Examples of what I do

1. John Massman, Ph.D.
Giving voice to data
Real-life examples creating the
“wow” factor

2. Example
 Organization: Non-profit service provider
 Context: Presenting a cash flow report to the board of
directors.
 Task: Present data, analysis and consequences without putting
people to sleep.
 I prepared an “emphatic graph” that combined the key
information and the foreseeable consequences.
 The board had a pointed discussion, instituted structural
changes, and the organization thrived.

3. Standard Table vs. Emphatic Graph
Data (internal only) Presented to Board
today

4. Case Study
 Organization: Non-profit adult-child mentoring program
 Goal: long-term mentoring relationships.
o Much effort is expended in establishing relationships and initial
management of the relationship.
o Short relationships are ineffective and consume scarce
resources.
 Approach: analyze voluminous data of both adult and child.

5. Results and Outcomes
 Results:
o Identified demographic characteristics of ideal long-term adult-
child matches.
o Quantified benefits of the long-term relationships.
 Outcomes:
o Dramatic increase in effectiveness of matching efforts.
o Quantified benefits reported to external stakeholders including
donors.

6. Making an initial adult-child match
 Analyze 1700+ recent adult-child matches each with dozens
of demographic items.
 Identify key characteristics that correlate with a long-term
relationship.
 All data is non-linear, non-logarithmic, non-parametric.
 Comparison with current practices would be especially
valuable.

7. One graph makes a difference
• Green markers All Matches
are long-term 21
successes.
19
• Red markers are
short-term (low 17
“ROI”).
15
• This plot directly
Age of Child
resulted in a 13 Successes
In Progress
programmatic 11 Misses
change to avoid
pairing older 9
adults with
7
younger
children. 5
15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95
Age of Adult

8. Quantifying Outcomes
Raw data Effective Presentation
Social Acceptance Social Acceptance
90 (different groups of children)
40%
80
35%
70
Relative Frequency of children
30%
60
No. of children
25%
50
Guided < 1 yr 20%
40 Under 1 yr
Guided 1+ yrs
30 15% At least 1 yr
20 10%
10 5%
0 0%
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Survey Score Survey Score
(similar charts were done for several characteristics)