Report to the IEEE Computer Society
Technical Activities Board (TAB): Regaining Industry/Government Participation
Joseph (Joe) R. Bumblis
Chair, TCCC
Executive Summary
In March, 2005 Stephanie White asked me to consider options and recommendations to TAB to help regain industry and government participation in Computer Society (CS) activities including membership and conferences. Since that time, I have endeavored to perform all possible due diligence to investigate where the CS has been (i.e. history), where it is now (i.e. current view via CS web page), and where we may be going in the near future. I contacted several key individuals I consider to have played a major role in past CS activities including active participation in the IEEE, CS, IEEE Twin Cities Section, and Communications Society (ComSoc) activities. I then proceeded to collect information from CS web sites to form a current-day picture to ‘see’ the CS from an external point of view. Lastly, I attempted to speculate on the future of government/industry/practitioners to understand were membership and current interests may lie.
The following table is a brief overview of my findings regarding a past and current view of the IEEE, CS and ComSoc. Details pertaining to this summarized information are contained later in this report.
Table 1 – Observed view regarding participation and leadership
|
Conferences: |
Academic Representation |
Industry/Government |
|
InfoCom – 1985 [5] |
20% |
80% |
|
InfoCom -2004 [5] |
98% |
2% |
|
GlobeCom – 1985 [5] |
20% |
80% |
|
GlobeCom -2004 [5] |
98% |
2% |
|
LCN – 1985 [3] |
15% |
85% |
|
LCN – 2004 [3] |
99% |
1% |
|
Leadership: |
|
|
|
IEEE Board of Directors (11) |
7 (64%) |
4 (36%) |
|
CS Board of Governors (21) |
(67%) |
(33%) |
|
CS Executive Committee (17) |
12 (71%) |
5 (29%) |
|
CS TC Chairs (37): |
31 (83.8%) |
6 (16.2%) |
From a conference perspective, InfoCom, GlobeCom, and LCN have all experienced a dramatic increase in student attendance. This has further decreased conference cash flow since students attend conferences at a rate ranging from 20% - 50% lower than non-student attendees reducing conference surplus with no proportionate decrease in conference cost (e.g. hotel services, meals, proceedings, etc.). Moreover, there is increased pressure from CS academic leaders to fund student travel from world-wide locations increasing negative cash-flow from a society perspective.
From a leadership prospective, the IEEE and CS continue to attract people from academia. I was unable to locate leadership representation from past IEEE Board of Directors, CS Board of Governors, CS Executive Committee, and CS TC Chairs. I would imagine the IEEE and CS could supply such information, but it was not available on the public web pages.
Possible strategies:
The Computer Society is now an academic society:
1. Accept the fact that the Computer Society is now an academic society. Restructure the financial model with the basic premise that academics do not spend money unless available from research grants. The new CS financial model must take into consideration lower conference surpluses due to increased student participation, and increased pressure from CS academic leaders to fund student travel and attendance at conferences. Moreover, the new financial model must take into consideration a reduction in sales of conference proceedings and CS publications (universities typically purchase one copy for all to use), library services (universities typically purchase a group access license so hundreds of students can search the CS libraries basically for free), and a reduction in cash flow from other CS services since industry no longer sees value in these items. It must also be considered that academic institutions tend to spend money (regarding IEEE and CS services and conference attendance) at a lesser rate than government/industry except when available from research grants. Lastly, save your marketing dollars; any marketing intended to increase revenue will most likely be ignored by most academic institutions.
The Computer Society wishes to be a practitioner society:
1. Restructure the Computer Society to more closely follow the Hot Chips conference model sponsored by TCMM (see: http://www.hotchips.org/hc17/index.htm ). This includes the aggressive recruitment of CS/TAB/TC leadership from industry/government, approaching industry/government for direct sponsorship of CS activities, and a commitment from the CS to offer services that contribute to the success of sponsors from industry/government.
2. Work with industry/government to post IEEE/CS activities on corporate bulletin boards to advertise activities. This will only be successful if activities include value-added items as perceived by practitioners.
3. In all conferences the CS sponsors, add a mandatory "Industrial track with 1 or 2 sessions"--too often industry solves problems that are pieces of engineering work and don't get due credit from academics--this way, we may increase motivation for submission and participation by industry. Also, include more interdisciplinary activities (wide breadth) so industry/practitioners gain a maximum amount of knowledge per their investment [6]. Moreover, the inclusion of poster sessions at conferences may attract practitioners since a comprehensive paper is not typically required; perhaps only presentation material. [5]
4. Engage local
IEEE chapters and sections worldwide to advertise and solicit local member
input and participation regarding upcoming conferences and TC activities
5. Organize conferences jointly with various federal/state/local government agencies in selected locations. Government agencies are often big buyers of technology, and their presence would indirectly make it attractive for industry representatives to network at such events [6].
6. In some of our conferences, we may wish explore adding a "career fair" component--allowing practitioners to mingle more easily with employers and giving our activities a wider coverage. This may not be well accepted by government/industry management, but if done concurrently with a conference, it would be viewed as an adjunct activity as opposed to a mainstream conference activity.
7. Partner with universities to offer continuing/professional education courses that are branded/approved by IEEE. IEEE members should get some discount (e.g., 10-20%) for these course--in turn, IEEE can offer its influence to increase attendance in the courses. This also fits well with current “career growth” activities sponsored by the IEEE
[ http://www.ieee.org/organizations/eab/icet/ ]
8. Regarding the above recommendations, it may also be worth exploring the creation of "educational courses" that would be taught by well-known folks at the various company sites. These courses can really cover more practical material--IEEE should be able to do this cheaper than many for-profit educational bodies--and professors/practitioners can get part of the fees to encourage them to offer such 2-3 day courses.
Findings and Details: Past, Present, and
Recommendations
Individual
Perspectives
Offered by Mr. Howard Salwen
[1] on
Howard Salwen is the founder of Proteon, Inc.; a world leader in network routing technology and products during the 1980’s and early 1990’s. While CEO of Proteon, he offered to pay the IEEE membership dues for any of his employees wishing to join the IEEE; no one signed-up. Mr. Salwen had no explanation for this response to his offer to pay IEEE membership dues.
Howard explained that while running Proteon, he and his staff often spent 80% of their time designing routers and network equipment “as they have always done”; but, 20% of their time doing things differently to try new technologies and new engineering methodologies. He feels that during this 1980’s to early 1990’s period, the IEEE/CS/ComSoc played an important role in identifying new technologies and giving him and his team new ideas to try out.
Today, Mr. Salwen is on the Board
of Directors of an internet gaming company in the greater
Howard made a few suggestions regarding my question about getting industry and practitioners again interested in IEEE/CS activities, conferences and TCs; they are as follows:
· Get IEEE/CS activities posted on corporate bulletin boards to advertise activities,
· Engage local chapters to advertise and solicit local member input regarding upcoming conferences and TC activities,
· Look at more interdisciplinary activities (wide breadth) so industry/practitioners gain a maximum amount of knowledge per their investment. Remember, corporations not on pay for employees to go to conferences, but they also have an “away-from-the-office” cost. Industry will always look for the ROI,
Offered by Mr. Ellis Nolley [2]
on
Ellis offered the following as “facts” regarding the IEEE and Societies in general:
1. IEEE,
especially Computer Society, has many members employed by major corporations
throughout the
2. The role of technology has shifted from essential to company formation and survival to enabling of new products and market success.
3. Technology continues to change rapidly and companies struggle to keep up.
4. Companies struggle with roles of technology in research, product development and marketing.
5. Companies are
increasingly shorter-term focused, especially in the
Ellis offered the following suggestions that may help to regain industry interest in IEEE/CS activities:
1.Instead of merely performing a driving effort from IEEE to employee to company, try driving effort the other way: IEEE to company to employee. Think of a triangle with arrows going around. For example, have opportunities encourage companies to honor the accomplishments of the best IEEE members (e.g. Outstanding IEEE employee). Then, IEEE membership becomes valuable to the employee because the company recognizes it and them. Others see it, and want to participate.
2. Look for ways to enable company success. Technology training is difficult to perform, companies find it expensive to do, and the IEEE could enable it in the areas we are strong. Universities are struggling to reach out to companies, we can help form a bridge by enabling IEEE distance learning in certain technologies.
3. Prototyping, integration, identifying promising technologies and research techniques are difficult for companies to do because their viewpoint is so narrow and the issue is so broad, and the IEEE can help.
4. Technology has moved from being US centric to international communities, and companies still tend to invest primarily in their home nations. Because the IEEE is international, it can engage international technology communities and become a bridge between them and the companies that can use their technologies. Industry forums are an important way company employees can communicate and share ideas with their counterparts working for competitors. Also, supplier relationships often form in the technical committees.
5. Companies are constantly looking to hire key technologist who are buried in other companies. The IEEE can provide a forum for them to be identified, recognized, and recruited.
Offered by Dr. Frank Huebner [3] on
It is Frank’s opinion that it will be tough to get industry back to IEEE/CS/ComSoc conferences, since not only the conference fee and travel/lodging is viewed as an expense (in an era of cost savings), but also the time out of the office. Only if there is a strong potential for bringing in revenue back to the corporation (new sales leads, etc., with a pertinent conference attendee population, i.e., not only students, etc.) as a result of the conference will industry people be able to attend.
Current CS as
Externally Perceived
Research by Mr. Joe Bumblis [4]:
It is my belief that any strategy to regain government/industry/practitioners support of IEEE/CS activities, including conferences and technical committees/councils, requires a value-added view of the current state of affairs as seen by an external observer; especially practitioners. Even current members are most likely viewing information on IEEE/CS web pages as they decide whether or not to renew membership and attend conferences.
I wish to state that any information explicitly indicating names and affiliations is by no means an attempt to imply these individuals are not qualified to perform the duties of their assignments, nor that they don’t have the best interest of the IEEE or Computer Society at the forefront of their thinking. They are listed simply to demonstrate the external view a current or prospective member has when viewing the information.
First, a view of the Computer Society web page ( http://www.computer.org/csinfo/ )
“With nearly 100,000 members, the IEEE Computer Society is
the world's leading organization of computer professionals. Founded in 1946, it
is the largest of the 37 societies of the
The Computer Society's vision is to be the leading provider of technical information and services to the world's computing professionals.
The Society is dedicated to advancing the theory, practice,
and application of computer and information processing technology. Through its…”
Several things should be noted from the above quotations extracted from the CS web page. The first is a clear statement that “… the IEEE Computer Society is the world's leading organization of computer professionals.” I am not going to engage in a debate whether or not academia represents “computer professional”; however, the statement can easily be interpreted as industry/practitioner, not researcher. Second, the vision statement “…to be the leading provider of technical information and services to the world's computing professionals.” also appears to speak to industry/practitioners. However, the expression “…leading supplier…” may indicate the need to support focused research in order to provide “…technical information…” Third, the vision statement “The Society is dedicated to advancing the theory, practice, and application of computer and information processing technology.” may be interpreted as a partnership between academia and industry/practitioners; a partnership that is clearly not represented in the CS leadership and TC Chairs. As depicted in Table 2 below, 31 out of 37 (83.8%) TC Chairs have academic/university affiliations while only 6 out of 37 (16.2%) TC Chairs have government/industry affiliations. When viewed externally, the Computer Society Technical Committees and Councils appear to have a strong resemblance to a pure academic community and is probably interpreted as such by external practitioner viewers.
Moreover, from an external viewpoint, the Computer Society
clearly appears to be an academic society with regards to the CS Board of
Governors (extracted from: http://www.computer.org/csinfo/boards/Bog.htm
)
Term Expires 2005
Oscar N. Garcia – Dr. Garcia earned his Bachelor of
Science and master’s degrees, both in electrical engineering, from
Mark A. Grant – Dr. Grant received
a BS in Engineering (Electrical)
with honors from Oakland University,
an MS in
Engineering (Biomedical) from
the University of Michigan, and a Juris
Doctor, Cum Laude, from Santa Clara University
School of Law. He is admitted to practice in
Michel Israel - An Outstanding Professor, Dr.
James D. Isaak – Mr. Isaak, an assistant professor at Southern New Hampshire
University, has filled software and management roles for 30 years, including at
Digital Equipment, Data General, Intel, and IBM. He received a BS and an MSEE
from
Stephen B. Seidman – Dr. Seidman received a BS in mathematics from the City College
of New York, and an MA and a PhD in mathematics from the
Kathleen M. Swigger – Dr. SWIGGER
serves on the Board of Governors with a term of 2003-2005 (second consecutive
term). She is also chair of the IEEE
Computer Society Web Redesign Committee.
She has previously served as the Ombudsman (2000-2001). Swigger, a graduate
with BA, MA, and PhD degrees from the
Makoto Takizawa – Dr. Takizawa received his B.E. and M.E. degrees in
Applied Physics from
CS Board of
Governors: Term Expires 2006
Mark J. Christensen - Christensen received a PhD in
mathematics from
Alan Clements - He graduated in electronics at the
Annie Combelles – Ms. Combelles is a
1973 graduate of
the Ecole Nationale Suprieure de l'Aronautique et
de l'Espace and
a 2001 graduate
of Hautes Etudes Commerciales Management.
She received the 1980 Aerospace and Aeronautics Medal for Innovation in
Ann Q. Gates - Gates holds a PhD in computer science
from
Rohit Kapur - Dr. Kapur is a
Scientist at Synopsys Inc. In his current role Dr. Kapur is responsible for working closely with the product
development team to design new technologies for IC design and test. Dr. Kapur received a bachelor's degree in engineering from Birla Institute of Technology in
Susan A. Mengel - Mengel, who received a PhD in computer science from
Bill N. Schilit – He
received a BA, MS, and PhD in computer science from
With respect to CS Technical Committees (TC’s), 31 out of 37 Chairs represent academia; only 6 represent government/industry. The individual breakout of TC Chairs is outlined in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Current TC Chairs from: http://www.computer.org/tab/tclist/index.htm
|
TC |
Chair |
Affilation |
|
Dr. Vicky Markstein |
||
|
Dr. Michael G. Hinchey |
|
|
|
Prof. Peter Kokol |
|
|
|
Dr. Jean-Luc Gaudiot, Professor and Chair |
The |
|
|
Mr. Joe Bumblis |
United Defense L.P. |
|
|
James Hughes |
Storage Technology Corp. |
|
|
Dr. Joseph Urban |
|
|
|
Dr. Denis L. Baggi |
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology |
|
|
Dr. Erich Neuhold |
|
|
|
John Willis, PhD |
FTL Systems |
|
|
Dr. Edward A. Fox |
Virginia Tech |
|
|
Prof. |
|
|
|
Dr. Jen-Yao Chung |
|
|
|
June Andersen, PhD |
IBM ( |
|
|
Dr. Perry Alexander |
|
|
|
Dr. Jaynarayan H. Lala |
? |
|
|
Dr. Xindong Wu |
|
|
|
Dr. Arun Iyengar |
|
|
|
Dr. Kinshuk |
|
|
|
Mr. Merritt Jones |
The MITRE Corp |
|
|
Dr.Andrei Broder CTO, Institute for Search and Text Analysis |
IBM Research Division |
|
|
Mr. Allen J. Baum |
? (sponsors “Hot Chips” conference) |
|
|
Prof. Thomas M. Conte |
|
|
|
Dr. Phillip C-Y Sheu |
|
|
|
Dr. Marek Perkowski
|
|
|
|
Operating Systems Applications and Environments (TCOS) |
Prof. Ethan L. Miller |
|
|
Dr. David A. Bader |
|
|
|
Prof. Kim L. Boyer |
The |
|
|
Dr. Wei Zhao |
|
|
|
Mark Baker
--------------> Rajkumar Buyya
--------> Marcin
Paprzycki -------> |
|
|
|
Dr. Heather Hinton |
IBM Software Group |
|
|
Dr. Liang-Jie Zhang |
|
|
|
Professor Anup Kumar |
|
|
|
Mr. Erich Klink |
IBM Systems Group |
|
|
Dr. Hanspeter Pfister |
Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories (MERL) |
|
|
Dr. Joseph R. Cavallaro |
|
|
|
David Mizell |
Cray, Inc. |
Another external item viewed by all CS members, and those
looking at CS publications, may see COMPUTER Magazine as an academic
publication based solely on the publication staff.
Editor in Chief
Doris L. Carver, d.carver@computer.org
From Google:
“Carver is the Associate Vice Chancellor of Research and
Graduate Studies and a Professor in the Department of Computer Science at
Associate Editors in Chief
Bill Schilit — Invisible Computing, schilit@computer.org
From Google:
“Co-Director Intel Research Seattle, Intel
Corporation…a Ph.D. degree in computer science in 1995 from
Kathleen Swigger — Research Features, k.swigger@computer.org
From Google:
“…and PhD degrees from the University of Iowa, is currently
a professor of computer science at the University of North Texas in Denton,
where she does research and teaches in the areas of computer-supported
cooperative work, human interfaces, and artificial intelligence, specifically,
intelligent interfaces.”
Web Editor
Ron Vetter
From Google:
“Ron Vetter is a Professor and Chair of the Department of
Computer Science at the
Perspectives Editor
Bob Colwell, bob.colwell@comcast.net
No detailed information located on public web pages.
Computing Practices Editor
Rohit Kapur, r.kapur@computer.org
No detailed information located on public web pages.
One CS publication that appears to have more of a government/industry focus as perceived from viewing the publications staff is IT Professional Magazine.
Editor-in-Chief
Frank Ferrante
Independent Consultant
fferrante@ieee.org
From Google:
“Frank has had a distinguished 40-year career in the
engineering field and holds a Bachelor of Science and Master's degree in
Electrical Engineering from Virginia Tech and
Associate Editor-in-Chief
Articles
No detailed information located on public web pages.
Associate Editor-in Chief
Perspectives Jeff Voas
Cigital
No detailed information located on public web pages.
Looking at a broader view, the IEEE is not without perception issues. As extracted from: http://www.ieee.org/portal/site/mainsite/menuitem.818c0c39e85ef176fb2275875bac26c8/index.jsp?&pName=corp_level1&path=corporate&file=vision.xml&xsl=generic.xsl
“IEEE Vision and
To advance global prosperity by fostering technological innovation, enabling members' careers and promoting community world-wide.
The IEEE promotes the engineering process of creating, developing, integrating, sharing, and applying knowledge about electro and information technologies and sciences for the benefit of humanity and the profession.”
However, as extracted from: http://www.ieee.org/portal/site/mainsite/menuitem.818c0c39e85ef176fb2275875bac26c8/index.jsp?&pName=corp_level1&path=corporate&file=bod.xml&xsl=generic.xsl
“About IEEE
2005 IEEE Board of Directors*Indicates members of the IEEE Executive Committee
2005 IEEE President and CEO *Mr. W. Cleon Anderson
IEEE President-Elect *Dr. Michael R. Lightner
IEEE Past President *Dr. Arthur W. Winston
Director & Secretary *Dr. Mohamed El-Hawary
Director & Treasurer *Mr. Joseph V. Lillie
Director & Vice President, Educational Activities *Dr. Moshe Kam
Director & Vice President, Publication Services & Products *Prof. Leah H. Jamieson
Director & Vice President, Regional Activities *Mr. Marc T. Apter
Director & Vice President, Standards Association *Mr. Donald N. Heirman
Director & Vice President, Technical Activities *Dr. John R. Vig
Director & President IEEE-USA *Dr. Gerard A. Alphonse
Seven (7) out of eleven (11) (i.e. 64%) top level director
represent research/academia
Conclusion
It is my conclusion that the CS (and IEEE/ComSoc) has experienced a loss of government/industry/practitioner participation due partly to the perception that the IEEE/CS/ComSoc have become academic institutions. This can be seen in not only the representation in leadership (i.e. academic as opposed to government/industry), but also in Technical Committee/Technical Council leadership. Moreover, as government/industry has morphed into not only a global community, but also into a more product-centric focus, the value offered by IEEE/CS/ComSoc as perceived by government/industry has not kept pace with these changes. Instead, it appears that IEEE/CS/ComSoc has filled the declining participation of government/industry with academic participants. This is really not surprising considering academic volunteers are typically rewarded by their educational institutions for their volunteer efforts through tenure and advanced professorial positions. Since government/industry no longer values IEEE/CS/ComSoc activities, volunteerism is no longer rewarded as in the past.
I also see the Computer Society having two options; both of which may be mutually exclusive. The first is to accept that the Computer Society has become an academic institution and adjust the business model accordingly. The second is to actively and aggressively reach out to government/industry/practitioners and engage in recruiting leadership from this community to help the “perception” problem. The Computer Society also needs to solicit input from government/industry/practitioners to regain a detailed understanding of value-added activities that would once again attract participation from government/industry/practitioners.
Further Research
As with any paper, this one is not without suggestions for further research. From a historical perspective, I believe the Computer Society should look back on its leadership over the past twenty-five years to establish a trend regarding government/industry/practitioner exodus. This can then be correlated to business trends and Computer Society services to establish how and why government/industry/practitioners perceived less value in the Computer Society. From a services perspective (i.e. membership and conferences), the Computer Society should perform detailed surveys of conference content and attendees to understand the value-added problem. This could take the form of a researcher-practitioner-user model (think of a triangle) that could show current needs and trends between the three. The Computer Society could leverage these findings to add value to membership, services, and conferences. I do not believe aggressive marketing is a viable solution without first considering the perceived value IEEE/CS/ComSoc offers to government/industry/practitioners.
References and Acknowledgements
[1] Mr. Howard Salwen: Founded Proteon, Inc. in
1972 and was Chairman of its Board of Directors until it merged with Netrix Corp. in December of 1999. Proteon, also known as OpenRoute Networks, Inc. and NxNetworks,
Inc. manufactured hardware and software for computer network communications. He
has also served as Chairman of the Board of UltraNet
Communications, Inc. UltraNet was acquired by RCN
Corp. Mr. Salwen is a member of the Board of
Directors of the Massachusetts Telecommunication Council and was its Chairman in
1996. He also serves on the Oversight Committees of The Museum of Science and
the Fleet Boston Celebrity Series. Mr. Salwen is
currently a Member-at-Large of the TCCC and is a member of the Standing
Committee of the LCN conference.
[2] Mr. Ellis Nolley: Heads a strategic planning firm and positions technology businesses to target markets. Dynamic, results-focused business leader and developer with an M.S. Degree in Mathematics and over 20 years of broad-based experience in strategic planning, business development, marketing, product management and product development of information systems. Mr. Nolley served as Chair of the Twin Cities IEEE, Vice-Chair of Market Requirements & Ambassador for the ATM Forum, and General Chair of the IEEE Local Computer Network Conference. Noted speaker on market changes and technological trends in the information industry. Mr. Nolley is currently the Strategic Planning Chair of the TCCC and is very active in the IEEE Twin Cities Section.
[3] Dr. Frank
Huebner: Currently a manager with the Technical Services Analysis group at
AT&T Labs in
[4] Mr. Joseph
(Joe) R. Bumblis: Currently an Information Technology Project Manager/Systems
Architect at United Defense (UDLP) in
[5] Dr. Harvey
Freeman: Currently the IEEE Communications Society (ComSoc)
TAB Vice President. Dr. Freeman is also a member of a research team in a major
consulting firm in
[6] Dr. Archan Misra: Currently employed
as a Research Staff Member with the Pervasive Security and Networking
Department at the IBM TJ Watson Research Center,