Some of you may be aware that the BCS have been forced to hold an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM), caused by the perfectly legitimate exercising of their rights by a (small) number of members.

Their complaints centre around the decision-making structure and the direction in which the current trustees and management are taking the organization. As a service management professional, I am wholly supportive of the changes that the BCS has undergone over recent years. It is not so long ago that BCS was in danger of becoming irrelevant to large swathes of those working in the broad IT industry. The focus was very much on the technical (computing) side and there was little empathy for those working in service management.

It appeared to an outsider that one of the prime factors for becoming part of the governing council was to be retired from the industry and yearn for the days of paper-tape, cards and valves. There were several instances of service management people, who had been working in operations for years, being asked to write a dissertation on complier writing or some equally obscure discipline.

Indeed, the fact that BCS seemed to offer nothing for the service management professional was the catalyst for itSMF UK to establish the Institute of Service Management(ISM) as a body for such individuals. I believe that if the BCS of today had existed then, the ISM would not have been founded. itSMF UK and the ISM have developed and maintain a strong relationship with the BCS, illustrated among others by 2 key efforts: joining BCS as a governing member of the SFIA organization (many of the additions to SFIA came about through the ISM) and the forthcoming joint conference with the BCS Configuration Management special interest group.

Much of the discontent seems to be about the move away from direct decision making by the membership with more power in the hands of a smaller group of elected trustees and the permanent executive. This is nothing extraordinary for a membership-based organization. itSMF UK has gone through similar evolutions. In the early days there were only a couple of paid administrative staff; the member volunteers ran the organization and performed many of the day-to-day operations. As conference organiser I visited potential venues up and down the country, sourced speakers, engaged AV and other services, purchased delegate and speaker gifts, etc – much of it in my “spare” time and with thanks to a supportive family.

As the organization grew, it wasn’t possible to operate like this and the office expanded. When I commenced full-time there were 3 part-time staff; when I left there were 20 full-time staff. Membership numbers had quadrupled, revenue was up 5 fold, a whole array of new services and revenue streams had been developed. Equally, the strategic direction and governance had been streamlined into a more accountable and smaller management board, and as CEO I had much executive authority devolved upon me. Of course, not all members were always happy as the changes to the organization happened, but they were necessary in order for the organisation to continue to thrive and provide value to its membership as a whole.

Another of the grievances is about the cost of the transformation programme that BCS is undergoing. I don’t know the details of these costs, and hence can’t judge whether they constitute real value for money. I’m sure I could find out if I wished to, though I guess the fact that I haven’t indicates that I’m happy with the way things are going. What is undoubtedly true is that the organization is now incurring a real cost adding no value in holding the EGM – all at the behest of a trivially small number of members. The BCS constitution only requires 50 members of be able to call an EGM – out of a membership of some 70,000.

Provided that they win the vote, the trustees are proposing that this is changed to 2% of the membership – still a small number compared to the industry norm, but at least sufficient to ensure that frivolous EGMs aren’t triggered by a few malcontents. Such a change represents sensible governance.

There is a distinct impression that the “dissidents” are yearning for some earlier golden period – which may or may not have existed. I for one wouldn’t have joined the old BCS, but since joining I have spoken at a number of regional groups and served on the Management Strategy panel. I have also worked closely with the exam arm, ISEB, for many years and often desperately yearned for them to have a more professional, commercial approach to some matters.

The whole matter graphically illustrates the challenges facing membership organizations in trying to reconcile the desire of some members to have intimate say in multiple aspects of the organization with the need to operate as a business in managing complex revenue streams while providing growing membership services.

One can only hope that peace will break out and that the momentum that has been established in positioning BCS in the forefront of the industry isn’t lost.