Organizational Analysis

Owing to non-profit charitable trust nature and scope of SKMT the possibility of litigation against it
would always remain at higher side. It is admitted fact that the exposure of charities to liability goes
further than the loss of charitable assets and/or the insolvency or winding up of a charity. Directors
of charities may also face possible legal action against them personally by donors, members, third
parties and governmental authorities for breach of their fiduciary duties or even breach of trust in
failing to adequately protect or apply the assets of a charity. Analyzing the financial issues of the
organization for example:
Are all salaries & benefits being paid by SKMT on timely basis with appropriate reports to
BOG?
Are investments being offered to the public without full disclosure to potential investors?
Is there an audit committee in place?
REVENUE (IN MILLION)

Year
Hospital
Services
Zakat Donations
Other
Income
Total
Revenue
Dec 2013* 2,609 1,946 1,509 149 6,212
Dec 2012 2,202 1,669 1,156 165 5,192
Dec 2011 1,972 1,345 904 68 4,289
Dec 2010 1,554 807 608 44 3,013
Dec 2009 1,281 865 620 47 2,813
Dec 2008 1,125 646 460 37 2,268


Given the increased risks to charities and directors/ governors, there is an increasing need to
initiate/ develop for every possible risk a pre-formulated plan deals with almost every possible
consequence of a risk and ensures contingency if the risk becomes a liability.
Why Change?
In second stage we determine the degree of Choice whether to develop a change or the Change
Vision
The change was not regarding to change the vision of organization. The change was to create a new
department that keeps checks on all legal issues and also on processes within the organization.
Does the need for change is strong enough to begin searching for some form of action?
Yes! In order to create organizational awareness related to legal risks involved and their possible
management at all levels of command i.e. Chairman, BOG, and Managers, departmental heads,
supervisors and staff.
Is there acceptance or tolerance for the status quo?
According to Beckhard and Harris change model we have these four responses
(1) People are relatively satisfied,
(2) Not dissatisfied to the point of being provoked to look for alternatives,
(3) Believing that nothing can be done,
(4) Believing that the costs of changing are such that they choose not to make those changes.

In this scenario people were not ready to accept the change because they think everything was
smooth, they were satisfied with the current systems but in actual there was no accountability for
any legal issue with the previous system.
They were also hesitating to accept because they knew after the development of this change they
have to be answerable for their all responsibilities.
The desired future state
All these issues need to be resolved to ensure a smooth process in the organization by:
Review of key documents
Completion of records
Utilizing other entities
Board relating issues
Insurance considerations
Proprietary issues
Human resources
Charitable and fundraising activities
Financial issues
Maintaining charitable registration
Contractual relationships
Communication
Policy making
The present state
There is lack of correspondence among the departments which triggered the need for change in the
organization.
There were no contractual obligations.
All the documentation was verbal before.
So much time was wasted when any important document was needed.
People didnt have the idea of the mission and vision of the organization.
People were not aware of the processes.

GAP analysis
The comprehensive plan is needed to provide a broad checklist which sketches a brief outline of
some of the more important issues that trustees, directors and/or executive staff of SKMT may need
to consider in ensuring due diligence in the operation of the organization, as well as an overview of
liability exposure and some of the steps available to protect against such risks. It may operate as a
standard legal risk managers expert opinion.

Action Planning and Implementation
First of the circulated email to all the relevant employees that the original copy of each document
will be saved in the law office and only certified copies will be issue to the relevant departments
It is mandatory that the law office first approve the document and then further used.
A flow chart was introduced of who reports to whom to take almost 2 years to making people
understand to follow the procedures. Some people were thought to be resistant but they did not
resist and accepted the change where as few were thought to be cooperative but they resisted.
Training sessions were conducted to tell people that it is in best interest for them as well as
organization. As CEO was very cooperative, so it helped a lot. Still the organization is in learning
process.

Measuring the change
MR ANEEL SAGAR (Manager legal affairs and risk management) established certain standards to
monitor the change and to measure the performance, after measuring the performance against
standards then next step is that performance will be compared with past data.
Positive performance will be recognized and in-case of any loop hole experienced in the system,
corrective actions will be taken, as system evolves with the passage of time and every system needs
some time to adjust. Per limitations found in the system standards will be amended accordingly.