1. SWE Future Leaders Task Force Status November 5, 2012

2. Page 2 A Brief History… Chartered in April 2011 (revised March 2012) to evaluate the state of the collegiate SWEFL program and to propose a new program for professionals Topic areas specified in Charter: selection process, training, ownership, budget, diversity, tracking, program expansion A preview of the professional program recommendations were presented at FY12 BOD2 and caused some confusion, hoping to address much of the feedback in this presentation The details of the professional program are the focus of this FY. Final recommendations for both the collegiate and professional programs will be delivered for BOD4, at which point the TF will be sunset.

3. Page 3 But before we get to the professional program…

4. Page 4 Status on Collegiate Pilot Several of the collegiate program recommendations have already been piloted, for example: Selection process included self-assessment step and opportunity for RG concurrence with top candidates Training modules added at CLF (virtual communication, mentoring, how to get funding for annual conference) No “one size fits all” requirements on SWEFLs for post-CLF involvement  each SWEFL completed an Action Plan at CLF, including potential mentors. Planned interactions throughout the 1 year program via telecons, webinars, and face-to-face at annual conf (“How to navigate your first SWE Career Fair” training) The first round of evaluating the piloted activities will happen at our TF meeting this week

5. Page 5 Value of Collegiate Program Over the course of the SWEFL program, there have been questions about its value to the Society. Please keep in mind: These participants have only completed 1-2 years in school and in SWE, so a 100% SWE leadership return is unrealistic (some may even leave engineering) It may take 2-3 years before they become an RCR, Senator, etc. To date, there have been 87 SWEFLs All 10 regions represented evenly 67 universities represented 1 International SWEFL Where are they now? (per 2011 survey): 97% of SWEFLs held a leadership role within SWE after attending CLF Of 142 roles recorded, 40% were collegiate leadership at the section level 30% were collegiate leadership at the region level 14% were collegiate leadership at the national level Of 40 SWEFLs who had graduated at the time of the survey, 33% held professional leadership roles

6. Page 6 Professional Program Discussion

7. Page 7 Desired Outcome By the end of this presentation, we hope to have alignment on: What the Charter directed the TF to do: The TF is developing the framework and tools for identifying and engaging future leaders – The TF was chartered to design (but not implement) a program, not a strategy – At the conclusion of the program, participants will be ready for “ingestion” to the leadership pipeline process The professional program is modeled after the collegiate program and while the two strategies are fairly similar, the approach is tailored due to the large differences in leadership / SWE experiences between collegiate and professional members – The TF is recommending a program that will develop future SWE leaders while developing strong leadership skills in general (Note: Collegiate program is ½ SWE dev, ½ leadership/professional dev.) Coordination with all other SWE groups engaged in similar efforts is the TF’s main focus for this year. If the program as outlined or the overall TF purpose/scope does not match the desired direction, please articulate a new plan

8. Page 8 DeliverableCollegiate PilotProfessional Recom. Evaluate and identify gaps in the current SWEFL training material Provided list of recommended training, many suggestions incorporated at CLF Pre-approved menu of training opportunities. SWEFLs customize program per goals set in their Action Plan Recommend updates to & address gaps in the selection process, templates and infrastructure, including diversity of candidates 1. Led by SWEFL Coordinator 2. Added Candidate self- statement 3. Added RG/RCT concurrence with top candidates 4. Each year, SWEFL Coordinator sets a diversity goal to align with vision/direction at Society level. 1. Led by SWEFL Coordinator 2. Candidates self-nominate, a percentage are accepted each year (TBD) 3. Each year, SWEFL Coordinator sets a diversity goal to align with vision/direction at the Society level. Recommend updates to the training and or mentoring/coaching the SWEFLs receive 1. Each SWEFL creates a personalized Action Plan 2. Year-long SWE mentor helps to achieve action plan goals 1. Each SWEFL creates a personalized Action Plan 2. Includes a SWE mentor and a professional mentor (which may come from pre-existing programs already in place at company) Evaluate and recommend a budget for training/events and the impact to the budget/leadership for SWEFLs if expanded to professional members, including if the expansion will expand or reduce corporate donations to CLF (1) SWEFL per region minimum (2) SWEFLs per region desired, including Region X Self-funded, with funds available to help those not receiving corporate support to get to Annual and Region conferences Program Summaries (1/2)

9. Page 9 DeliverableCollegiate PilotProfessional Reco Define if training/events will be the same or different for collegiate and professional members CLF is primary venueAnnual conference is primary venue Define a strategy for engaging and utilizing SWEFLs throughout the fiscal year Training throughout the year via telecon, webinars, and in- person at annual conference Training throughout the year via webinars, self- study, and in-person at region conferences Define and develop tracking metrics for SWEFLs, including continued SWE membership, future leadership roles, etc Metrics in place, reports available, adding new tracking categories In progress (similar to collegiate metrics) New Roles IdentifiedCollegiate Program SWEFL Coordinator, reporting through Director of PD Professional Program SWEFL Coordinator, reporting through Director of PD Program Summaries (2/2)

10. Page 10 Professional Program Status: Concerns with Proposed Plans Overlap with current efforts Coordination with other relevant groups (PD, Leadership competency model, curriculum committee, LCC, leadership pipeline recommendations, RG mentoring program) is the MAIN FOCUS of the TF this FY. One of the primary benefits of the program would be a clear navigation of the myriad leadership training / experiential offerings within SWE. Compiling this overall list and providing example subsets required for various leadership positions will be one of the deliverables of the TF this FY. Ownership – PD is not necessarily the correct place The TF agrees to reevaluate here and to outline the commitments a program participant should expect to make to SWE in the future. We like the idea of using participants as “SWE ambassadors” and mentors for others and plan to outline these concepts further Rationale for choosing Director of PD was the number of other relevant groups that report through PD: LCC, CLF Coordinator, and Curriculum

11. Page 11 The Professional Mentor component The program will tie into existing programs at a participant’s company, where available. Where not available, this program gives participants a reason to express to their company a desire for future leadership and the need for a mentor It is difficult to be heavily involved in SWE leadership without corporate support. The professional mentor requirement is meant to start the conversation early/often with one’s company about dedication to SWE and the desire for future leadership both in SWE (and hopefully at their company as well??!!) SWE leadership competencies are very similar to corporate leadership competencies. This should be a mutually beneficial program Why no minimum number of professionals per region? (like collegiates) The collegiate program was designed to build a pipeline for the region positions that were consistently going unfilled (RCR, RCCE, and now Senator). The professional program will have a much more diverse set of future leadership goals, so it would be best to select participants with the highest levels of future leadership potential, regardless of region Professional Program Status: Concerns with Proposed Plans

12. Page 12 BACK UP SLIDES

13. Page 13 Collegiate Pilot Open Issues / Responses to Feedback Is there a need for a SWEFL coordinator, or could HQ, the Director of Regions/Deputy Director of Regions select SWEFL candidates? The selection process is extremely time consuming and has included evaluation of up to 200 applicants in the past. After selection, the coordinator is responsible for recommending/developing/coordinating new training, matching collegiates up with mentors, planning annual conference interactions, etc. A dedicated coordinator is crucial to the consistency / success of the program from year to year, especially for the collegiate program. The selection of the professionals could potentially be done by HQ, DoR or DDoR, but a coordinator would be needed to organize the program and participants throughout the year. What is an example of a diversity goal that would align with but be different from a Society diversity goal? We want to align with the Society’s strategic plan at the time. Here are some example diversity goals specified in our documentation: Approximately equal numbers of SWEFLs from small, medium, and large sections Equal numbers of SWEFLs from each region with extra SWEFLs added based on number of RCRs from each region No SWEFLs from schools that have been represented multiple times in past SWEFL classes 40% freshmen, 60% sophomores

14. Page 14 Other Feedback What track, event, opportunity would be added to the annual conference for the professional SWEFL? An all-day series of training sessions on Wednesday of conference consisting of any training modules identified as a common need for all program participants Is CLF needed for collegiate SWEFLs? Could they participate in similar annual conference meeting/events as professional SWEFLs? Annual conference for collegiate SWEFL training was discussed in length by the task force and was not recommended for several reasons  Difficult for collegiates to spend any additional time at conference, which would mean missing class as opposed to CLF’s summer break schedule, most SWEFLs struggle to get funding support from their section as they aren’t yet high enough in their section leadership ranks, conference is already overwhelming for 1 st or 2 nd time participants, the interactions with SWE leaders would be much more difficult to coordinate due to everyone’s extreme busy conference schedules Should SWEFLs report through Director of Membership or Director of Regions rather than Director of PD? DoR for Professionals doesn't make as much sense, unless we say region is first stop for a future leader. The TF will re-evaluate the PD recommendation Is the duration for a SWEFL one fiscal year? Yes, with tracking after Does a collegiate and or professional SWEFL have any duties, responsibilities or obligations to the Society, future membership or leadership opportunities? The TF will revisit and outline expectations for their time being a SWEFL, being a leader, and time after being a leader.