Membership Model and Structure Discussion NSPE House of Delegates - PDF document

Attachment 5 Membership Model and Structure Discussion NSPE House of Delegates Saturday, June 25, 2016 Location and Room: Fairmont Dallas House of Delegates: Saturday, June 25 11:00am Getting Started and Current State Mark Golden and  Kim Granados, Introductions and desired outcomes  NSPE National Recap project history/origin, goals, and overview  Discussion of NSPE’s current state 11:20am Project Overview and Research Presentation Jay Younger,  Discuss key themes from qualitative and quantitative research McKinley Advisors phases Attachment: Survey Summary Report o 11:40am Models and Options Jay Younger,  Review membership and dues structure options evaluated, McKinley Advisors / All including opportunities and potential implications for NSPE Attachment: Membership and Dues Models Evaluated o  Assessment and discussion of membership model options  Present working model as a basis for discussion Attachment: Model Concept Testing Overview o 12:20pm Next Steps Jay Younger,  McKinley Advisors Confirm direction, areas of agreement/dissonance  / All Discuss ongoing opportunities for HoD engagement  Recap next steps 12:35pm Adjourn NSPE JUNE MEETING AGENDA | MCKINLEY ADVISORS 1

A Long-Term Vision for NSPE Membership: Concept Overview Draft: June 13, 2016 BACKGROUND NSPE is committed to supporting professional engineers and advancing the interests of the field through advocacy, communications and education. The organization has accomplished great work to move the organization and the field forward, and there is a vital need for a healthy and prosperous NSPE to uphold the essential role of professional engineers. However, over time many adaptations have been made to NSPE’s membership model and structure , leading to a relatively fractured, inconsistent member experience across the country. This “patchwork” approach is difficult to manage, leads to inconsistencies in member service delivery and creates unnecessary inefficiencies across the NSPE “family” of organizations. What’s more, NSPE has experienced a decline in dues-paying members that has resulted in financial pressures at all levels of the organization. Increased marketing and retention efforts can ameliorate, but not reverse, these trends which if not addressed will continue to limit the organization’s ability to advance its mission. As such, there is urgency for NSPE to pursue meaningful changes to its approach to membership to ensure a successful future for the organization. As you may know, NSPE retained McKinley Advisors, a leading association consulting firm, to evaluate possible long- term approaches to optimize the organization’s membership model that would address these significant challenges. McKinley’s project has included the following steps:  A thorough review of NSPE’s organizational and membership da ta  A preliminary round of in-depth telephone interviews  A comprehensive electronic survey deployed to over 24,000 current and lapsed NSPE members  Input from the NSPE Membership Committee  A two-day working session with the NSPE Board of Directors, which included a review of a range of possible long-term membership structures  A comparative benchmarking study of other relevant organizations A number of potentially viable membership and dues models were evaluated throughout this research, as outlined below. At present, NSPE embodies elements from the first three models.  Integrated Affiliate Model: components are aligned in purpose, but retain some level of autonomy, including the ability create programs, etc. Membership reciprocity policies vary widely in the association industry. o Potential Advantages:  Promotes consistency in message and unity in mission Streamlines administration (e.g., one method of billing and collection)  Emphasizes collaboration and shared accountability  NSPE MODEL OVERVIEW | DRAFT: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION 1

o Potential Disadvantages: Potential difficulty in transitioning state-only groups back to three-tiered  membership Limits consumer choice   Federation (Services to States): an association of associations; the primary role of the national organization shifts to coordinating federal advocacy efforts and advancing the ability of the states to best serve individual members. o Potential Advantages:  Fulfills NSPE’s mission to promote licensure by bolstering states’ ability to serve professional engineers National can provide value to states by providing billing and administrative  support, advocacy services and other functions to expand their bandwidth to deliver quality programs/services to individual members Allows states to continue direct member service without “competition” from  National  Similar to some current National/State relationships o Potential Disadvantages: “Back - office” functions not currently viewed by some states as a benefit  Possible that some states would decide to not join the Federation, therefore  reducing the overall impact of the organization  No ability or mandate for National to provide programming that could add value to individual membership Would likely complicate National governance model  Will likely require a new revenue driver at the National level to be  sustainable  Independent : organizations who share a common mission but are not materially related in structural, operational or financial matters; no membership reciprocity or coordination. o Potential Advantages: Frees each component from attempting to coordinate services with others  and creates bandwidth to provide programming and tangible member benefits based on their own market knowledge Opportunity to differentiate member content and value between NSPE  National and states Could provide more flexibility for NSPE to become an umbrella organization  for technician certifications and other paraprofessional pathways o Potential Disadvantages:  Increased competition between NSPE National and states for recruiting members Limited incentive for members to join both state and national organizations  No consistency/standardization achieved across states  Value of National-only membership may not be robust enough at present to  drive membership  Potential to alienate/disenfranchise NSPE volunteers currently engaged through the three-tiered system NSPE MODEL OVERVIEW | DRAFT: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION 2

 Consolidated : o ne “parent” corporation is established to administer and drive the mission and programs of work for itself and its geographic units, which are often not separately incorporated; most effective in organizations that share a singular purpose. o Potential Advantages: Allows NSPE National to establish a standardized pricing model  Reduces redundancy and inefficiency in programming, administrative costs  and other operational elements o Potential Disadvantages:  Seen most often in cause- related and “cure” organizations, where the “parent” and all components share a singular purpose Requires group exemption and dissolution of separate corporations, which  leads to increased risk for “parent”  “Add - on” Model: NSPE membership (at either the National level or all three levels) could be an additional option added to the membership of other large engineering societies (perhaps at a discount). o Potential Advantages: Creates an efficient method for recruitment through engineers’ “primary”  professional affiliation, which are often technical  Could be added as an optional component to other membership models Leverages licensure and ethics messages at other key organizations  o Potential Disadvantages: Would require extraordinary cooperation and partnership from technical  societies (e.g., what is in it for them?)  Could erode the perceived value of membership After reviewing a range of possible scena rios, NSPE’s Board of Directors determined that the following models were not viable options for NSPE at present and therefore were eliminated from further consideration. o Federation (Services to States): There is far too much variability in the capacity of various states to provide a consistent baseline for this model; National also lacks the capacity at present to become an effective “service center” to all states. o Consolidated : Removed from consideration due to the need for states to maintain a high level of autonomy in their decision-making and operations. o “Add - on” Model: Too complex and would potentially further erode of the value of NSPE membership. Of the two remaining options – integrated and independent – the NSPE Board signaled a strong preference for pursuing a more consistent application of an integrated membership model in which states and National membership are “bundled.” In such an approach, NSPE would pursue efficiencies in pricing, service delivery and administration with the goal of delivering higher levels of member satisfaction and value. The Board also felt that pursuing an integrated pathway would be the best option to achieve both mission impact and financial viability, while also allowing for reasonable variation based on the needs and capacity of NSPE’s state organizations. NSPE MODEL OVERVIEW | DRAFT: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION 3