From the correspondence, BCS has embarked on a major "Transformation" of the society. Yet they appear to have done this with little or no consultation with the key stakeholders. No wonder they are getting an abreaction.
From my training and decades of such experience, the initial need of an effective transformation is for a mandate to be generated and agreed. This needs to define its objectives in SMART terms (specific/strategic, measurable, achievable, realistic, time-based). Then it needs to define the Critical Success Factors and weight these in importance. This is followed by an Option Analysis, comprising at least three options (do nothing, do everything, some reasonable intermediate point(s)), with the values of the options being analysed against the CSF weightings, to see where the sensible (from the point of view of the key (i.e., funding stakeholders - us)) balance lies.
Our "professional" management seem to have done none of this. No wonder members who have given decades of unpaid effort to the society are incensed. And I suspect that the vast majority of our members are not even aware this row is going on - hence the cheap shots about 0.1% support.
Don't take me wrong - I have been concerned about the lack of BCS professionalism for decades, so I'm glad to see a push in that direction. We're quite good at transferring competence. I've never seen an instance where we have done anything about teaching, let alone breaches of professional ethics, relaxed as the BCS standards are, especially when compared with doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, accountants, etc.
It also transpires that my CITP is not as equal as the one awarded by the firm that does Driving Test Theory, so I am not allowed to resume as a membership assessor without paying for the privilege. OK, several cheap shots from the hierarchy deserve another in return.
Ian Thornton-Bryar, DipM, DMS, FBCS, FIMC, CITP, CMC,