More In Sorrow

I intend to address the organisation and evolution of professional societies but my account will take a particular shape. It is a valedictory for the Institution of Electrical Engineers. I have entitled it 'more in sorrow' but there is quite a bit of anger too.

Why the sorrow? Why, indeed, the anger? These seem strong emotions. Well, the Institution of Electrical Engineers was the foundation of my professional career. For years it was the basis for my network of contacts. I identified as a member and was very proud of my membership. I wore my institution tie, attended, with my father, a distinguished member himself, council dinners. I won, as a student, an Institutional 'Premium', a cash prize for a scientific paper, the first mark of professional esteem I received. I gave my first 'external' talk at an institution colloquium. The institution gave me my first opportunities to contribute to the professional community and my first experience of the fellowship of engineers.

Let me start however, with an anecdote whose relevance will, I trust, become apparent. I have a long association with a series of scientific meetings. These meetings have attracted a strong following amongst researchers. They attend in significant numbers, value the meeting greatly, and are loyal, returning year after year. Unfortunately, the number of practitioners who attend this meeting has remained small. The organisers, amongst whom I have played an active role, have made great efforts to attract them. Changes have been made to the structure of the meeting, new sessions introduced and high profile industrial speakers invited. The meeting has even tried alternative locations closer to major transport hubs. These changes have necessarily, because time and space are limited, had an effect on the character of the meeting. Unfortunately they have had a negligible effect on the attendance by practitioners.

I was part of an organising committee where the problem was again discussed - at length. One of the committee members, in frustration, expostulated "why don't we spend our time discussing how to make the scientific meeting enjoyable for the people who do attend rather than the people who never will". I thought it then, a profound observation, and I still do. I will return to this later.

Professional societies face a set of fundamental challenges. First and foremost they have relied upon publishing to generate revenues while member services cost more than the membership fee delivers. This is particularly problematic as business models for publishing come under increasing strain. Professional information is now more widely available from a greater range of providers, the market for providing this information is much larger and more competitive. Professional societies are having to operate in an environment in which professionalism, and the technical and scientific disciplines that underpin it, are increasingly internationalised. Thus, societies formed principally on a national basis have less relevance and must face global competition.

The foundation of most professional societies is as member organisations but the increased size and the complexity of the operating environment requires sophisticated management, there is thus a tension between the role of members and the member governance of the societies and the role of the permanent staff. This is heightened by changes in patterns of employment that make employers increasingly reluctant to release employees for professional activities that do not yield an obvious return. This is true even of academics who have historically been a mainstay of such bodies but must now respond to a much more tightly defined set of performance indicators. Lastly, there have been characteristic imbalances between a small core of active 'engagers' and a very large body of essentially disengaged members with a corresponding imbalance of expenditure and attention.

The Institution of Electrical Engineers, the IEE, faced two further challenges specific to its remit. First, the growth of the software profession and the merging of much of the work of electronic engineers with that of software professionals. Second, the move of the largest part of the electronics manufacturing and fabrication activity offshore, principally to Asia.

It speaks to the credit of the IEE members and staff that it reached what I feel was an accurate diagnosis of the challenges but the actions taken to address them were, in my judgment, fundamentally wrong. In anatomising them here I hope that other professional societies might avoid the same mistakes and also hope I can exorcise my frustrations.

Let me summarise the actions as I perceive them:

An alteration of the relationship between members and the staff, and the reorientation of staff roles from supporting secretariat to executive management.

A wholesale removal of the bodies through which direct member participation and governance were exercised (divisions and groups) in favour of digitally mediated networks used for information distribution.

The introduction of a simplistic business and financial model that disincentivised member activities by associating with them the full costs of staff services and facilities.

The commercialisation of the IEE 'home' at Savoy Place and repackaging as a 'business venue'.

The implicit decision to compete with the British Computer Society (BCS) to secure members in the software profession without any associated strategic appreciation of the consequences of the decision nor the capacity to execute it effectively.

An international strategy that, rather than conservatively developing its strong regional bases in Asia, shifted to an attempt to compete globally with the IEEE.

A focus on the IEE as a provider of professional information and services rather than as a representative membership organisation that focuses on professional standards and 'learned society' activities.

An external orientation that views members as 'customers' of a service rather than as partners in its delivery. This, combined with a shift away from chartered status as the basic building block of the institution.

A change in name that severed the historical connection with electrical and electronic engineering profession and claimed to occupy territory that the organisation was unable to actually sustain. This, at the same as effectively terminating the longstanding volunteer associations with individuals across the engineering community.

In short, the IEE adopted a crude commercial model and failed to think hard enough about its purposes and the changing engineering context. It had choices. Clearly changes were necessary and neither financial imprudence nor hiding its head in the sand in the face of the challenges were reasonable options.

So, what was the alternative? I believe the IEE should have refashioned itself around member engagement and around mutual support. It should have understood that the building of professional networks, the sharing of knowledge and experience, and the mutual agreement on appropriate professional standards and how they are to be recognised were at the core of the functions of a professional society. Rather than aping commercial information providers and trainers, the IEE should have built a bottom-up peer based model. It should have looked at its membership as a knowledge resource rather than as information consumers. It should have emphasised the central value of the IEE as an organisation in which collective identification with the values of the profession could be fostered. The IEE should have followed through with its early attempts to come to terms with the development of the software profession. It should have sought a genuine and open partnership with the BCS. It should have sought to shape the development of profession through thought leadership not responded reactively to commercial factors. If the IEE is to compete globally it will only be because we have made chartered engineering membership on the UK model a valuable asset, not because our information services are better than those of the IEEE.

Finally to return to my opening anecdote. Many members will remain unengaged. They join because they want a stamp of professional recognition. They do not necessarily want improved services, what they want is for the institution to contribute to the development of the profession - something they then directly benefit from. Chasing after the unengaged, at the cost of the engaged membership is a major error.

I remain a member, actually a Fellow, of the Institution of Engineering and Technology. I remain deeply committed to it and concerned for its future. I hope it will be able to learn the lessons of the IEE and its recent past. If professional and learned societies are to develop their role it will not be by building slick websites but rather by returning to their core values and making a renewed commitment to member engagement.