Welcome to the Local Sections Committee LSC Meeting

Welcome to the Local Sections Committee (LSC) Meeting Monday – Nov 9, 2009 11: 45 AM to 1: 15 PM

Meeting Agenda q q q 50 Year Celebrations LSC Introductions LSC Mission 2010 Leadership Development Conference Volunteer Recognition Awards Program Planning Grants John J. Mc. Ketta Project. Connect Grants “My AICh. E” Working Session LSC 2009 Goals Question and Answer Session 2

Celebrating 50 Years n n Columbia Pacific; Portland, OR Pensacola, FL

LSC Executive Officers Spring 2009 -Spring 2010 Position Name/Affiliation Email Address Phone Chair David Jacobs, Central Sav River (CSR) william. jacobs@srs. gov (803) 952 -4597 Vice-Chair Todd Willman (South Texas) tjw@epcon. com 281 -398 -9400 *811 Past Chair Craig Wildemuth (Nor Cal/Rocky Mnt) c. wildemuth@mtrinc. com 650 -543 -3390 Secretary Shannon Brown (Chicago) Shannon. Brown@uop. com 847 - 391 -1157 Local Section/Staff Rep Lowell Aplebaum, AICh. E lowea@aiche. org 646 -495 -1332 Staff Director Volunteer & Member Activities Felicia Gugliemi, AICh. E felig@aiche. org 646 -495 -1330 CEOC Liaison Diane Spencer spencer 22@llnl. gov YP Rep /YPAB Brian Daly bastio 05@gmail. com Chris Dean chris_kayla@msn. com 713 -419 -2278 Young Professionals ESC Rep Executive Student Committee 4

LSC Executive Officers Spring 2009 -Spring 2010 Position Name/Affiliation Email Address Phone Division/Forum Rep Available Global Rep Available Project. Connect Grants Rep Karen Bard bard@us. ibm. com 845 -892 -3211 Program Planning Grants Rep TBD Student Chapter Available LS In Need Rep/ Section Liaison James Klein (CSR) james. klein@srs. gov 803 -725 -4203 TBD Mac Qadir qadir@enprosolutions. com TBD David R. (Dave) Eckhardt dkeckhardt@verizon. net 508 -835 -4584 5

LSC Mission To strengthen AICh. E’s Local Sections through: q Project. Connect/Program Planning Grants q Support Leadership Development Conference q Resource development q Networking q Opportunities for sharing information q Long-term support focusing on Local Sections q Providing Volunteer Recognition 6

Available Resources q http: //www. aiche. org/Local. Sections/Resources/index. aspx q How to start a Young Professional Group q Local Section Officers' Resource Guide (updated Spring 2009) q Local Section Annual Report 2009 Summary q Local Section Officer Descriptions q Top Ten Ways to Involve Students in Your Section Flyer q more …. . Please review the Spring 2008/9 LSC Luncheon presentations for more complete listing of additional benefits of AICh. E membership 7

Leadership Development Conference June 4 -6, 2010 Presented By: Noah Mc. Millan & RC Ramaswamy East Tennessee Section Kingsport, TN

AICh. E Volunteer Recognition Awards Presented By: David Jacobs Chair, Local Sections Committee

Shining Star - Volunteer Recognition Awards q What are the Shining Star Awards? q q q Initiated in 2009 to recognize AICh. E volunteers nation wide for their tireless efforts Support volunteers in attending national AICh. E meetings throughout the year Aid Local Sections in helping their volunteers to continue to volunteer Recognize those that go above and beyond in their service to AICh. E Free registration and expenses paid (up to $1000) to any National Meeting (Annual or Spring Meeting or LDC) 10

Shining Star - Volunteer Recognition Awards q Shining Star Awards Recommendations q q q Two nominations per Local Section per year Independent of the Project. Connect or Program Planning Grants Examples of service recognized: § § § Dedication and personal commitment to AICh. E and the Local Section Willingness to take on a daunting task Set an example for others Willingness to step up and help the section when it needed it the most A long history of service to the section Infusion of new ideas / energy into the section 11

Shining Star - Volunteer Recognition Awards 2009 Member Volunteer Local Section Description of Contribution William Bruce King Baton Rouge (LA) Has devoted years of leadership to the LS including serving as Chair, Vice-Chair, Awards Cmt. Chair, and working with local high school students for E-week. Chip Lasher Central Savannah River (GA/SC) Co-chaired, planned and executed LDC 2009 John Steimke Central Savannah River Co-chaired, planned and executed LDC 2009 Delaware Valley (DE) Has served as Treasurer for the Section as well as planning and executing a number of the most successful Section meetings. New Jersey (NJ) Active leader in the NJ section for over 20 years, serving as Chair, Vice-Chair and Secretary to name just a few positions North Jersey Ten years of leadership to the North Jersey Local Section, serving in many positions including chair. South Texas (TX) South Texas Webmaster for one year while serving as Newsletter Editor for 3 years Ken Ford Andrew Soos Peter Sibilski Susan Cannon 12

AICh. E Program Planning Grants Presented By: David Jacobs Chair, Local Sections Committee

Program Planning Grants No q ub Grants awarded twice per calendar year with maximum value of $1000 2010 Deadline – March 31 st ed itt m q Encouraged to think "outside the box" S q ns q Next Application Deadline: March 31, Series of events under an "umbrella" of a larger program with identifiable objectives and goals 2010 tio q Supports outreach to broader section membership a lic q pp A Assist local sections with their membership outreach efforts by encouraging development of a program plan that involved more than a single event. 14

John J. Mc. Ketta Project. Connect Grants Presented By: Karen Bard Project. Connect Grants

Project Connect q Assists local sections with their efforts to reach out to students, and increase membership and participation of recent chemical engineer graduates and new engineers. q Supports outreach to new and young engineers and q q students q Typically single event programs q Evaluated on Innovativeness and ability to become "best practice" Grants awarded quarterly with maximum value of $600 Attempt to award $1800 per quarter 16

Project Connect Ap plic atio n sa nd, In Tre hence ndi , Response, Nu ng m D Award ow ber of A n Value Increased wa rds 17

My AICh. E Presented By: Amit Gupta and Bette Lawler AICh. E

Member Benefits q q q q Ch. E On-Demand Knovel Library Employment Services Networking Professional Community Continuing Professional Training CEP 19

Membership

AICh. E Professional Membership Profile Industry / Academic Gender Geography Age USA 91% Male 88% Industry 79% Over 35 80% All Other 9% Female 12% Academic Under 35 20% Texas largest 15% 10/30/09 21% More than ½ of the members have a Masters or a 21 Doctorate

Membership Trends Dues Rate History $139 - - - $144 - - - $180 - - - $199 - - - - - - - - - - $199 10/30/09 22

Mass Balance Equation for Membership 2008 final New Members Change 3309 (1313) Professional Membership trend has not been positive since 2001 Base of Membership 32, 279 Drops 10/30/09 4, 62223

Cancellation Rate Overall = 12% USA 12% Industry 10% All Other 17% Academic 17% Male 11% Over 35 9% Female 17% Under 35 21% 10/30/09 24

How Activity in AICh. E Affects Cancellation Activity % of Engagement % of Cancellation Local Section Membership/ 38% 7% Division Membership 19% 10% Webinar Attendance 4% 1% Attendance at Conferences 16% Registration with elibrary 30% 3% Overall Professional Cancellation Rate = 12% 10/30/09 25

Member View by Age 2008 22 - 34 years of age 35 – 50 years of age Count Cancel % News 1906 837 30. 5% News 826 465 36% Renews 3737 989 20. 9% Renews 8422 980 10. 4% Total 5643 1826 24. 4% Total 9248 1445 13. 5% 66 and older years of age 51 – 65 years of age Count Cancel % News 34 31 47. 7% 6. 2% Renews 5572 220 3. 8% 7. 6% Total 5606 251 4. 3% Count Cancel % News 308 172 35. 8% Renews 9239 613 Total 9547 785 10/30/09 (No age on 743 professionals 315 cancel =43% of those that do no give age cancel) 26

Member View by Age 2009 22 - 34 years of age 35 – 50 years of age Count Cancel % New 1198 19 1. 6% New 502 4 8% Renew 4172 1426 25. 5% Renew 7787 1299 14% Total 5370 1445 21. 2% Total 8289 1303 13. 6% 66 and older years of age 51 – 65 years of age Count Cancel % New 14 0 0% 8% Renew 5743 297 4. 9% 8% Total 5757 297 4. 9% Count Cancel % New 199 1 . 5% Renew 9231 825 Total 9430 826 10/30/09 (No age on 606 professionals 246 cancel =41% of those that do no give age cancel) 27

Path to Sustainable Relevancy Benefits Addressing Relevancy n Refine offerings Define Member Needs n n Measure Participation What’s next big best Thing n n Create/refresh offerings n n n Deliver effectively Communicate Offerings n n n 10/30/09 n n 2005 Professional Liability Insurance program strengthened to include Process Engineering 2006 e-Library Searchable Pubs through Wiley 2007 AICh. E Exchange re-vamped YP Professional Programming Career Tools Plus / Job Board 2008 Live Webinars Re-invigorated CEP on-line 2009 Smart Brief launched Chem. E on Demand Industrial Awards 28

Membership Strategy Grow AICh. E Brand Communicate Activate Grow participation 10/30/09 Engage Grow Community 29

Activate Bring Participation UP Bring Participate UP UP UP CHEME On Demand Local Sections and Divisions E-learning AICHE Member Participation Conferences And Regional Events 10/30/09 E-Library 30

AICh. E Communicate CEP Facebook 1, 500 active users Web Email Exchange 500, 000 a month Smart brief 15, 000 a month Smart Brief Exchange 33, 000 a month Email Web 57, 000 a month Facebook Twitter Linked In CEP 27, 600 a month AICh. E Our Challenge: Still the message is not heard 10/30/09 31

Engage | Portal Concept A portal for each stage of the life cycle where you are Ch. Enected to: ‣ tools, information to help you get ahead (e-library) ‣ forums, events to help you network ‣ job opportunities you won’t find anywhere else ‣ a source for lifelong learning ‣ recognition awards which help with career advancement ‣ Everything AICh. E 10/30/09 32

Chem. E On Demand Information Where you want it When you want it

Chem. E on Demand How to … Content from Other Sources Original Webinars from AICh. E Meeting Session Recordings Chem. E On Demand E-Learning Modules 2010 How to …Content from CEP Advice and Information Blog Local Section and Division Webcasts 34

1. 1. 09 to date: Live vs VOD Live Webinars # webinars VOD 50 # products 123 # purchased 5871 # purchased 1418 # attendees* 3495 # attendees na # non member attendees 49 # non member attendees 46 avg size 70 avg size na industry/academia (%) 94/6 revenue $2, 011 revenue rating** 75. 97% rating * includes 26 orders for future webinars ** those answering 'likely' to recommend to a colleague $453 na

Live Webinars: 1. 1. 09 YTD vs 7. 1. 09 YTD Stat 1. 1. 09 YTD # webinars Stat 50 # purchased 5871 # attendees* 3495 # non member attendees 49 avg size 70 industry/academia (%) 94/6 revenue $2, 011 rating** 75. 97% # webinars 7. 1. 09 YTD 18 # purchased 1300 # attendees* 788 # non member attendees avg size industry/academia (%) 0 44 96/4 revenue $1, 211 rating** 75. 44% * includes 26 orders for future webinars ** those answering 'likely' to recommend to a colleague

‘WHAT WOULD YOU DO TO IMPROVE THIS WEBINAR? ’ REPLIES n I wouldn't change anything. I viewed the webinar using cable modem/T 1 line and it was great! I am so excited that AICHE is offering PDH certificates/credit for the webinars! (Dust Explosions) n The Chat feature worked really well for questions. The host did a good job moderating. (Properties of Materials) n Very good summary. Hard to cover everything in 1 hour, but good overall review, with occasional specific points that were good. (NFPA Codes) n I really enjoyed the streaming audio with the Web. Ex presentation. It made it easier than making my phone line unavailable. Thanks to the AICHE tech folks for doing this! (Career Building)

WHAT’S NEW? n n 11/2 first publication up on Chem. E on Demand 11/3 600+CEP articles from 2001 on went live Two weeks after Annual, 450 presentations go up After Annual, will be offering professors the opportunity of using archives from Chem. E on Demand in the classroom. A student member will be asked to ‘purchase’ and professor will use for class. Only rule is that ½ the class be student members.

E-learning Update

Introduction n Objective: Provide a recommendation to AICh. E if and how we should utilize e-learning tools to address the educational needs of our members q q n Benchmark e-learning tools, opportunities, costs, and risks Develop sustainable instructional model(s) Develop sustainable business model(s) Integrate e-learning solution into traditional methods of instruction currently offered by the Institute Committee chartered in July 2009 q q Formation of sub-teams to separately focus on instructional and business issues critical to success Cross-populated with members on other committees (Educational Services Committee, Content on Demand Committee) with diverse backgrounds (academic, industry, short course instructors)

Instructional Models for an e-Learning System possible segues webinar synchronous or 1 -to-2 hours asynchronous impactful overview leaves many participants wanting more short course 1 -to-2 days synchronous “crash” course similar to current model allow for remote instructor option on-line course several weeks self-paced asynchronous in-depth learning instructor-assisted or stand-alone (no instructor) Hard media Web-based content

Evaluating the Current e-Learning Marketplace ENTITY On-line Offering Quantity Price Certificate ACS Webcast Courses 2 -8 60 -150 minute sessions each 30 -70 $295 -$1095 No mention of CEUs Center for Professional Advancement -Live online single 90 minutes 16 -On-Demand Pre-Recorded 96 60 minutes sessions each $295 CEUs (IACET) IEEE 5 main categories Exam by Brainbench at end of course 3, 000 in 10 languages ISA - Webinars (live & recorded) - CDROMs (w/ exam) - Instructor-assisted 45 300 courses 12 $195 -$225 $60 -$350 $1100 -$1300 CEUs (0. 2 -7. 1) CEUs (1. 8 -3. 5) University of Wisconsin Self Study Courses/28 hours each 3 $695 PDHs 28 CEUs 2. 8 ICHEME Self Paced Courses On-line Testing @ end of course 16 $150 No mention of CEUs ASCE On-line self paced courses and DVD’s 50 -100 $295 - $795 CEUs depending on hours No mention of CEUs

Developing a Successful Instructional Model n Integrated e-Learning Program q q q n Comprehensive content responsive to needs of membership Coordination of different modes of instruction Flexibility to embrace emerging e-learning trends Issues Critical to Success q q Involvement and consideration of current instructors Develop timeline and milestones for incremental achievement Survey the membership to understand key needs Develop a strategic plan

Developing a Successful Business Model n Sustainable e-Learning Program q q q n Develop a realistic view of the 3 -year business plan and identification of cost and revenue streams Coordination with current partners (ASME) and transition within instructional methods (short courses, CDs, webinars) Certificates and continuing educational credits Issues Critical to Success q q q Return on Investment: Ability to be cost neutral or comfortable that e-learning will not be profitable on a standalone basis but provide value to members Ownership and copyright of course materials Remuneration of instructors for both synchronous and asynchronous instruction

Timeline

Web Hosting Local Section And Division Sites

The Vision Realize a federation of consistent, feature-rich websites: • 100+ Local Sections • 100+ Student Chapters • Divisions • Forums

The AICh. E Websites Framework n n A framework rather than just hosting Standard look-&-feel q n Easy to use mechanisms for non-IT volunteers to maintain content q n Enable focus on Chem. E-centric objectives rather than Computer Science fun Based on cost-effectively sustainable technology q q n 3 ‘themes’ today; more to come Drupal Open Source CMS “Cloud” hosting Growing list of ‘features’: q q q q q WYSIWYG editor for content (don’t have to know HTML) Forms-based publishing for ‘structured’ content like Events (Meetings, Workshops), etc. Newsletter subscription & mass mailing Automatically pull-in data from other sites (currently: AICh. E Calendar & News) Full-text search Build web-based forms for data collection Online Polls Photo Galleries Usage statistics Etc.

The Vision Is it working? - Invested effort over 6 months (May-Oct) - Worked-out the technology • 100+ Local Sections Realize a federation of consistent, feature-rich websites: • happy with return on investment • we have a best-in-class solution • 100+ Student Chapters • Divisions • Forums - Worked with 4 Local Sections • 1 live, 99+ to go

AICh. E South Texas Section (New)

AICh. E Puget Sound Section (New)

AICh. E Norcal Section (New)

Challenges The Process (1) National creates an “empty”, ready to be populated website (2) National trains Local Section volunteer(s) • How to ‘think’ about structuring your website • How to use the framework (3) Local Section volunteer(s) ‘build’ the website Technical work: - Optimized to <1 day per site - Can scale to 100+ sites Operational support & facilitation: - Taking long time - Cannot scale current modus operandi

Chem. E On Demand q http: //apps. aiche. org/chemeondemand/ Credit for 6 FREE downloads per year q credits each year, good for all webinars (live and archived) as well as other content. q 56

AICh. E Web Hosting q q q South Texas, Puget Sound, Akron, Norcal Capacity for 400 Sections Nominally 8 hrs per website

Sample Web Page

Working Session (WS) Presented By: David Jacobs Chair, Local Sections Committee

Working Session q q q Local Section Annual Report 2009 q Local Section Contact Campaign q In-Need q Trends/ Succession Planning Suggestions Dues/Finances/Fundraising Grants

WS – LS Annual Rpt 2009 q Annual Report q Total Sections 111 q 59 Submitted Annual Rpt q 52 No Annual Rpt q 30 Sections lack leadership/organization q Potential 83 active LSs total

WS – LS Annual Rpt 2009 q Goals q Boost Meeting Attendance q Outreach q Restart q Budget q Slight Increase in Income q Fundraising q Corporate Sponsorship

WS – LS Annual Rpt 2009 q Meetings/Attendance q 5 -10/yr q 0 -5/yr q 0 -2/yr q Avg # of years since graduation q Leadership mtgs 1 -3/yr q Leadership mtgs 0/yr 24 LSs 28 LSs 17 LSs 15 -30 35 15

WS – LS Annual Rpt 2009 q Young Professional Groups q 14 in 2009 vs 9 in 2008 (55% increase) q 12 expressed interest q Recruiting/New Members q Focus on student chapters q Support of local companies q Long-term volunteer burnout

WS – LS Annual Rpt 2009 q Tools q Continual AICh. E national contact q Benefits for dues paid q Shining Star Recognition

WS – LS Annual Rpt 2009 q Communications q Email q 10 with paper newsletters q Only 6 cite their website q Majority of sections seldom visit AICh. E. org q 3 Sections use Groups q Benefits q Networking q LS Committee Help

LSs by Region/State

LSs “In-Need” q q No Annual Report No National AICh. E Member(s) in key leadership positions q q q Chair Vice-Chair Treasurer Secretary No contact with LSC If you think you are In-Need or will be – Contact the LSC!!

Reasons for Becoming Inactive q q q Job Relocation/Market Shift Loss of a Significant Leader Retirement/Low Recruitment Low Attendance/Low Volunteerism Leader Burnout

Trends-Why are Sections Struggling? q Volunteer q Lack of volunteers leading to burnout q Apathy of leaders q Charismatic leader loss q Members not feeling able to contribute any longer q Competition from alternative, more focused professional organizations q “What’s in it for me? ” attitude q Competing interests social/family/retirement q Changing, more demanding work environment that does not allow (time) for supporting volunteer professional organizations during working hours q Some members able to contribute more in summer vs academic year, but sections usually off then 70

Trends-Why are Sections Struggling? (cont) q Local Section q Geographical spread of section q Decreasing membership dues q Industry q General decline in the economy, folks are more focused on their immediate needs q Shifting industrial base q Few industries pay for memberships as a perk q National q Decreasing grant applications/Increasing grant availability q Young Professional q Student Sections 71

Ways to Restart/Prevent Becoming Inactive q Start Small – Kickoff Meeting + 1 Contact your members personally Gauge Interest Recruit Young Professionals Delegate to Retirees Reach out to a Professional Society / Local Section near you Contact the LSC q Delaware/Balcones Fault have restarted! q q q

Succession Planning q q “No organization plans to fail, it just fails to plan!” Prepare for leadership transition q q Communication Strategies q q Define goals, roles and responsibilities Keep a record of all member information, accounts, contracts and passwords Have at least two people on bank accounts Consider using free email services (Google, etc) AICh. E Web Hosting – “manage content not tech” Newsletter/Social Networking Volunteer time is $ - maximize its impact and their success

Analysis of Local Section Dues Rate and Section Defections Emmett R. Miller November 9, 2009 Local Sections Committee AICHE Annual Meeting

LS Dues 2009 q q LS Membership is declining 69. 1% of National members DON’T pay LS dues q q q Average LS dues q q q LS Members 12, 277 National members 39, 748 Mean Median Standard Dev $13/yr $12/yr $5/yr No statistical correlation has been seen in the data to indicate LS membership (dues) inversely related to LS dues. Voluntary Contribution on Annual Dues Statement Continue to study to establish national trends

LS Dues/Finance Questions q q q q Where are you? How much of your annual budget is based on dues? Fundraising? Corporate Sponsorship? What is your spend out each year? Carryover? How many of your LS members are National members only? LS only? Both? Do you recruit National only members to be LS members and vice versa? Recruiting doesn’t stop with Young Professionals or new to the area. What value does the LS provide for the dues? What’s In It For Me (WIIFM)! Networking, Tours, Technical Talks, etc. Do you apply for Grants? Do you use off the shelf financial software (Quicken, Microsoft Money) or Excel? (Treasurer’s Rpt Item? )

Fundraising q q Corporate Support for Mtg/Newsletter Budget Control Strategies q q Meeting Rooms without fees Combine with other professional societies

LSC Goals for 2009 -2010 q q Contact all Local Sections Assist Local Sections “In Need” Support Host Section for 2010 LDC Award Program Planning Grants q q Award up to $7, 200 in Project. Connect Grants q q q Have at least two applications for Programming Grants Award full $1800 per quarter for 2 nd and 3 rd Quarter 2009 Project. Connect Grants Award Shining Star Volunteer Recognition Awards Solicit nominations and recommend host for 2011 LDC conference Facilitate Information Sharing between Local Sections Have at least one instructional Webinar for local section topic 78

LS Goals for 2009 -2010 q Recruiting n n q Young Professionals Senior Members Tools 79

Good News! Graduates follow the $$$ and Ch. E jobs are on the increase (Energy/Chemicals) 80

THANK YOU! For attending the Fall 2009 LSC Luncheon 81

Question & Answer Session

Q&A Session q What is the single biggest problem facing your section? q q q Getting volunteers to help run the Section? Meeting attendance Finances What is your biggest Success? Grants? Other? 83

LSC Contact Campaign q q XX of 111/113 Sections Contacted 2009 LS Annual Report Summary of Sections 59 "Active", 52/54 "Inactive" (definition: Active = filed LS report) 16 Inactive 1 year 4 Inactive 2 years 6 Inactive 3 years 5 Inactive 4 years 4 Inactive 5 years 3 Inactive 6 years 1 Inactive 7 years 13 Inactive > 7 years q Lowell Aplebaum visiting LSs along with student chapters

Who’s In Need? (2004 -2009)

Improving Local Sections q Who considers their section “in need” or struggling? 2004 Texas Panhandle Toledo Twin Tiers Wichita 2005 San Diego Saudi Arabia Tallahassee Terre Haute Texas Panhandle Toledo Twin Tiers Wichita Wilmington Wisconsin 2006 2008 2009 San Diego Tallahassee Terre Haute Texas Panhandle Toledo Twin Tiers San Diego Syracuse Tallahassee Terre Haute Texas Panhandle Toledo Triad Tristate? Twin Tiers W. Kentucky W. Michigan Alberta Central OK Central VA Chattanooga Mid-Hudson Penisular FL Pensacola Rio Grande San Diego Tallahassee Terre Haute Texas Panhandle Wisconsin Witchita Considered "on-the mend" in 2005 Toledo Wisconsin El Dorado Iowa Nebraska Balcones Fault

Improving LSs (cont) 2004 2005 2006 2008 2009 Las Vegas Great Salt Lake City Great Salt Lake Guadalupe Oregon Iowa Singapore Las Vegas (they are not in Timms) Baton Rouge Lehigh Valley Nashville Low country Lowcountry Low Country – no activity Mobile Saudi Arabia Mojave Desert Tappan Zee Nashville Tulsa Nebraska Alabama-Piedmont Oregon Netherland/Belgium Palmetto – has a chair, but no activity Palmetto – organizing kickoff Palmetto Peninsular Florida Peninsular FL Southwest LA Pensacola Syracuse Permian Basin Triad Rhode Island Columbia Pacific Rio Grande Fairfiled County

Improving LSs (cont) 2004 2005 2006 2008 2009 Akron Alabama-Piedmont Alberta Alaska Balcones Fault Central IL Central Arkansas Central Sav River Central Illinois Columbia Valley Central OK Dallas Central Pennsylvania Great Salt lake Chattanooga Louisville Coastal Carolinas Mid-Michigan Dallas Mobile Dayton New Jersey Detroit Eastern NC Eastern North Carolina Pittsburgh El Dorado Southern CA Fairfield County Tide Water VA Akron Ichthyologists Western SC Central AR Orange County

Relationship Between Local Section Dues Rate and Section Defections (1)

Relationship Between Local Section Dues Rate and Section Defections (2)

Relationship Between Local Section Dues Rate and Section Defections (3)

What is the Issue Here? n n Of the some 39, 784 (or so) members of AICh. E, only 12, 277 (30. 9%) have elected to retain local section membership. This is of serious concern to the local sections, which rely to a large extent on local section dues collected by National to fund their programs. As such, it therefore threatens the viability of the local section structure as the grass roots underpinning of the Institute. Set individually by each local section, dues rates vary widely. This exercise is a test to determine statistically the premise that a relation ought to exist between dues rate and dropout rate. If such were found to be the case, it should be possible to find an optimum dues rate that would maximize the revenue to the sections.

Defections versus Dues

Defections versus Dues with Regression Lines

Observations and Conclusions n n n Based on the general linear regression model, y = a + bx, the constants, a and b, were determined by least mean squares fit. The parameter used to evaluate the significance of the relationship (if any) is “F”, where F is the ratio of regression variance to residual variance, as determined from the data. The “F” test, then, compares the calculated F with the required value at the chosen confidence level. As can be seen, the calculated regression coefficient, b, was found to be slightly negative (-0. 0016 +/- 0. 0074) and the intercept, a, did not come anywhere close to the origin. These observations did not bode well for the premise. Further, the F ratio was found to be 0. 2331 (based on grouped data analysis), well short of the 3. 928 required for significance at the commonly accepted 95% confidence level. A plot of the data, with the widely scattered results among the 110 Sections, gives vivid support for the lack of correlation. Going a step further, the correlation coefficient, r, was calculated to be a miniscule -0. 0412. Its square (0. 00170) is a quantitative measure of the fraction of data scatter that can be attributed to the assumed cause. Clearly, there is no relationship between local section dropout rate and the amount of dues set by the sections, at least over the data range that prevails.

Observations and Conclusions (continued) n n Given that conclusion, we are left with puzzling issue of identifying the real factor(s) that are then responsible for the alarming loss in section membership. Possibilities that come to mind are: q Time limitations for sections activities q Remoteness from the hub of section activities q Lack of interest in section programs q Membership distribution between the academic and industrial communities If a significant relationship had been found, it would have been reasonable and appropriate to further test the data by means of another regression model, y= bx, with the a-priori assumption that no defections would occur at zero dues rate. As a matter of interest, this test was applied, anyway, with the remarkable and unexpected result of being very highly significant (52. 47 vs. 3. 93) in spite of the scatter. However, because of essentially no correlation between the parameters, this model must be rejected as inappropriate. ERM 10/15/09