The National Society of Professional EngineersKey summary from responses: Young licensed and...

The National Society of Professional Engineers

NSPE Path Forward

ByDan Wittliff, P.E., F.NSPE

President 2012-2013

NSPE Path Forward

Special and uniqueSpecial but not uniqueIssues in common with other associationsVetting of Race for Relevance by:– Board of Directors– House of Delegates– Interest Groups– State Volunteer Leadership– State Executives

Develop an agreed on path forward for NSPE

Process to this Point

Surveyed Board and House to Prioritize Effort– Eight Subject Areas– 41 Questions– 58 Respondents

Identified Five Priorities– Three deal with membership– One deals with criteria for evaluating efficacy of

NSPE offerings– One addresses criteria for NSPE Board members

Survey Stakeholders on Five Priorities– First Survey went out on May 18– Fifth Survey went out on June 1

Process Beyond this Point

Distill the results of the five surveysDevelop a plan to implement the survey outcomesPresent to State Leaders meeting in San Diego– RFR Author to Present Concepts– Presentation of Survey Results and Proposed Path

Forward– Development of Consensus for Implementation

Implement

<300

301-500

501-1000

1001-2000

>2,001

147

343

397

213

1178 391

3567

394

388

245

1372598

471

1165

882

87

1290

337

471

285

3148

593

519

265

1816

ME 116

224

106

117

416

960

1411105

316

244

1232

VT 65

NH154

MA 333

RI 92

CT 243

NJ 974

DE 123

DC 109

MD 616

1919

1193

718

1377

716

HI 168

394

GU 45

NSPE STATE SOCIETY by Member Totals (as of 5/30/2012)(not shown: 1,616 reported state only members/ 474 national only members/ 325 international)

34,697- 3 tier members only shown

Surveys

1. Seven Questions about Membership2. Four Questions about NSPE Market3. Six Questions about “Optimum

Member” Market4. Criteria for Evaluating Efficacy of NSPE

Programs, Services, and Benefits5. Criteria for NSPE Board Members

Survey Results

Seven Questions about the Membership

Survey ResultsSeven Questions about the Membership

1. What potential membership segments are more difficult to recruit? Who are the “hard sells” in your recruitment campaigns? Why?

Key summary from responses:

Young licensed and unlicensed engineers are the hardest to reach.

Engineers in government and industry are also difficult to recruit.

The most often quoted reason is that these member segments do not perceive the value associated with NSPE membership.

Cost of dues, no employer support, and limited time are also listed as factors in hampering recruitment of these member segments.


2. What membership segments have high non-renewal rates? Why?


Young licensed engineers and young unlicensed are perceived as having the highest non-renewal rate.

Engineers in government and industry are perceived as having high non-renewal rates.

The perception is that these segments do not see the value in maintaining their membership.

A lack of financial support coupled with increasing dues fees are also factors.


3. What membership segments give the association low satisfaction rates in member surveys? Why?


While the survey responses indicate that younger members suffer greater dissatisfaction, the responses in this survey indicate that there is little data available because most groups don’t survey their members for satisfaction.

The most often causative factor cited for member dissatisfaction is “perceived value.”


4. What member segments have membership in another industry association or professional society? Why?


Most, if not all, NSPE members have at least one other membership in another industry association or professional society.

The overwhelming reason for belonging to these other groups is technical training.

Other reasons for belonging to other groups are business development, discipline, loyalty, and social networking.


5. What member segments have low participation rates in your association's meetings and conferences? Which have low utilization of fee-for-service offerings? Why?


While low participation exists primarily in the younger member segment, low participation spans all member segments to some degree.

Lack of time was most often cited as a reason for low participation.

Other reasons for low participation included: cost, travel, lack of interest, and meeting subject matter.


6. If you have special interest groups, sections, or divisions, which are the most successful and which ones struggle? Which draw membership participation and which don’t? Why?


About half of the survey respondents reported not having interest groups in their part of the organization.

Of those with interest groups, PEPP does well while the others struggle.

There did not appear to be any common cause or causes for this situation.


7. Knowing what your know today, what extensions of the member market undertaken by the association in the past did not produce the anticipated results? If you could turn back the clock and remake the decision, would you? Why?


Based on the survey responses, outreaches which involved incentives and dues discounts did not produce the desired result.

Also, outreaches to students did not produce the desired results.

Survey respondents indicated that a primary cause of failure cause the lack of tailoring the offering to the needs of the target market segment.

Other failure causes included the perception of low value that leads to non-renewal after the trial or incentive period expires.

Survey ResultsFour Questions about the Market


1. What major industry or professional changes or trends have resulted in changes in the profile (e.g. size, scope, and operation model) of the member?


The single most prevalent industry trend leading to changes in the member profile is the fact that economic pressures resulted in employer support for dues being reduced or eliminated.

Other lesser trends impacting the member profile include (1) advanced communications technology making other service delivery systems less time consuming and cheaper and (2) business pressures to network with clients and other potential clients.


2. How many distinct member segments or constituencies are there in our member market today?


The most used segmentations for NSPE membership are: engineering student, young engineer (licensed and not), mid-career PE, senior PE, and retired or life member.

The number of distinct member segments ranged from 3 to 27 (number of engineering disciplines).


3. What would segmentations of the member market reveal if you compared 1960 to 2010?


The member market of 50 years ago was characterized by less engineering specializations and fewer societies competing for the dues dollar and time of the target member market.

NSPE members are generally older today than in the past.

Today’s societal changes include more focus on entitlement and less ongiving back as well as less value for face to face encounters when social networking media is available.


4. What assumptions are you making about the member profile or characteristics in the coming year?


Most, if not all, of the NSPE family of organizations are building in assumptions about flat or declining membership numbers.

Another key assumption built into the system is that members or recruits expect more for their dues dollars.

Another key assumption being made in recruiting and retention efforts is the notion that the society’s programs will have to adapt to meet member or candidate member needs and expectations.

Survey ResultsFive Questions about the Optimum

Member Market

Survey ResultsSix Questions about the Optimum Member

Market

1. Whom do we serve now?


First and foremost, we serve PEs.

We also serve those EITs and students seeking to become licensed.

We also serve our members.


Market

1. Whom do we serve now?NSPE Membership by Licensure Status

82%

9%

9%

LicensedMemberStudent


Market1. Whom do we serve now?

NSPE Membership by Member Status

Standard82%

Retired2%

Life16%

Dues Waiver0%



NSPE Membership by Gender

88%

12%

MaleFemale



NSPE Membership by Ethnicity

84%

8%

4%

4%

0%

caucasianotherasian american african americannative american


Market

2. What are the characteristics of the current member market?


Many, if not most, of our current members are civil, structural or environmental.

Many, if not most, of our members are senior PEs.

Many, if not most, of our current members are in private practice.

Many, of not most, of our current members are middle-aged, mid-career PEs.


Market2. What are the characteristics of the current member market?

Discipline FractionCivil Engineering 36.7%Mechanical 14.0%Electrical 11.7%Structural 5.9%Environmental 5.7%Chemical 2.6%Other (28 Disciplines) 23.3%



NSPE Membership by Interest Group

PEC20%

PEG16%

PEHE5%PEI

20%

PEPP39%



NSPE Membership by Age

20s, 8.5%

30s, 11.2%

40s, 15.3%

50s, 23.0%

60s, 18.6%

70s, 11.3%

80s , 9.6%

20s30s40s50s60s70s80s


Market

3. Which of these membership segments are most or least integral to the success of the association? Rank from most to least integral to success. What, if any, member segments or constituencies should be purposefully abandoned. ?


No member segment should be abandoned.

Enhance the organization's approach to EIT and young PE.

PEPP and middle to senior aged PE are integral to the success of NSPE.


Market

4. Whom do we seek to serve?


First and foremost, PEs are our primary market.

Secondly, EITs and interested students are our secondary market.


Market

5. What, if any, built in mechanisms does the current model have that impede access to and success in recruiting members from this desired member market?


Uncoordinated state-national recruiting efforts.

Focus is unfocused (i.e., the NSPE vision is unclear) and seems to value money or revenue over service.

Focus on the PE impedes efforts to others.

Cost (i.e., too expensive).


Market

6. What needs to be done to eliminate or mitigate these impediments?


Coordinate the State-National marketing effort and marshal available resources to that effort.

Facilitate an open dialogue between the states and national leaders to address issues of vital interest to both.

Focus on the long-term success rather than short-term band aids and deliver a clear vision of what NSPE does and whom it serves.

Survey Results

Criteria for Evaluating Efficacy of NSPE Programs, Services and Benefits

Survey ResultsCriteria for Evaluating Efficacy of NSPE

Programs, Services and Benefits

1. What criteria should be used to evaluate all NSPE programs (e.g., use, cost net revenue generated, staff time required per year, perceived value and other (please identify) criteria for the past 10 years)?

Key summary from written responses:

First and foremost, the survey respondents said “use” is the most important criteria in evaluating all NSPE programs.

The second most important criteria is cost.

Perceived value is the third most important criteria

Staff time and net revenue are equally important but less important than the first three criteria.

Survey ResultsCriteria for Evaluating Efficacy of NSPE Programs,

Services and BenefitsUsing a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 having the highest value, please rank the following criteria. (Key summaries on next slide)

100Total

5645842%

211%

526%

211%

211%

Other

25215138%

410%

718%

615%

1949%

Perceived Value

10597821%

1026%

1334%

513%

25%

Staff Time Required

10411625%

924%

1539%

924%

38%

Net RevenueGenerated

203122410%

718%

1436%

821%

615%

Cost

30116900%

513%

38%

513%

2667%

Use

NotionalWeight

RankPointsLeastValuable

432Most Valuable

Survey ResultsCriteria for Evaluating Efficacy of NSPE Programs,

Services and Benefits

Key summary from graph in identifying criteria to use in evaluating programs:

First and foremost, the survey respondents said “use” is the most important criteria in evaluating all NSPE programs.

The second most important criteria is perceived value.

Cost is the third most important criteria.

Staff time and net revenue are equally important but less important than the first three.


Programs, Services and BenefitsOn a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being strongly agree and 5 being strongly disagree, do you agree that there are 20% of NSPE programs, services and benefits that can be done away with and not adversely affect members or their perceived value to our association?

2%5%12%25%55%

1251022Strongly Disagree432Strongly Agree


80% of the respondents believe that 20% of NSPE programs, services and benefits can be done away with and not adversely affect members or their perceived value to the association.


Programs, Services and BenefitsOn a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being strongly agree and 5 being strongly disagree, do you agree that there are 40% of NSPE programs, services and benefits that can be done away with and not adversely affect members or their perceived value to our association?

8%18%32%25%18%

3713107Strongly Disagree432Strongly Agree


By a ratio of 1.7:1, respondents believe that 40% of the NSPE programs, services and benefits can be done away with and not adversely affect members or their perceived value of the association.


Programs, Services and Benefits

On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being strongly agree and 5 being strongly disagree, do you agree that there are 60% of NSPE programs, services and benefits that can be done away with and not adversely affect members or their perceived value to our association?

25%25%30%5%15%10101226

Strongly Disagree432Strongly Agree


By a ratio of 2.5:1, respondents do not believe that 60% of the NSPE programs, services and benefits can be done away with and not adversely affect members or their perceived value of the association.

Survey Results

Criteria for NSPE Board Members

Survey ResultsCriteria for NSPE Board Members

1. What criteria should be used to evaluate potential board members (e.g. proven leadership capability, demonstrated effective communicator, consensus builder, problem solver, specific technical skills (identify), specific developmental experience (identify), other (identify)

Key summary from responses:First and foremost, the potential board member should be a proven leader in state or chapter organizations.

Next, the prospective board member should be an effective communicator and good listener.

The prospective board member should also be capable of building consensus and collaborating with stakeholders.

In addition, the prospective board member should be an effective problem solver.

Finally, the prospective board member should be a strategic and critical thinkercapable of understanding and communicating the “big picture.”


2. Using a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 having the highest value, please rank the following criteria that should be used in evaluating potential board members.

(Graph on next slide)


475830%

27%

27%

622%

933%

Other(identified in following slides)

6100413%

929%

1032%

619%

26%

Specific Developmental Skills(identified in following slides)

7119825%

1031%

1134%

39%

00%

Specific Technical Skills(identified in following slides)

58013%

619%

929%

929%

619%

Problem solver

37813%

39%

1029%

1132%

926%

Consensus builder

26300%

26%

515%

1338%

1441%

Demonstrated effective communicator

16013%

13%

412%

1132%

1750%

Proven leadership capability

RankRaw Score

Least Valuable

432MostValuable


3. In your ranking of “Specific Technical Skills” please identify those skills.


The prospective board member should be in command of current communications technology

The prospective board member should have well-developed people and business skills.


4. In your ranking of “Specific Developmental Experience”please identify that experience.


The prospective board member should have non-technical skills such as the ability to mentor more junior members in their professional social careers.

The prospective board member should be a proven state leader.

The prospective board member should have some experience in NSPE committees and task forces as well as the ability to “sell”three tier membership.


5. In your ranking of “Other” criteria, please describe what that is.


While there is no overwhelming “other’ criteria, strategic thinking and planning skills head the list.

Leadership Goals for 2012 and Beyond

Reconnect with StatesRestructure ProcessesReshape OfferingsRedirect Recruiting, Retention, and Reclamation EffortsReplace NSPE Executive Director

Recommendation of the NSPE Past President’s Council Approved by

Unanimous Vote at their Meeting, July 12, 2012

The NSPE Past Presidents Council supports the implementation of the Five Radical Changes contained in Race for Relevance.

Implementation of the reduction in governance is imperative.

NSPE STATE SOCIETY by Membership Goal 201336,260 Members*3 tier members only

<300

301-500

501-1000

1001-2000

>2,001

189

350

405

217

1202 399

3638

402

396

250

1399610

480

1188

900

89

1316

344

480

291

3211

605

529

270

1852

ME 118

228

108

119

424

979

1441025

322

249

1257

VT 66

NH157

MA 340

RI 94

CT 248

NJ 993

DE 125

DC 111

MD 628

1957

1217

732

1405

730

GU 46HI 150

402

<300

301-500

501-1000

1001-2000

>2,001

192

357

413

222

1226 407

3711

410

404

255

1427622

490

1212

918

91

1342

351

490

297

3275

617

540

276

1889

ME 121

233

110

122

433

999

1471046

329

254

1282

VT 68

NH160

MA 346

RI 96

CT 253

NJ 1013

DE 128

DC 113

MD 641

1997

1241

747

1433

745

GU 47HI 153

410

NSPE STATE SOCIETY by Membership Goal 201436,930 Members*3 tier members only

<300

301-500

501-1000

1001-2000

>2,001

196

364

421

226

1250 415

3785

418

412

260

1456635

500

1236

936

92

1369

358

500

302

3341

629

551

281

1927

ME 123

238

112

124

441

1019

1501067

335

259

1307

VT 69

NH163

MA 353

RI 98

CT 258

NJ 1034

DE 116

DC 116

MD 654

2036

1266

762

1461

760

GU 48HI 156

418

302

NSPE STATE SOCIETY Membership Goal 2015 37,669 Members*3 tier members only

<300

301-500

501-1000

1001-2000

>2,001

200

371

430

231

1275 423

3861

426

420

265

1485647

510

1261

955

94

1396

365

510

308

3407

642

562

287

1966

ME 126

242

115

127

450

1039

1531088

342

264

1334

VT 70

NH167

MA 360

RI 100

CT 263

NJ 1054

DE 133

DC 118

MD 667

2077

1291

777

1491

775

GU 49HI 159

426



<300

301-500

501-1000

1001-2000

>2,001

204

379

438

235

1301 432

3938

435

428

270

1515660

520

1296

974

96

1424

372

520

315

3476

655

573

293

2005

ME 128

247

117

129

459

1060

1561110

349

269

1360

VT 72

NH170

MA 368

RI 102

CT 268

NJ 1075

DE 136

DC 120

MD 680

2119

1317

793

1520

791

GU 50HI 162

435

NSPE Path Forward

QuestionsContact Information– Dan Wittliff– [email protected]– 512.680.3506 (cell)

The National Society of Professional EngineersKey summary from responses: Young licensed and...

Documents

Transcript of The National Society of Professional EngineersKey summary from responses: Young licensed and...