RE: ASME Continuity & Change initiative

Dear ASME Board of Governors,

A diverse group of ASME volunteers from the local, regional, and international levels have been regularly discussing the Continuity & Change initiative since the 2003 Congress. We ’ve also discussed our concerns with Dr. Todd Thomas, an organizational specialist and President of IMPACT Consulting and Development. Clearly the Core Team has done a significant amount of quality work on the Continuity & Change initiative. As active ASME members, we share the Board of Governor ’s desire to create an effective, valuable society. We also agree that in the past the ASME has moved slowly to implement change. However, we are concerned that there is a rush to implement a plan that is presently at the concept phase.

We urge you to postpone the acceptance of any plan until proper due diligence can be completed.

Having thoroughly reviewed the published documents (including the Strategic Marketing Report by Plexus Consulting, Balanced Scorecard, and Arthur D. Little ’s organization presentation), attended the Continuity & Change meetings throughout North America, and discussed the issues in a variety of forums, we ’ve concluded that additional work needs to be done prior to approving a new philosophy and plan of this magnitude.

Proper due diligence requires that other strategies be developed and analyzed. Key details such as the long-term strategy, organization structure, staffing requirements, business location, and the financial ramifications for any changes must be clearly addressed and evaluated for their effect on the individual member. This information must then be disseminated to our members for their review and approval.

Most importantly, the answer to the question “what is the benefit to the individual member? ”must be addressed when reviewing each aspect of the final plan.


Grassroots Membership and the Proposed Matrix Organization
ASME exists for our members and by the members. Since the majority of our members are involved in industry, many of us have either been a part of or have studied matrix organizations. We understand that its inherent complexity requires more management time and typically leads to confusion amongst its participants. We fear that the average member will be put off by such a structure as it ’s currently conceived. Also, such a structure may not be robust enough to sustain itself during changes in our volunteer leadership.

We suggest that it is the execution of our present strategy that needs to be expedited rather than changing from the present structure (which was also developed by Arthur D. Little).


Education and Local Sections are the Key to Growth
Whether it ’s educating our members through the sales of Codes & Standards, subscriptions to our publications, providing networking opportunities, or teaching continuing education classes, the ASME does provide value. It ’s just well hidden. Unlocking the ASME treasure chest requires regular communications: Both face-to-face and via the web.

In fact, we need more face-to-face contact, not less. The current geographic boundaries of sections and regions do not work. Attending a section meeting frequently requires too long of a commute. And by not having local sections, supported by staff, in Europe, Asia, and India we are giving up the opportunity of helping and guiding the global community and ASME ’s future. We need to update our strategy to address these shortcomings by adding local sections on a worldwide basis.


For over 20 years, the ASME has known what our members want and the Balance Scorecard Strategy Map reaffirms these findings. Some of the solutions are outlined in our letter. Other solutions have been developed by the Core Team. By updating our society ’s strategy, expediting its implementation and always focusing on the question: “What is the benefit to the individual member? ”the ASME can help engineers achieve a new golden age.

Just as no one would purchase a new home without evaluating it from both the 50,000 foot level and the detail level, we need to take our time to properly develop multiple, comprehensive strategies. Only by postponing the Board of Governor ’s March 2004 acceptance vote can this be done.

Sincerely,

Tom Libertiny, ASME Board on Government Relations
Howard Berkof, ASME Early Career Committee
Doug Brown, Incoming Vice President, ASME Region X
Susan Ipri Brown, ASME Board on Government Relations
Brian Dietz, Vice President, ASME Region X
Brian Erbstoesser, Vice President, ASME Region VII
Rebecca King, Chair, ASME Southeastern Michigan Section
Monica Moman-Saunders, Past Vice President, ASME Board on Minorities &W omen
Diane Peters, Chair, ASME Chicago Section
Bob Simmons, Vice President, ASME Engineering & Technology Management Group
Cindy Stong, Vice President, ASME Board on Professional Development
Keith Thayer, ASME Life Fellow