Appendices
Appendix A: Governing board
Function Name
President Mr. M. Verbeek Project coordinator Regio Centraal Groningen Secretary vacant
Treasurer Mr. J. Legters Director of Legters Advies Member Mrs. P.A.M. Debets-Bakker Ludens P&O
Member Mr. R. Beije Judge
Appendix B: Identity, image and reputation
(Source: Brown, T. J., P.A. Dacin, M.G. Pratt & D.A. Whetten, 2006:100)
Appendix C: List of persons interviewed Internal
Organisation Name Function
COS Groningen A. Van der Schaaf Directeur COS Groningen S. Ros Consulent COS Groningen J. Schaap Consulent COS Groningen Z. Boschova Consulent
COS Groningen M. Haak PR & Communicatie Legters Advies J. Legters Bestuur (voorzitter) Projectcoordinator Regio
Centraal Groningen M. Verbeek
Ex-Bestuur (voorzitter) Ludens P&O P. Debets-Bakker Bestuur Match-en-mobiliteit A. R. Demiray Bestuur
External
Organisation Name Relation to COS
Provincie Groningen Albert Lammers Financing party Provincie Groningen Dhr Goutier Financing party
Gemeente Groningen OCSW Francis de Jongh Financing party / Partner
NCDO Arnout Eimers Financing party
Do You Care Elise Padmos Client / Partner Jan Modderman Stichting Reinder Rentema Client
Wessel Gansfort College Eltjo Smit Client
KNN Milieu Cor Kamminga Partner
MCV Jasmijn Alice Thijs Partner
Waterbedrijf Groningen Wiejanda Moltmaker Partner
Gemeente Groningen Ellen Hinten Financing party / Partner Rabobank Midden Groningen Jan Dijk Partner
Appendix D: Interview-questions
This list of interview-questions consists of the general questions asked. The questions have been adjusted to each organisation/person that was interviewed.
External communication
1. How did you first hear from COS Groningen?
2. How easy is it to find COS Groningen as an organisation? 3. Have you ever seen COS mentioned in the media?
4. Do you know the website? If so, what is you opinion?
5. Do you know the email-newsletter? If so, what is you opinion? 6. What do you think of the company logo/letterheads etc? 7. How approachable do you consider COS?
8. How accessible do you consider COS? 9. Are agreements with COS always satisfied?
10. How do you experience contact-moments with employees? 11. How quick is communication with COS?
12. What do you think of the supply of information from COS?
13. What is your opinion on the way COS communicates about financial matters?
14. What do you think of the communication from COS on the whole?
Customer orientation
15. What do you think of the quality and selection of the products and services? 16. To what degree do you think COS responds to you questions and needs as
a customer when creating/adjusting products and services? 17. What do you think of the customer friendliness?
18. What is your opinion of COS as a partner to your organisation?
19. What was your first impression of the organisation? Did this match reality? 20. What is your current impression of the organisation?
21. How do you see COS from a financial point of view (image)? 22. What is you opinion of the charisma of the employees (uitstraling)?
23. What is you opinion of the competence/expertise of the employees (deskundigheid)?
24. Do you feel that COS behaves as a professional organisation?
Accountability
25. Do you feel that the activities of the organisation are in the right place with this organisation?
26. To what degree do you find that COS has a good balance between accountability to financing parties and accountability to partners/clients? 27. In your opinion, does COS and her activities contribute to the improvement
of the global situation (impact)?
28. Do you think COS is transparent enough to the outside?
29. Does COS meet conditions and expectations when receiving funds?
30. Does COS meet conditions and expectations when executing assignments/projects?
31. What is your opinion on the evaluation of assignments/projects after execution?
Goals and challenges
32. What, according to you is COS’s main goal? 33. What are strong points of the organisation? 34. What are weak points of the organisation? 35. What challenges do you see for COS?
Appendix E: Results internal interviews
External communication
Ease of finding COS Groningen
Employees and management taken together gave an average mark of 5,6 out of 10 for the ease of finding the organisation. The explanation given most is that it is easy to find when someone knows the organisation, but when they’ve never heard of it, they won’t come across it.
Scores given:
Ease of finding COS Groningen
0 2 4 6 8 10 Media
Internally, people do see COS in the media, but only a few times every year. The minimum mentioned is about 3 times a year, the maximum 12 times. Most media is in the form of a press release. Most articles appear in the local free advertising press (huis-aan-huis bladen) of Groningen, and sometimes in the regional newspaper Nieuwsblad van het Noorden. Sometimes someone from COS has been on the local radio.
Website
The average rating given to the website internally is 6. Comments given:
• Nice informative website. • Ugly.
• Good photo material.
• Text should be more compact an readable.
• One needs to click a lot before getting the information you want. • Not professional.
• Limited by national format COS websites.
• Not enough relevant information for specific target groups • Information should be more concrete to be more accessible.
Scores given: Website 0 2 4 6 8 10 Email-newsletter
The average rating given to the newsletter internally is 8. Comments: • Texts should be a bit shorter and better formulated.
• The supply of content is not fully supported by all staff and also not externally yet.
• The newsletter should be more frequent and regular, like once a month. • Build a relationship with the recipients of the newsletter.
E-mail newsletter 0 2 4 6 8 10 Logo
The average rating given to the newsletter internally is 8. Comments: • Clear, recognizable, simple, and businesslike.
• Not very exciting and modern.
• The font used in printed material is not always consistent. • It should be used more consistently.
Scores given: Logo etc. 0 2 4 6 8 10 Approachability
The average rating given to approachability internally is 8. Comments: • No very high barriers to contact them
• COS is an open organisation.
Approachability 0 2 4 6 8 10 Accessibility
The average rating given to accessibility internally is 7,4. Comments: • Central location, easy with public transport and car.
• It is difficult to park
• By telephone is good, but sometimes the answering machine is on during opening hours.
• There are mostly part-timers, if someone is not present, there is no information.
• Email is good.
• because of the many projects sometimes response is slow with email.
Scores given: Accessibility 0 2 4 6 8 10 Quickness of communication
• Quite quick, everything will be dealt with.
• Sometimes people have to wait, if the right person is not there, especially at the end of the week.
Scores given: Quickness of communication 0 2 4 6 8 10
Supply of information from COS
The average rating given internally to supply of information from COS is 7,2. Comments:
• By telephone a lot of information can be given. • There should be more focused printed material.
• When people request information, it is not readily available, you have to look for it first.
• Watch that the information is attractive and inviting to read, not too long. • A lot of valuable material is only available if it is specifically asked for; this
could be used more.
Scores given:
Supply of information from COS
Communication about financial matters
The average rating given internally to communication about financial matters from COS is 5,8. Comments given:
• Sometimes a project has to start before finalizing the finances, the risk is always weighed however.
• Verhalen van Ver: the communication could be clearer, now the gift certificate and travel costs are separate from the main bill. Also more clarity about what is subsidised to clients.
• VvV should be more businesslike, it is a compensation for a service.
• Overall should be more businesslike, but only if expectations created can be realised.
• There is no standard budget or invoice format, there should be.
Scores given:
Communication about financial matters
0 2 4 6 8 10
Communication from COS
The average rating given internally to communication from COS is 6. Comments: • More and more professional, since PR employee.
• It needs to grow, email a lot and wait for reactions, also to media. • Relations with press should be maintained better.
• More information about how people can participate should be given.
• Content of communications is fine, but the organisation stays invisible, not a lot of external communication.
• When cooperating, more attention for COS. • Communication should be synchronised better.
• Network is maintained badly, there is no system for it. • Each consultant has their own style.
Scores given: Communicatie as a whole 0 2 4 6 8 10 Customer orientation
Quality and selection of the products and services
The average rating given internally to quality and selection of the products and services from COS is 7,2. Comments:
• Nice assortment, wide and varied. • Good products and services.
• Question: should we work from demand, if so, what do you do and what not?
• Sometimes you miss things because of lack of time to get involved.
• We need to specialise more per COS office, you can’t serve all groups in every COS
Quality and selections of the products and services 0 2 4 6 8 10
Response to questions and needs from clients/partners
The average rating given internally to response to questions and needs from customers/partners from COS is 6. Comments:
• Not enough, it isn’t asked from clients.
• COS always responds if it is financially possible. • Custom work should be divided per target group. • Others than clients determine what is important.
• Limited, because of financing. Good activity can’t be repeated because of lack of funds for example.
• We don’t know very well what customers want.
• Very slowly, it isn’t clear what you should and should not respond to.
Scores given:
Response to questions and needs from clients/partners
The average rating given internally to customer friendliness from COS is 7,8. Comments:
• Customer friendly, but not everything is possible, there is a limit. • Clear, no false expectations.
• Website not customer friendly, but once they contact us we are. • Good, people can always come to see us.
• Not always reachable by phone. • Very respectful and neat.
Scores given: Customer friendliness 0 2 4 6 8 10 COS as a partner
The average rating given internally to COS as a partner is 8,2. Comments: • Good partner for organisations, organisations do find us.
• Solid and reliable, good partner for national organisations because of regional network.
• More solid that other organisations in our field often are. • We are approached a lot for cooperation.
• Serious partner, dedicated. • Driven
COS as a partner 0 2 4 6 8 10 Reputation Image
The average rating given to the image internally is 6,8 out of 10. Comments: • Flexible, stressed, multitasking, heart for the cause.
• Centipede (duizendpoot), difficult internally, not every leg knows the others exists
• Flexible and small, sometimes too small.
• Sometimes meetings/events are very 70’s, messy, sometimes it’s fine • Not very professional, but driven for the good cause
Scores given: Image 0 2 4 6 8 10 Financial image
The average rating given to the financial image internally is 7,2. Comments: • Tying ends together, going a bit short.
• Stable and reliable, financially healthy organisation. Scores given: Financial image 0 2 4 6 8 10 Working environment
The average rating given to the working environment internally is 6,8. Comments: • People are motivated and there is meaning to the work.
• Sometimes difficult with switch from content to businesslike way of doing things.
• There should be more discussion about activities and goals. • Location not practical.
• The team is not involved in decisions enough. • No balance in male/female employees
• Pleasant, nice colleagues.
• Sometimes very fragmented work, not very effective • Management could be better.
• It is not really a whole as an organisation. • Lack of storage space.
Working environment 0 2 4 6 8 10 Professional organisation
The average rating given to the level of professionalism internally is 7,2. Comments:
• They want to be, but can’t do it yet. • Going the right way.
• Professional organisation, but still open, it fits the organisation. • A lot depends on individual employees.
• More unequivocality (eenduidigheid) and structure in networking.
Scores given: Professional organisation 0 2 4 6 8 10 Accountability
Activities of the organisation are in the right place with this organisation?
The average rating given internally to legitimacy is 7,4. Comments: • Sometimes discussion about where the boundary is.
• Not reserved for COS Groningen alone, but they do the right things. • Should we be involved with migrants?
• We should do more with migrants.
• Large grey area, vague boundaries for activities
Scores given: Legitimacy 0 2 4 6 8 10
Balance between accountability to financing parties and accountability to partners and clients
The average rating given internally to this is 6,8. Comments:
• Balance towards financing parties, logically, otherwise good.
• Accountability to financing parties is fine, to clients/partners not enough. • Gets in each others way sometimes because of lack of time.
• Sometimes keeping an eye on the money is at the cost of quality.
Scores given:
Balance between accountability to financing parties and accountability to clients and partners
The average rating given internally to this is 6,2. Comments:
• You reach a certain group of people, not always very wide group. • We’re trying to measure impact of activities, but it is almost impossible. • Behavioural change takes a long time to effect.
• Main accomplishments are with direct contact, but those are too few. • Frustratingly small, we’re too small
Scores given: Impact of COS 0 2 4 6 8 10 Board tasks
The average rating given internally to this is 6,4. Comments:
• Not enough communication with the board, they don’t know what’s happening.
• Problems are sometimes swept under the carpet. • Not clear what they do.
• Good at making policy.
• More direct contact with personnel, not only via management. • Useful knowledge available to organisation in the board
• Issues with personnel the last year were communicated too late, and not well.
Board tasks 0 2 4 6 8 10 Management tasks
The average rating given internally to this is 6,4. Comments:
• Many changes in management the last few years; not always clear. • Division of responsibilities not always clear.
• Good networking.
• Content: good, management: not so good. • Involvement in content can cause confusion. • Management is putting COS on the map. • There is a need for open coaching
• No helicopter-view Scores given: Management tasks 0 2 4 6 8 10 Transparency
• Accountability is good, but too much transparency is not. Scores given: Transparancy 0 2 4 6 8 10
Conditions and expectations – receiving funds
The average rating given internally to this is 7,2. Comments:
• Sometimes larger range of activities than promised because of combining funds and projects.
• We keep to agreements, if we can’t we are transparent and straightforward about it.
Scores given:
Conditions and expectations - receiving funds
0 2 4 6 8 10
Conditions and expectations – executing assignments/projects
The average rating given internally to this is 7,6. Comments: • Sometimes the rates are considered high.
• We often have to explain we don’t do development cooperation ourselves, but awareness.
• Sometimes I’ve wondered if a course couldn’t have been done better, to be more useful.
Scores given:
Conditions and expectations - executing assignments/projects 0 2 4 6 8 10
Evaluation of assignments/projects after execution
The average rating given internally to this is 5,6. Comments: • We’re working on evaluation formats.
• More external than internal evaluation.
• Poor internal evaluation, it is not self-evident.
• We’re missing a valuable learning opportunity, and don’t experiences successes much this way.
• No criteria or format for evaluation.
Scores given:
Evaluation of asignements/projects after execution
Clarity about the place of responsibility & authority in the organisation
The average rating given internally to this is 6,2. Comments: • No clear agreements on who is responsible for what. • Functions overlap sometimes.
• Advice is a grey area, no idea what we do, and don’t do, and who decides this.
• Is clear, but sometimes function descriptions can be late.
Scores given:
Clarity about the place of responsibility & authority in the organisation 0 2 4 6 8 10
Support in the execution of responsibility & authority
The average rating given internally to this is 6,6. Comments: • A good attempt is made, people are accessible. • Mostly from colleagues and myself, not management. • Not much support, you shape things yourself.
Scores given:
Support in the execution of responsibility & authority
Evaluation of responsibility & authority
The average rating given internally to this is 5. Comments:
• No evaluation, except during job evaluation conversations. • There are plans, but nothing has been evaluated yet. • Very little
Scores given:
Evaluation of responsibility & authority
0 2 4 6 8 10
Actions as result of evaluation
The average rating given internally to this is 5,2. Comments: • Could be a lot better, not structural, different managers. • Especially on short running projects, not a lot happens.
• It is not clear for target groups what happens with their feedback. • Recently more attention for this.
Scores given:
Actions as a result of evalutation
Appendix F: Results external interviews
External communication
Ease of finding COS Groningen
The average rating given to the ease of finding COS externally is 5,8 out of 10. Comments:
• The name is not known outside the field.
• The abbreviation of the name is wrong to start with. • Easy to find via Google.
• You have to already be interested and looking to find them. • Found it by accident.
• COS’s name is not visible on their building.
• Very difficult, you sometimes find them in footnotes.
Scores given:
Ease of finding COS Groningen
0 2 4 6 8 10 Visibility in media
Mainly in professional context. Sometimes in newspaper, a few times per year.
Website
The average rating given to the website externally is 6,4 out of 10. Comments: • Sometimes too much information.
• Adequate, recognizable. • Not special, not bad.
• If you know the field, you can figure out what COS does. • Getting better, should be updated regularly.
• Not conveniently organised.
• Not always up to date; nothing on 7-7-7 a few days before. • Not easy to search.
Scores given: Website 0 2 4 6 8 10 Email-newsletter
The average rating given to the newsletter externally is 7,2 out of 10. This consists of 5 responses out of 13, the rest did not know the newsletter. Comments:
• Adequate for target group • Informative.
• There is no regular frequency, so you don’t count on it anymore.
E-mail newsletter 0 2 4 6 8 10 Logo
The average rating given to the logo externally is 6,8 out of 10. Comments: • Simple.
• Conventional.
• Doesn’t appeal to me, no link to their work.
• Not very noticeable, neutral, no idea what it stands for. • Fitting.
• Not special, doesn’t communicate what they do, don’t see it enough. • If I compare it to other logo’s it’s time to have another look at it. • Not very recognisable.
Scores given: Logo etc. 0 2 4 6 8 10 Approachability
• COS wants to be back office, I think they should be front office. Scores given: Approachability 0 2 4 6 8 10 Accessibility
The average rating given to accessibility externally is 9. Comments: • Good. Scores given: Accessibility 0 2 4 6 8 10 Satisfaction of agreements
The average rating given to satisfaction of agreements externally is 8. Comments:
• Adequate
Satisfaction of agreements 0 2 4 6 8 10
Experience contact with employees
The average rating given to accessibility externally is 8,4. Comments: • Good.
Scores given:
Experience of contact with employees
0 2 4 6 8 10 Quickness of communication
The average rating given externally to quickness of communication is 7,8. Comments:
• No difficulty
• Depends on person.
• Slow, last time took 4 months, it doesn’t appeal to ask something again.
Quickness of communication 0 2 4 6 8 10
Supply of information from COS
The average rating given externally to supply of information from COS is 7,6. Comments:
• Good, aware of their task, creative.
• I get information only when I ask for it, if I don’t approach them I don’t hear anything.
• Not very pro-active.
• Printed material looks good.
• Should provide better information for their network on what they really do and what the results are.
Scores given:
Supply of information from COS
0 2 4 6 8 10
Communication about financial matters
• Sometimes difficulty on specifics, but good transition of NCDO points in content.
• Easy, no hidden agenda, clear. • Open and direct.
• Sometimes not clear whether something is inclusive or exclusive of VAT.
Scores given:
Communication about financial matters
0 2 4 6 8 10
Communication from COS
The average rating given externally to communication from COS is 6,6. Comments:
• They have added value for schools, but they don’t make this clear to the public.
• It isn’t brought to you, you have to go and get it from them. • What is their role, what do they want?
• They should communicate more forcefully.
• They should also communicate to new groups of people. • Good, could be better if financially possible.
• Could be more strategic, plan to be in the picture. • What communication?
Communicatie as a whole 0 2 4 6 8 10 Customer orientation
Quality and selection of the products and services
The average rating given externally to quality and selection of the products and services from COS is 7,6. Comments:
• The lesson material does not always match the level of the students; a lot of demonstration, not a lot of active assignments, works for higher levels. • Wide range, good.
• Good, but sometimes I think more people could be at events. • Wide range, can be good and bad, can be unclear.
• Volunteers should provide added advantage, otherwise don’t do it.
Scores given:
Quality and selections of the products and services
0 2 4 6 8 10
Response to questions and needs from clients/partners
• Generally well.
Scores given:
Response to questions and needs from clients/partners
0 2 4 6 8 10 Customer friendliness
The average rating given externally to customer friendliness from COS is 8,2. Comments:
• Should be researched and measured, make into policy.
Scores given: Customer friendliness 0 2 4 6 8 10 COS as a partner
The average rating given externally to COS as a partner is 7,6. Comments: • Anticipates demand from municipality, prepared to adjust plans. • Reliable, trust basis for cooperation.
• Generally fine, friendly people who want to work hard, sometimes a project disappoints.
• Having COS as a partner comes across well to our clients and financiers.
Scores given: COS as a partner 0 2 4 6 8 10 Reputation Image
The average rating given to the image externally is 7,2 out of 10. Comments: • My first impression was of a volunteer organisation of which you shouldn’t
expect too much.
• It depends a lot on individual employees. • Specialists, and competent people, reliable. • Professional driven organisation.
Financial image
The average rating given to the financial image externally is 7,2. Comments: • Government like organisation that want more than they can do financially. • To the point reporting.
• Subsidised organisation.
• Healthy, reliable, finances well taken care of.
Scores given: Financial image 0 2 4 6 8 10 Charisma of employees
The average rating given to the charisma of employees externally is 7,8. Comments:
• Some good, others not that good. The way of presentation is not always good.
• Involved, well informed, idealistic, but both feet on the ground. • People are not very focused on being representative.
• Suits the work they do.
• Fitting, always neat, sometimes alternative. • Enthusiastic, involved.
Charisma of employees 0 2 4 6 8 10 Competence/skills of employees
The average rating given to the competence of employees externally is 8,6. Comments:
• Differs per person, some very good, others less. • Generally good, depends on person.
• They know where to find the information.
Scores given:
Competence and skill of employees
0 2 4 6 8 10 Professional organisation
The average rating given to the level of professionalism externally is 7,2. Comments:
• The intention is to be professional, sometimes it fails by being based on volunteers.
• Partly yes, partly no, representation not always good. • They lack dynamite, you don’t see or hear them.
Scores given: Professional organisation 0 2 4 6 8 10 Accountability
Activities of the organisation are in the right place with this organisation?
The average rating given externally to legitimacy is 8,2. Comments: • Well positioned, recognizable, visible.
• Corporate sustainable development doesn’t seem logical, if it is, it should be explained why.
• Yes, small organisation, wide range
• Yes, no one else does it, but you can’t do everything.
• Sometimes I wonder if the environment should be part of COS tasks.
Balance between accountability to financing parties and accountability to partners and clients
The average rating given externally to this is 6,6. Comments: • No signal that it gets in each others way.
Scores given:
Balance between accountability to financing parties and accountability to clients and partners
0 2 4 6 8 10 Impact of COS
The average rating given externally to this is 7,4. Comments:
• Compared to Edukans, not wel known, everyone should come across it in school at some stage like Edukans.
• Impact good on the scale of Groningen.
• Sometimes I wonder if you don’t always get the same audience, and how you get to new people.
• COS should make it more clear why it is important they exist, even when the economy does less well.
• Hard to measure impact.
• Good, but could be better, more strategic communication.
Impact of COS 0 2 4 6 8 10 Transparency
The average rating given externally to this is 7. Comments: • They communicate clearly and honestly.
• Reports quite transparent, description of activities could be clearer. • Learn to use DRAM & SMART better.
Scores given: Transparancy 0 2 4 6 8 10
Conditions and expectations – receiving funds
The average rating given externally to this is 8. Comments: • Above average in rating for granting funds.
• The rationale behind choices should be described better. • Description of result should be clearer, more valid and realistic. • Expectations are high, but potential is there.
Conditions and expectations - receiving funds 0 2 4 6 8 10
Conditions and expectations – executing assignments/projects
The average rating given externally to this is 8. Comments:
• The globalisation programme didn’t connect to the students world as much as expected, not enough challenge.
• Generally good, sometimes we feel more should be done for the price of the service.
• Sometimes less people come to events than expected.
Scores given:
Conditions and expectations - executing assignments/projects 0 2 4 6 8 10
Evaluation of assignments/projects after execution
The average rating given externally to this is 6,8. Comments:
• Very short evaluation on the day, after that nothing, which is a shame. • Could be better, they should develop a format for this.
Scores given:
Evaluation of asignements/projects after execution
