Defining success for creative hubs often starts with a dual tension. On the one hand, there are easily measured metrics such as financial sustainability, visibility, and follower count. On the other hand, there are less easily defined but essential values such as impact, relationships transformed, and structures rebuilt. These two areas do not always overlap. In fact, they are often mutually exclusive. You may be doing something that is relevant, that touches the community, that is culturally meaningful, but if that work cannot be supported by financial or numerical indicators, it is considered a failure. In many cases, however, the real success is in continuing in these conditions.

Market logic does not recognize this distinction. Businesses either make a profit or they don’t; they either grow or they shrink. But creative structures do not operate in such straight lines. Elements such as culture, community, care, trial, error, and patience are at the center of the process. For this reason, external measures of success often do not correspond to the rhythm, intention, and context of the structure. Over time, these comparisons are internalized. Structures that are squeezed between their own purpose and these external measures face a sense of failure despite the work they do.

Failure to evaluate success in its own context not only creates demoralization; it can also lead to loss of direction, drifting away from the essence of the work, and drifting away in decision-making processes. However, many situations that appear to be failure can only be considered success by another measurement. Keeping a structure standing tall that does not fall, holding on to a community, patiently developing an idea, and carrying a culture are also successes.

Therefore, it is necessary to describe success first, not measure it. Indicators are necessary not only to report to the outside world, but also to look at the work done from the inside. Structures that can evaluate success in its own context are less likely to succumb to external pressures. They can move forward without losing their direction. This is where resilience begins: with the ability to evaluate success from the right place, not the wrong place.

Otherwise, the work done is shaped by external approvals such as visibility, interaction, investment. After a while, the reason for the start is forgotten. This is not only a strategic deviation, but also an emotional and structural break.

This section invites us to consider five key constructs for evaluating success:

1. Purpose: What do you want to transform? What social, cultural or structural situation did you want to intervene in when establishing this structure? What exactly does the term impact refer to? Evaluating success begins with the answer you give to this question.

2. Context of Impact: Where is this impact meaningful? Purpose does not become meaningful in isolation, but in context. What communities, areas, systems are you touching? What kind of need are you responding to, at what level?

3. Impact Performance: How and with what do you produce this impact? What path do you follow for this transformation with the resources, conditions and relationships you have? The way you reach the goal, the quality of the processes and the path you take with limited resources are important here.

4. Monitoring and Evaluation: How do you monitor the process? Do you record, observe and reflect on what you do? With which indicators do you monitor what and how do you evaluate?

5. Revision: What do you change based on what you see? How do monitoring and evaluation results reflect on your decisions? What didn't work, why didn't it work, what do you need to do differently?

Taken together, these five pillars provide a foundation not only for evaluating success, but also for managing and rebuilding the structure’s capacity to produce impact . Each step is part of an effective impact management process—not just a retrospective measurement, but also a forward-looking orientation. Understanding success, therefore, is not just about seeing what happened or didn’t happen; it’s about understanding what impact you produced, how you did it, and in what context .

Why does this hub exist? You were established not just to produce a product or provide a service, but with a change goal. First, you need to name this change. Your impact indicators will track this change goal. Therefore, in this section, you need to think first, not measure: What kind of change should have occurred in the world you live in when your hub existed?

Success is more about the impact you make than the conventional metrics.

In order to define this effect, you must first clarify what you want to achieve, that is, your purpose. Evaluating success begins with questioning whether activities serve this purpose. Therefore, indicators are not only measurement tools; they are strategic tools that support decision-making processes and communicate with the outside world.

Thinking Questions

• What is the change that you want to create? In other words, how do you describe the positive situation that you want to create that does not currently exist?

• What social, cultural or structural problem does this change correspond to?

• What gap does the existence of this structure fill or what problem does it make visible?

• In your opinion, what needs to happen for this structure to be considered successful?

The answers to these questions will help you clarify how you define success—what you aim for as impact.

It is important for a structure to have its own goals. But what these goals mean to the area, community or system it is in is equally important. This is where the question of not just “doing something” but “what and who are you affecting” comes into play.

A hub might be drawing 200 people into a space every day. That’s a strong output, numerically speaking. But if those 200 people are already people who have access to events in that space — and those events are structured in a way that replicates an existing structure — then where do you put that impact? Are you really opening up a new space? Or are you just continuing an existing flow?

The context of impact allows you to question how meaningful your criteria for success are in the social, cultural or sectoral context you are in. For some structures, success is getting EU funding. For others, it is sending more people abroad. For others, it is creating space for the invisible, the marginalized or those without access to resources. Creating indicators of success is incomplete without knowing how your definition fits into this broader context.

Thinking Questions:

• What does your own definition of success mean in the field in general?

• What gap does your work fill, what problem does it provide a different answer to?

• Who or what is invisible, excluded, or ignored within this field?

• At what level does your impact within the ecosystem make a difference and for whom?

Impact performance looks not only at the results achieved, but also at the resources , conditions , and processes by which these results were achieved. Two structures producing the same output may have very different levels of performance. Making this difference visible requires considering not only what is done, but also the context of what is done.

Let’s say there are two creative hubs running the same program. One is supported by major sponsors, works with many corporate partners, and runs the process with a professional team of 20. The other uses its own resources and works with a small team of three. Both structures reach the same number of events, have similar scale of participation, and produce similar results in terms of program outputs. However, the performance of these two structures is not the same. Because impact should be evaluated not only with outputs, but also with the means by which those outputs are achieved . Therefore, performance is as much about effectiveness as it is about efficiency.

In order to evaluate this difference, indicators are needed.

Indicators are used not only to count the activities that take place, but also to evaluate what purpose those activities serve and what level of impact they create .

An indicator is a measure based on verifiable data that conveys information about more than itself.

It generates signals for situations that are not easily perceived by common sense or are difficult to notice.

Indicator Levels and Objective Hierarchy

For a sound performance evaluation, indicators need to be defined in a structure extending from the activity level to the final goal. Each layer is the domain of a different type of indicator:

• Activity indicator: What was done? (Example: An event was organized for 20 people.)

• Sub-goal indicator: What kind of intermediate impact did this activity lead to? (Example: Half of the participants became part of the community.)

• Superordinate goal indicator: How does this intermediate effect serve the ultimate goal? (Example: A sustainable, diverse community structure has been formed.)

This structure ensures that not only the outputs but also the logic of the process are visible. For example, the event you organize should be evaluated not only by the number of participants, but also by who it attracts, who keeps it in the process, and who initiates a change.

Definition of Done: Indicators Determine Completion Criteria

Indicators help to understand not only whether it happened but also whether it worked . Therefore, indicators are also criteria that determine whether a job is truly “done”. This is called “definition of done”. A job should not be defined just by doing it, but also by whether it serves the transformation you aim for. Real success is not organizing an event, but establishing the right interaction with the right people.

Definition and Use of Indicators

Indicator systems often develop through trial and error. It is not necessary to build a perfect structure at first. However, the following principles should be observed:

• The indicator should focus on what is meaningful , not what is easy to measure.

• Subjective criteria (likes, number of followers) should be used with caution and supported by qualitative and contextual data.

• A set of indicators that are appropriate to your context and evolve with the process should be created.

• Indicators can be used not only for introspection but also to describe the impact on the outside world.

Some structures may draw on ready-made indicator sets that are widely used in their sector (for example, the Sustainable Development Goals), but such sets should always be used in relation to your own strategic context.

Thinking Questions

• To what extent did you achieve your goal with the resources you had?

• Where was your influence concentrated in the process, and what was it limited to?

• Which activities actually worked, and which merely provided visibility?

• By what indicators do you define success — and how objective, trackable and descriptive are these indicators?

• How do your indicators relate to your actions and your goals?

Impact depends on the ability to understand whether the work done really serves the targeted transformation . This is only possible through monitoring and evaluation processes. Monitoring and evaluation does not only mean documenting what you have done; it means being able to read it, make sense of it , and intervene when necessary.

This process is not simply about “preparing a report” or “collecting data.” In fact, it is a reflex for your structure to catch its own rhythm and to see how things are progressing at regular intervals. Which activities are actually being carried out, which are just left in the plan? Can the activities initiate the desired change, or are they limited to just producing content?

Why is monitoring and evaluation important?

Because sometimes a structure can be ineffective when it thinks it is operating. Producing content on social media is not the same as initiating change within a community. A monitoring framework is needed to see the difference between doing something and making something change. What we call impact is a kind of collision. It requires action to emerge. Systematic observation is needed to understand whether the action is effective.

There is no need for complex systems to manage this process. It can be started with a simple practice of regular observation.

• This can sometimes be an Excel file that is opened once every three months.

• Sometimes short observation notes kept in Slack or WhatsApp groups.

• Sometimes a diary kept like a captain's log.

The important thing is to open these records periodically and think about them together.

For example:

“The quality of the discussions has decreased in the last three events, what could be the reason for this?” “The profile of new participants has changed, what does this tell us?” “We receive more prepared and interested applications each time, could this be an indicator?”

These include both qualitative and quantitative observations. If necessary, we can proceed with numbers and narratives. The main thing is to interpret the records in a meaningful framework and act accordingly.

For this process to work:

• Predetermined indicators ,

• Tools that can monitor these indicators (data, observation, recording)

• And it takes time and teamwork to make it possible to think about this data.

This is a learnable process. Frameworks such as social impact management, performance management or quality management can provide guidance. However, each structure can adapt this system according to its own scale and capacity.

Thinking Questions

• How do you monitor whether your activities are actually being carried out?

• How often do you evaluate which processes are working and which are not?

• With whom, when and how do you make these evaluations?

• Is the monitoring process a control tool or a learning area for you?

• What does the data you see tell you — and what do you do about it?

The monitoring and evaluation process is carried out not only to understand what is happening but also to review decisions and orientation when necessary. The data obtained from the indicators reveal the situation the structure is in. The main question at this stage is: What do you do in light of this information?

Revision is the point at which the structure can look at its own functioning from the outside and question certain assumptions. Sometimes this means changing a small form of activity. Sometimes it indicates the need for a more structural adjustment. Are the goals still valid? Are the means of achieving these goals effective? Do the determined indicators really produce meaningful results?

These mean not just correcting the plan, but also revising the way it is planned .

Revision is a step that should be carried out regularly, not only in times of crisis. The findings obtained from the monitoring and evaluation process should enable such feedback. Otherwise, data accumulates but is useless; activity continues but direction is lost.

For revision to be effective:

• The structure needs to evaluate its own goals, methods and tools at regular intervals.

• This evaluation should be supported not only internally but also by feedback from the community, participants or partners.

• The question “Why do we do it this way?” should be asked regularly.

Through this process, structures can clarify their direction, use their resources more effectively and avoid unnecessary activities. In this way, work is not only carried out, but a rhythm that is compatible with the purpose is achieved.

Thinking Questions

• What did you notice during the monitoring and evaluation process?

• What did this awareness make you feel the need to change?

• Have you redefined your activities, indicators or targets?

• How often do you make such revisions and how many of them do you implement?

• Does this process provide you with clarity of direction or does it create more uncertainty?