9 ms·
Agree broadly with what you're saying; having a common mission is a good way to align on goals within a company and also with customers and community. It's deb
by jka 6y ago
Agree broadly with what you're saying; having a common mission is a good way to align on goals within a company and also with customers and community.
It's debatable, but the phrase "target population" seems potentially non-ideal from a cultural perspective. To me that has some negative connotations, implying that the recipients might not be aware/participating/accepting. It feels like companies should want to support and encourage their audience, as opposed to pushing things onto them.
Perhaps a minor point, but I think that if you develop a large organizational culture which begins to repeat various phrases or terms, then those words and the way they are perceived become significant (in proportion to the company's influence).
- rancar2 6y agoI fully agree that “target population” isn’t the best wording. If you have a suggestion of another phrase in English that would be readily understood without further definition, please do share as I would love to find a better phrase than target population. I typically use just “target” but I was avoiding being ambiguous while attempting to be brief. Again, “target” also carries a lot of cultural baggage for its military associations. To go a bit deeper, underneath my comment is method of accomplishing a mission through organizational/program design, where a mission consists of: verb. target. outcome. measurement. * To maintain brevity in the above format, the “need” and the “how” may be implied in the mission statement but are typically not well covered by the above suggested mission statement format, but should be codified in a logical model of the programs/executable units of work. Examples of missions: 1. Living Goods = save. african kids’. lives. reducing child mortality. 2. One Arce Fund = get. african families. out of extreme poverty. increasing income. 3. Island Conservation = save. island species. from extinction. recovering species populations living. Definitions: 1.Verb = The measurable action of the program taking place on the target to achieve the outcome. 2. Target = The person/place/thing that is the served by the program. 3. Outcome = The measurable benefit that is expected for the target. 4. Measurement = The primary set of data being collected as an indication that the outcome is being achieved. Edit: formatting adjustments
- atat7024 6y agoMarket we're aiming to serve. But these distinctions are just additional nuances to choose from in the same vein as the original debate.
- jka 6y agoYep - and "support" is another possibility.
- rancar2 6y agoThanks for the suggestion. Markets can be qualified and quantified in very different ways across different domains of knowledge. The general interpretation is a system, but a complex system is hard to measure a program’s or organization’s impact on it without investing more money in data tracking, which is beyond the scope of most all organizations outside of governments. I do eventually see that within governmental level datasets will be able to quantify outcomes, but we are still a ways off that point in time.
- svilen_dobrev 6y agoyeah, "served people/population/society-segment" sounds better