Membership Model Research and Options Overview 1 Association Landscape in 2016 Technology Expectations Changing Information Member Overload Demographics Calls for “Explicit” ROI Regulatory Employer Climate Policies 2 www.mckinley ‐ advisors.com 1 McKinleyAdvisors Presentation - HoD Assembly 6/25/16 - pg: 1 of 17
Membership Structures are Changing Reported in McKinley’s 2013 Economic Impact of Association, 7 of 10 associations made or considered making some type of change to their membership structure. A range of options are being pursued: In the past year, have you made or have you considered making significant changes to your membership structure and benefits packages? Please describe those changes. Creation of new membership categories 25% Addition of new member benefits 21% Dues restructure 17% A la carte/online membership offering 12% Group membership 7% Reduced cost of membership 6% Streamlined categories 5% Bundling options 5% Consideration of structural changes 5% Structural changes 5% Increase in dues 4% N=172 3 Research Review 4 www.mckinley ‐ advisors.com 2 McKinleyAdvisors Presentation - HoD Assembly 6/25/16 - pg: 2 of 17
Membership Structure: Project Overview Membership Project “Phase 1” Committee Call Data Review Immersion Interviews Dec. 2 Membership NSPE Board Electronic Benchmarking Committee Call Meeting Survey Research Jan. 27 Feb. 27 ‐ 28 NSPE Board SSEC and HOD SSEC Conf. Call Call Market Testing Meetings May 25 April 27 June 24 ‐ 25 5 Research Elements “Phase 1” E ‐ Survey Concept Testing Interviews • 10 in ‐ depth • Distributed to • 22 in ‐ depth interviews 24K current and interviews former members complete; • Purpose: gather 3 pending feedback to • ~2,000 responses understand the • Purpose: Gauge • Purpose: range of initial reactions measure member perspectives on to a working sentiment across the current state draft of a unified a range of of NSPE membership indicators membership concept 6 www.mckinley ‐ advisors.com 3 McKinleyAdvisors Presentation - HoD Assembly 6/25/16 - pg: 3 of 17
“Phase 1” Interview Findings Overall Broad agreement that the current approach is not Sentiment optimal; several spoke of momentum over the past few years in rebuilding trust advancing progress. Current NSPE needs to continue to attack its central Challenges challenge: developing and communicating its value propositions and relevance. Future NSPE should proactively work to increase “tangible” Focus member value in addition to its role as an advocate for professional engineering and licensure. 7 Survey Results 8 www.mckinley ‐ advisors.com 4 McKinleyAdvisors Presentation - HoD Assembly 6/25/16 - pg: 4 of 17
Demographics How long have you been a member of NSPE? Which of the following best represents your (N = 1,105) specialty area within engineering? (N = 1,404) 35% Civil 40% Mechanical 17% Electrical 14% 20% 17% Other, please specify: 9% 12% 10% Structural 7% 5% Environmental 7% 2% Interdisciplinary 4% Less than 1 ‐ 5 years 6 ‐ 10 11 ‐ 15 16 ‐ 20 More Don't a year years years years than 20 know Chemical 3% years 9 Satisfaction How satisfied are you with your NSPE membership at the following levels? National (N = 1,506) State (N = 699) Local (N = 684) 48% 45% 40% 33% 28% 25% 25% 19% 19% 6% 5% 4% 3% 1% 0% Extremely satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neither satisfied nor Somewhat dissatisfied Extremely dissatisfied dissatisfied 10 www.mckinley ‐ advisors.com 5 McKinleyAdvisors Presentation - HoD Assembly 6/25/16 - pg: 5 of 17
Cost vs. Value Based on the amount you pay in dues, would you say the value you receive from NSPE membership is greater than the cost of membership, equal to the cost of membership, or less than the cost of membership? (N = 1,507) 42% 24% value is greater than the cost 34% value is less than the cost of of membership membership 27% 18% 7% 6% Far greater than the cost Somewhat greater than Equal to the cost of Somewhat less than the Far less than the cost of of membership the cost of membership membership cost of membership membership 11 NPS Benchmarked Net Promoter Score Benchmarked Scientific/Engineering Professional Societies Average: 9% 45% 25% 23% 21% 17% 16% 16% 16% 11% 11% 10% 9% ‐ 14% ‐ 16% ‐ 18% ‐ 24% Note: When asked generally, NSPE’s net promoter score differed from when respondents were asked to individually recommend national NSPE ( ‐ 18), state NSPE ( ‐ 4) and local NSPE ( ‐ 1). 12 www.mckinley ‐ advisors.com 6 McKinleyAdvisors Presentation - HoD Assembly 6/25/16 - pg: 6 of 17
Value Which level of NSPE delivers the most value to you? (N = 1,184) 31% 27% 26% 16% National State Local Unsure 13 Benefits and Services How would you rate the importance of the following NSPE national products and services to you and your organization? (N = 1,349) Sum of 9 and 10 (extremely important) Fifteen free online seminars 33% PE Magazine 26% Legislative Action Center 21% Daily Designs: Business News for PEs 19% NSPE Update 17% NSPE Job Board 12% NSPE ‐ PAC 11% Interest groups 7% NSPE Annual Meeting 7% Blogs (e.g., NSPE Blog, PE Licensing Blog, etc.) 4% 14 www.mckinley ‐ advisors.com 7 McKinleyAdvisors Presentation - HoD Assembly 6/25/16 - pg: 7 of 17
Benefits and Services At which level would you like NSPE to focus on providing the following products and services in the future? Please select the level at which you think it is most important for NSPE to provide each product or service. (N = 1,002) National State Local Research and publications 82% 14% 4% Ethics resources 60% 30% 10% Career path and job search guidance 50% 38% 12% Professional education 49% 35% 17% Government advocacy and policy efforts 46% 49% 5% Online job board 46% 41% 13% Online networking opportunities 41% 46% 13% Conferences and meetings 24% 58% 18% In ‐ person networking events 6% 31% 64% Volunteer opportunities 4% 25% 71% 15 Models and Options Evaluated 16 www.mckinley ‐ advisors.com 8 McKinleyAdvisors Presentation - HoD Assembly 6/25/16 - pg: 8 of 17
Model Optimization Current Current Advantages Disadvantages “Partially” Inconsistent Unified Voice Experience Pricing “Flexibility” Complexity Administrative Inefficiency Support 17 Options Overview Structure Examples Federation (Services to States) Integrated Affiliate Model Consolidated Independent / Loosely Aligned 18 www.mckinley ‐ advisors.com 9 McKinleyAdvisors Presentation - HoD Assembly 6/25/16 - pg: 9 of 17
Models and Options Model Concept Federation (Services to States) An association of associations; the primary role of the national Ex: AHCA, NCEES, NCARB organization shifts to coordinating federal advocacy efforts and advancing the ability of the states to best serve individual members Potential Advantages: Potential Disadvantages: Fulfills NSPE’s mission to promote licensure “Back ‐ office” functions not currently • • by bolstering states’ ability to serve viewed by some states as a significant professional engineers benefit National can provide value to states by Possible that some states would decide to • • providing billing and administrative support, not join the Federation, therefore advocacy services and other functions to reducing the overall impact of the expand their bandwidth to deliver quality organization programs/services to individual members No ability or mandate for National to • Allows states to continue direct member provide programming that could add • service without “competition” from value to individual membership National Would likely complicate National • Similar to some current National/State governance model • relationships Will likely require a new revenue driver at • the National level to be sustainable 19 Models and Options Model Concept Integrated Affiliate Model Components are aligned in purpose, but retain some level of Reciprocity policies vary: autonomy including the ability to set dues, create programs, etc. Mandatory: Ex. AIA, NAR, ADA Membership reciprocity policies vary widely in the association Voluntary: Ex. ASCE, IEEE industry Potential Advantages: Potential Disadvantages: • Promotes consistency in • Potential difficulty in message and unity in mission transitioning state ‐ only groups • Streamlines administration back to three ‐ tiered (e.g., one method of billing membership and collection) • Limits consumer choice • Emphasizes collaboration and shared accountability 20 www.mckinley ‐ advisors.com 10 McKinleyAdvisors Presentation - HoD Assembly 6/25/16 - pg: 10 of 17
Recommend
More recommend
