Revenue prediction model for non profit organization

8/13/2019 Revenue prediction model for non profit organization

1/14

Prediction modelfor the revenue stream ofnon-profit organizations

EhsanAlikhani

State University of New York at Binghamton

[email protected]

Abstract

The world economy system has been divided into three major sectors: public (government),private (market) and nonprofit (charity) section. During the last decade, nonprofit organizationshave grown dramatically in number and economic effects. Although these organizations are

highly variable in regards to the program area in which they are operating, they still show ameaningful similarity in terms of dynamics modeling. Previously, nonprofit organizations havebeen discussed excessively from socio-cultural perspectives. However, adequate and applicable

mathematical analyses are lacking in the literature. The challenge is this: nonprofit organizationsare faced with numerous social, cultural and economic variables that affect a donatorAZs

philanthropic motivations and consequently, their annual budget. The proposed model is focusedon advertising expenses as an independent variable. Specifically, this model addresses how much

should be spent on advertising expenses in order to maximize revenue. A concern however, isthat although more expenses lead to a better reputation and greater donations, donators maybe disappointed considering they expect funds to be allocated to their philanthropic ideas. Fora case study, dynamics behavior of this complex social system has been captured by systemsdynamics methodology and validated by implementing in a charity organization.

I. Introduction

In the last three decades, Non-For-Profitcharitable organizations became one of themost important sectors in world economy.

They receive enormous amount of money from

individual and corporate contributors for ful-filling their philanthropic goals. Charity, is not

a good defined concept but as a start point wecan give this one: a charity is an organization

whose purpose is charitable by reference tocase law developed by court decisions (Bala-

banis, Stables, & Phillips, 31,8). The definingcharacteristic of charity organizations is nondis-tribution constraint (Fisman & Hubbard, 2005).To avoid confusion, the terms charity and non-

profits are used interchangeably within thistext in spite of their little difference. Non-for

profit organizations are in wide variation re-garding the program area in which they areoperating (Gue, 2005, p. 35). Their operations

are in areas such as human services, public so-

ciety, educational institutes, health, art and cul-ture, environmental organization, religious in-

stitutes and others (Gue, 2005, p. 33). In everyorganizational size or program area, the main

role of charities is to attract financial resources

and volunteers, establish social program andto allocate resources to beneficiaries (Mokwa,1990). Previous researches make a great ef-

fort to reveal the different aspects of NPOs.They have studied NPOs from many different

perspectives like economical problems (Gar-row, 2008; Yetman & Yetman, 2009), psycholog-

ical sights (Supphellen & Nelson, 2001; Wright,

2001) and cultural issues (Gruber, 2004). Nev-

This is a part of term project-Not for publication

1


2/14

ertheless, among these expensive researches,internal structure and functioning of NPOs hasattracted a little attention and NPO firm were

treated as a black box (Helmig, Jegers, & Lap-

sley, 2004). The proposed model at this pa-per, tried to establish a perspective into NPOsstructure via system dynamics approach. Thismodel may helps organizations to attract re-sources more efficient. The charitable resource

contains governmental grants, private givingand commercial revenue that will explain inthe next section at this paper.

In economics, nonprofit sector that some-times called volunteers sector is often un-derstood by its difference and similarity withthe public sector (Government) and business

sector (Market). Identifying the relationshipbetween them and nonprofits organizationalstructure, makes researches more complex. Ob-viously, governmental policies (Duncan, 1999)

alongside the business environment have anessential impact on donators and social behav-ior related to charitable values. In additionto achieve a comprehensive recognition, wehave to take some social and psychologicalfactors into account. Fortunately, previous re-searches are accessible in these major areas:charitable giving in marketing literate and soci-

ological studies on helping behavior and altru-

ism (Brockner, Guzzi, Kane, Levin, & Shaplen,1984).

The final objective is to develop a SystemDynamics model, which can offer a holisticview of variables that have relationship withannual charity revenue. The model has been

built in a general analysis manner so we cananswer to a critical difficulty of charities aboutwhen they can commerce. In more specific ar-

rangement, this research provides a basic mate-rial to develop a System Dynamics model-base

decision support system in helping nonprofitsto predict the impact of commercial incomessuch as service fees on the total annual revenue

and the final mission fulfillment. In actuality,we made an effort to develop the model atthe most generalization that is possible. Thusevery other organization can follow the pro-posed method to obtain a customized model.

As the final point, we have developed a DSSfor Mahak Institute (One of the most important

Iranian charity against childs cancer), basedon the proposed solution. The system can re-

ply this problem in each possible condition:We would like to maximize the total revenueand maintain the critical level of annual budget.

Systems must be defined as the following: Theadvertisement system of a particular charity or-

ganization. It has some inputs as socio-culturalparameters which will be discussed in next sec-

tion of this paper. It has some outputs based onadvertisement expense like methods of adver-

tisement, target group and assigned resources.It is critical to take into account that the thisinputs and outputs are totally social and cul-tural parameters that we try to represent them

which some statistical well-known parametersand numbers.

Project scope is to go forward up to prelim-

inary systems design. We are not planned todesign the final systems in computer software.The problem is just time pressure and possibly,

we can do it later.

II. Literature review

A charitys ability to fulfill its mission -as the fi-

nal purpose- depends critically on its fundrais-ing capacity. Without a steady stream of in-come, a charity cannot continue its philan-thropic tasks. So charity organizations arevery sensitive to their revenue oscillation. Non-

profit organizations have three principal rev-enue sources (Kim, 2002, p. 20):

1: public support: governments usuallysupport charity organization by tax exemptpolicy or sometimes direct grants.

2: charitable donation: individuals andcompanies donate money or their time (vol-unteers) as contributions.

3: commercial transaction: its importantfor us, to elucidate the meaning of commercial

incomes.

Toaday, numerous charitable organizationsmerchandise a wide ranges of charity branded

products, that are not directly connected with

their philanthropic activities (e.g. credit and

2


3/14

retail loyalty cards, insurance policies, foreign

holidays, confectionery, CDs, bank accounts,burglar alarms (Bennet & Gabriel, 1999). Theincomes that came from these activities are not

assumed as the commercial revenue. There isanother activity that often called as commercialincome but fees-for-services has supposed ascommercial transaction.

During the time, commercial incomes may

create some serious conflicts with organiza-tional function (Bennett & Savani, 2004). Beingnonprofit has a large importance. An organiza-

tions behavior, whether nonprofit, for-profit orgovernment is at least in part determined by its

source of financial support. Nonprofits unique-

ness in addressing social goals in mostly re-

lated to its lack of profit-making motives (Weis-brod, 2004) .A sociological approach allows usto understand the importance of maintainingthe organizational structure and remain non-profit. Actually, in the nonprofit world, thegoal of the organization is to be nonfinancial(Gallagher & Weinberg, 1991). In addition theuse of commercial incomes is inversely related

to receipt of governments fund (Stone, Hager,& Griffin, 2001) and also may become the cause

of private giving decline (Gue, 2005, p. 17).

In summary, the commercial incomes will

increase the total annual budget, but in longtime period, may jeopardize the organizationalreputation and disturb the donators relianceso the end result is total revenue reduction.We need a model that can predict the final im-pact of commercial income on the total revenue.

Its a Dynamic model, has been developed toconduct charity organization at this complexcondition.

A general path model can be used to study

dynamics phenomena although it has manylimitations. To achieve a holistic view, that can

guide us into reality, we utilized some parts ofCavana methodology (Cavana & Maani, 2000).The general model developed based on the pre-

vious researches. Then we expand the modelby new elements and rearranging the com-ponents to attain logical system. The finaloutcome is a structural dynamics model that

brings us a holistic insight about the NPO.

Essentially a Nonprofit organization con-sists of several fundamental aspects, which in-clude: an economic aspect, a mission-relatedaspect and an operational aspect. How these

fundamental aspects interconnect is what hascreated the distinctive nature of the Nonproftorganization (Olson, Belohlav, & Boyer, 2005)

.these is the main idea of nonprofit modeling.A charity organization, as a whole consists ofthree subsystems (fig 1, see attachment). Weassumed this classification of elements as thefirst stage of analysis. All 3 subsystems havedynamic relationships that should recognize in

the next step. The focus of this research is onthe economic component.

This model can satisfy the charity organi-zation definition. A charity should attract re-sources (economical elements), establish pri-orities for social action programs (operational

elements) and allocate resources to beneficia-ries (mission elements). (Balabanis, Stables, &

Phillips, 31,8)

III. System description

Systems

An overall perspective of systems has provided

by previous section of this paper. Systems itself,

in most general perspective can be assumed asa charity organization with three sub-systems.

Sub-systems

The next stage is to expand the generalmodel by analysis subsystem to variables. Re-

cently, a doctoral thesis, has worked on thecharity and the goal of research is to prediction

the profit sectors future (Gue, 2005). The the-sis offers a platform of variables and a generalpath model. Here, we rearranged some of the

key variables of that model into a new struc-ture in keeping with our purpose. In figure 2

the model has been shown in more specifieddetails. Restating this point is necessary that,all of these elements and components have dy-

namic relation with each others.

Governmental Funding (GF) includes gov-

ernmental grants and contracts. Some govern-mental assurance are consider as governmentalgrants and some of charities organizations has

3


4/14

tax exempt and other contracts with govern-ments.

Private Giving (PG) includes donationsfrom individuals, endowments and foundation

grants that generally exist in charity organiza-tions.

Commercial incomes (CI) are essentially dif-

ferent from those of governments and philan-thropic sources that usually came from mem-

bership dues (fees paid by individual mem-bers), service-related fees (fees charged fromservice programs that are considered intrinsic

to the organizations mission) and investments

into the market.

Governmental funding and private giv-ing beside commercial incomes are the main

sources of organizations annual revenues. An-nual cost is another element to balance theeconomical section.

In the mission section, there is Output Sys-tem (OS). Output system is really one of thesubsystems of charity. Output systems contain

number of volunteers, number of donators, rep-

utation, mission fulfillment, self sufficiency andservice delivery. These variables have dynamic

relationships and the goal of output systemis to fulfill the mission of charity. The casualloops and dynamic relation will discuss in the

next section.In the Operational section, we have Charityorganization system (CS). We can withdrawthe Operational Element without losing model

generality. At the general condition Opera-tional elements can consider as a black box in

the simulated dynamic model.

There is so varied variables that can gen-erate a dynamic system to predict a decisionaftermath. The relations have been identifiedand a system dynamics model will generateto utilize as the main material of a decisionsupport system for the mentioned problem.

Here I have tries to describe the model bysystems dynamics notation. Economical sec-tion includes GF (Governmental Funding), PG(Private Giving), CI (Commercial Income) andAC (Annual Cost). There is another concept:Annual Budget that increases by revenues and

the costs will decrease its level. In this article

we ignore the relations between ingredients ofeach element and also ingredients of one el-ement with another element and consideredthem as a whole. As it is observable in figure

3, triplet variables of economical section -GF,PG and CI- have positive effect on annual rev-enue, it means that an increase in each of three

element will cause increase in the amount ofannual revenue but this is not all the story and

each of these elements have a feedback effecton the other ones. As it is shown, an increasein PF amount will encourage the governmentto contact more with the institute and so themore money will earn. As you get more moneyfrom the government, after a delay it would act

on the reputation of organization so Donorspopulation and organization receivings fromthis group will decrease.

In the case of operating element, every orga-

nization may have its particular structure. Here

we dont want to focus on this stage since it ishighly related to the special case and in cus-tomization of product we may consider it again

to modify the model for special customers.

The third element of the organization ismission sector which is output of the system.

In this model we used the variable Revenue

cost gap as a main variable in connectingdifferent parts of the model it means that wehave assumed that when we have the moneyeverything is right and there is no problemwith operating sector interrupting it. Figure 4

display the dynamics of this section.

IV. Methodology

As it has been classified by Benjamin S.Blanchards classification model (Benjamin S.Blanchard, 2012), out systems is a human made,

conceptual, dynamics and open system. So

first of all, we need those classes of method-ologies that deal with dynamics natures of sys-tems. Here we have chosen the Systems Dy-namics Approach provided by John Stermanin his well-known book (Business Dynamics,2000). The other methodology is rule based sys-tems design approach that has made the hybrid

knowledge engineering possible (Rudi Studer,

4


5/14

1998). This class of methods is been discussed

under the broader concept of expert systems.The main job in this paper has been defined as

systems analysis rather systems engineering. It

means we are going to use systems techniquesand methodologies for analyzing a complexproblem rather that to go throw the planning,design, evaluation and maintenance (Klir, 2001,

p. 56). In the following, more explanationabout these approaches is been provided.

1. Systems Dynamics modeling: System dy-

namics is an approach for understanding thebehavior of complex systems over the time. It

deals with internal feedback loops and timedelays that affect the behavior of the entire sys-

tem. Effective decision making and learning in

complex and dynamics environment of todaysbusinesses and industries require us to developinto systems thinking to expand the boundaries

of our mental models and develop tools to un-derstand how the behavior of complex systems.

The main domain of this scientific inquiry in-cludes policy making and strategic planningwith focus on business applications. So it bestmatches with our problem which is a busi-ness domain needs to be modeled regardingits dynamics nature. In also, systems dynamics

modeling can best represented by computermodeling which is included as a main objec-tive of this project. Actually, we need to designour expert systems as computer software to be

utilizable by managers across the organization.

Systems dynamics cause and loops can beshown by different softwares. This softwareworks based on its internal embedded deferen-

tial equations and simply simulate the behav-ior of dynamics systems regarding the initialcondition and the rate of changes. My prefer-ence is to use the software Vensim provided

by Bob Eberlein at Ventana Systems. Its mainadvantage is that it allows serious data use and

calibration capabilities.

Finally, the systems dynamics modeling canbest represent the natural resistance in spend-

ing money for advertisement. The role of ad-vertisement in charity organization is a dualand sometime contradicted with each other.If you spend more money for advertisement,

your final budget will decrease (which is inconflict with maximization goal) but duringthe time you may earn more money since more

and more people hear about the charity. On

the other hand, by spending more money inadvertisement, donators may feel that the char-ity dont spend their funds for their specialpurpose. In a more clear view, donators dont

like to see the organization spend their moneyfor expensive billboards in streets or in me-dia since they are seeking a sense of personalsatisfaction of their philanthropic values.

2. Rule based systems The final designedsystem is supposed to work based in the follow-

ing inputs and outputs: As the input, systemsshould contain some information about initialcondition and change rates. Additionally, itmust contain some interrelationships betweendifferent extracted variables represented by dif-

ferential equations. We call the systems as aninterpreter of this information and the output

is assumed to be an insightful knowledge.Rule-based systems in definition automateproblem-solving know-how, provide a meansfor capturing and refining human expertise,and are proving to be commercially viable(Hayes-Roth, 1985).The system has to have four basic components:

1. A list of rules which are basic informationof system. This rule has been derivatefrom general comprehension of dynam-ics systems based on the conceptual mod-

eling.

2. An inference engine which is the mainprocessing part of the system. In our case,

the inference engine works based on Ven-sim software modeling. So we dont need

to develop special software for the pro-cessing part and it saves money.

3. Conflict resolution that can be consideredin execution phase, If no productions are

satisfied, the interpreter stops the pro-cessing calculation.

4. Act which leads us toward the inter-preted solution derivate from processesinformation.

5


6/14

The final result of this paper would be as thebelow:

An expert system (which is a classical example

of rule-based system) that helps us to decide

about the level of advertisement in a charity or-ganization. The system consists of three parts:

1. Basic information and initial knowledge:A survey or statistical experiment should

be conducted to extract the parametersvalues.

2. Model which is the heart of system. Thisis a SD model represent all socio-cultural

aspects of the system.

3. Outcome that can be whether qualitative

or quantitative.

V. Experimental result and analysis

According to our analysis, the system canbe classified into 3 subsystems; each one hasits own components. Figure 5 shows the fi-nal result of the analysis. For each subsystem,

some components have been selected to repre-sent the reality. Here is necessary to emphasison this point that extracting such a straight-

forward hierarchy has not been a simple job.They have been extracted by looking at differ-ent literature in anthropology, sociology andpsychology. Such a highly multidisciplinarytask does not seem to be simple at least at the

first glance.

We discarded the subsystem; Operationalelements. Actually, it is highly based on the or-

ganization itself. It must be designed based on

the nature of those organizations that we willtry to apply this model to solve their problem.So this section does not have components play

role in our model. Here, a criticism may arise:How can we generalize the model while wealready have skipped such an important part?

The answer is that, those elements that maybe classified under subsystem; Operational ele-ments have direct effects on other components

modeled under the other subsystems. So when

we design an experiment to find the special

values of some cultural components like ful-fillment, we have already cached the effect ofoperational elements.

Additionally, we can propose a better order

for classifying our final components. Actually,the initial modeling of subsystems played arole for extracting those components. Now,this particular classification has done its task.Now we have a better categorization for com-ponents not based on their origin anymore but

based on their nature. This new classificationhas been modeled in Figure 6.

So here we have three classes of extractedcomponents: financial, social and cultural el-ements. The point here is that we are not re-quired to have all of them in the final model.Since some of them do not have significant ef-

fect on our result. So the number of elementsmay decrease for the final model.

The computer based systems has a generalarchitecture of software systems with three sub-

systems: Data base, processing engine and in-

terface. The architecture has been shown inFigure 7.

V.1 Data Base

Data base is a container of initial numbers and

records. It must be designed by SQL server

2008. Additionally, it saves the transactionalrecords for each time use of machine and prac-

tices it for further trainings. The data basecontains two segregated type of contents: Def-erential equations made by design of experi-ments that represent the observed reality andinitial numbers of values. Since for the firstpart means deferential equations we can useVensim software, it is possible to neglect thatpart and make a data base just by these fields.

A general view of the designed data base must

be as Figure 8.

V.2 Processing Engine

Processing engine works based on Vensim.Vensim is used for developing, analyzing, andpackaging dynamic feedback models which aremain part of the system. The software specially

designed for systems dynamics modeling and

6


7/14

it is not plausible if we develop such an engine

in our program again. So we can use the soft-ware as an Intermediate for processing part ofthe final product and subsequently it makes

the design process much easier.

V.3 User interface

User interface is very critical for this prod-uct. Since end users are mostly managers andpeople who do not have substantial computer

skills. Se we have to design the user interfaceas friendly as possible. It is a part of systemrequirement specification in business analysis.A single transaction from business analysis per-

spective would be as Figure 9. It is easy to show

that the process is generally closed loop. Themodel has been made by BPMN language. Sothe user interface may be designed just through

a one page form. UML visual paradigm maybe useful for this design. Visual Paradigmfor UML (VP-UML) is a UML CASE Tool sup-

porting UML 2 from the Object ManagementGroup (OMG). In addition to modeling, it pro-

vides report and code generation. Alongsidewith this feature, business analysis can designa user-interface prototype and it gives develop-

ers to choose their favorable developing tool.The final result for user-interface may be as Fig-

ure 10. It is easy to use, and ha just one form.Financial elements have quantitative values, in

contrast social and cultural elements must bedescribed qualitatively.

VI. Conclusions and future work

The research has been done to study thepossibility of revenue predictions in non forprofit organization. Then the main question isthat how can we establish a prediction model?

A bunch of questions may arise by proposingsuch a model since the final solution wouldbe an interconnected network of elements thatprovide us with the possibility of studying the

effect of every single parameter on behaviorof systems itself. Accordingly, the final ques-tion has been defined as the following: Howmuch should we spend for advertisement? The

money that charity organization spends for ad-

vertisement has a dual and conflicting effect.First, it can attract new donators and it encour-

ages donators to support the organization. But

at the same time, on the other hand it may givedonators this sense that their money is not go-ing to spend to the right direction. Donatorsdo not like to see that their donations are beingspending for advertising billboards on streets.

So the question is incredibly critical for mostcharitable organizations.

First of all, a massive literature review wasdone in related area. We realized this pointthat literature in this topic is quite poor. Spe-cially, there is no comprehensive research that

has tried to model the issue mathematically.

So we had to start from the first. By analyz-ing the organization based on general defini-tion of charity and non for profit organizations

we identified subsystems and components ofsystems. Then, in order to capture the dy-namics essence of that system, we established

a systems dynamics model by using Vensimsoftware and finally we designed a basic archi-

tecture for final computer based software.

For future works, first of all, we can find a

charitable organization as the case study. Then

we might deign an experiment to determinetwo aspects of dynamism of the systems: Defer-ential equations that represent relational cause

of effects between element and initial values of

systems parameters. So we have a customizedsystem for the particular case study. The nextstep is just to bring the software in use: fillthe form and press the calculation button. The

result would we the recommended policy.

At this point, a system is not completelydesigned. First, we need assistance of some

computer engineers. Next, we need to designa procedure for experiment. Then, the finalstep would be systems validation and verifi-cation. So the final product would be a com-puter based simulation system help managersof nonprofit organizations to have a better in-sight about the social status of their associated

organizations.

7


8/14

VII. Figures

.Figure 1-Components of Charity Organization

.

Figure 2, Charity Organizations Model

.

Figure 3, Economical Elements Casual loop

8


9/14

Figure 4, Mission Elements Casual Loop

.

Figure 5, System and subsystems

9


10/14

.

Figure 6, Component View

.

Figure 7, System Architecture

10


11/14

.

Figure 8, data Base

.

Figure 9, System Business Model

11


12/14

.

Figure 10, Fina User Interface

12


13/14

VIII. References

[1] Balabanis, G., Stables, R. E., and Phillips,

H. C. (31,8). Market orientation in the top 200British charity organizations and its impact on

their performance. European Journal of Mar-keting .

[2] Benjamin S. Blanchard, W. J. (2012). Sys-

tems Engineering and Analysis.

[3] Bennet, j. T., and DiLorenzo, T. J. (1997).Commercialization of Americas Health Chari-

ties. Society, Volume 34, Number 4 , 67-72.

[4] Bennet, R., and Gabriel, H. (1999). Char-

ity involvement and customer preference forcharity. Journal of Brand Management,Vol. 7No. 1 , 49-66.

[5] Bennett, R., and Savani, S. (2004). Man-aging connCict between marketing and otherfunctions within charitable organisations. TheLeadership and Organization Development

Journal,Vol. 25 No. 2 , 180-200.

[6] Brockner, J., Guzzi, B., Kane, J., Levin,E., and Shaplen, K. (1984). OrganizationalFundraising: Further evidence on the effectof legitimizing small donations. Journal ofConsumer Research, 11 , 611-614.

[7] Business Dynamics, S. T. (2000). JohnSterman. Irwin: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

[8] Balabanis, G., Stables, R. E., and Phillips,H. C. (31,8). Market orientation in the top 200British charity organizations and its impact on

their performance. European Journal of Mar-keting .

[9] Benjamin S. Blanchard, W. J. (2012). Sys-

tems Engineering and Analysis.

[10] Bennet, j. T., and DiLorenzo, T. J. (1997).

Commercialization of Americas Health Chari-

ties. Society, Volume 34, Number 4 , 67-72.

[11] Bennet, R., and Gabriel, H. (1999).Charity involvement and customer preference

for charity. Journal of Brand Management,Vol.

7 No. 1 , 49-66.

[12] Bennett, R., and Savani, S. (2004). Man-aging connCict between marketing and other

functions within charitable organisations. TheLeadership and Organization Development

Journal,Vol. 25 No. 2 , 180-200.

[13] Brockner, J., Guzzi, B., Kane, J., Levin,

E., and Shaplen, K. (1984). OrganizationalFundraising: Further evidence on the effectof legitimizing small donations. Journal ofConsumer Research, 11 , 611-614.

[14] Cavana, R. Y., and Maani, K. E. (2000).A methodological framework for System Think-

ing And Modelling (S Tand M) Interventions.Conference of System Thinking in Manage-ment , 136-141.

[15] Duncan, B. (1999). Modeling Charita-ble Contribution of Time And Money. Journal

of Public Economics 72 , 213AS242.

[16] Fisman, R., and Hubbard, R. G. (2005).Precautionary savings and the governance ofnonprofit organizations. Journal of Public Eco-nomics , 89, 2231AS2243.

17] Gallagher, K., and Weinberg, C. (1991).Coping with success: new challenges for non-profit marketing. Sloan Manage Rev, 27-42.

[18] Garrow, E. (2008). Receip of,Relianceon, and Growth of Government RevenueAmong Nonprofit Human Services: What Or-

ganizational Factors Determine The Distribu-tion of Government Funds? University of Cal-

ifornia , Department Of Social Welfare. LosAngeles: Proquest.

[19] Gruber, J. (2004). Pay or pray? The im-pact of charitable subsidies on religious atten-

dance. Journal of Public Economics , 2635AS

2655.

[20] Gue, B. (2005). The Marketization ofHuman Service Nonprofits: Charity At Risk?phD Thesis, Washington.

[21] Hayes-Roth, F. (1985). Rule-based sys-tems. Communications of the ACM , 921 - 932.

[22] Helmig, B., Jegers, M., and Lapsley, I.(2004). Challenges in Managing Nonpron AtOrganizations:A Research Overview. Interna-tional Journal of Voluntary and Nonpron AtOrganizations , 15 (2), 101-166.

[23] Kim, M. T. (2002). Money and Mis-sion: How Nonprofit Organizations FinanceTheire Charitable Activities. Harvard Univer-sity, School of Art And Science. ProQuest.

[24] Klir, G. (2001). Facets of Systems Sci-ence.

[25] Mokwa, M. P. (1990). The policy charac-

teristics and organizational dynamics of social

13


14/14

marketing. Social Marketing: Promoting theCauses of Public and , 43-55.

[26] Olson, J. R., Belohlav, J. A., and Boyer,K. K. (2005). Operational, economic and mis-

sion elements in not-for-pron At organizations:the case of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra.Journal of Operations Management 23 , 125-142.

[27] Rudi Studer, R. B. (1998). Knowl-edgeengineering: Principles and methods.Data and Knowledge Engineering , 3.

[28] Stone, M. M., Hager, M. A., and Griffin,

J. J. (2001). Organization characteristics andfunding environment: A study of a popula-tion of United Way-affiliated nonprofits. Poblic

Administration Review , 276-289.

[29] Supphellen, M., and Nelson, M. R.(2001). Developing, Exploring and Validatinga typology of private philanthropic decisionmaking. Journal of Economic Psychology , 573-

603.[30] Yetman, M. H., and Yetman, Y. J. (2009).

Determinants of nonpron AtsAZ taxable ac-tivities. J. Account. Public Policy , 495-509.

14

Revenue prediction model for non profit organization

Documents

Transcript of Revenue prediction model for non profit organization