Those of you who have been following the Bulletin over the past year may be aware that the Executive Council has been engaged in a strategic planning exercise over the past several years. This exercise began during the mid-year meeting of the Executive Council in 1991, under the direction of Ken Laughery and Betty Goldsberry (*****). Those activities lead to the development of a mission statement (*****) for the Society and an initial cut at a strategic plan (*****), which was modified at the mid-year meetings in 1992 and 1993 to become the plan I published in the Bulletin last year.

Plan contains two parts: the mission and the goals/objectives for the immediate future.

MISSION

Looking first at the overall mission statement, question I had was whether or not it has changed over time.

To see if our current mission is similar to the original mission of the Society, I went back to the minutes of the first national meeting and constitutional convention of the Human Factors Society of America, which was held (*****) in the Pompeian Room of the Mayo Hotel in Tulsa, Oklahoma on September 25, 1957. The minutes read as follows:

-The ninety Human Factors workers met to accomplish the organization of a national human factors organization. The need was recognized for better communication among the various human factors groups throughout the United States and Canada, and for a medium to disseminate problem-oriented information in the application of human factors research to engineering design.

Thus, it would appear that the mission represented in our 1991 statement is not very different from the mission stated when the Society was new. I then turned to the specific goals and objectives set forth in the draft strategic plan to see if they were consistent with past goals and objectives.

Promote the exchange of information within the HFES (*****)

The first goal in the current plan calls for promoting the exchange of information within the Society. Specifically, the council envisioned this as occurring through improved publications, meetings, and services to members.
This has clearly been a goal of the Society from the beginning. Early bulletins stress the need for communication amongst the disciplines represented within the Society. Soon after, the first issue of the Journal appeared.

Information about needed improvements in services has also been collected on a regular basis. Records show that annual surveys were conducted from 1970-1974, and all-member surveys have continued to be conducted on a more irregular basis since that time. Responses to these surveys have clearly been heard by the Society, which has made changes to services through the years. As an example, I'd like to describe changes that have been made to the annual meeting since our first one in 1957.

-The meeting has progressed from one day in 1957 to 2 days in 1959/1960 (*****) to its present 5-day form in 1980
-The 1969 meeting was the first to by planned by a program committee, which had been formed in 1968
-Proceedings started in 1972 (*****)
-1983 (*****) was the year the Society used an outside professional planner on a trial basis to help with the logistics of the annual meeting/ Since 1985 (*****) when the mtg was held in Baltimore, they have used one for every annual meeting
-The National Program Committee (*****) was established in 1987 to ensure consistency from year to year and to improve the quality of the meeting (*****)
-Since that time, the NPC has conducted yearly surveys (*****) of meeting attendees to gather feedback for future changes
-The result of that feedback is this year's meeting format, which departs from the schedule that has been used before. The new format allows workshops to continue throughout the week while maintaining a smaller number of concurrent sessions

I think that this example shows the Society's responsiveness to member feedback and suggestions for improvement in services.

Moving to the next objective of the plan, we see that the goal is to:
Support the advancement of the discipline as a science (*****)

Specifically, this portion of the plan contains two pieces: one focused outside of the Society, and one focussed inward. The first goal (*****) is to foster appreciation and acceptance of HF&E within other professional organizations, industry, the general public, and government. In looking back through the records of our activities, this has clearly been a major goal of the Society over the years.

A. Government Relations

In the area of informing the government, on and off through the years we have had a government relations committee whose goal was to inform the government about our work. This group has, over the years, arranged for testimony and white papers to be submitted to Congress. In fact, last year, this committee worked to get testimony to Congress on why the FAA's funding for HF work should not be cut.

B. Lay Public

We have also invested our efforts in informing the public.

-In 1975, John Holly designed a contest (*****) --The Whole Earth Human Factors Idea Machine Design Contest -- for students. Goal was to design a machine that could demonstrate HF principles to the lay person. Don't believe it ever came to fruition, but was an interesting idea for informing the public.

-in 1980 Presidential Speech, Harry Snyder (*****) stated that "Our Public Relations Committee has achieved success in creating awareness through television spots, radio interviews, newspaper interviews, and the like. We have made the New York Times, the International Herald Tribune, and a host of other papers across the country

-However, I am somewhat concerned about our more recent attempts to contact the public. Over the past few years, our Public Relations Committee has been able to generate some interest on the part of local newspapers to cover our conference, and they have identified speakers whose topics might be of interest to the lay public. However, when contacted about this, no speaker has agreed to speak to the press. Although I can understand the reluctance to speak to the press, it doesn't help us to refuse to speak to the public about our work.

C. Industry

-in his presidential address, Dr. Snyder also argues for success in informing industry when he says that "Industries that never heard of human factors are now finding a need to establish a human factors organization or group. Other industries that have cavalierly considered human factors to be just "common sense" have done a complete turnaround, and have moved with great speed to employ a large number of human factors specialists.

-However, I would argue that some 14 years later, we see industrial organizations down-sizing, and a commitment to basic HF research declining. Need to address this if we are to remain vital part of industry.

Another goal within this general rubric of supporting the advancement of the discipline as a science is (*****) to provide educational opportunities and courses for both members and non-members.

This has also been a clear goal of the Society over the years, as evidenced by the development of:

-over 50 graduate programs throughout the world in human factors
-tutorials, which are offered at the annual meeting
-local conferences co-sponsored by the Society
-a large number of HF texts, engineering guides, and reference works

Moving to the final goal (*****), we see that it is to: Improve decision making and resource management

Specifically, the two sub-Goals within this area are to: (1) improve processes by which the leadership of the Society makes decisions interacts with individual committees, with the goal of providing support to committees without stifling creative ideas and programs with bureaucracy.
(2) to improve the management of our financial and personnel resources.

The Society has struggled with these two issues throughout its history (*****). The number of committees and the structures under which they operate have been changed on numerous occasions. And we are continuing to play with the structure of committees to ensure coordination amongst committees, while maintaining an appropriate level of autonomy.

Within the area (*****) of improving our financial and personnel resources, there are two key goals. The first is getting a handle on our finances by developing plan for increasing revenues/membership growth and decreasing expenditures. Again, this is not a new endeavor.

-In 1965, reflecting on the history of the Society to date, Arnold Small (*****) wrote: "The financial history of the Society is a remarkable one. As you know, our income is primarily from membership dues, including sustaining members...We have remained solvent through thick and thin -- but not because we always had enough money in the treasury! Rather, it has been possible because of the determination and willingness of many people to provide valuable services to the Society without compensation. Those involved early in the Society's founding were, I recall, rather concerned with the financial responsibility aspects of our Articles of Incorporation. In fact, that eventful night after seven or eight of us walked down Pacific Boulevard from the Laguna Beach Hotel to the Notary Public where we signed the new State of California Articles of Incorporation, we figured it best to have our beer then and there since we might not have the wherewithal later!" END QUOTE -- (*****/BLANK PLACE HOLDER)

The problem of fiscal solvency was also at issue in 1967, when the EC voted to rescind the $5 dues increase slated for the following year. An editorial in the Bulletin, whose author is not cited, states in response to this action: QUOTE "As we see it, the Society has its choice -- continue its austerity and "stand still", or become viable and meaningful. Yes, we can continue with our current budgets. But, standing still will not be even that; it will be going backward. Many things have been proposed and suggested by officers and members alike -- things which would make the Society more valuable to its members and more influential in its actions... Those who oppose a dues increase can juggle figures to argue that some of these things can be provided by two ways: increase revenue from other sources and/or tap into the capital reserves of the Society. Regarding the first, it must be pointed out that suggestions for increasing revenue from "other sources" have been made since day one with little result. The second approach provides for a short spurt prior to extinction. The Society must support itself. It must stop relying on the personal sacrifices of individual members and officers without proper compensation." END QUOTE

The second area under this general heading is equally important -- that of improving our methods of recruiting, developing and recognizing volunteers. During the past year, I have become increasingly aware of the poor job that we are doing in this area.

This is particularly troubling in light of the fact that we have many positions that need to be filled at any given time. In fact, Stan Lippert's (*****) President's Column in 1967 discussed this issue:

QUOTE: "Lest anyone believe it is hard to enter HFS activities, let me note the results of a quick calculation that there are some 300 chapter and HFS slots for officers, editors, and committeemen, neglecting overlapping assignments. Actually, it is hard to fill all the slots, which in number equal about 20% of HFS members of all classes... I ... wish to emphasize the means whereby the steady infusion of new blood can be effected so that HFS can be supplied with experienced yet flexible leadership in the decades ahead." END QUOTE

We need to find ways to encourage individual members to volunteer their time and expertise and to suitably reward them for the contributions they make to our Society. Although we do have an active Awards program, I think we need to fundamentally re-examine how we recruit and reward volunteers, and I will be heading a task force looking into this issue in the coming year.

(*****/BLANK PLACE HOLDER) So, as we look across the scope of the HFES mission as it has been embodied over the years, we see some consistency in the programs and services we offer, as well as a consistent view of who and what we are as HF professionals.

The question I was struck with, though, in preparing this presentation, was whether this was the BEST mission we could have -- despite the fact that it appears to have been our only vision for the Society through the years.

Specifically, I think there are some things we should challenge in the current mission statement:

CHALLENGES:

For example,

(*****) Perhaps we should re-consider who we serve? Our mission statement clearly says that our primary audience is HF professionals. My challenge is to think about whether this emphasis is healthiest for growth and satisfaction of members

Perhaps service to the public, e.g. in the form of a "HF Seal of Approval" would lead to increased support (both psychologically and financially) for what we do. Now must admit that when I first thought about this, I thought that this was a "wild and crazy" idea. However, the old adage "there's nothing new under the sun" is appropriate here, as I discovered a 1970 survey -- reported on by Joe Seminara (*****) -- in which the membership was asked how they would feel about creating and investing in the production of such a seal for products. At that time, 44% ?? of the membership supported the idea -- a much larger percentage than I would have imagined. Perhaps it is time to revive this idea???
A second challenge (*****), related to who we serve, is composition of society: what are the appropriate characteristics of a membership that can support the needs of professionals and public.

Intrigued to discover that the composition of our Society has been of concern throughout our history. In early years, discussion centered around disciplines represented within our ranks.

-Was interested to discover, when reading old bulletins, that the first ballot (*****) --and several more after that -- listed not only the name and current job position, but also the area in which the individual got his degree

-In 1961, Jack Dunlap developed a column called the President's Needle, designed to present problems which concern the future growth and direction of the Society and which require attention and active cooperation of the membership. In the first column, he describes this issue further:

QUOTE: "The Human Factors Society was organized to provide a forum for men of all disciplines interested in the problems of man and his work. This forum is expressed in the publications and meetings of the Society. At the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Society more than half the papers were presented by psychologists. I have nothing against psychologists. In fact, I approve of them, but I am convinced that many of our colleagues from the other disciplines have much to say....It is not too early for our non-psychologist members to begin planning on participating in the program. As a group they have made some outstanding contributions to the field and the Society needs the support which would stem from a wide knowledge of their technical advances." END QUOTE

Three years later, in 1964, a physiologist wrote to Dr. Chapanis (*****) -- the current president -- that QUOTE: "A small group of people interested in industrial work physiology has been meeting annually for the past three years in the eastern United States...We have reached a point now when a more formal organization would offer certain advantages, and last October we decided to investigate the possibility of setting up an ergonomics society in North America. Before doing this we debated whether to join the Human Factors Society, but decided against it because of the strong psychological orientation of the members of that group." END QUOTE

Although this is no longer an issue that is raised in the Society (perhaps because it became clear that we would always remain primarily a psychological organization), the question it raises in my mind is the more general question of how our composition affects peoples' choices today of what national/international organization to join when they have a choice. Although we see ourselves as the premier HFE organization -- are we seen as such by others?

Third challenge (*****) I see has to do with the choice of services we provide; that is, are we providing the right services to the membership? This, of course, will depend upon who the primary recipients of our knowledge are (professionals or the public, e.g.), but even if we continue to provide services primarily to HF professionals, the question is whether or not our current selection and quality of services is adequate to carry us into the next 35 years (or even the next decade). We need to find ways of evaluating our services and either modifying or eliminating services that don't meet member needs.

The fourth challenge (*****) is an administrative one. We currently have a membership of roughly 5,000 with a budget of approximately $1 million. We have seven full-time staff members, with the rest of our business being transacted through volunteer efforts. Last year, I had the opportunity to go to an inter-society forum, where I met with the executive directors and presidents of a number of other societies. The society that hosted our meeting caught my attention. They have a membership of 10,000 (roughly twice ours), but their budget is roughly $10 million (or ten times ours!). Their professional staff numbers 64 individuals, and they are housed in a lovely office complex (which is quite a contrast to our meager facilities). Their dues are higher than ours, but no more than double, which means that they have found substantial sources of external revenue. Although I don't necessarily believe that we need to have a staff and budget as large as this one, I do think we need to re-think the ways in which we transact business and earn income. We need to think about the extent to which we rely on volunteer labor to provide even basic services and about how long we can continue to conduct business in this fashion.

The final challenge (*****) is a personal one. I would like to challenge every member of the Society to become involved in setting the future direction of our Society. The Executive Council, as of Sunday, has agreed to hire an outside consultant to work with members of the Society to revise and develop an implementation plan to take us into the future. You will be hearing more about this as the year progresses, but I ask you now to please consider becoming an active participant in that process, and perhaps 35 years from now, the President can talk about the radical change in direction that took place within the Society in the 1990s.
-
Deborah A. Boehm-Davis, HFES '94 (Nashville, TN)