CEO Report SGB Meeting July 31, 2007 New York. Outline ACM Overview –Membership –Financials –Member satisfaction Across the Boards –Education –Publications

CEO Report

SGB Meeting

July 31, 2007

New York

Outline

• ACM Overview– Membership

– Financials

– Member satisfaction

• Across the Boards– Education

– Publications

– Professions

– Membership

• Initiatives– On going

– New CACM

– Council Retreat

Membership

• FY ’07

– Professional members: 62,360

– Student members: 20,063

82,423

Membership

• FY ’07

– Professional membership continues to increase

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

ProfessionalMembers

Membership

• Other facts

– SIG memberships: 44,491

• SIG + ACM 33,937

• SIG Only 10,554

– Chapter members: 33,897

– Subscriptions

• Print: 28,492

• Digital Library:– Professional 22,878– Students 9,165

Financials

ACMFY07

ProjectionFY07

BudgetFY06

Actual

Revenue 49,778 46,284 47,533Expense 46,126 45,726 44,744ACM Net 3,652 558 2,789

Financials

FY07 Projection

FY07 Budget

FY06 Actual

ACM GeneralRevenue 21,916 21,073 21,216Expense 21,014 20,625 20,096ACM GeneralNet 902 448 1,120

ACM SIGsRevenue 27,862 27,051 26,317Expense 25,112 26,948 24,648ACM SIG Net 2,750 103 1,669

ACM Net 3,652 551 2,789

Financials

FY07 Projection

FY07 Budget

FY06 Actual

ACM GeneralMPO Revenue 20,080 20,515 20,123MPO Expense 17,731 18,364 17,367MPO Net 2,349 2,151 2,756

VM Revenue 1,836 558 1,093VM Expense 3,282 2,261 2,728VM Net (1,446) (1,703) (1,635)

ACM General Net 903 448 1,121

Financials

FY07 Projection

FY07 Budget

FY06 Actual

ACM SIGsConf. Revenue 23,172 22,843 21,216Conf. Expense 18,915 20,321 20,096Conf. Net 4,257 2,522 1,120

Ops. Revenue 4,690 4,208 26,317Ops. Expense 6,197 6,627 24,648Ops. Nete (1,507) (2,419) 1,669

ACM SIGs Net 2,750 103 2,789

Conferences' Net

$(2,000)

$(1,000)

$-

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

Fiscal Years

Net

in

Th

ou

san

ds

Do

llar

s

Big Five Net ($000) $2,821 $3,825 $705 $(1,560) $434 $1,955 $2,477 $1,872

All Others Net ($000) $1,191 $1,329 $738 $946 $1,741 $1,590 $1,698 $2,386

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007

FinancialsSIG Conferences

FinancialsFund Balances

ACM-General FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07-PAwards 454 503 548 577 602 723 846 973 1,215 1,515Capital 587 837 937 837 1,008 1,008 1,500 2,000 2,000 593Development 802 1,577 1,952 1,247 2,544 2,369 2,493 2,536 3,144 3,019Optional Contrb. 356 346 317 297 245 167 153 172 203 208Conference 0 163 244 147 210 281 302 247 173 119Deficit (2,236) (1,586) (1,336) (1,275) (1,025) 0 0 0 0 0General Fund 0 0 0 0 0 1,105 2,000 2,779 3,299 3,901TOTAL (37) 1,840 2,662 1,830 3,584 5,653 7,294 8,707 10,034 9,355ACM-SIGsAward Fund 469 1,255 1,295 1,354 1,376 1,447 1,515 1,535 1,817 1,900Alloc. Reserve 288 302 317 317 325 86 (189) 56 118 170Project Fund 82 100 54 79 123 139 123 118 118 118Operating Fund 20,684 20,611 22,354 24,268 22,231 18,755 18,673 19,517 21,186 23,937TOTAL 21,523 22,268 24,020 26,018 24,055 20,427 20,122 21,226 23,239 26,125

ACM Op. Fund 21,486 24,108 26,682 27,848 27,639 26,080 27,416 29,933 33,273 35,480


-5000

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

ACM General

ACM SIG


-5000

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

ACM SIG

ACM General

DL Distribution to the SIGs

• DL Distribution in perspective

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

$1,574K

DL Distribution to the SIGs

• DL Distribution in perspective

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

$1,800K

Member Satisfaction

Membership

• Professional Members

– 64% Practitioners & Managers

– 30% Academics/Educators & Researchers

Manager18%

Other6%

Researcher10%

Practitioner46%

Academic/Educator

20%

Customer Satisfaction Study

5%

4%4%5%

39%37%

36%37%

56%59%60%

58%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total Active Members 2007 (n=1,962)Total Active Members 2006 (n=2,355)Total Active Members 2005 (n=3,750)Total Active Members 2004 (n=3,720)

Source: Table 7; S1Q5a: Taking everything into consideration, please select the response which best describes your overall satisfaction with your ACM membership.

About You and ACM

Extremely/very satisfied (7-6)

Somewhat satisfied/neutral (5-4)

Somewhat/very/ extremely dissatisfied (3-1)

Mean Satisfaction: 5.5 5.6 5.3 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5

Overall Satisfaction with ACM Membership

= Significantly higher than 2006/2007 at 90% level of confidence.

Professionals Students

Active 2007 (n=1,597)Active 2006 (n=1,870)Active 2005 (n=2,910)Active 2004 (n=2,845)

Active 2007 (n=365)Active 2006 (n=485)Active 2005 (n=840)Active 2004 (n=875)

% %

61 50

61 57

5955

5858

35 43

35 38

3740

3836

4 7

4 4

45

46


5%5%4%4%

49%48%49%

45%

46%47%47%

51%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total Active Members 2007 (n=1,962)Total Active Members 2006 (n=2,355)Total Active Members 2005 (n=3,750)Total Active Members 2004 (n=3,720)

Source: Table 8; S1Q6: Please select the statement that best describes how relevant your ACM membership is to your job/overall career (education).

About You and ACM

Extremely/very relevant

Somewhat/slightly relevant

Not relevant

ACM Membership Relevance to Job/Overall Career/Education


Professionals Students

Active 2007 (n=1,597)Active 2006 (n=1,870)Active 2005 (n=2,910)Active 2004 (n=2,845)

Active 2007 (n=365)Active 2006 (n=485)Active 2005 (n=840)Active 2004 (n=875)

% %

49 57

44 57

4442

5457

47 37

52 38

5253

4238

4 6

4 5

5 4

5 5


51%

59%

64%57%

56%

60%62%

65%

50%

56%56%

60%

55%

58%64%

61%

65%

67%68%

62%

55%59%61%61%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Source: Table 7; S1Q5a: Taking everything into consideration, please select the response which best describes your overall satisfaction with your ACM membership.

About You and ACM

2007 (n=1,597)

2006 (n=1,870)

2005 (n=2,910)

2004 (n=2,845)

2007 (n=361)

2006 (n=413)

2005 (n=652)

2004 (n=630)

2007 (n=283)

2006 (n=333)

2005 (n=533)

2004 (n=481)

2007 (n=687)

2006 (n=805)

2005 (n=1,243)

2004 (n=1,234)

2007 (n=160)

2006 (n=194)

2005 (n=290)

2004 (n=313)

2007 (n=106)

2006 (n=125)

2005 (n=192)

2004 (n=187)

Overall Satisfaction with ACM- % Extremely/Very Satisfied with Membership -

(Active Professionals Only)


Total Active Pros

Academics/Educators

Managers

Practitioners

Researchers

Others


= Significantly higher than 2006/2007 at the 90% confidence level.*5-point scale: 1=not relevant; 5=extremely relevant **5-point scale: 1=will not renew; 5=definitely will renewSource: Table 8; S1Q6: Please select the statement that best describes how relevant your ACM membership is to your job and/or overall career. Table 9; S1Q7a: Which of the following statements best describes how likely you will be to renew your ACM membership?

ACM Membership Relevance toJob/Overall Career

- Extremely/Very Relevant* -

About You and ACM

Likelihood of RenewingACM Membership

- Probably/Definitely Will Renew** -

32%

37%

52%

62%

44%

43%

63%

66%

36%

42%

44%

49%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2007 Professionals2006 Professionals

(n=1597)

(n=1870)

(n=687)

(n=805)

(n=361)

(n=413)

(n=283)

(n=333)

(n=160)

(n=194)

(n=106)

(n=125) 88%

90%

89%

94%

93%

91%

95%

93%

92%

90%

92%

91%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Total

Practitioner

Academic/Educator

Manager

Researcher

Other


= Significantly higher than 2006/2007 at the 90% confidence level.(1)7-point scale: 1=extremely dissatisfied; 7=extremely satisfied (2)5-point scale: 1=not relevant; 5=extremely relevant *Percentages are based on total answering.Source: Table 55; S3Q4a: Taking everything into consideration, please select the response which best describes your overall satisfaction with the ACM Digital

Library. Table 56; S3Q5: Please select the response below which best describes how relevant the ACM Digital Library is to your job and/or overall career.

Overall Satisfaction with ACM Digital Library(Very, Somewhat, Not Too Familiar with

ACM Digital Library*)- Extremely/Very Satisfied(1) -

ACM Digital Library Relevance to Job/Overall Career(Very, Somewhat, Not Too Familiar with

ACM Digital Library*)- Extremely/Very Relevant(2) -

ACM Digital Library

52%

40%

73%

80%

54%

57%

77%

78%

57%

56%

63%

63%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


43%

24%

72%

86%

47%

51%

80%

80%

42%

41%

56%

56%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Total

Practitioner

Academic/Educator

Manager

Researcher

Other

(n=1402)

(n=1618)

(n=580)

(n=666)

(n=332)

(n=382)

(n=243)

(n=287)

(n=154)

(n=187)

(n=93)

(n=96)


*Caution: Small base size. = Significantly higher than 2006/2007 at the 90% confidence level.(1)7-point scale: 1=extremely dissatisfied; 7=extremely satisfiedSource: Table 95; S7Q1a: Are you a member of an ACM Special Interest Group (SIG)? Table 97; S7Q2a: Taking everything into consideration, please select the response which best describes your overall satisfaction

with the ACM SIG which reflects your primary technical interest?

Percent Member of ACM SpecialInterest Group (SIG)

Overall Satisfaction with ACM SIG MembershipWhich Reflects Primary Interest

(ACM SIG Members)- Extremely/Very Satisfied(1) -

Special Interest Groups (SIGs)

24%

26%

48%

44%

24%

24%

52%

51%

23%

22%

31%

31%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


70%

57%

66%

78%

61%

67%

76%

70%

65%

59%

68%

66%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


(n=642)

(n=750)

(n=207)

(n=243)

(n=218)

(n=249)

(n=91)

(n=108)

(n=90)

(n=112)

(n=36)*

(n=38)*

Total

Practitioner

Academic/Educator

Manager

Researcher

Other

(n=1597)

(n=1870)

(n=687)

(n=805)

(n=361)

(n=413)

(n=283)

(n=333)

(n=160)

(n=194)

(n=106)

(n=125)


= Significantly higher than 2006/2007 at the 90% confidence level.(1)7-point scale: 1=extremely dissatisfied; 7=extremely satisfied *Caution: Small base size.Source: Table 100; S7Q5a: In the past 12 months, how many ACM Special Interest Group (SIG) Conferences have you attended? Table 102; S7Q6a: Taking everything into consideration, please select the response which best describes your overall satisfaction

with the most important conference that you attended in the past 12 months.

Percent Attended ACM SIGConferences Past 12 Months

Overall Satisfaction with Most Important ACMSIG Conference Attended Past 12 Months

(ACM SIG Conference Attendees)- Extremely/Very Satisfied(1) -

Special Interest Groups (SIGs)

5%

6%

29%

37%

10%

7%

30%

27%

8%

6%

14%

13%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


53%

74%

70%

75%

70%

85%

85%

78%

67%

78%

75%

78%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


(n=245)

(n=289)

(n=45)

(n=66)

(n=107)

(n=119)

(n=22)*

(n=33)*

(n=63)

(n=63)

(n=8)*

(n=8)*

Total

Practitioner

Academic/Educator

Manager

Researcher

Other

(n=1597)

(n=1870)

(n=687)

(n=805)

(n=361)

(n=413)

(n=283)

(n=333)

(n=160)

(n=194)

(n=106)

(n=125)

Across the Boards

Education Board

• Reorganized

• Board

– Curriculum

– Accreditation

– Oversight of the Education Council

• Council

– Image

Publications

• Areas of focus

– New journals

– EIC’s

– Digital Library

• Issues

– Publications business model

– Next steps with the Digital Library

Professions

• New Board

• Focus

– Best Practices site/service

– Case studies (ACM Perspective)

– CTO Roundtable

– Significant overlap with the running of Queue

Membership

• Focus

– Serving and satisfying members

– Current concentration

• Student satisfaction

• Chapters

• Distinguished Speakers Program

• Digital Media Capture (DMC)

Initiatives

On-going Initiatives

• India/China

• Image and health of the field

• Diversity

• Revitalization of CACM

• Council Retreat

India and China

• Two task forces established

• China

– Met in October

– Initial plans in place

• ACM China Secretariat at Tsinghua

• ACM China website in Chinese served from the Secretariat

• Considering co-publishing a Chinese software/systems journal

• Considering translation of popular content (CACM, Queue) to Chinese

– Next meeting being planned

• India

– Task force is just now coming together

– Meeting this Fall

Image and Health of the Field

• Long-standing concern and focus

• Activities

– Globalization Report

– Computer Science Teachers Association

– Image Task Force

– National Center for Women and Information Technology

– ACM Education Policy Committee

Diversity

• Gender equity

– Year long effort underway to rethink/revitalize ACM-W

– Hub within the National Center for Women and Information Technology (NCWIT)

– Presenter of the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women annually

• Ethnic diversity

– Cosponsor of the Coalition to Diversify Computing

– Sponsor of the Tapia Conference

A New CACM

CACM History

• Launched in 1958

• By the late 1960’s CACM was established as a premiere research journal

• Throughout the 1970’s ACM was changing

– Conscious effort to serve the broad practitioner community

• By the early 1980’s there were a number of issues with, or related to, CACM

– Research articles were difficult to understand for many members

– Results reported were not relevant for an increasing number of members

– Increasing backlog

– Transactions had emerged

CACM History

• First redesign – early 1980’s

– From a journal to a magazine

– Try to satisfy everyone

• Regular columns

• News analysis

• Hot technologies

• Interviews

• Case studies

• Tutorials

• Some research articles

CACM History

• Second redesign – early 1990’s

– Further “magazination” of CACM

• Stronger focus on applications

• More responsibility to professional staff

• Smaller role played by editorial board

• Why another redesign?

– Pervasive dissatisfaction with current CACM

– Current design over 20-year old

– Evolving membership

– Internet, WWW, Digital Library

– Queue (2003)

CACM Redesign

• Task force established by Dave Patterson in late 2005

• Options:

– Minor change

– Fully professional magazine (a la IEEE Spectrum)

– ACM’s “Science”

– Preferred: “Science”

CACM Redesign

• The “Science” model– Extensive news section

– Premier research journal

– Perspectives (scientific or news)

– Other features (book reviews, policy, education, etc.)

– 51 issues per year, staff of 120

• Should CACM be a research journal (again)? No!– CS research is conference driven

– Journal review process problematic

• Solution– Solution: Research and Discovery (R&D)

– (“Best of Best”) section with perspectives.

CACM Redesign

• Task Force’s model for a new CACM– News

– Columns

– Computing Practices

– R&D (with perspectives)

• Moshe Vardi invited to take the lead in shaping this into a real model … and to be the EIC– Discussions:

• SGB (February 5, 2005)

• Three general discussions with membrers– New York (February 12, 2005)– San Francisco (March 16, 2005– London (March 23, 2005)

• Publications Board (May 15, 2005)

• Executive Committee (May 18, 2005)

CACM Redesign

• What was learned from the discussion groups?

– ACM must have a print flagship publication.

– Idea of R&D articles is great, but do not just reprint original articles.

– Queue provides the right content for practitioners.

– CACM should continue to publish peer-reviewed articles.

– Edgier opinions desired.

– New look&feel badly needed.

– Consider changing name.

• Moshe’s analysis of what went wrong

– Under investment (5 FTEs vs. 15 FTEs)

– Under involvement (by the Editorial Board)

CACM Redesign

• New content model for CACM

– News: • Unique CACM voice (in depth, global, cutting edge, people, ACM

news)

– Opinions: • Columns, viewpoints, counterpoints, interviews, etc.

– Technology: • Queue content (with “perspectives”)

– R&D:• Top articles from recent computing research (conference)

literature (with perspectives)

– Peer-reviewed articles: • Broad appeal, contributed and solicited

CACM Redesign

• Editorial model: “Active and Authoritative”

– Divide EB into six semi-autonomous committees, corresponding to CACM’s sections plus website.

– Significant international involvement.

– Let committees devise editorial models for each section.

– Executive committee: EiC + committees’ chairs + publisher – oversight and coordination.

CACM Redesign

• Implementation plan:

– Hire magazine publisher (+ other skills)

– Work out transition plan with Queue

– Initiate graphic redesign

– Form EB and refine editorial model

– Start pipeline of R&D articles

– Big-Bang issue: June 2008

CACM Redesign

• Significant investment

– ~ 14 staff

– ~ $4 Million

• Significant opportunity

– To create the “Science Magazine” for computing

– To create something of real value as the primary member benefit

– To, in the long run, improve the prospects of acquiring and retaining members

• Approved by ACM Council in June

Council Retreat

• Two topics

– ACM’s international model

– ACM’s financial strategy

Council Retreat

International Model - Context

• Since 1990 ACM has had a goal of being more international

• This goal has resulted in varying objectives over the past 15 years– Increasing the number of conferences held outside the US

– Increasing the number of local chapters outside the US

– Becoming an individual, international member of IFIP

– Ensuring non-US membership on Council, the EC, ACM Boards, and committees

– Increasing the number of non-US members

– Increasing the number of non-US universities participating in the ACM ICPC

– Ensuring international reach of the ACM Digital Library

• Results have been mixed– Level of activity outside the US has increased

– Yet, we are still viewed as a US-centric organization

International Model - Context

• Key issues– There is a fairly consistent sense that ACM is somehow falling short in its role as

an international society

– Yet, we have no clear goals or objectives against which to measure progress

– So, in what way is ACM failing?

• Purpose of this discussion– Review where we really are as an organization

– (Re)define our goals and objectives relative to ACM’s presence outside the US

– (Re)consider what is the right model for ACM’s international reach given those goals/objectives?

– What actions do we need to take?

• The approach– HQ collected a significant amount of data on current engagement worldwide

– Working group has helped shape the issue and the discussion outline• Joe Konstan, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, Alain Chesnais, Wendy Hall, Andrew McGettrick,

and Alex Wolf

Current International Engagement

• Look at

– Distribution of ACM members

– Geographic diversity in usage of ACM products and services

– Geographic diversity in leadership of ACM

– Geographic diversity in our current priorities


• ACM professional members

• How do we compare with the IEEE?

65%

4% 2% 2%10%

16%

1%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%U

S

Can

ad

a

Mid

-S

ou

thA

meri

ca

Pacifi

cR

im Asia

Eu

rop

e

Oth

er

ProfessionalMembers


• ACM and IEEE professional members

• How does ACM compare to five years ago?

65%

4%2% 2%

10%

16%

1%

59%

4% 4%

17% 16%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%U

S

Can

ad

a

Mid

-S

ou

thA

meri

ca

Asia

&P

acifi

cR

im

Eu

rop

e

Oth

er

ACMMembers

I EEEMembers


• ACM from FY’02 to FY’07

69%

4%1% 2%

9%

15%

0%

65%

4%2% 2%

10%

16%

1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%U

S

Can

ad

a

Mid

-S

ou

thA

meri

ca

Asia

&P

acifi

cR

im

Eu

rop

e

Oth

er

ACM-2002

ACM-2007


• Customer engagement

65%

4%2% 2%

10%

16%

1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%U

S

Can

ad

a

Mid

-S

ou

thA

meri

ca

Pacifi

cR

im Asia

Eu

rop

e

Oth

er

ProfessionalMembersWebsiteUsageI nstitutionswith DLCourses

Books

ConferenceAttendeesAuthors

DLSubscriptions


• Other activities

6 5 %

4 %2 % 2 %

10 %

16 %

1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%U

S

Can

ad

a

Mid

-S

ou

thA

meri

ca

Pacifi

cR

im Asia

Eu

rop

e

Oth

er

ProfessionalMembers

ProfessionalChapters

StudentChapters

I CPC


• ACM Leadership

6 5 %

4 %2 % 2 %

10 %

16 %

1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%U

S

Can

ad

a

Mid

-S

ou

thA

meri

ca

Pacifi

cR

im Asia

Eu

rop

e

Oth

er

ProfessionalMembers

Council

Pubs

Ed Board &Council

MSB

Prof Board

SGB


• ACM Technical Leadership

6 5 %

4 %2 % 2 %

10 %

16 %

1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%U

S

Can

ad

a

Mid

-S

ou

thA

meri

ca

Pacifi

cR

im Asia

Eu

rop

e

Oth

er

ProfessionalMembers

SI G Leaders

ConferenceLeadership

PCs for CHI ,GRAPH. MOD,I CSE, PLDI -06/ 07J ournalEditors


• ACM Recognition

6 5 %

4 %2 % 2 %

10 %

16 %

1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%U

S

Can

ad

a

Mid

-S

ou

thA

meri

ca

Pacifi

cR

im Asia

Eu

rop

e

Oth

er

ProfessionalMembers

Key People

AwardWinners(06,07)

Fellow/ Distingusihed/ Senior


• Observations

– More non-US members than FY’02

– ACM geographic distribution is not that different from IEEE (65% US vs. 59% US)

– Greatest geographic diversity is in and around research publications

• DL access and usage

• Journal/transactions editors

• Pubs Board

• Program committees for major research conferences

– Least geographic diversity centers on ACM leadership• Council and Boards

• SIG leaders

International Engagement

• Council discussion

– Lead from our strengths (research publications/conferences and education) when engaging outside the US. Research is a global endeavor, largely conducted in English, and a major strength of ACM. Research assets do not need to be localized.

– We should work to increase geographic diversity in all aspects of ACM leadership.

– When reaching outside the research community to local practitioners, we should reconsider partnerships with national societies.

– China and India should continue as a major focus.

• The EC agreed to take on the task of developing next steps based on this discussion.

Financial Strategy

Financial Strategy

• Focus

– ACM General financial trends and issues

– Not SIG finances

• Motivation

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08

General-Revenue

General-Expense

Financial Strategy

• Approach

– Financial trends

– Strategic look at spending

• Programmatic perspective

• Principles

• Strategic trends

– Looking forward

• New spending

• New revenue

Financial Strategy

• Context

– ACM is financially sound

– ACM Net is traditionally $2Million - $3Million annually

– Both the SIGs and ACM General are budgeting at roughly break-even for FY’08

– Concentrate on ACM General (vs. ACM SIGs)• SIGs traditionally budget conservatively, but there is concern over

conference expense rising fast than conference revenue

• ACM General trends as reflected in the FY’07 projection and FY’08 budget are real

• SIG direction is largely under the influence of SIG leaders

• Council’s impact on strategic financial issues is greatest with the General side of ACM

A Strategic Look at ACM Finances

• Principles over the past several years

– Invest in and grow the ACM publishing program

• New publications

• Digital Library growth

– Support the profession and professionals/practitioners

• Queue

• Professions Board

• Increased support for the profession

– Increase the value proposition for ACM membership

• Hold dues constant

• Invest in services

– Invest in raising awareness

Financial Strategy

• Outcomes

– Our principles are being followed

• Membership is increasing

• The publications portfolio is expanding

• DL revenue is increasing

• Satisfaction among practitioners is increasing

– But it is time to consider

• The price of ACM membership

• The long-term financial implications of an expanding publications program

• Other cuts at viewing ACM spending revenue

Documents

CEO Report SGB Meeting July 31, 2007 New York. Outline ACM Overview –Membership –Financials –Member satisfaction Across the Boards –Education –Publications