Purpose
Assess and articulate the concrete value a network's central office provides to member organizations — separating true network-only value from services members could source themselves — so leaders can defend dues, close value gaps, and sharpen the member value proposition. Solves the recurring problem of central offices being unable to prove they are worth belonging to.
When to Use
Invoke this skill when the user asks to:
- Assess what the central/national office offers members and whether it's worth it
- Justify or defend membership dues, affiliation fees, or the cost of being in the network
- Diagnose why members are questioning value, downgrading, or leaving
- Prepare a value proposition for recruiting new member organizations
- Identify gaps between what the network promises members and what it delivers
- Build the strategic case for the central office's role in a federated or affiliate structure
Inputs Required
Before starting, collect:
- Network structure: Type (federated, affiliate, chapter-based, membership association, coalition), number of members, and size range of member orgs
- What the central office provides: List of current services, programs, and supports offered to members
- Cost of membership: Dues, fees, revenue share, or in-kind expectations members pay to belong
- Member profile: Who the members are, their capacity, and what they most need to succeed
- Value tensions: Any current signals of dissatisfaction, attrition, dues pushback, or "why do we belong" questions
- Alternatives available to members: What members could plausibly buy, build, or access outside the network
- Strategic goal: Retention, recruitment, dues restructuring, repositioning, or general assessment
If the alternatives available to members are not provided, infer reasonable market substitutes and flag them as assumptions.
Instructions
Step 1: Inventory the Value Streams
List every distinct thing the central office provides to members. Group each into one of six value categories:
- Shared services (back-office, tech, HR, finance, compliance handled centrally)
- Brand & credibility (the name, accreditation, trust transfer, marketing halo)
- Knowledge & capability (training, best practices, benchmarking, technical assistance)
- Collective voice (advocacy, policy influence, representation members can't achieve alone)
- Connection & belonging (peer network, convenings, shared identity, mutual support)
- Resources & access (funding channels, grants, negotiated rates, tools, data)
Note anything members are told they get but that isn't actually delivered — these become gaps later.
Step 2: Apply the "Independence Test" to Each Stream
For every value stream, classify it against what a member could obtain on their own:
- Network-Only: Impossible or impractical to get independently (e.g., collective bargaining power, the brand, aggregated policy voice) — this is defensible core value
- Cheaper Together: Available independently but the network delivers it at meaningfully lower cost or effort (bulk rates, shared platforms) — value depends on the size of the discount
- Better Together: Available independently but higher quality via the network (curated benchmarking, vetted expertise) — value depends on the quality gap
- Duplicative: Members could get this as easily and cheaply themselves — weak value, potential dues drag
- Undelivered: Promised but not actually provided — active liability
Be honest and specific. A stream that scores "Duplicative" or "Undelivered" is where dues justification breaks down.
Step 3: Score the Value Exchange
Assess whether members receive more than they pay:
- Total value received: Weight Network-Only streams highest, Duplicative lowest
- Total cost to member: Dues plus time, compliance burden, and constraints of belonging
- Exchange verdict: Rate the balance as Strong Surplus / Positive / Break-Even / Underwater
- Segment the answer: Value exchange often differs by member size — call out where large vs. small members experience the exchange differently
Step 4: Identify the Gaps
Surface the three gap types:
- Delivery gaps: Promised value that isn't reliably delivered
- Perception gaps: Real value members don't recognize or attribute to the network
- Capability gaps: Value members need that the central office doesn't offer but could
For each gap, state the consequence (retention risk, dues resistance, missed recruitment).
Step 5: Recommend Prioritized Enhancements
Deliver 6–8 enhancement recommendations, each tagged by move type:
- Strengthen (deepen a Network-Only advantage into a moat)
- Prove (fix a perception gap — make invisible value visible)
- Consolidate (drop or repackage Duplicative streams that dilute the value story)
- Build (add a new capability that only the network can provide at scale)
Rank by impact on the value exchange. For each, note effort (Low/Med/High) and the member segment it most benefits.
Step 6: Articulate the Value Proposition
Write a tight, defensible value proposition statement (2–3 sentences) built from the Network-Only and clearly-superior streams — the honest case for why an organization should belong. Follow with one sentence naming the single most important thing the central office must protect or build to keep that proposition true.
Output Format
- Structure: Six sections following the steps; value stream inventory and independence test presented as a table; enhancements as a ranked list
- Length: 1,000–1,400 words
- Format: Structured document with one comparison table (streams × independence classification) and ranked recommendation list
- Sections: Value Stream Inventory → Independence Test → Value Exchange Score → Gap Analysis → Prioritized Enhancements → Value Proposition Statement
- Tone: Strategy director — candid, evidence-minded, willing to name weak value; not promotional about the network's own worth
Quality Checklist
Before delivering output, verify:
- [ ] Every value stream is classified into one of the six value categories
- [ ] Every stream receives an independence-test verdict (one of the five classifications)
- [ ] The value exchange verdict is stated explicitly and segmented by member size where relevant
- [ ] All three gap types (delivery, perception, capability) are addressed
- [ ] 6–8 enhancements are provided, each tagged by move type and ranked by impact
- [ ] The value proposition statement is built only from Network-Only or clearly-superior streams — no claims that failed the independence test
Notes
- The most common failure mode is a value proposition resting on Duplicative streams — services members could buy themselves — which collapses the moment a member does the math on dues
- Perception gaps are often larger than delivery gaps: networks frequently under-communicate genuine collective-voice and brand value while over-marketing commodity services
- Small members and large members almost always experience the value exchange differently; a proposition that works for one can be underwater for the other, which drives segmented attrition
- Undelivered promises are more damaging than missing services — audit the "what we tell members they get" language against reality before recommending any new offerings
How to use this skill
This file is a Claude Code skill in Anthropic's standard format — markdown with YAML frontmatter at the top.
Installing in Claude Code:
~/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md— auto-loads in every session anywhere on your machine (recommended for skills you'll use across multiple projects)<your-project>/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md— auto-loads only when working in that project (recommended for project-specific skills)
Restart Claude Code or open a new session to register.
Using in Claude.ai, ChatGPT, Gemini, or other AI tools:
- Drag this file into a new chat, or copy and paste its contents
- Send your task or request as your next message — the AI will apply the skill where it fits
For Claude Code skill details: https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/skills