National Society of Professional Engineers. Membership Model Research and Options Overview

Transcription

1 National Society of Professional Engineers Membership Model Research and Options Overview 1

2 Association Landscape in 2016 Technology Expectations Changing Member Demographics Information Overload Calls for Explicit ROI Regulatory Climate Employer Policies 2

3 Membership Structures are Changing Reported in McKinley s 2013 Economic Impact of Association, 7of10 associations made or considered making some type of change to their membership structure. A range of options are being pursued: In the past year, have you made or have you considered making significant changes to your membership structure and benefits packages? Please describe those changes. Creation of new membership categories 25% Addition of new member benefits 21% Dues restructure 17% A la carte/online membership offering 12% Group membership 7% Reduced cost of membership 6% Streamlined categories 5% Bundling options 5% Consideration of structural changes 5% Structural changes 5% Increase in dues N=172 4% 3

4 Research Review 4

5 Project Overview Project Immersion Data Review Telephone Interviews Electronic Survey Benchmarking Research Analysis and Model Development Market Testing Refinement and Forecasting Final Recommendations 5

6 Data Review and Telephone Interviews Data Review Reviewed membership data and previous research reports to draw preliminary conclusions and inform future research phases Conducted in November and December 2015 Telephone Interviews 10 telephone interviews: 7 Board members 3 committee representatives (membership and communications) Included 2 state execs Conducted in December 2015 January

7 Retention Data 82% NSPE Retention Rate vs. Average Roundtables Retention Rate % Roundtables average 83% NSPE 84% 80% 79%

8 Change in State Society Memberships June 2010 June 2015 Impact of State Only -12% Three Tier states -15% States with State-Only Option Change in State Society Memberships June 2010 June tier + state only members 3 tier members only 0.1% -22% -20% -38% State-only option with self billing State-only option with National billing 8

9 Attitudes and Perceptions Overall Sentiment Pursuing an integrated, three-tiered system emerged as the model approach with the most support; several spoke of momentum gained over the past few years. Current Challenges NSPE needs to continue to attack its central challenge: developing and communicating its value propositions and relevance. Future Opportunities NSPE should proactively work to increase tangible member value in addition to its role as an advocate for professional engineering and licensure 9

10 Sent to 24,209 valid addresses Fielded for 14 days (February 11 - February 25) 8% response rate o o 1,479 completes 559 partial responses Survey Results Which of the following best describes current or former membership level? (N = 1,886) National, state and local 77% National only 6% State and local only 12% I don t know 6% 10

11 Demographics How long have you been a member of NSPE? (N = 1,105) 35% Which of the following best represents your specialty area within engineering? (N = 1,404) Civil 40% Mechanical 17% 20% 17% Electrical Other, please specify: 9% 14% 12% 10% Structural 7% 5% 2% Environmental 7% Less than a year 1-5 years 6-10 years years years More than 20 years Don't know Interdisciplinary Chemical 4% 3% 11

12 Satisfaction How satisfied are you with your NSPE membership at the following levels? National (N = 1,506) State (N = 699) Local (N = 684) 48% 45% 40% 25% 33% 28% 25% 19% 19% 4% 5% 6% 0% 1% 3% Extremely satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Extremely dissatisfied 12

13 Cost vs. Value Based on the amount you pay in dues, would you say the value you receive from NSPE membership is greater than the cost of membership, equal to the cost of membership, or less than the cost of membership? (N = 1,507) 24% value is greater than the cost of membership 42% 34% value is less than the cost of membership 27% 18% 6% 7% Far greater than the cost of membership Somewhat greater than the cost of membership Equal to the cost of membership Somewhat less than the cost of membership Far less than the cost of membership 13

14 NPS Benchmarked Net Promoter Score Benchmarked Scientific/Engineering Professional Societies Average: 9% 45% 9% 10% 11% 11% 16% 16% 16% 17% 21% 23% 25% -24% -18% -16% -14% Note: When asked generally, NSPE s net promoter score differed from when respondents were asked to individually recommend national NSPE (-18), state NSPE (-4) and local NSPE (-1). 14

15 Value Which level of NSPE delivers the most value to you? (N = 1,184) 31% 27% 26% 16% National State Local Unsure 15

16 Benefits and Services How would you rate the importance of the following NSPE national products and services to you and your organization? (N = 1,349) Sum of 9 and 10 (extremely important) Fifteen free online seminars 33% PE Magazine 26% Legislative Action Center Daily Designs: Business News for PEs NSPE Update 17% 19% 21% NSPE Job Board NSPE-PAC 12% 11% Interest groups NSPE Annual Meeting 7% 7% Blogs (e.g., NSPE Blog, PE Licensing Blog, etc.) 4% 16

17 Benefits and Services At which level would you like NSPE to focus on providing the following products and services in the future? Please select the level at which you think it is most important for NSPE to provide each product or service. (N = 1,002) National State Local Research and publications 82% 14% 4% Ethics resources 60% 30% 10% Career path and job search guidance 50% 38% 12% Professional education 49% 35% 17% Government advocacy and policy efforts 46% 49% 5% Online job board 46% 41% 13% Online networking opportunities 41% 46% 13% Conferences and meetings 24% 58% 18% In-person networking events 6% 31% 64% Volunteer opportunities 4% 25% 71% 17

18 Models and Options 18

19 Model Optimization Current Advantages Current Disadvantages Partially Unified Voice Flexibility Administrative Support Inconsistent Experience Pricing Complexity Inefficiency 19

20 Options Overview Structure Examples Federated Affiliated Consolidated Autonomous / Loosely Aligned 20

21 Models and Options Model Integrated Affiliate Model Reciprocity policies vary: Mandatory: Ex. AIA, NAR, ADA Voluntary: Ex. ASCE, IEEE Federation (Services to States) Ex: AHCA, NCEES, NCARB Concept Components are aligned in purpose, but retain some level of autonomy including the ability to set dues, create programs, etc. Membership reciprocity policies vary widely in the association industry An association of associations; the primary role of the national organization shifts to coordinating federal advocacy efforts and advancing the ability of the states to best serve individual members Autonomous Ex: AICPA, ABA, AMA Consolidated Ex: American Red Cross, American Diabetes Association, Alzheimer s Association Add-on Model Ex: unknown Organizations who share a common mission but are not materially related in structural, operational or financial matters; no membership reciprocity or coordination One parent corporation is established to administer and drive the mission and programs of work for itself and its geographic units, which are often not separately incorporated; most effective in organizations that share a singular purpose NSPE membership (either at the National level or all three levels) could be an additional option added to the membership of other large engineering societies (perhaps at a discount) 21

22 Exploring a Unified Approach: A Working Model Simplify Unite Align 22

23 Integrated, Unified Working Model Membership would include an integrated bundle of local, state and national benefits. After a certain transition / grandfathering period, no new state only membership offers would be available. Consistent, total dues pricing would be established for all members across the country. National would take responsibility for providing a best-in-class join / renew process and for delivering dues allocations to each state. Under the proposed billing, there would be no state billing option. 23

24 Unified Price Point National dues would remain consistent and state organizations would share in the total dues revenue based on a manageable number of tiers that are commensurate with the level of service provided to members in the state, as determined by an evaluation of standard criteria (e.g., levels of face-to-face programming, existence of paid staff support, total number of education hours offered, state advocacy activities and expenses, etc.). This method would account for the variability that does (and will continue to) exist in staffing, resources and service levels across states. The table below provides a hypothetical scenario, for discussion purposes only. Category National Share State Share Total Dues Higher capacity states $50 $250 $300 Moderate - high capacity states $150 $150 $300 Moderate capacity states $200 $100 $300 Lower capacity states $250 $50 $300 24

25 Potential Advantages and Challenges -Integrated structure -Consistent member price point -Streamlined administration -Transitioning state only members -Defining state dues allocation tiers -Need to increase national capacity 25

26 Guiding Assumptions This model will maintain flexibility by allowing states to opt into an agreed upon member service tier. The national organization s responsibility for membership billing will occur in tandem with a transition to a unified dues price point to coordinate efforts and ensure a manageable transition. A transition window of several years will be provided to eliminate the state only membership option and migrate current state only members to the unified price point. 26

27 Questions? Comments? Please me: 27