third-sector organisations forover 30 years.

References

Bielefeld, W., Murdoch, J. C. and Waddell, P. (1997).

The in¯uence of demographics and distance on

nonpro®t location. Nonpro®t and Voluntary

Sector Quarterly, 26(2), 207±225.

Du Boulay, S. (1994). Cicely Saunders, Hodder and

Stoughton, London, pp. 85±91.

Handy, C. (1997). Trust Shakespeare to get it right.

Management Today, June, 33.

Johnson, M. (1996). What Price Charity? London:

Local Government Management Board.

Johnson, M. (1998). Vision and Achievement.

London: Hospice Information Service, St Chris-

topher's Hospice.

Milofsky, C. (1997). Maldistribution. Nonpro®t and

Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26(2), 109±113.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art of

Practice of the Learning Organisation, Double-

day Century Business Press, New York and

London.

CCC 1086±1718/99/060335±14$17.50 Strategic Change, Sept±Oct 1999Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

348 Martin Johnson

a feasibility test for corporate vision

Documents