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