HomeGeneral InformationLeader ResourcesGovernance Restructure

Governance Structure Frequently Asked Questions

The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document is a work in progress.  Additional quesitons and answers will be posted as information becomes available.

Q1. What are the main features of ISA’s current governance structure? (posted 6/6/2011)

Q2. What are the current trends regarding ISA’s membership and leadership? What are some of the key trends in the marketplace that might impact ISA’s governance strategies? (posted 6/6/2011)

Q3. What changes has ISA made to its governance structure since its inception? (posted 6/6/2011)

Q4. What are the indications that our current governance structure needs to be changed? Are there statistics or metrics that lead us to believe it’s the right time for a fundamental shift? (posted 6/6/2011)

Q5. Who is involved in studying our current and potential governance models? How can other stakeholders get involved?  (posted 6/6/2011)

Q6. What steps have currently been taken in this project? What steps do we anticipate as we move forward? Will ISA members and leaders have additional chances to provide input? (posted 6/6/2011)

Q7. What are we looking to gain from changing our governance model? What are the advantages of working within the “right” model and what are the risks if we have the “wrong” model? (posted 6/6/2011)

Q8. I am an ISA member and a volunteer leader. What is my role in this process? What kind of involvement should I have in these discussions? (posted 6/6/2011)

Q9. What kinds of groups or resources are typically included in the governance structure of a professional organization? (posted 8/12/2011)

Q10. What can we learn from other organizations? Are there established “best practices” for setting up governance models effectively?  (posted 8/12/2011)

Q11. Which model is ISA currently using, and what are the results of our current structure? (posted 8/12/2011)

Q12. Has the consulting group identified an “ideal” model for ISA’s governance structure? (posted 8/12/2011)

Q13. Will this model be presented to the Council of Society Delegates for approval? Are the details available for the Council to consider?  (posted 8/12/2011)

Q14. What are the main governance units in the proposed “ideal” model? (posted 8/12/2011)

Q15. The “ideal” model calls for the development of three new cross-functional, organization-wide activities – marketing, advocacy, and innovation. What are these units and how would they function in this structure? (posted 8/12/2011)

Q16. In this proposed structure, what channels does the average member have for providing feedback and influencing the direction of the society? (posted 8/12/2011)

Q17. How do these changes affect the number and amount of volunteers that we fund annually? In general, does this model require more volunteer leaders or fewer volunteer leaders than our current structure? (posted 8/12/2011)

Q18. How will geographic regions of the world be represented on the District Board of Directors? (posted 8/12/2011)

Q19. Is their representation based on proportional number of members in the society or does each region of the world have equal representation in this body? (posted 8/12/2011)

Q20. Will ISA ensure geographic diversity on the Board of Governors? (posted 8/12/2011)

Q21. How can we avoid a Board of Governors that all hail from one region of the world? (posted 8/12/2011)

Q22. Will this model have back-up plans in place in the cases of resignations from Governors or Directors?(posted 8/12/2011)

Q23. How will poor performance of any position or unit be addressed? (posted 8/12/2011)

Q24. What consequences will there be should there be insufficient revenues for an activity as compared to plan? (posted 8/12/2011)

Q25. How does the staff/volunteer relationship and partnership dynamic change or grow with this model? (posted 8/12/2011)

Q26. Would current leaders be migrated into the proposed model, and if so, how would that process work? (posted 8/12/2011)

Q1.  What are the main features of ISA’s current governance structure?

ISA is an open and inclusive society, serving members and customers in all parts of the world except as expressly prohibited by law. ISA’s current governance structure features many different groups responsible for various functions within the society’s mission.

These groups include:

• Sections: When a new member joins ISA, he or she is automatically assigned to the closest local geographic ISA Section. Members may choose an unaffiliated status if they do not wish to participate in their local Section. 
• Divisions: ISA Members may choose to belong to one or more technical interest groups, called Divisions. 
• Council of Society Delegates: Each ISA Section elects a delegate to serve on the Council of Society Delegates. The Council acts on matters affecting the fundamental governance of the Society, such as the ISA Bylaws, and elects officers of the Society. 
• District Vice Presidents and the Board of District Vice Presidents: Sections are grouped into geographical Districts. The Section Delegates from each District elect their District Vice President. The Board of District Vice Presidents reviews issues related to the Sections, Districts, Regions and other geographic membership matters. It grants and revokes Section Charters.
• Department Vice Presidents and the Board of Department Vice Presidents: Major Society interests are divided into Departments headed by a Department Vice President. Department Vice Presidents are elected by the Council of Society Delegates. Society Departments include Automation & Technology Divisions, Industries & Sciences Divisions, Image & Membership, Professional Development, Publications, Standards & Practices, and Strategic Planning. 
• ISA Executive Board: Elected by the Council of Society Delegates, the ISA Executive Board acts on questions of Society policy, major procedures, projects, and fiscal matters pertaining to ISA and its subsidiaries. The Executive Board oversees the Board of Department Vice Presidents, the Board of District Vice Presidents, and the ISA Professional Staff. 
• ISA Executive Committee: A subset of the ISA Executive Board, the Executive Committee acts for and with the authority of the Executive Board between its regular meetings to carry out the policies of the board. 
• President’s Department Standing Committees: Under the oversight of the Executive Committee, the President’s Department Standing Committees include the Automation Industry Advisory Council, the Conference & Exhibit Committee, the Engineering, Science, and Technology Policy Committee, and the Life Members Committee. 
• Past President’s Department Standing Committees: Under the oversight of the Executive Committee, the Past President’s Department Standing Committees include the Admissions Committee, the Honors & Awards Committee, the Nominations Committee, and the Officer Search Committee. 
• Treasurer’s Department Standing Committees: Under the oversight of the Executive Committee, the Treasurer’s Department Standing Committees include the Finance Committee and the Investments Committee. 
• ISA Professional Staff: Under the oversight of the ISA Executive Board, the ISA Executive Director leads a professional staff responsible for implementing the operations of the society.

A visual organization chart of the society’s current governance structure is available here. Descriptions of all committees and boards is available here.

Q2.  What are the current trends regarding ISA’s membership and leadership? What are some of the key trends in the marketplace that might impact ISA’s governance strategies?

As is the case with many though not all associations ISA’s overall membership numbers are declining: 

Our membership’s average age is increasing – the average ISA member today is 46 years old, compared to 45 years old in 2002. The average ISA section member is 50 years old, and the average ISA division member is 41 years old.

One of ISA’s priorities over the next several years is to recruit and retain a younger generation of members and leaders. Research suggests that younger generations value defined volunteer leadership opportunities with clear start and end dates over multi-year elected positions.

Many leaders have to serve multiple terms in the same position because of lack of involvement and engagement.

Significant market trends affecting ISA’s governance include the following:

• ISA has lost market share in several areas; new, for-profit competitors have emerged in many product areas, including training, certification, and technical publications
• Networking opportunities and technical resources (two key drivers for ISA membership and involvement) are more widely available using the Internet and social media 
• ISA faces increased competition for members’ and leaders’ time – there are many options for volunteer service today 
• ISA’s historical sources of revenue, including advertising and exhibiting revenue, are shrinking
   

Q3.  What changes has ISA made to its governance structure since its inception?

ISA’s governance has changed very little since its inception. In 2001, the Council of Society Delegates voted to reduce the size of the Executive Board from 24 members to 18 members and created two subsidiary Boards – the Board of District Vice Presidents and the Board of Department Vice Presidents – to work under the authority of the ISA Executive Board. The creation of the two Activity Boards did not change the overall basic governance structure of ISA.

Q4. What are the indications that our current governance structure needs to be changed? Are there statistics or metrics that lead us to believe it’s the right time for a fundamental shift?

ISA leaders have identified the following weaknesses in the current ISA governance structure:

Within our current structure, it is difficult to make timely decisions to meet the demands of today’s fast-paced operating environment.
ISA’s current governance structure requires several levels of approval to make business decisions affecting the society’s products and services. As an example, if ISA identified a business opportunity and wanted to develop and sell a new program outside of the current year’s approved budget, the proposal would need to go through several different committees and steps, some of which can only be completed at certain times of the year. A diagram of this example’s approval process exists here.  This example illustrates the complexity of our current governance as it relates to making decisions in a business environment. While it is important to have approval processes in place, a complex governance structure can slow the speed at which ISA can bring products and services to the marketplace – a key differentiator between us and our for-profit competitors.

ISA’s leadership pool is comprised of dedicated, passionate leaders – but that pool is shrinking and the resulting gaps are putting too much pressure on our current volunteers. Additionally, our current structure requires multi-year commitments to many positions, and research suggests that younger members prefer project-based, short-term leadership opportunities.
Nearly every volunteer organization wishes for more dedicated, passionate leaders in their ranks, and ISA is no exception. ISA’s governance, however, requires a certain number of leaders to fill the positions that we’ve created. In any given year, there are at least 700 governance positions within our current structure. Ideally, we would expect to see at least 500 individuals filling these positions and participating in our society’s leadership. Instead, our data shows that less than 400 individuals fill these positions. The dedication and perseverance that these 400 individuals have shown for ISA should be honored and respected – but how many of these individuals can maintain their pace for the next ten years? How many of these individuals would prefer to transition their roles over to younger members so that they can concentrate on serving the society and their companies in new ways? How could ISA’s products and services benefit from the combination of the knowledge of our experienced volunteers and the fresh perspective of newly engaged volunteers? A governance structure that fits our needs right now must take these questions into consideration. 

Many of ISA’s sections have struggled with low levels of participation and leadership over the past several years, and representation at the society level has suffered as a result.  
In our current structure, ISA’s sections are charged with electing the Council of Society Delegates body, and through that body, we elect the ISA Executive Board, District Vice Presidents, Department Vice Presidents, and vote on major society programs and decisions. The model relies on a strong, vibrant section network throughout the world to ensure representation from all corners of the membership. There are several metrics that lead us to conclude that ISA’s membership is not being adequately represented within our governance structure:

• In the last five years, only 3 new sections have been chartered 
• In the last five years, 31 sections have had their charters revoked due to inactivity 
• Less than 10% of ISA Sections annually submit nominations for Section Performance Award. Since inception in 1996, the award has been presented 59 times to 20 unique Sections.
• ISA’s sections are grouped into districts, and the delegates from each district elect a District Vice President to interface with the sections within their district. District Vice Presidents are required to provide an annual report detailing the number of visits they have made to the sections in their District. This ensures that sections have representation at the District level and therefore at the Board level of the society’s governance structure. In 2006, District Vice Presidents, on average, visited only 29.6% of the sections in their district. In 2010, that number fell to just 26.8%. 
• Since 2000, 80% of Sections have either reappointed Section Presidents to multiple terms or reported no coded leader in this position.

ISA’s financial resources are shrinking, and the cost of a complex governance structure is increasing.
The society will spend more than $1M in 2011 financing our current governance structure. In addition, ISA volunteers have a limited amount of their most valuable resource – their time. Complex governance requires lengthy commitments and hundreds of hours of time spent in meetings, preparing reports, and navigating ISA’s committees. The complexity of the current structure puts undue burdens on our leaders and our financial resources, and a more simplistic approach may enable dedicated volunteers to make more of an impact in fewer hours, while spending fewer dollars. Imagine the possibilities if our dedicated leaders could spend more time on developing technical content, creating more standards for industry, authoring books and articles, generating high quality content for our conferences and symposia, networking with each other to maintain and develop their many friendships developed while being active volunteers and mentoring the next generation of professionals – while saving some of the society’s financial resources for the future.
 

Q5.  Who is involved in studying our current and potential governance models? How can other stakeholders get involved? 

A governance restructure task force was established in October 2010 to review the strategic plan and anticipated challenges (economic, competitive, volunteer dynamics, etc.) of the next several years and then examine various trends in association governance with an eye toward revalidating the current structure or proposing a more optimum configuration to meet anticipated challenges. A complete task force charter is available online.

The task force will develop a plan for improvement that provides the following:

• Identification of anticipated challenges
• Affirmation of Strategic Plan and associated process
• Examination of various governance models with pros and cons including recommendation
• Proposed plan of action for obtaining Society wide buy-in including statement of work, schedule, and associated costs

Members of the task force include (click on each member’s name to read their profile): 

• Chair: Ian Verhappen, Vice President, Strategic Planning Department
• Catherine Andrews, Vice President-elect, Image and Membership Department
• Jeff Blair, St. Louis Past Section President
• Patrick Gouhin, ISA Executive Director
• Terry Ives, Chair, Finance Committee
• Glynn Mitchell, Atlanta Section President
• Bill Stange, Division Leader, Past District and Department VP
• Billy Walsh, Vice President-elect, Strategic Planning Department

Task force members represent a combined total of 134 years of ISA membership and leadership, and bring a diversity of geographic and departmental perspectives that will be critical in evaluating any potential governance model changes.

In addition to the input of the task force and the ISA Executive Board, ISA asks for your input into this process as well, at any step along the way. Comments may be submitted online and will remain anonymous unless signed by a particular member or leader.


Q6. What steps have currently been taken in this project? What steps do we anticipate as we move forward? Will ISA members and leaders have additional chances to provide input?

A complete timeline of ISA’s governance function and this project is available online.

The following steps have been taken so far in the governance restructure initiative:

• In June 2010, the ISA Executive Committee reported its development of a proposal to hire an outside consultant to review ISA’s current governance model and develop recommendations that might potentially enhance ISA’s governance process
• In October 2010, at the Council of Society Delegates Preview Session, held during the ISA Fall Leader Meeting in Houston, Texas, Steven Worth of the Plexus Group gave a presentation on what defines good governance and how societies can cultivate it
• In October 2010, ISA’s Executive Board approved basic funding to continue the governance study project
• In October 2010, ISA’s Executive Committee established the Governance Restructure Task Force to work with an outside consultant to review the strategic plan and long-term challenges facing the society; the task force’s charter calls for the group to examine trends in association governance with an eye toward revalidating our current structure or proposing a more optimum configuration to meet anticipated challenges
• In December 2010, the ISA Governance Task Force met at ISA Headquarters with consultant Steven Worth as facilitator; using the concept of “form follows function,” the group conducted a SWOT analysis to identify key elements of ISA’s strategic environment that any governance structure must address (link to SWOT analysis once uploaded)
• Between January 2011 and May 2011, using the concept of “form follows function,” the Governance Task Force worked through ISA’s established Strategic Planning Process to develop a strategic plan that will identify the desired “function” for the society; concurrently, consultant Steven Worth worked with the task force to develop the “form,” i.e. potential governance models that best help ISA fulfill its mission
• In February 2011, the Governance Restructure Task Force launched an informative web page, www.isa.org/governancerestructure, within the ISA Leader Resources section of the ISA web site; the page includes an input form for members to provide opinions and feedback
• In March 2011, ISA President Leo Staples issued an open article to ISA members via ISA Insights monthly e-newsletter, giving an update on progress so far and asking members for input 
• In March 2011, the Governance Restructure Task Force offered ISA District Vice Presidents the option to hold an information session at each District Leadership Conference on the topic of governance, presented by a member of the Task Force; several Districts arranged to hold presentations during their DLC events (Link to DLC presentation)
• In April 2011, Governance Restructure Task Force Chair Ian Verhappen issues open article to ISA members via ISA Insights monthly e-newsletter; giving an update on progress so far and asking members for input
• In May 2011, a presentation of ISA’s Draft Strategic Plan is released for member review and input

Anticipated future milestones include:

• June 2011: the Governance Restructure Task Force will hold an informative web seminar for ISA’s leaders providing background information, current status, and next steps in the governance restructure initiative 
• June 2011: the Governance Restructure Task Force will hold a Town Meeting at the ISA Spring Leader Meeting in St. Louis, MO; town hall meeting will include a presentation of best practices and potential governance models to facilitate ISA’s long term success 
• July 2011 – October 2011: Based on best practices and potential governance models presented at the SLM Town Meeting, the Governance Restructure Task Force will work to develop a proposed/draft governance model that reflects a realistic, actionable change that is manageable for ISA at this time
• October 2011: the Governance Restructure Task Force will present the Council of Society Delegates with a draft/proposed governance model; the Council of Society Delegates will vote to approve the next step in the process and authorize the Governance Task Force to develop a detailed model and transition plan that outlines how ISA will move to a new structure; if this work is authorized, a detailed model and transition plan will be considered for adoption by the Council of Society Delegates in October 2012 
• March 2012: an update report from the Governance Restructure Task Force will be sent via email to all ISA members and leaders; Task Force members will be available to attend and present at ISA District Leadership Conferences if District Vice Presidents request their participation 
• June 2012: a presentation and question/answer session covering the current status of the governance restructure initiative will be held at the 2012 ISA Spring Leader Meeting
• October 2012: if this work is sanctioned by the Council of Society Delegates in October 2011, the ISA Governance Task Force will bring a detailed model and transition plan forward for Council of Society Delegates approval and adoption at the October 2012 Fall Leader Meeting

Would you like to provide feedback or ask questions about the task force’s progress? Comments may be submitted online and will remain anonymous unless signed by a particular member or leader.


Q7. What are we looking to gain from changing our governance model? What are the advantages of working within the “right” model and what are the risks if we have the “wrong” model?

Using the logic of “form follows function,” the governance restructure task force is working to identify, with input from the membership and leadership, what function ISA could and should serve in the marketplace. The governance restructure task force performed a SWOT analysis to identify ISA’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats as a first step in this process. From this analysis, and the draft ISA Strategic Business Plan, the task force identified several key drivers for change regarding our organizational structure.

If ISA implements a model that truly fits our organization’s future, the advantages and benefits would include:

• simplified, faster decision-making 
• clearer accountability
• identification of ISA’s key current and potential markets
• increased focus on the “voice of the customer”
• improved understanding of member/customer needs
• diversification and increase of non-dues revenues
• improved organizational efficiency and productivity
• development of new global market opportunities
• improved business development strategies
• improved internal/external communications strategies
• increased ability to keep pace with external change

If ISA makes no changes, we can expect to see the same structural challenges that we currently face. If ISA chooses a model that is inconsistent with the direction of the organization, we will likely continue to experience the negative effects of operating within a structure that doesn’t fit our needs.

Using the right model, and drawing on our existing strengths, ISA’s governance model would be designed and centered on these high priority opportunities:

• simplify governance, communication, and accountability practices; create a “nimble” organization
• create a market-focused ISA, based on the “voice of the customer”
• prioritize global, industry and member/customer growth
• establish advocacy/business development function
• encourage innovation and entrepreneurship of ISA products, programs, and services

Would you like to provide your feedback and input on these priorities? Comments may be submitted online and will remain anonymous unless signed by a particular member or leader.


Q8. I am an ISA member and a volunteer leader. What is my role in this process? What kind of involvement should I have in these discussions?

As an active ISA leader, you have the most valuable perspective of all, and it is critical for members and leaders to provide input as we move through this process.

The engaged and responsible volunteer leader should take the following steps (links to appropriate items):

• Stay informed regarding the progress of the Governance Restructure Task Force by visiting the task force’s web site, inviting a task member to give an update at one of your meetings or events in person when possible or virtually via internet and phone otherwise, reading the latest news via ISA Insights, and attending ISA Leader Meetings 
• View the Governance Restructure Timeline, the presentation given at the ISA Fall Leader Meeting in 2010, and the Governance Restructure Task Force Web Seminar, given in June 2011 
• Think critically about the organization’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) and provide input into the strategic direction of the society 
• Provide feedback on governance models that you believe would be efficient, responsive, and market-driven 
• Ask questions that may help the Governance Restructure Task Force think through the details of potential governance models and implementation plans

With your perspective and valuable input, ISA’s governance model can leverage our strengths and bolster our weaknesses, leading the organization into a bright future.

Q9. What kinds of groups or resources are typically included in the governance structure of a professional organization?

In general there are three categories of resources that professional societies use to address their vision and mission. While the titles may change from organization to organization, the common three categories are:

• Knowledge: produced, developed, and accessed by subject matter experts and staff, knowledge refers to the unique and specialized knowledge and experience of the profession that the organization represents. Knowledge is made accessible to members and customers through a variety of revenue-producing goods and services, including standards, certification, training, technical publications, conferences, and printed/electronic media. Produced without regard to geographical location, these goods and services are often the major revenue source for the organization.
  • In ISA’s current structure, knowledge resources are represented by ISA’s Technical Divisions and Standards Committees
• Fellowship: often local and regional activities, fellowship consists of opportunities for peer-to-peer networking and interaction within the profession. These resources are typically not revenue-producing, and expenses are met through dues, admission fees, and subsidies from other revenue-producing sources.
  • In ISA’s current structure, fellowship is represented by ISA’s Sections and Divisions
• Advocacy: consisting of a wide range of activities, goods, and services, advocacy refers to the advancement and promotion of the profession with government, industry, education, members, customers, and the general public. These resources, although often used as business development opportunities, are typically not revenue-producing and expenses are met through dues, contributions, admission fees, and subsidies from other revenue-producing sources.

In order to sustain these categories of mission-oriented resources, professional societies require a range of organization-wide support activities, including direct (tangible) functions such as the development and coordination of publications, education and training, events, etc. Equally important are the indirect (intangible) functions, such as finance, human resources, customer service, leader resources, etc. No organization can exist and perform successfully without these support activities – they are interconnected with the functional development of any program or service. 
 

Q10. What can we learn from other organizations? Are there established “best practices” for setting up governance models effectively?

There are three organizational models typically utilized by professional societies: a functional model; a divisional model; and a matrix model. 

Associations typically start out with a functional structure, organized to produce the organization’s major programs, products, and services. This structure works well for organizations which are small, geographically centralized, and provide a limited number of products. In this structure, there is a central office which oversees the various major functions, and each function operates on its own while relying on the central office to provide organizational support (human resources, finances, marketing, etc.)

The functional model comes with several downsides, including:

• Perspectives may be narrowed by function, duplications of activities across functions, and competition among separate functions
• Flexibility and response to change may be slow and difficult
• Decisions and communications may be slow to implement
• Employees and volunteers get experience in only their function; there is little opportunity to see and understand the interrelationships and interdependencies of the organization as a whole

As organizations grow, diversify, and expand geographically, they often adopt a divisional structure. In a divisional structure, there is a centralized corporate office and various divisions exist under it to provide specific output for product production (design, manufacturing, customer service, geographical divisions, etc.) Departments allow a more efficient use of staff and resources by reducing duplication, allowing greater specialization and a focus on performance monitoring. The structure is more flexible and responsive than a functional structure. However, there may be duplicated and wasted management time with this model – there is often a duplication of work processes, resources, and management, especially in geographically dispersed organizations. Organizations may also suffer from a lack of communication and an abundance of competition among groups for the resources provided by the centralized corporate office.

In a matrix organization, the model combines functional specialization with the focus of divisional structures. A key feature of matrix structures is the use of permanent cross-functional teams and limited-duration project teams to integrate functional expertise with expertise from a divisional focus. Team members typically belong to at least two formal groups at the same time – a functional group (for example engineering teams in a company and a product, program, or service team such as a project team. Almost all ISA members belong to matrix organizations: we typically belong to the automation discipline team administratively while being assigned and working on multiple project teams. Our discipline supervisor is responsible for our corporate well being while we also have to report to one or more project managers for our day-to-day work. Special training is needed to help team members, and especially team leaders, become effective.

A matrix structure breaks down departmental barriers, speeds up decision-making and response times, and allows technical and management training across functional areas. Potential advantages of this model include increased cooperation, problem-solving, increased flexibility, better customer service, more performance accountability, and an improved strategic management. Among the drawbacks include the “two-boss” reporting system, team loyalties that may overshadow organizational goals.
 

Q11. Which model is ISA currently using, and what are the results of our current structure?

According to the findings of a third party expert in organizational development, ISA is currently using a functional structure – a model that is inwardly focused around the budgeting and production of major goods and services. 

This structure limits resources, communications, response time, adaptability, and geographic growth. “Inwardly focused” organizations tend to focus on “things we like to do” versus “things the market wants and needs” – this focus on our own internal voice rather than the voice of the customer is a critical weakness in our current structure potentially limiting ISA from representing the full automation industry.

ISA’s “inward focus” versus “market focus” can be determined by evaluating:

• The number of new products, programs, and services in the last three years, and the number of existing programs that have been modified, reduced, or sunset
• Internal competition for available resources
• A focus on individual sections,  divisions, or business units/activities by staff and volunteers.
• Lower awareness or concern for ISA-wide policy and issues than of how what I am doing affects the Society as a whole and/or how it “fits in” with the Society’s goals.
   

Q12. Has the consulting group identified an “ideal” model for ISA’s governance structure?

Yes. The process of changing an organization’s structure is a complex and lengthy one, so it is helpful to start by defining an “ideal” model that the organization might strive to achieve over time. Bearing in mind that as the environment in which we live will also evolve so will the “ideal model.” It is understood that ISA’s current structure and the “ideal” structure are very different, and a hybrid of some sort may be the best solution for the short-term while we work toward the larger changes involved in the “ideal” model. This hybrid solution will be the work of the task force to study, develop, and recommend to the Council of Society Delegates at a future session, likely at the Fall Leader Meeting in 2012.

The “ideal” model, developed by the consulting group, consists of a new Board of Governors, plus two new Boards of Directors, one for the technical divisions and one for the sections/districts. Overlaid on the primary functions of technical divisions and sections/districts are three new cross-functional, organization-wide activities – marketing, advocacy, and innovation – in a matrix arrangement. In this matrix arrangement, staff and volunteers would work together in these cross-functional activities. Normal, required support activities, such as human resources, finances, and customer service, are grouped below the primary functional activities, similar to the existing format.

Assuming a new governance model is implemented it will be reviewed after it has been implemented and in place for a short time to confirm that the changes are having a positive impact on ISA better serving our members as representatives of the global automation market. The Task Force anticipates this review will be necessary five (5) years after the implementations get underway.

Would you like to provide your input on this governance model? Comments may be submitted online and will remain anonymous unless signed by a particular member or leader. 

Q13. Will this model be presented to the Council of Society Delegates for approval? Are the details available for the Council to consider?

In October 2011, the Governance Restructure Task Force will present the Council of Society Delegates with a draft/proposed governance model; the Council of Society Delegates will vote to approve the next step in the process and authorize the Governance Task Force to develop a more detailed model and a transition plan that outlines how ISA will move to a new structure; if the motion approves the concepts presented in the proposed model is authorized, a detailed model and transition plan will be considered for adoption by the Council of Society Delegates in October 2012.

Experts recommend gaining an early “approval in principle” decision, which establishes the high-level organizational model to be implemented over time, in a planned sequence. This implementation plan will be another approval milestone in the process so that key stakeholders (in this case, ISA’s Council of Society Delegates) will approve not only the high-level direction of the initiative but also the detailed implementation plan needed to move the organization into its future. By gaining an “approval in principle” of the high-level model, ISA will agree on the ultimate outcomes we are seeking through the initiative, and set the stage for a prudent and orderly process to define and complete the detailed analysis, planning, and implementation sequencing that must take place.

This method of developing change requires consistent communication with stakeholders as the process moves forward. The Governance Restructure Task Force intends to publish articles, updates, and additional FAQ documents on the task force’s web site, as well as via face-to-face interaction at various leader and member meetings in the upcoming months.

In order to be sure that the task force is taking all perspectives into consideration, we urge you to provide your input and feedback throughout the process. Comments may be submitted online and will remain anonymous unless signed by a particular member or leader.

Q14. What are the main governance units in the proposed “ideal” model?

 Discussion about the main governance units to be included in the "ideal" model is currently taking place among ISA leaders.  Information will be provided at a later time.  We welcome your your input and feedback . 

Q15. The “ideal” model calls for the development of three new cross-functional, organization-wide activities – marketing, advocacy, and innovation. What are these units and how would they function in this structure?

The proposed model calls for three new, cross-functional units:

• Marketing and Sales
• Advocacy and Business Development
• Innovation

The Marketing and Sales Unit would be an integrated marketing, sales, and relationship group to focus ISA’s capabilities in marketing, sales, delivery, customer service, financial analysis, and pricing of products and services. This unit represents a strategic shift from an “inward focus” on products to an “outward, market focus” on the goods and services needed and valued by key ISA markets.

A staff unit would be created to oversee the following functions:

• Portfolio-wide Assessment: the group would work to assess ISA’s current portfolio of programs, products, and services to shape the future ISA portfolio
• Marketing: the group would create an organization-wide annual marketing plan, including pricing, promotion, and placement of products and services
• Data Analysis: the group would gather and analyze data on the effectiveness of the organization-wide marketing and sales plan
• Customer Sales/Service: the group would manage the enterprise sales and customer service functions of ISA

A volunteer Advisory Committee would be created to assist, support, and communicate about the activities of the Marketing and Sales unit. The committee includes the Vice Chairs of the Board of Governors and the two Boards of Directors, along with other key volunteers.

The governance restructure task force will be working with leadership and the consulting group to develop the following:

• recommendations for migrating from our existing staff competencies to a new, more strategic set of competencies required for this new Marketing and Sales unit
• recommendations for funding an increase in size and scope of professional staff
• proposal for how key volunteers are recruited or appointed to the Marketing and Sales Advisory Committee, along with more details on the role and scope of this committee

The Advocacy and Business Development Unit would be responsible for promoting and advancing ISA and the automation industry in key markets, including governments, industry, education, members, media, customers, and the general public. The group would work to develop and expand beneficial member and customer relationships in key ISA markets, and to provide resources and information for ISA leaders, members, students, and publics.

A staff unit would be created to oversee the following functions:

• Member and Customer Development: planned annual development and expansion of ISA membership, programs, products, and services
• ISA-wide Communications: the group would be a home for ISA’s print, electronic, and oral communications and presentations
• Annual Communications Planning: development and support for on-going annual communications plan and associated resources, in direct support of strategic/business annual plans
• Liaison: foster close relationships and coordination with ISA operational units and governance, including the Marketing and Sales Unit

A volunteer Advisory Committee would be created to assist, support, and communicate about the activities of the Advocacy and Business Development unit. The committee would include up to 5 volunteers, including representation from the Board of Governors and the two Boards of Directors.

The governance restructure task force will be working with leadership and the consulting group to develop the following:

• recommendations for migrating from our existing staff competencies to a new, more strategic set of competencies required for this new Advocacy and Business Development unit
• recommendations for funding an increase in size and scope of professional staff
• proposal for how key volunteers are recruited or appointed to the Advocacy and Business Development Advisory Committee, along with more details on the role and scope of this committee
• information on how this Unit’s core functions compare to the core functions of the Marketing and Sales Unit, identifying any areas of overlap or redundancy and proposing a merging of the two Units if needed
• information on how this Unit’s goals compare to the goals of the Automation Federation and other existing ISA staff and volunteer groups

The Innovation and Entrepreneurship Unit would serve to encourage and support organizational innovation and entrepreneurial activity in two categories: breakthrough innovation and sustaining/incremental innovation. Breakthrough innovation covers ideas that do not fit well or are significantly different from ISA’s existing programs and products. These ideas may be “game-changers” or “disruptive” ideas that redefine the marketplace. Sustaining/incremental innovation covers ideas that enhance or add value to existing programs, products, and services. These ideas may change the dynamics within the existing programs or marketplace.

This volunteer-led Unit consists of an Operating Committee composed of 5-7 volunteers serving in 3-year staggered terms with staff support for annual operations. The Unit would be responsible for the following functions:

• establishing specific written objectives and performance metrics in support of ISA’s annual strategic and business plans
• recommending the elimination of less effective programs
• recommending the creation of new programs to serve the marketplace
• recommendations on resource allocation to support new programs, products, and services
• utilize a discrete operational budget for these activities and achievements; report progress through the Board of Governors

The governance restructure task force will be working with leadership and the consulting group to develop the following:

• proposal for how key volunteers are recruited or appointed to the Innovation and Entrepreneurship Unit, along with more details on the role and scope of this committee
• information on how this Unit’s core functions affect the oversight of the professional staff, including prioritization and allocation of staff resources
• recommendations for the Unit’s placement in the proposed structure – could this Unit be a standing committee under the Board of Governors or should it be a stand-alone unit as described above?

Comments? Questions? Feedback may be submitted online and will remain anonymous unless signed by a particular member or leader.

Q16. In this proposed structure, what channels does the average member have for providing feedback and influencing the direction of the society?

There should not be any significant changes in communicating with ISA other than greater access to both the volunteer leadership and the cross functional staff teams.

Q17. How do these changes affect the number and amount of volunteers that we fund annually? In general, does this model require more volunteer leaders or fewer volunteer leaders than our current structure?

We anticipate there will be slightly fewer volunteers required at the levels of governance shown in the proposed model however as a result we anticipate there will be additional opportunities at and support for the Section, Division and Standard Committee level activities of the Society.

Q18. How will geographic regions of the world be represented on the District Board of Directors?

We anticipate little if any change from the way Sections and Districts operate today other than having better coordination with the Divisions through the joint Membership and C&E Working Groups.

Q19. Is their representation based on proportional number of members in the society or does each region of the world have equal representation in this body?

Little if any change is anticipated in how the Geographic part of the Society determines it should govern itself. The District Activity Board presently has the mandate to oversee Section Charters as well as the formation of Regions and Districts.

Q20. Will ISA ensure geographic diversity on the Board of Governors?

It is not presently planned to mandate representation by various constituencies but to get the most qualified person for the role. As can be seen by the composition of the Department and Executive Board today we have a broad cross-section of geographic, ethnic, and age distributions. In principle “affirmative action’ as suggested by this question is counter to getting the best candidates in place.

Q21. How can we avoid a Board of Governors that all hail from one region of the world?

In addition to the above answer, if necessary one of the appointed external director positions could be used to bring in a specific required expertise for a certain isuue.

Q22. Will this model have back-up plans in place in the cases of resignations from Governors or Directors?

This model does have ‘elects’ for all positions – for the final year of service.

Q23. How will poor performance of any position or unit be addressed;

All appointments other than the elected 3+1 positions are annual with a maximum number of continuous renewals meaning that if someone is not fulfilling their obligations they will not be reappointed. This is already happening in parts of the Society.

Q24. What consequences will there be should there be insufficient revenues for an activity as compared to plan?

As per the description for the Innovation and Entrepreneurship Unit all projects will undergo a regular review. The new model includes a provision for continuous development of new projects that are to be strategic (similar to “dragons den”) with criteria similar to those of any entrepreneurial activity with detailed funding reviews at key junctures (in addition to the regular reviews) ISA continues to make investments in strategic long term activities as evidenced by the CCST, CAP, Automation Federation and or Standards Development. Of course if ‘money is tight’ we may like any business any project  may slow to a minimum or be placed into maintenance mode.

Q25. How does the staff/volunteer relationship and partnership dynamic change or grow with this model?

Intent is to continue to grow the partnership between staff and volunteer as is happening in many cases already.

Q26. Would current leaders be migrated into the proposed model, and if so, how would that process work?

A transition plan will be put into place once a model has been accepted. Without a model it is impossible to know what transitions will be required. As was the case in the last governance change just over 10 years ago the transition plan will include a plan for all elected Society officers to complete their elected terms. This means a person elected at the Delegates meeting in September 2012 will complete their term 4 years later. (2013-2014 as an elect and 2015-2016 as a VP (or the new equivalent). Of course if candidates are willing to change sooner then this could also be accommodated.