acm sgb meeting march 19, 2005 chicago. outline general state membership finances educational...

ACM

SGB MeetingMarch 19, 2005

Chicago

Outline• General state

− Membership− Finances

• Educational initiatives− CSTA− NCAA− ED Council

• Brand awareness• Council Offsite

Membership• Membership is growing

− Professional 59,900 60,000+− Student 20,700 20,000+− CSTA 1,400 2,000+

Membership• Membership is growing

− Professional 59,900 60,000+− Student 20,700 20,000+− CSTA 1,400 2,000+

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

ProfessionalMembers

Financial Highlights• FY ’05 SIG Projection

• Digital Library SIG distribution− Projection: $1,230,000

Projection Budget VarConference Net 3,250 2,368 882Operations Net (2,750) (2,754) 4

SIG Net 500 (386) 886

• Notes:− DL distribution of $1.23M− Reduced SIG Allocation for 2nd year

SIGs - In PerspectiveFY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY 03 FY 04 FY05

Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual ProjectionACM SIGsConference Revenue $22,233 $23,699 $24,755 $22,813 18,292 19,179 20,643Conference Expense $18,894 $19,867 $19,601 $21,370 18,906 17,004 17,393Conference Net $3,339 $3,832 $5,154 $1,443 ($614) $2,175 $3,250

Operations Revenue $3,591 $3,878 $3,651 $3,439 $3,572 $3,614 $3,837Operations Expense $6,198 $5,901 $6,828 $6,919 $6,434 $5,871 $6,587Operatons Net ($2,607) ($2,023) ($3,177) ($3,480) ($2,862) ($2,257) ($2,750) ACM SIG Net $732 $1,809 $1,977 ($2,037) ($3,476) ($82) $500

SIG Fund Balance

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

ACM SIG

Financial Highlights• DL Distribution in perspective

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

$1,230K

Financial Highlights• DL Distribution in perspective

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

$1,430K

Educational Activities

− CSTA− NCAA− ED Council

CSTA• Computer Science Teachers Association

− National organization for high school and middle school teachers of computer science

− Goal: address a real crisis facing computer science in high schools

− Immediate priorities• National standards for curriculum• Resources and professional development for teachers• Building a real community of CS educators• Engage the NCAA

CSTA• Launch

− January 1, 2005− Membership: ~ 2,000 by June 30

• Activities− Reconnecting across ACM educational activities− Refinement of strategic plan− NSF proposal− Advisory Council

CSTA Advisory Council• Frances E Allen

IBM Fellow Retired

• Phillip B. Gibbon: Principle Scientist, Intel Research

• Maria Klawe:Dean, Princeton

• Cathy Neuman:Cisco Networking Academy

• Greg Papadopoulos:Executive VP & CTO, Sun

• Debra J. Richardson:Dean, UC Irvine

• Eric Roberts:Stanford University

• Kevin Schofield: Strategy and Communications Microsoft Research

• Walt Jimenez:The College Board

CSTA• Launch

− January 1, 2005− Membership: ~ 2,000 by June 30

• Activities− Refinement of strategic plan− NSF proposal− Advisory Council− NCAA

NCAA• The issue

− Computer science has been eliminated as a core course for meeting initial eligibility

− Seriously negative message is going out to parents and students that “computer science doesn’t count”

− Yet another example of the challenge to, and marginalization of, computer science at the high school level

• Why would the NCAA do this?− Too many courses being put forward by high schools that

were nothing more than computer skills • The problem

− NCAA says they wanted to keep “real” computer science− Their implementation seems to eliminate all computer

science

NCAA• ACM and CSTA are challenging the NCAA

− ED Board− SIGCSE

• Letter to NCAA− Acknowledges the problem− Asks for an immediate reversal of the decision− Asks for an end to negative communication− Suggest standards:

• AP computer science• ACM K-12 Guidelines

− Offers to help

NCAA• Endorsements

− Computer Science Teachers Association− The College Board− Computing Research Association− National Center for Women and Technology− Bill Wulf, President, National Academy of Engineering

• Considering− AAAI− SIAM− Anita Borg Institute− IEEE-CS

• Supporting in principle− John Hennessy, President, Stanford University− Graham Spanier, President, Penn State University− Mark Emmert, President, University of Washington

• In front of− President, Princeton− President, Georgia Tech− President, University of Colorado

Education Council• ACM educational activities are increasing dramatically

− ED Board, SIGs, CSTA, …• Need to ensure better coordination• Reorganizing the ED Board

− Smaller Board− Education Council

• Education Council− New volunteer structure− Engage all ACM education activities at an annual meeting− Facilitate communication and collaboration across ACM− Foster educational initiatives that might be missed with the

current organization

Brand Awareness

• Multi-year project to raise awareness of ACM− Brand platform− Communications program

• The Brand Platform− Developed and vetted over the past year and a half− Endorsed by the ACM Executive Committee

• Key elements− ACM and its members advance computing as a science and

a profession• Enhancing our skills• Advancing our field• Growing our community• Defining our profession• Promoting our perspectives

Brand Awareness

IV. DETAILED FINDINGS A. Aided Awareness

ACM, the Association for Computing Machinery, dates back to this decade when ENIAC came on line

14%

15%

18%

18%

19%

20%

20%

21%

21%

22%

23%

36%

44%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

% Aided Awareness of Membership Groups in the Computing Field- % Member, Very Familiar, Somewhat Familiar -

IEEE

IEEE - CS

ISOC

ASIS

AIS

AITP

ACM

AMS

USENIX

ICCA

AAAI

AWC

WWISA 18%

20%

24%

22%

23%

28%

23%

24%

25%

27%

29%

38%

40%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

17%

18%

21%

20%

22%

21%

20%

26%

27%

27%

28%

38%

44%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

12%

12%

13%

18%

18%

16%

19%

18%

18%

16%

20%

39%

50%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Significantly higher at 90% confidence level. Significantly lower at 90% confidence level.Source: Tables 3-15; Q3: Please indicate if you are a member of each organization. If you are not a member, please indicate your degree of familiarity with the organizations: Very familiar, Somewhat familiar, Not a member but only know by name, Never heard of.

10%

10%

16%

12%

12%

17%

16%

17%

15%

21%

16%

23%

31%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Total(n=1525)

Academic/Educator(n=283)

Manager(n=389)

Practitioner(n=621)

Researcher(n=232)

13%

14%

17%

18%

18%

20%

21%

20%

22%

23%

20%

33%

42%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

% Aided Awareness of Membership Groups in the Computing Field- % Member, Very Familiar, Somewhat Familiar -

* US Only *

IEEE

IEEE - CS

ISOC

ASIS

AIS

AITP

ACM

AMS

USENIX

ICCA

AAAI

AWC

WWISA 15%

17%

23%

20%

21%

31%

23%

21%

23%

26%

23%

31%

35%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

18%

19%

20%

20%

21%

22%

21%

25%

30%

31%

25%

34%

43%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

10%

11%

12%

18%

18%

16%

23%

18%

19%

17%

18%

38%

49%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

10%

10%

15%

11%

12%

18%

15%

17%

15%

22%

14%

22%

29%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Significantly higher at 90% confidence level. Significantly lower at 90% confidence level.Source: Tables 3-15; Q3: Please indicate if you are a member of each organization. If you are not a member, please indicate your degree of familiarity with the organizations: Very familiar, Somewhat familiar, Not a member but only know by name, Never heard of.

Total US(n=1004)

Academic/Educator(n=180)

Manager(n=252)

Practitioner(n=391)

Researcher(n=181)

13%

12%

15%

15%

17%

14%

14%

20%

18%

13%

26%

40%

48%

0% 20% 40% 60%

% Aided Awareness of Membership Groups in the Computing Field- % Member, Very Familiar, Somewhat Familiar -

* Europe Only *

IEEE

IEEE - CS

ISOC

ASIS

AIS

AITP

ACM

AMS

USENIX

ICCA

AAAI

AWC

WWISA 17%

17%

18%

15%

20%

17%

18%

26%

25%

18%

32%

51%

51%

0% 20% 40% 60%

17%

16%

21%

21%

22%

17%

20%

31%

25%

17%

35%

46%

47%

0% 20% 40% 60%

8%

7%

10%

11%

12%

10%

7%

12%

13%

7%

19%

32%

45%

0% 20% 40% 60%

14%

10%

10%

19%

14%

19%

19%

14%

10%

14%

14%

33%

57%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Source: Tables 3-15; Q3: Please indicate if you are a member of each organization. If you are not a member, please indicate your degree of familiarity with the organizations: Very familiar, Somewhat familiar, Not a member but only know by name, Never heard of.

Total Europe(n=302)

Academic/Educator(n=65)

Manager(n=81)

Practitioner(n=135)

Researcher(n=21)

21%

22%

24%

22%

24%

22%

21%

26%

22%

25%

30%

43%

48%

0% 20% 40% 60%

% Aided Awareness of Membership Groups in the Computing Field- % Member, Very Familiar, Somewhat Familiar -

* Asia Only *

IEEE

IEEE - CS

ISOC

ASIS

AIS

AITP

ACM

AMS

USENIX

ICCA

AAAI

AWC

WWISA 31%

34%

34%

34%

34%

34%

28%

31%

34%

41%

50%

41%

44%

0% 20% 40% 60%

15%

15%

21%

17%

26%

21%

17%

23%

19%

21%

30%

40%

45%

0% 20% 40% 60%

26%

23%

21%

22%

21%

22%

20%

29%

22%

23%

24%

50%

59%

0% 20% 40% 60%

7%

14%

28%

17%

17%

10%

21%

21%

17%

21%

28%

28%

24%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Significantly higher at 90% confidence level.Source: Tables 3-15; Q3: Please indicate if you are a member of each organization. If you are not a member, please indicate your degree of familiarity with the organizations: Very familiar, Somewhat familiar, Not a member but only know by name, Never heard of.

Total Asia(n=204)

Academic/Educator(n=32)

Manager(n=53)

Practitioner(n=90)

Researcher(n=29)

IV. DETAILED FINDINGS A. Unaided Awareness

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

4%

6%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

1%

1%

1%

1%

4%

5%

9%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

% Unaided Awareness of Membership Groups in the Computing Field- Top Mentions -

IEEE, Institute for Electrical & Electronics Engineers

ACM, Association for Computing Machinery

IEEE-CS, IEEE Computer Society

ISOC, Internet Society

USENIX, the Advanced Computing Systems Association

AITP, Associa-tion of Information Technology Professionals

BCS, British Computer Society

*Denotes less than .5% Significantly higher at 90% confidence level.Source: Tables 65; Q2: Please type in the names of all the membership groups in the computing field (i.e., associations, societies, user groups) that you can think of.

1%

2%

5%

7%

6%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

1%

1%

1%

1%

6%

5%

13%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

1%

1%

1%

2%

2%

7%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

*

*

*

Total (n=1525)

Academic/Educator(n=283)

Manager(n=389)

Practitioner(n=621)

Researcher(n=232)

1%

1%

1%

2%

6%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

1%

1%

1%

1%

4%

1%

10%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

1%

1%

1%

1%

5%

0%

7%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

1%

1%

1%

1%

8%

15%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

1%

0%

1%

1%

2%

0%

7%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

*

% Unaided Awareness of Membership Groups in the Computing Field- Top Mentions -

* US Only *

*Denotes less than .5%. Significantly higher at 90% confidence level.Source: Tables 65; Q2: Please type in the names of all the membership groups in the computing field (i.e., associations, societies, user groups) that you can think of.

*

*

IEEE, Institute for Electrical & Electronics Engineers

ACM, Association for Computing Machinery

IEEE-CS, IEEE Computer Society

ISOC, Internet Society

USENIX, the Advanced Computing Systems Association

AITP, Associa-tion of Information Technology Professionals

BCS, British Computer Society

Total US(n=1004)

Academic/Educator(n=180)

Manager(n=252)

Practitioner(n=391)

Researcher(n=181)

1%

1%

5%

2%

1%

14%

5%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

1%

2%

2%

22%

7%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

0%

0%

0%

6%

5%

32%

6%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

0%

0%

0%

1%

2%

22%

8%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

24%

10%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

% Unaided Awareness of Membership Groups in the Computing Field- Top Mentions -* Europe Only *

*Denotes less than .5%.Source: Tables 65; Q2: Please type in the names of all the membership groups in the computing field (i.e., associations, societies, user groups) that you can think of.

IEEE, Institute for Electrical & Electronics Engineers

ACM, Association for Computing Machinery

IEEE-CS, IEEE Computer Society

ISOC, Internet Society

USENIX, the Advanced Computing Systems Association

AITP, Associa-tion of Information Technology Professionals

BCS, British Computer Society

*

*

Total Europe(n=302)

Academic/Educator(n=65)

Manager(n=81)

Practitioner(n=135)

Researcher(n=21)

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

4%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

1%

1%

2%

1%

1%

1%

6%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

0%

0%

6%

0%

3%

0%

3%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

0%

1%

1%

0%

1%

1%

8%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

3%

3%

3%

3%

0%

0%

7%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

% Unaided Awareness of Membership Groups in the Computing Field- Top Mentions -

* Asia Only *

*Denotes less than .5%.Source: Tables 65; Q2: Please type in the names of all the membership groups in the computing field (i.e., associations, societies, user groups) that you can think of.

IEEE, Institute for Electrical & Electronics Engineers

ACM, Association for Computing Machinery

IEEE-CS, IEEE Computer Society

ISOC, Internet Society

USENIX, the Advanced Computing Systems Association

AITP, Associa-tion of Information Technology Professionals

BCS, British Computer Society

Total (n=204)

Academic/Educator(n=32)

Manager(n=53)

Practitioner(n=90)

Researcher(n=29)

Raising Awareness

• Many components– Communications program– Focused PR on specific areas

• Awards• SIGs• CSTA• Washington policy activities

– Studies with impact• Job Migration – Globalization of IT• Voter registration database study

Council Offsite

Council Offsite• ACM Professional Members

Manager17%

Researcher11%

Other7%

Practitioner44%

Academic/Educator

21%

Council Offsite• ACM

− 61% practitioners and managers− 32% researchers and academics/educators

• Overarching brand platform message− ACM and its members advance computing as a

science and a profession

• Focus of the offsite:− How can ACM better serve professionals

(practitioners/managers) and the profession

Council Offsite• Approach

− Significant pre-work from a task force comprising• Terry Coatta• Laura Hill• Russ Shackelford• Fran Allen• Steve Bourne• Dave Patterson• Scooter Morris• Telle Whitney• Lynn Stein

− Recommendation• Launch a major initiative to services relevant to practitioners

and position ACM as really serving both the science and the profession

Initiative1. Real support for professional career development.

2. Major enhancement of professional development resources.

3. Introduction of an ACM certification program that is a valued specification of individual capability.

4. Introduction of a graded membership categories

5. Increase professional recognition for practitioners and managers

6. Increase local activities and integrate them better into ACM

7. Actively promote and be an advocate for the IT profession