1. SWE Strategic Planning Vision, Vivid Descriptions & Value Proposition
Cathy Pieronek, SPC Chair
March 2012

2. SWE Long-Range Strategic Planning
Last full revision of Strategic Plan in FY07
Next full revision originally scheduled for FY12
Deferred to FY13 to focus on strategic membership initiatives in FY12
FY10 & FY11 Annual Strategic Planning Review (ASPR) followed traditional format:
Reviewed goals and objectives and progress toward those selected for that FY
Selected new objectives for the coming FY
FY12 ASPR
Consistent with focus on strategic membership initiatives and deferral of strategic plan rewrite to FY13, traditional ASPR jettisoned in favor of strategic membership discussion with Board, and working discussion with Senate on vision, vivid descriptions and value proposition
Resulted in formation of two Senate committees to craft new vision/vivid descriptions, and new value proposition, if needed

3. Vision / Vivid Descriptions
Vision: To be the key to the success of women in engineering and technology.
Lots of discussion around the words “key,” “success,” and “engineering and technology”
Key: should SWE be “the key,” “a key” or simply “key”?
Success: everyone defines success differently, and SWE probably has an assumed definition of success, so what does “success” really mean?
Engineering and technology: these words mean different things in the professions around the world, so as SWE seeks to become more international, could these words be limiting?
Does “women in engineering” mean only women working as engineers, or all women trained as engineers no matter their current occupation/vocation?
General consensus that the vision statement could be better – maybe more inclusive -- as we move toward the future

4. New Vision/Vivid Descriptions – A Start
Senate discussion led to a potential new vision, which is probably 70% to where we want it to be: SWE will be seen as an influential leader in the world and a catalyst for the success of women in STEM.
Similarly, senators thought the concepts contained in the vivid descriptions were good, but there were probably too many, and they were worded in ways that seemed passive and outdated, and did not reflect a vibrant organization looking to the future.

5. Value Proposition
Current value proposition: Establishing engineering as a highly desirable career for women through an exciting array of training and development programs, networking opportunities, scholarships, outreach and advocacy activities, and much more.
Senate discussions:
Not really the “elevator speech” that a value proposition should be.
Really articulates SWE’s goals, and does not address SWE’s value to constituents, whoever they may be:
Students – including scholarships and career info
Professionals – professional development, mentoring, support
Employers – access to students and others seeking work
Does not capture the unique values of SWE
Does not capture the way the organization develops leaders

6. Moving Forward – BOD 4 & beyond
Cathy Pieronek will work with a committee of Senators to refine the vision statement and work on a new set of vivid descriptions, for presentation at BOD4; senators include:
Leslie Romanowski, Gail Bredis, Miranda Oaks Wantland
Jan Williams, SPC chair-elect, will work with a committee of Senators on a new value proposition (one or more than one) for presentation at BOD4; senators include:
Yolanda Childs, Ipsheeta Furtado, Chriss Chavez, Stephanie Gillespie
Because of overlap with Mega Issues and other Senate activities, these discussions will also involve Brittney Elko, Deb Willems, Jonna Gerken and Helen Patricia.
Also need to consider restructuring the fall Programs & Services Assessment (typically at conference) to focus on moving these conversations forward to a new Strategic Plan development process.