I’ve been an IEEE member since I was an undergrad. I started volunteering early in my career. IEEE is an important part of my professional life. Being involved in IEEE has helped me have a great career. We, IEEE, have lots of terrific products and services. More importantly, we have lots of outstanding communities – sections, chapters, societies, technical councils, technical committees, initiatives, working groups, local groups, to name just some. Many of these communities are doing important things. I suspect most of us realize that. But what about the rest of the world – the general public, our employers, even some of our members?
To much of the world we are invisible. The best we can hope for is that they associate us with WiFi, or some of our other standards. Those activities are important but are only a part of what we do. Were we always invisible? When our predecessor organizations were created, AIEE in 1884 and IRE in 1912 our technologies were new and emerging. Maybe the public took more notice. I’m not sure, I wasn’t around.
I can’t say what our public image was like after 1963 when IEEE was formed by the merger of IEEE and IRE. My dad was an engineer and a member, so even as a child I was more aware than most. He was Chair of the North Jersey Section in 1975-76, during a period that was notable for the layoffs that came with the end of the Vietnam War and the winding down of the Apollo program. I entered engineering school nonetheless, well aware of the IEEE, though not of its breadth.
AIEE and IRE were founded by leaders in industry, but industry’s engagement with IEEE has been in decline for decades, as has been the percentage of our members working in industry. We have data showing the portion of our membership working in industry has declined roughly monotonically from 60% in 1999 to 32% today.
Something interesting happened around 1999. Up until 1998 IEEE had Professional Activities organization. We no longer have comprehensive programs and services for industry professionals. That’s not to say there are none. The Boston Section does quite well, much better than I’ve seen elsewhere. IEEE USA has maintained a set of professional activities. But USA is struggling with ever diminished funding and is in no position support our members globally.
Our engagement with academia is strong, largely because we have compelling products and services for them. We help many academics advance in their careers. We need to do the same for the people in industry working in technology-related fields. Let’s become indispensable in advancing their careers. Our mission is to advance technology for humanity – that’s not a purely academic pursuit.
What about the companies our members (and non-members) work for? My own career experience demonstrates how industry’s connection to IEEE has changed. My first involvement with IEEE, as for many, was with conferences. That was in the 1980’s. I started as a reviewer before moving onto other roles. I was then working at Raytheon. They encouraged and supported my involvement. We felt that it was important for the company to be represented in IEEE activities. As I progressed through my career and in my volunteer roles, the level of support from my employers declined. By 2000 it had degraded to what could best be called tacit acceptance.
By the late 2010’s my involvement in IEEE was at best tolerated. Today, many of our volunteers, especially younger ones, find that employers no longer support their involvement in IEEE, or even their attendance at our events. People use their vacation time to participate in IEEE events. They pay their own way to attend conferences. If they make a technical contribution, it often doesn’t relate to the work their employers pay them to do.
The world’s largest companies have been built around IEEE’s technologies. Economies depend on our technologies. Directly or indirectly, industry still depends on our publications. Our standards activities are essential to the efficient implementation of technological advancements. We’ve been developing more training and education services and products. We provide opportunities for technology professionals to grow, to network, and to contribute to society in meaningful ways.
There is no one way to reengage with industry and with the professionals who work there. It’s not just one problem. We need our industries to recognize the value IEEE has. Plus, people working in industry need to better understand how IEEE can enhance our careers. My career would not have been as successful if not for IEEE. I know I’m not alone in this.
Not everyone working in technology has the same needs as me or will benefit from IEEE the same way I did. The next generation has needs and expectations that I can’t anticipate. But together, I bet we can. We need to crowd sources this. In some ways, we already are – look at our activities all around the world and across all our technical areas. We have lots of great things going on, but they’re isolated. Let’s share, learn, collaborate and revitalize IEEE’s professional activities. Let’s invest some of our $1 billion in reserves in supporting our professions.
Getting companies to reengage with IEEE is a different problem. They might be encouraged to engage more if all their employees were involved in IEEE, but that’s not likely enough. We need a more direct approach. Do industry leaders still know who we are and what we do? Does the public know who we are? We’re too modest about what we do and who we are. Let’s promote the great things we do. Then, let’s collaborate to do even greater things, and promote those too.
I’ve mentioned collaborations a few times. I’m not saying we don’t, but we have opportunities to do more. Our technical societies vigilantly guard the boundaries around their fields of interest, yet intersocietal collaborations are increasing. The technical world is ever more interdisciplinary, and our traditional technical boundaries no longer make sense. As an example, consider an RF power amplifier. It used to be a standalone block. Today it’s hard to be successful developing a PA without understanding and accounting for the signal processing that it interacts with. The progression of technology almost demands collaboration. Still, when we decide to launch a new technical journal, we often waste a year negotiating who the stakeholders are and what their share is.
For geo-units, geographic isolation is a factor. Regions 1 and 2 are merging. That’s a sign of, and an opportunity for, collaboration. But collaboration between sections on opposite sides of the globe remains a challenge. Collaborations of technical societies with geo units are also quite limited. Here too, the Boston Section does about as well as any. But think of the opportunities if we work together. If we want to support the careers of our members, we must meet them where they are – geographically and technically.
We have vehicles for collaboration. Chapters are a great example – after all that’s where the technical and geographical meet. But we don’t have coordinated support for chapters. Sections manage them and societies interact with them. It’s well understood that this isn’t coordinated, and MGA and TA have both created committees to address this. And sensibly, we are working on making it one committee, a joint MGA/TA subcommittee on chapter support.
The Educational Activities Board (EAB) and Humanitarian Technologies Board are a couple of great vehicles for collaboration. They are both hampered by a lack of funding, but collaboration can bring funding. What if a couple sections, several student branches and a few societies want to work together on a project with EAB? They could each bring some funding to that project. But that level of collaboration should get a boost – enhance their plans with some of our $1 billion.
We shouldn’t build a new bureaucracy to support this level of collaboration. If we have that many units agreeing that a project is worthwhile, no additional approval should be needed. It’s had enough scrutiny already!
When it comes to bureaucracy IEEE punches well over its weight. When I became MTT president in 2003, I also became a member of TAB. The level of bureaucracy and intensity of the politics reminded me of a recent employer (not Raytheon!), and I gladly left TAB behind. In took 20 years for me appreciate what I had missed, and the greater contributions I could make. Last year I was the TA VP.
We’re proud to be volunteer led, and sadly it’s us, the volunteers that created and encouraged that bureaucracy. If it’s us that built, it can be us that reduces it. We can deploy systems and tools to simplify how we operate.
We seem to have a knack for introducing new tools that don’t quite do what we need and don’t have particularly friendly interfaces. Most commercial tools strive to make themselves intuitive. We often fall into a trap and de-prioritize the interface to meet arbitrary deadlines. Not all our tools are user hostile, and many have been gradually improving. We need to do more of that. Let’s not burden our best volunteers with needless frustrations. Let’s invest some time and money in improving our tools. Let’s prioritize usability when we decide what to buy. After we’ve succeeded in getting industry professionals to re-engage with IEEE, let’s not alienate them with bad interfaces and confusing websites.
Technology is everywhere. The technologies we work on and with are ubiquitous. Society depends on our tech. Our tech has transformed how we live. When the public thinks about technology – the trends in technology, the professionals working on and with technology, the impact of technology, they should think of IEEE. Let’s be at the forefront of inspiring the next generation to work with and on tech. Let’s make sure they understand who we are. When leaders wonder about technology, they should think of IEEE. They should come to IEEE for expertise and guidance. We already have most of what we need to fulfill that mission. Let’s fill in the gaps. Let’s put ourselves out there. Let’s become more visible.