Now I am confused. GTM is Frost & Sullivan (the company's) Global Team Membership program.For details on it, see this PowerPoint: 188.8.131.52/gtm/overview/GTM_Overview.pps. How does that apply to SCIP's "events and membership services"? It seems to be a F&S (the company) commercial program. GIL Global is F&S (the company's) Growth Innovation and Leadership Program (which appears to be a part of GTM) and which seems to feature a lot of F&S speakers.
And what does having a "management role" for F&S (the Foundation) mean? Is it something beyond 2 board members?
I wish that some members of the BOD would participate to keep us updated on this. They promised transparency, but the F&S (the foundation) email is really opaque.
What I understand from this F&S will manage the income from the conferences and memberships. What control will F&S have over the SCIP board? How will they divide their power? Who controls FSI? Will there be a reelection of the SCIP board? It says "CI newsletter" and nothing about a journal, does that mean that there will be no academic part in the new organization? It says details are being worked out, who is doing this? When will they present their conclusions?
I'm back from my stylist with my hair done and naturally blonde. I'd love to lead the revolution but those on the BOD who know me don't exactly love me. I have one friend on the BOD but it is a personal relationship and I don't want to abuse that. Who knows a BOD member they can approach? They MUST be on this blog. They MUST answer these questions. We CAN'T work in the dark. Please help. Carolyn
The answer from FSI is certainly not good. We have certainly been mislead by SCIP (surprise?). Frankly, if this goes through as FSI sees it, this offers nothing to me. Either we, as CI professionals and SCIP members, take SCIP back and return it to CI or we become tree huggers. I'm not a tree hugger. I'm a CI professional. Carolyn
As Unamuno (the philosopher son of an Italian baker) once wrote - "my job is not to be the bread, my job is to be the yeast". I will be looking with interest at what my colleagues (those (still) in SCIP, and those who no longer are) have to say ...
I feel very sorry that in these discussions, I do not hear the voice of SCIP leaders/ board. It is essential that they will come on board and will take an active role in these efforts to restructuring SCIP. I'm calling them - take an active role in the discussions and challenge us withy your ideas.
Most of the current SCIP board are members here, including: Martha Gleason, Adrian Alvarez, Erik Glitman, Kelsey Hare, and Jens Thieme. Former board presidents Martha Matteo and Joe Goldberg are also members. I'm guessing the reason they are not speaking out is that the opinion of any one of them is not the opinion of the board as a group. There is an obligation when one is a board member not to air the internal conflicts outside the boardroom. If a compromise is negotiated, and one party later goes out and talks about that idea and/or discussion, then other parties to the conversation can rightfully feel betrayed. They have to work together and have to trust one another or compromise becomes impossible on other issues.
While it's easy to see Frost managing the money as an instance of misleading the membership, I would submit that it is implicit in the term "Shared Services". When two organizations adopt a shared services approach, one of the parties will be taking over functions which previously were done by both parties separately. It is a cost saving measure that allows the party with the greater expertise or efficiency to improve the operations of the less experienced/efficient partner without increasing cost...or at least increasing cost in such a way that overall project efficiency is improved.
Since SCIP is the entity with the bloated cost structure, it is likely that any shared services will result in F&SI taking over more functions.
It's obvious that SCIP did a crappy job of communicating the details of this deal. It was in the interest of F&SI to keep their cards hidden. It is also possible that SCIP did an INTENTIONALLY crappy job communicating the details, using non-inflamatory code words rather than laying out details that might cause elevations in emotion and conflict.
We still have to come up with a path forward. If someone decides their trust has been violated, this discussion will help explain fuzzy details, but otherwise, we just need to decide what we want from SCIP and plot out our path forward.
But we have to do more than just have a discussion. We have to have a discussion that leads to actions.If we don't help ourselves, we just continue to be led by an ineffective association and we blog endlessly our complaints about it. Let's do something that helps us. We don't have to let them lead us. Carolyn