> First, the ARMA Radar Screen of Strategic issues:
>
> 10: ARMA's ability to create and implement high-level strategic plans
> is in jeopardy because:
> * We have an historical dependence upon the chapter structure.
>
> Now, from the Beacon Marketing Report:
> The ARMA-Chapter relationship can be more dynamic and successful by
> developing a closer relationship.
>
> Is our radar on tract?
Interesting, but no surprise here. Nope, the Radar Screen was off track
since day one and I don't know why it wasn't revised after the initial
feedback received in Long Beach.
ARMA said that the "Radar Screen" was intended to be a working document and
would be continually revised... but I've yet to see a revision issued or the
"Big Ten" topics discussed at length or in depth since a number of us asked
for greater details at the Town Hall last year. There were a NUMBER of
questions asked specifically about Item #10, and it seems that the Beacon
Report agreed with what most of us said.
ARMA took a survey a few months after the Radar Screen went out... seems it
was too bad the survey didn't precede the producing of the Radar Screen...
but even so, the turnout for the survey was only around 12%. And many of the
responses didn't seem to support what the Radar Screen said about what we
needed to do more of or make big issues for ARMA.
More surprising (not!) is that the Beacon Report stated many of the things
that were in the 2005-2007 goals of the 2004-2008 Strategic Plan, which is
on the ARMA Web Page, under Governance... same place you'll find the Radar
Screen, Beacon Report and the Survey ... and I'm sure Morningstar had a copy
of the 2004-2008 Strategic Plan when they began. So the question is, were
they attempting to gather information to support the Plan, or were they
trying to gather information from a completely neutral standpoint? When it
comes to what they heard about Chapters and gaining more recognition for the
Profession, it sounds like "fresh data"... but lots of the rest of it seems
re-chewed.
The other common remark about the Radar Screen was how negative everything
was presented...
"...The failure of the RIM Professionals to....jeopardizes executive
sponsorship"
"....decisions without the inclusion of RM... putting organizations at
risk.."
"...Variations... create confusion, inconsistencies and a lack of
awareness..."
"..Lack of formal education curricula... limits the credibility of the
profession..."
"...RIM professionals lack a vehicle for influencing these trends..."
"...diminishes the value of information assets and puts organizations at
risk..."
"...ARMA's ability to create and implement high-level strategic plans is in
jeopardy because..."
Almost all of these statements could have been turned around and stated in
a constructive manner to indicate weaknesses existed, but there were ways to
leverage what WE DO/DID WELL to improve on all of these, and that by
identifying these gaps, we could develop plans to constructively deal with
them.
I don't see where the Beacon Report came out with many recommendations to
get there... and I don't recall the specific date the report came out, but
he Radar Screen came out about a year ago... so how long does it take for
ARMA to utilize the data it receives and/or strategic plans it produces to
develop implementation plans to at least take "baby steps" to move forward?
Yes, there have been webinars, but there still a major lack of beneficial
strategic alliances to get the RIM Profession recognized in the arenas we
were identified as being weak in. I still haven't seen any real marketing
being done, and as a former member of the Branding Task Force, I don't see
anything happening in this arena. I do see where the website doesn't have
the tag line "AIMP" all over it anymore... but when I was supporting the
ARMA booth at a recent event and the producer came up and said "Gee... I
hate to ask this, but I was wondering... WHAT DOES ARMA STAND FOR??" He had
looked all through the materials we had on the table, including the IMJ and
NOWHERE IN ANY OF THE MATERIALS did it say "The Association of Records
Managers and Administrators".
So I have to agree with Bill and the comments from others earlier, what are
we doing to get our name out there? Where are we trying to do it? Are we
REALLY having that much of a problem admitting what we are to ourselves and
using the words "Records Managers and Administrators"? I mean, I must admit
that when I refer to myself, I say that I am a Records and Information
Management Professional, but that's the field I work in... not the
Association I align myself with.
If the NAACP doesn't think they need to change their name to "suit the
times" and they represent an ENTIRE RACE OF PEOPLE, why is ARMA having such
a problem with it?
Larry
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|
