From the HighEdWeb Board of Directors:
We’re planning for the future, and we need your help. The Higher Education Web Professionals Association’s Board of Directors, along with some peers and colleagues, have begun a dialogue regarding the Association, the strategic context within which it operates, and plans for the future. To date, the Association is most closely associated with our annual conference HighEdWeb, and that is certainly an event of which we are proud and that we hope to continue into the future. However, new initiatives are also emerging: HighEdWeb regional conferences, the LINK journal, and more. This discussion, then, is about how the Association can continue to evolve to support and best meet the needs of its members and its mission, and we want to give you a chance to share your thoughts.
We’re using a SWOT analysis to organize our discussions. We’d like your feedback on and contributions to our strategic planning.
As with any planning activity, it’s important to focus on our purpose. The Association’s mission, as conference attendees helped define it in 2005, is to advance Web professionals, technologies, and standards in higher education.
First, let’s discuss strengths. For this activity, strengths are defined as internal attributes of the Association that will be helpful in achieving our objectives. In our initial work on this project, we identified the following as our primary strengths:
- The engagement of the HighEdWeb community at conferences and online, its enthusiasm for our collective work, and the Association’s tradition of listening to feedback in making changes to our events.
- Our annual conference (hello Austin!), certainly our most visible activity to date, with its associated quality, reputation, growth, and momentum.
- The dedication of our volunteers to make HighEdWeb activities happen, and their connections to the Web profession in higher education.
- Credibility from our peers that comes from being an organization comprised of higher education Web professionals working for higher education Web professionals.
- The financial stability of a reserve fund, built up over past annual conferences, to ensure our continuation and to support new initiatives.
Next, let’s consider the Association’s weaknesses, specifically those factors which are internal to the organization. Stakeholders were asked to reflect: what current attributes of the HighEdWeb Association could be harmful or stand in the way of achieving objectives? Among those factors identified in initial discussions:
- Board/committee members are stretched thin or overcommitted; decisions take too long to make; need to delegate more; difficulty launching new initiatives.
- Composition & Structure: Board lacks geographic diversity; public perception is that there is an Association “network” that can only be broken into if you know someone – membership is “cliquey”; not enough opportunities for a more diverse group to participate; no term limits on Board positions.
- Change is very slow to non-existent; fear of change; too risk-averse; too conservative regarding growth of conference & other initiatives.
- Membership in the Association is not defined; Association has unclear role within the professional community – is the Association just about the conference, or is there more? What benefits does it provide?
Now, opportunities: what factors external to the Association will be helpful to achieving its objectives?
- Develop partnerships with organizations with compatible missions.
- Volunteer interest in starting regional conferences, chapters, other events.
- Web in higher ed is maturing to a strategic asset, improving opportunities for training, professional development and advancement of Web professionals and increasing their numbers; Association fills a niche.
- Availability of technology to support virtual attendance at the Annual Conference.
- Positive public perception/reputation of the association
- Higher ed culture supports collaboration.
- Existing business partnership that supports the operation of the Association.
Finally, threats: these are external factors will be harmful to or stand in the way of achieving the objectives of the organization.
- Surging interest in the Conference may make it difficult to maintain its strengths without introducing new problems.
- Conference venue limitations appear to require us to restrict the growth of the conference or increase the cost of attendance.
- Higher ed budgets and travel freezes may impact participation in the Association and its events.
- Higher ed and Web development getting “flattened”; Web personnel asked to do more with less while technologies advance, and we struggle to keep pace.
- Reduced ability time to participate in Association events.
- Some esteemed colleagues leaving higher ed; politics and higher salaries may be portents for a crisis for the profession.
What’s your view? Have we missed anything? Are there additional aspects that we left off? Please contribute to the discussion in the comments.
Just want to take a moment to publicly laud the Board for their focus on transparency which allowed a document such as this to be presented publicly!
Many thanks are due.
RE: Surging interest in the Conference…
-AND-
Conference venue limitations…
Back in 2008 at Missouri, I was an outsider. It was my first #heweb and I found it hard to find people who shared my interests (video, marketing, social). I accidentally went to a Propeller Hat session… I felt alone, I was confused, I had the “watching Jane Eyre with my wife” look on my face.
Fast forward to 2011 in Austin, and I can’t help but stumble into someone who shares my passion for the social web.
Why not split the the App/Standards/Propeller from the Content/Marketing/Social and create two separate 500-attendee conferences?
I do think better ideas can evolve with both groups in the same room/hotel/bar, but if we have to cut Chang and Eng apart to thrive (and grow), let’s go under the knife.
Don’t split the conference. If I want a technical conference, I can find one for just that (ie PHP).
What I want is what has been the pattern and very well executed by the conference volunteers. A wide cross section of issues and solutions in higher education. Its a chance to broaden myself and expose my mind to things I never get a chance to hear about.
Maybe we need to get involved, those of us that have attended but haven’t contributed to keeping the conferences and organization involved. Maybe we need a clearer picture of just what will be required of us.
I’d be loathe to cut the conference in twain – while it would solve the size and venue questions, it forces us back into silos, and we’re not corn. Corny, sure, but definitely not corn.
I like the idea of pushing for more regionals to fill the gap and give alternatives for individuals who cannot make the annual conference. It sounds like we have at least three of four such conferences being looked at this year and that gives the opportunity to get involved in a smaller, easier to fit in venue for institutions with limited professional development funds.
First off, I echo what Jason and Jeff said 100%.
I would love to see the Association continue to move in the direction of providing valuable content. The conference is one such piece of content. LINK is another. The next, I feel, is research.
Our frequent complaint addresses the gap between us, the practitioners, and the decision-makers — those who likely attend AMA and CASE. The association is a great resource and community for us, but can it provide (or curate) the ammunition to help make the cases we need to make to decision makers? Can we extend the impact of this community beyond itself, to make the case for the value of the web and its attendant resources? This is a battle we all fight, with varying degrees of success, and we could use all of the corroboration we can get.
Another idea – I’d love to see HighEdWeb, AMA and CASE collaborate on the level of perhaps sending ambassadors to each other’s conferences, so we can learn more about the others’ perspectives and drop a little knowledge.
I heartily concur with the ambassadorial concept. I was discussing doing this at the institution level, but doing it it at a larger conference has great value to the organization. Think about sending some of the best of tracks to CASE and AMA conferences to present, and vice versa for their equivalents.
As long as our ambassador doesn’t get broken in half, and the other ambassador doesn’t need to get a blood transfusion from his estranged son who went into web development against his express wishes…
I digress.
I think the idea of having more regionals is great and may end up addressing some of the concerns Todd raised. Because regionals end up being one or two day affairs, they are by necessity more focused on specific types of content. For example, the Rochester regional had a mobile track and that’s the first time I’ve seen that since I became aware of High Ed Web in 2009.
Perhaps specific regional conferences can, by design or by chance, become recognized as not just the “South Regional” but “The Mobile Regional” or the “Front-End Regional” by virtue of the presentations.
The excitement generated by those regional conferences can only end up enhancing the national event.
Oh, and I’d like to see everyone continue to build the High Ed Web community in-between conferences by writing for Link.
With regards to the weaknesses and threats, especially the over-taxed Board, lack of membership definition, conference attendance and venue problems, etc.
Has the Board considered contracting with a professional management firm to address some of these issues? I ask because, prior to coming to higher ed, I was a web developer for an association management firm. We would manage all sorts of aspects, from just basic membership information and some event planning to full association management (membership, billing, conference & event planning, website design & development, etc.).
I’m a big believer in working with experts, no matter what the project. If the association is financially stable, it might be best to partner with people who do this sort of thing for a living, even if it’s on a limited engagement.
We are working with an association management company to handle more of the mundane tasks associated with running the business side of the Association. They’ve also been helping us with the membership definitions and will be instrumental I think in helping us manage membership.
While I love the association and have enjoyed being a part of the conference, the most frustrating part has been the lack of transparency of the board. Structurally there are several items which prevent the association from growing. Specifically I see a lack of a defined term length and the absence of term limits for board members and the various conference committees as being a major bottle neck to getting more involvement. While I recognize the extreme amount of work that many board/committee members put in, I think the burnout effect would be much lower if there service term had a time limit. Also the lack of a nomination process and/or voting procedure for involvement in these areas is troubling. I believe that innovation at the conference and the association will be limited until these areas are addressed.
I really like Georgy’s idea of trying to bridge the gap between decision makers and practitioners. While I love being able to commiserate with my peers, I would love it even more if we had less to commiserate about.
I’d also like to toss an idea into the ring regarding a more cohesive presence for web professionals in graduate/professional schools. While many of the broad strokes and big-picture strategies of undergrad higher ed generally apply to us, many of the details about our audiences and specific tactics for dealing with them may differ from those who deal primarily with undergrads. I don’t know if the solution to this is another track at HighEdWeb, or maybe another, smaller conference, or something else entirely. I’d love to hear what people have to say about this.