CEO Report SGB Meeting July 31, 2007 New York
Outline • ACM Overview • Membership • Financials • Member satisfaction • Across the Boards • Education • Publications • Professions • Membership • Initiatives • On going • New CACM • Council Retreat
Membership • FY ’07 • Professional members: 62,360 • Student members: 20,063 82,423
Membership • FY ’07 • Professional membership continues to increase
Membership • Other facts • SIG memberships: 44,491 • SIG + ACM 33,937 • SIG Only 10,554 • Chapter members: 33,897 • Subscriptions • Print: 28,492 • Digital Library: • Professional 22,878 • Students 9,165
DL Distribution to the SIGs • DL Distribution in perspective $1,574K
DL Distribution to the SIGs • DL Distribution in perspective $1,800K
Academic/ Researcher Educator 10% 20% Other 6% Manager 18% Practitioner 46% Membership • Professional Members • 64% Practitioners & Managers • 30% Academics/Educators & Researchers
About You and ACM Overall Satisfaction with ACM Membership Extremely/very satisfied (7-6) Somewhat satisfied/neutral (5-4) Somewhat/very/ extremely dissatisfied (3-1) Mean Satisfaction: 5.5 5.6 5.3 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 = Significantly higher than 2006/2007 at 90% level of confidence. Source: Table 7; S1Q5a: Taking everything into consideration, please select the response which best describes your overall satisfaction with your ACM membership.
About You and ACM ACM Membership Relevance to Job/Overall Career/Education Extremely/very relevant Somewhat/slightly relevant Not relevant = Significantly higher than 2006/2007 at 90% level of confidence. Source: Table 8; S1Q6: Please select the statement that best describes how relevant your ACM membership is to your job/overall career (education).
About You and ACM Overall Satisfaction with ACM - % Extremely/Very Satisfied with Membership - (Active Professionals Only) Total Active Pros 2007 (n=1,597) 2006 (n=1,870) 2005 (n=2,910) 2004 (n=2,845) 2007 (n=361) 2006 (n=413) 2005 (n=652) 2004 (n=630) 2007 (n=283) 2006 (n=333) 2005 (n=533) 2004 (n=481) 2007 (n=687) 2006 (n=805) 2005 (n=1,243) 2004 (n=1,234) 2007 (n=160) 2006 (n=194) 2005 (n=290) 2004 (n=313) 2007 (n=106) 2006 (n=125) 2005 (n=192) 2004 (n=187) Academics/Educators Managers Practitioners Researchers Others = Significantly higher than 2006/2007 at 90% level of confidence. Source: Table 7; S1Q5a: Taking everything into consideration, please select the response which best describes your overall satisfaction with your ACM membership.
About You and ACM ACM Membership Relevance to Job/Overall Career - Extremely/Very Relevant* - Likelihood of Renewing ACM Membership - Probably/Definitely Will Renew** - (n=1597) (n=1870) (n=687) (n=805) (n=361) (n=413) (n=283) (n=333) (n=160) (n=194) (n=106) (n=125) Total Practitioner Academic/ Educator Manager Researcher Other = Significantly higher than 2006/2007 at the 90% confidence level. *5-point scale: 1=not relevant; 5=extremely relevant **5-point scale: 1=will not renew; 5=definitely will renew Source: Table 8; S1Q6: Please select the statement that best describes how relevant your ACM membership is to your job and/or overall career. Table 9; S1Q7a: Which of the following statements best describes how likely you will be to renew your ACM membership?
ACM Digital Library Overall Satisfaction with ACM Digital Library (Very, Somewhat, Not Too Familiar with ACM Digital Library*) - Extremely/Very Satisfied(1) - ACM Digital Library Relevance to Job/Overall Career (Very, Somewhat, Not Too Familiar with ACM Digital Library*) - Extremely/Very Relevant(2) - (n=1402) (n=1618) (n=580) (n=666) (n=332) (n=382) (n=243) (n=287) (n=154) (n=187) (n=93) (n=96) Total Practitioner Academic/ Educator Manager Researcher Other = Significantly higher than 2006/2007 at the 90% confidence level. (1)7-point scale: 1=extremely dissatisfied; 7=extremely satisfied (2)5-point scale: 1=not relevant; 5=extremely relevant *Percentages are based on total answering. Source: Table 55; S3Q4a: Taking everything into consideration, please select the response which best describes your overall satisfaction with the ACM Digital Library. Table 56; S3Q5: Please select the response below which best describes how relevant the ACM Digital Library is to your job and/or overall career.
Special Interest Groups (SIGs) Percent Member of ACM Special Interest Group (SIG) Overall Satisfaction with ACM SIG MembershipWhich Reflects Primary Interest (ACM SIG Members) - Extremely/Very Satisfied(1) - (n=1597) (n=1870) (n=687) (n=805) (n=361) (n=413) (n=283) (n=333) (n=160) (n=194) (n=106) (n=125) (n=642) (n=750) (n=207) (n=243) (n=218) (n=249) (n=91) (n=108) (n=90) (n=112) (n=36)* (n=38)* Total Practitioner Academic/ Educator Manager Researcher Other *Caution: Small base size. = Significantly higher than 2006/2007 at the 90% confidence level. (1)7-point scale: 1=extremely dissatisfied; 7=extremely satisfied Source: Table 95; S7Q1a: Are you a member of an ACM Special Interest Group (SIG)? Table 97; S7Q2a: Taking everything into consideration, please select the response which best describes your overall satisfaction with the ACM SIG which reflects your primary technical interest?
Special Interest Groups (SIGs) Percent Attended ACM SIGConferences Past 12 Months Overall Satisfaction with Most Important ACM SIG Conference Attended Past 12 Months (ACM SIG Conference Attendees) - Extremely/Very Satisfied(1) - (n=1597) (n=1870) (n=687) (n=805) (n=361) (n=413) (n=283) (n=333) (n=160) (n=194) (n=106) (n=125) (n=245) (n=289) (n=45) (n=66) (n=107) (n=119) (n=22)* (n=33)* (n=63) (n=63) (n=8)* (n=8)* Total Practitioner Academic/ Educator Manager Researcher Other = Significantly higher than 2006/2007 at the 90% confidence level. (1)7-point scale: 1=extremely dissatisfied; 7=extremely satisfied *Caution: Small base size. Source: Table 100; S7Q5a: In the past 12 months, how many ACM Special Interest Group (SIG) Conferences have you attended? Table 102; S7Q6a: Taking everything into consideration, please select the response which best describes your overall satisfaction with the most important conference that you attended in the past 12 months.
Education Board • Reorganized • Board • Curriculum • Accreditation • Oversight of the Education Council • Council • Image
Publications • Areas of focus • New journals • EIC’s • Digital Library • Issues • Publications business model • Next steps with the Digital Library
Professions • New Board • Focus • Best Practices site/service • Case studies (ACM Perspective) • CTO Roundtable • Significant overlap with the running of Queue
Membership • Focus • Serving and satisfying members • Current concentration • Student satisfaction • Chapters • Distinguished Speakers Program • Digital Media Capture (DMC)
On-going Initiatives • India/China • Image and health of the field • Diversity • Revitalization of CACM • Council Retreat
India and China • Two task forces established • China • Met in October • Initial plans in place • ACM China Secretariat at Tsinghua • ACM China website in Chinese served from the Secretariat • Considering co-publishing a Chinese software/systems journal • Considering translation of popular content (CACM, Queue) to Chinese • Next meeting being planned • India • Task force is just now coming together • Meeting this Fall
Image and Health of the Field • Long-standing concern and focus • Activities • Globalization Report • Computer Science Teachers Association • Image Task Force • National Center for Women and Information Technology • ACM Education Policy Committee
Diversity • Gender equity • Year long effort underway to rethink/revitalize ACM-W • Hub within the National Center for Women and Information Technology (NCWIT) • Presenter of the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women annually • Ethnic diversity • Cosponsor of the Coalition to Diversify Computing • Sponsor of the Tapia Conference
CACM History • Launched in 1958 • By the late 1960’s CACM was established as a premiere research journal • Throughout the 1970’s ACM was changing • Conscious effort to serve the broad practitioner community • By the early 1980’s there were a number of issues with, or related to, CACM • Research articles were difficult to understand for many members • Results reported were not relevant for an increasing number of members • Increasing backlog • Transactions had emerged
CACM History • First redesign – early 1980’s • From a journal to a magazine • Try to satisfy everyone • Regular columns • News analysis • Hot technologies • Interviews • Case studies • Tutorials • Some research articles
CACM History • Second redesign – early 1990’s • Further “magazination” of CACM • Stronger focus on applications • More responsibility to professional staff • Smaller role played by editorial board • Why another redesign? • Pervasive dissatisfaction with current CACM • Current design over 20-year old • Evolving membership • Internet, WWW, Digital Library • Queue (2003)
CACM Redesign • Task force established by Dave Patterson in late 2005 • Options: • Minor change • Fully professional magazine (a la IEEE Spectrum) • ACM’s “Science” • Preferred: “Science”
CACM Redesign • The “Science” model • Extensive news section • Premier research journal • Perspectives (scientific or news) • Other features (book reviews, policy, education, etc.) • 51 issues per year, staff of 120 • Should CACM be a research journal (again)? No! • CS research is conference driven • Journal review process problematic • Solution • Solution: Research and Discovery (R&D) • (“Best of Best”) section with perspectives.
CACM Redesign • Task Force’s model for a new CACM • News • Columns • Computing Practices • R&D (with perspectives) • Moshe Vardi invited to take the lead in shaping this into a real model … and to be the EIC • Discussions: • SGB (February 5, 2005) • Three general discussions with membrers • New York (February 12, 2005) • San Francisco (March 16, 2005 • London (March 23, 2005) • Publications Board (May 15, 2005) • Executive Committee (May 18, 2005)
CACM Redesign • What was learned from the discussion groups? • ACM must have a print flagship publication. • Idea of R&D articles is great, but do not just reprint original articles. • Queue provides the right content for practitioners. • CACM should continue to publish peer-reviewed articles. • Edgier opinions desired. • New look&feel badly needed. • Consider changing name. • Moshe’s analysis of what went wrong • Under investment (5 FTEs vs. 15 FTEs) • Under involvement (by the Editorial Board)
CACM Redesign • New content model for CACM • News: • Unique CACM voice (in depth, global, cutting edge, people, ACM news) • Opinions: • Columns, viewpoints, counterpoints, interviews, etc. • Technology: • Queue content (with “perspectives”) • R&D: • Top articles from recent computing research (conference) literature (with perspectives) • Peer-reviewed articles: • Broad appeal, contributed and solicited
CACM Redesign • Editorial model: “Active and Authoritative” • Divide EB into six semi-autonomous committees, corresponding to CACM’s sections plus website. • Significant international involvement. • Let committees devise editorial models for each section. • Executive committee: EiC + committees’ chairs + publisher – oversight and coordination.
CACM Redesign • Implementation plan: • Hire magazine publisher (+ other skills) • Work out transition plan with Queue • Initiate graphic redesign • Form EB and refine editorial model • Start pipeline of R&D articles • Big-Bang issue: June 2008
CACM Redesign • Significant investment • ~ 14 staff • ~ $4 Million • Significant opportunity • To create the “Science Magazine” for computing • To create something of real value as the primary member benefit • To, in the long run, improve the prospects of acquiring and retaining members • Approved by ACM Council in June
Council Retreat • Two topics • ACM’s international model • ACM’s financial strategy
International Model - Context • Since 1990 ACM has had a goal of being more international • This goal has resulted in varying objectives over the past 15 years • Increasing the number of conferences held outside the US • Increasing the number of local chapters outside the US • Becoming an individual, international member of IFIP • Ensuring non-US membership on Council, the EC, ACM Boards, and committees • Increasing the number of non-US members • Increasing the number of non-US universities participating in the ACM ICPC • Ensuring international reach of the ACM Digital Library • Results have been mixed • Level of activity outside the US has increased • Yet, we are still viewed as a US-centric organization
International Model - Context • Key issues • There is a fairly consistent sense that ACM is somehow falling short in its role as an international society • Yet, we have no clear goals or objectives against which to measure progress • So, in what way is ACM failing? • Purpose of this discussion • Review where we really are as an organization • (Re)define our goals and objectives relative to ACM’s presence outside the US • (Re)consider what is the right model for ACM’s international reach given those goals/objectives? • What actions do we need to take? • The approach • HQ collected a significant amount of data on current engagement worldwide • Working group has helped shape the issue and the discussion outline • Joe Konstan, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, Alain Chesnais, Wendy Hall, Andrew McGettrick, and Alex Wolf