I find it more than a little troubling that Robin has seemingly unilaterally terminated Interloc, with no discussion or vote by the AMC or a chance for discussion amongst the membership as a whole.
You are being troubled by an assumption you haven’t bothered to check out. I absolutely had a great deal of discussion with members, ComComm, and the AMC regarding the future of InterLoc. I find it more than a little troubling that anyone would assume I would take such a major step without others’ input!
Decisions to change to electronic means of communication should only be taken after a through analysis of the current processes and consideration for the impact of the new systems. This is standard business process analysis. I don't see an indication that this was done. Maybe it is the right choice, maybe it is not, where is the summary of the analysis?
I agree whole-heartedly about the necessity of the decision-making process you describe. But just because you don’t see…. don’t assume it didn’t happen. Actually, I did plenty of analysis and discussion with many people, including the AMC as a whole in advance of the March ComComm meeting. I shared the background paper with the entire AMC and Communications Committee (which included two past and one then-current InterLoc editors). I even posted a link to it in February on this blog. I know that Jared, at least read it.
I know quite a few people who choose not to have computers. I don't have a
specific number in mind, but I seem to recall seeing a national survey that
showed only 2/3 of the country is connected to the Internet.
I would [call] 1/3 of the population "a lot".
In the background paper I mentioned earlier, you’ll see that we do know how many member have email addresses on file (and it is reasonable to assume that there are other members who have computers and Internet access but who do not wish to share those email addresses with the National Office). The facts are that in the general population, at least 75% of Americans have reliable Internet access. Here is a site that claims an even higher rate of Americans who use the Internet. 75% of Mensa members have email that we know of. At least 91% off officers and appointees have email.
You many not find it necessary, but I certainly read things a whole lot
better - and with much better comprehension - when it is in print. Even
things I've written.
And yet, you seem quite enthusiastic about reading, comprehending, and discussing Mensa topics on elists and Yahoo groups. You certainly wrote more posts on elists and Yahoo groups than letters to InterLoc.
Why the secrecy? Why not simply announce what the new format is when announcing an end to the old one?
No great secrecy. I posted about this in February. My original plan called for one more issue of InterLoc to overlap with InterLink so that we could do exactly what you suggest. The template and content for the new publication was still being finalized when Brian decided to use his position as InterLoc editor to announce the change and his resignation, and I did not choose to bump his farewell editorial in order to make the announcement myself.
We Mensans sure are an impatient bunch—we hear something new is coming soon and we immediately start hopping up and down demanding to know all the details NOW. The other alternative is to keep all up-coming changes top-secret until they are deployed. I can’t imagine anyone would prefer that approach.
Maybe Robin got some negative feedback on her idea for an electronic newsletter from "those who count" and had to re-jigger her idea to turn it into a print publication.
Um… nope. Everyone who has seen the template and plan has been quite enthusiastic.
Oh, maybe she needed a dramatic introduction for the new pub, whatever the form, and nobody has written the scenario yet.
Everything is being rolled out and announced according to schedule, except for the original intention to have one more issue of InterLoc (in the July Bulletin) to overlap and introduce InterLink. No drama at all—just calm presentation of decisions and changes via the normal reporting mechanisms.
Whereas this "new vehicle" is so "timely and effective" that it doesn't even exist.
Well, one could also say that the July issue of the Bulletin doesn’t exist, too. But it is in production and will exist—by July. InterLink will be finished and sent to the members right on schedule… roughly the same time as the next issue of InterLoc would have been if Brian hadn’t quit two months early.
An online version, especially on the AMC website which so many people seem to difficulty navigating, there likely won't be nearly as many eyeballs on the publication this way.
Who said InterLink will be on the Web site? Stop thinking of this as a newsletter… do not assume it will be just a pdf version of a used-to-be printed publication. This is 2010! We have technology!
The vision is to make InterLink such an inclusive, interactive, content-rich, immediate-connection dialog…that members will think the old InterLoc was scratchings on stone tablets.
Think Big.
Take Risks.
Try New Things.
9 comments:
Am I understanding the bottom part correctly? It seems that you're saying that it's not only not a print publication but it's also not going to be on the website either.
Or are you trying to say it's just not going to be a pdf file, rather it's more akin to the online Forums - which is something on the website?
InterLink content will be archived on the Web, yes. But it will not be a flat pdf file. That's sooooo 2007!
As for everyone's horror at not having paper for the members who choose not to use computers, we've got that covered, too.
Now what we NEED is an article about "What I learned as a First Time LocSec" for the second issue. :-)
About the only thing she says about it is that it's not just a static publication (such as a PDF file) similar to a paper publication but online instead; it's apparently going to be some sort of new whiz-bang high-tech interactive thing. Exactly what it will be is left entirely unclear. If it's going to be some sort of forum or e-list, how is it different from the many Mensa-related forums and e-lists already out there, including in the American and International Mensa sites?
Robin, analysis of a process change has to include the clients and the results have to be presented to the clients. The best place to do that in this case would be Interloc. AMC and ComCom are the providers and should not unilaterally institute change. Their job is to analyze data, suggest solutions and then present it to the clients for buy in. This blog is not a means for communication on this topic, I didn't even know about it until Barbara posted the link, so you can blame her.
"AMC and ComCom are the providers and should not unilaterally institute change [for the clients]"
Interesting angle to look at things!
Is the AMC a Board of Directors elected (or appointed) to make decisions and guide change, or is it a group of uber volunteers selected to provide services to the members who hire them?
Really interesting thing to mull over. ( I'm seeing fodder for another post when i have time) I think we are "service leaders" and that we have to walk a line between be doers and deciders.
Did I ask for the input of all 56,000 members? No. Did I ask for input from everyone those 56,000 members elected to speak for them? Yes.
Grumble grumble... gotta learn how to go back and edit my comments when I screw up the formatting and spelling.
Not 56,000. Just the current readers of Interloc. That is not to say if some don't agree then you don't move forward, sometimes the client is wrong. However, you need to present your case for change to those users. Off hand I would think this change is the best choice but the delivery is horrible and makes members feel as they have no input, especially following on the heels of the trademark mess.
Isn't there a difference between the client, the user, and the service provider? I posit that the client is the AMC who speak for the users and charge me with providing communications systems for those users.
I did, indeed, present my case to the client. I also presented my case to a sampling of the users.
Members have input... via their representatives on the Board. Even if your RVC does not ask his or her constituents directly, you still elected someone who espouses the views and values held by the majority of the members.
Horrible delivery? We gathered data and input, and plenty of people knew we were doing so. We surveyed some InterLoc readers and contributors. We discussed and came to a decisions, and plenty of people were involved in that. We reported the results of the decision via the normal reporting mechanisms. RVCs had opportunities to report sooner via their columns or regional elists.
There is still a chance that the motion that codifies the proposed changes will be voted down, in which case I'll go find an InterLoc editor and go back to doing things the old fashioned way. (Although some make the case that as an Action Committee, ComComm is empowered to make the decision without consulting the whole AMC.)
So I suppose you could all tell your RVCs that you want them to oppose change and perhaps they will vote according to your wishes.
Meanwhile, I'm going to continue to try new things and to expand our collection of ways for members to receive and exchange information. If what I try sucks, I'll try something different.
Do all the current Interloc readers know the data you collected? This is not an issue for me, in my ideal world AML would not spend a dime on postage or printing, but that is not realistic. I am just concerned about the change process. Until your last post I did not see a statement anywhere about the research and data on the Interloc change. You I can go to my RVC but without the rationalization for the change available to me I would be telling him to vote no. That is what I mean about the delivery. Having collected the data why not issue a statement along the lines of " After through research we have determined that Interloc is currently being used by x% of the membership at an annual cost of $x. We can provide edelivery at $x/yr and at the same time provide a searchable archive of previous issues. Our data indicated that the number of users that do not have the necessary tools to access online material is minimal"
I would expect that you try new things, I let my original membership lapse because I did not find enough online activity for value in the membership fee at the time and came back when AML moved into the digital age.
Just because I elect someone does not mean I give them full proxy, I expect to be informed of issues.
Post a Comment