It’s interesting that you state that CSI has grown too big to serve the members. When I joined CSI in the early 80’s it was larger by at least half if not more at that time and served (from my perspective as a newbie) the members well, even tho’ it was (and still is) the best kept secret in the industry.
Perhaps that is the problem, we have never had a lobbying arm such as the AIA; and there is no corporate or governmental reinforcement to “encourage” eligible members to join to use the benefits of CSI.
Just a thought.
I appreciate Margaret Chewning’s observation. The complaint I hear most is that CSI does not serve its members the way it used to serve them, which is an unrealistic expectation anyway because times and people have changed.
It is not CSI’s fault that times have changed and people’s priorities and efforts have changed.
It may be more relevant to say that the members don’t serve the organization the way they used to, and so there is more burden on staff who cannot possible make up for the shift.
It is like complaining about the government not doing enough. Well, really the people are the government.
It seems to come back to size. People like chapter events and even region events, probably because they aren’t very “political” and a little bit of effort is appreciated. The bigger an organization gets, the more rules need to be applied in order to function, and people change in the way they perceive their own efforts and those of others.
The same dynamics will occur if SCIP continues to grow too much beyond its optimum size, which it seems to have already achieved. It would lose its personal touch and become more organization-like.
Having ignored this thread until now, I never would have expected to see so many biblical quotations in a 4specs forum (8, in 21 posts).
Last month I attended the SBL-AAR Annual Meetings, the largest gathering of religious scholars in the world (typically around 10,000 attendees), always held the Friday thru Tuesday before Thanksgiving. In addition to the two largest organizations in the field – the Society of Biblical Literature (mostly Christians and Jews) and the American Academy of Religion (including scholars of all religions), many other medium-sized - and dozens of smaller - related organizations meet together in one big convention, along with what I believe is the largest trade show of religious publishers and related exhibitors in the world. I believe SBL and AAR once tried splitting into separate events, then soon realized it made much more sense (and attracted more exhibitors) to bring everyone together.
As far as I know, both SBL and AAR have rather small professional staffs (presumably focused on their publishing endeavors) but they organize the events themselves, using a lot of volunteers. Members of virtually every organization of religious scholars attend, and except for a very few committee meetings and closed or invitation-only sessions (for some, an invitation may be requested), anyone can attend any session for their single registration fee. Other than one archaeological organization which I think meets just before, and with a separate fee (like SCIP), the presentations, business meetings and other sessions sponsored by SBL, AAR and non-SBL/AAR organizations are all listed in a single program book, an 8.5" x 11" catalog at least half an inch thick, listing hundreds of sessions.
It is in the interest of academics - even those of quite disparate religious backgrounds - to combine their meetings to attract maximum support from exhibitors - it gives exhibitors the largest possible audience, so they get the best bang for their buck and don’t have to choose where to allocate their money and personnel.
The interests of an organization like Informa PCL are probably best served by maximizing the number of conventions they organize, and the proliferation of trade show opportunities for vendors. Maybe they even delude themselves that they could organize a separate event for SCIP.
Ideally, something similar to the cooperation described above could be possible if CSI, AIA, and the organizations of interior designers, engineers and other related professionals could give up their insularity for the common good, pool their resources, and take back and share control of the event.
I’d like to conclude with a biblical passage, but I couldn’t find the verse about hell freezing over…
…the members don’t serve the organization the way they used to…
Reflecting back on David Wyatts comment reminds me of one of the reasons that SCIP was formed; that CSI was drifting away from their founding roots of serving the needs of specifiers.
Further, there was a resentment (most strongly by members of the DC Metro and Baltimore CSI chapters) for CSI selling the results of the thousands and thousands of volunteer hours writing the old green spec sections with little or no recognition to those members/chapters. The feelings of many back in the day was betrayal. Sure we all supported CSI and wanted CSI to thrive but the Institute displayed their desire to build their own bureaucracy on the backs of the members.
A sharp memory can be almost as crippling to an organization as a poor memory.
At my age, I realize that resentment, revenge, grudges, and a longing for the way things used to be are feelings as harmful to those who harbor them as they are harmful to those to whom they are directed.
In the instance Ron Beard cites, the people who made those lamentable decisions may be long gone now or at least not part of the current decision-making process at CSI headquarters.
CSI and SCIP are two powerful organizations that could have a symbiotic relationship if people could forget about things that cannot be changed.
This is spurred by 2 very recent incidents, and many others that do not go back as far as Ron’s general observation of why SCIP was founded.
Chris Grimm, thanks for the post. I’m so glad I’m out of that loop. I’m happy just reading and writing from project to project.
Of all the present-day professions, I cannot think of any that faces more changes, updates, innovations then construction specifiers, except perhaps the electronics industry. To survive within the specifiers industry one has to move forward every day but we still need to remember what used to be. With my sharp memory, I can still remember writing specifications for asbestos, which was still good back than. It is interesting that over time watching how materials/systems progress they generally leave a trace/path of improvements or changes.
Same thing with organizations. Many SCIP members will be faced with choosing between attending a SCIP convention and attending a CSI (Construct) convention. It will be interesting to me to see what the Institute will do as they face the reality of a major split within the specifications industry.
Okay so I ran the numbers. (I probably should have done that first before I went shooting my mouth off. Hey if I liked math I would have become an engineer!)
I checked the exhibitor list of both events and here is what I came up with. The SCIP Annual Meeting 2018 had a total of 50 exhibitors with only 26 exhibitors who also exhibited at CONSTRUCT 2018. That means that only 52 percent exhibited at both shows or more importantly 48 percent (24) did not exhibit at CONSTRUCT 2018. Now I see why Informa considers SCIP a threat.
I seem to recall SCIP having only a couple sponsors even just a few years ago and those had table tops, not exhibitors per se.
What changed here?!
Years ago, when CSI was running the show, they also had a prohibition against SCIP meeting at the convention. The SCIP meeting was always at some non-convention related hotel with a meeting room. It seemed like a silly prohibition at the time because the convention had 1100 booths, took three days, and SCIP was a one-day meeting.
Informa will not be running the show that much longer, and once that contract has run its course, it doesn’t really matter what they think.
Anne, do you (or anyone for that matter) know how much longer Informa has the show? I attended the leaders meeting in Long Beach and I didn’t write that date down, but I recall a date that is more that 15 years into the future that Informa owns the show. Mark did state that CSI is trying to get out of the contract.
Earlier in this post, Chris mentioned that CSI should not allow use of Institute logo’s. It seems as though that is already beginning, in a way. There was no logo on any of the material at Construct this year that would indicate CSI was involved in any way. In fact the promotional “block” that was given out for next year didn’t even mention CSI.
I initially signed up for CSI for many different reasons and will support it as long as I can. You can’t beat the knowledge and camaraderie of our members. Last year I signed up for SCIP for the first time and was excited to be able to attend the meeting this year as it was co-located with Construct. I was impressed with much of what SCIP is able to do, it reminded me of the first CSI National Convention I attended. A lot of focus on members! Both Specifiers and Product Representatives.
I certainly hope that 2019 will see SCIP and Construct near each other in Washington as I would like to attend both. If I must choose where to spend my money to travel to a convention…as long as Informa has it, I’m leaning toward SCIP.
To Steve Gantner’s point, the issue is not how long Informa owns the show, but for how many years CSI is prohibited from affiliating with a different show.
Informa is a huge global beast, see informa.com.
Construct is a tiny show by their standards: compare AIA, World of Concrete, Greenbuild. See www.informaexhibitions.com/en/about-us/ourevents.html. I suspect that they would sell the show for any half decent offer.
IDEA: SCIP could be a cosponsor of the event. Heck, maybe even an a full sponsor on the level of CSI. There are several associations that cosponsor already, such as the Firestop Contractors International Association. Instead of fighting, collaborate.
Now that the 2019 Construct is being actively promoted, hopefully we will hear very soon about SCIPs plans.
Is anyone from SCIP in a position to comment? What were the results of their surveys?
Some info now on scip.com.
It appears that no one remembers that SCIP was typically barred from the CSI hotel and did not have a booth at the CSI Show; the collaboration of the two organizations is actually relatively recent. CSI as an organization always saw SCIP as a threat. Frankly, with SCIP organizing a product show, I can understand that – it used to just be the meeting. SCIP might do better being under the aegis of the AIA, where the specialty wouldn’t pull away the core membership.