asme › cfs-file.ashx › __key › ...john koehr managing director, technology and personnel...

2016-2017 BOARD OF GOVERNORS Phoenix, Arizona

November 12, 2016 ITEM1 15. Call to Order

16. Adoption of Agenda

17. Announcements

18. Consent Items for Action

19. Items for Discussion and Action

20. Report on Closed Sessions

21. Items for Discussion and Action

22. Adjournment

1 Numbers are sequential from previous FY meetings.

2016-2017 Board of Governors November 12, 2016 Meeting Minutes of 7 LIST OF APPENDICES

I. Manufacturing General Position Paper

II. Proposed Appointment

III. Service Royalty Agreement with Liaison International, LLC

IV. Delegation of Authority for an ASME Officer to Sign UBS Corporate Resolution

V. By-law B5.2 for First Reading

VI. Financial Update

VII. Technology Roadmaps

VIII. Enterprise Readiness

IX. Progress on Growth Initiatives

X. IT’s Roles in Strategy

XI. Board Resolution

XII. Sector Management Committee Report

XIII. Sector Deep Dive – Standards & Certification

XIV. Strategy and Planning Task Force

XV. Board Retreat Summary

XVI. Building a High Performance Board

XVII. Progress towards Our Vision and Mission

2016-2017 Board of Governors November 12, 2016 Meeting Minutes of 7

DRAFT MINUTES 2016-2017 BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Phoenix, Arizona November 12, 2016

15. Call to Order:

On November 12, 2016, a meeting of the Board of Governors of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers was held in Phoenix Arizona. A quorum being present, the meeting was called to order by the President at 8:00 AM Mountain Time. A roll call was made and attendance was as follows:

Board of Governors

President: K. Keith Roe Immediate Past President: Julio C. Guerrero President-Elect: Charla K. Wise Governors: Bryan Erler, John E. Goossen, Caecilia Gotama,

Mahantesh Hiremath, Karen J. Ohland, Sriram Somasundaram, John M. Tuohy

Other Officers

Senior Vice Presidents: Laura E. Hitchcock, Standards and Certification Richard C. Marboe, Technical Events and Content Paul D. Stevenson, Student and Early Career

Development Timothy Wei, Public Affairs and Outreach

Secretary and Treasurer: James Coaker Executive Director: Thomas G. Loughlin Assistant Secretary: John Delli Venneri Assistant Treasurer: William Garofalo

Board of Governors Elect Stuart Cameron Robert E. Grimes Mary Lynn Realff Senior Vice President Elect Sam Korellis Corporate Counsel John Sare Task Force Chairs

Stacey Swisher Harnetty Increasing Industry Leadership Engagement Task Force Terry Shoup Student and Early Career Engineers Task Force

2016-2017 Board of Governors November 12, 2016 Meeting Minutes of 7 Board Committee Chairs

Victoria Rockwell Committee of Past Presidents; Committee on Finance and Investment

Larry Dickinson Committee on Organizations and Rules Krishna Gupta Committee on Honors

Other Guests Hasan Akhter BOG ECLIPSE Intern Todd Allen DISC, VOLT Academy Dean Bartles Technology Advisor, ASME Ken Balkey ASME Member John Blanton Nominating Committee Ruander Cardenas VOLT Executive Committee Camille Cruz TEC ECLIPSE Warren DeVries Chair, Nominating Committee Lynden Davis Foundation Tommy Gardner Chair, IAB Marc Goldsmith VOLT Chair, Past President, 2012-2013 Richard Goldstein Past President, 1996-1997 Amos Holt Past President, 2009-2010 Bernie Hrubala ASME Member Jennifer Jewers ASME Member Madiha Kotb Past President, 2013-2014 Wolfgang Muller-Leydig ASME Member John Parker Past President, 2000-2001 Tom Pestorius COFI, ASME Foundation Callie Tourigny VOLT, Executive Committee Ed Seiders Treasurer, Auxiliary Sue Skemp Past President, 2002-2003 J. Robert Sims Past President, 2014-2015 Keith Thayer Past President, 1997-1998 Reggie Vachon VOLT; Past President, 2003-2004 Sara Wheeland VOLT Academy William Weiblen Past President, 2001-2002 Bill Worek ASME Member Sam Zamrik Past President, 2007-2008 Staff William Berger Managing Director, Standards RuthAnn Bigley Coordinator, Governance Clare Bruff Manager, Volunteer Leadership Development Melissa Carl Manager, Government Relations Paul Cleri Director, Technology Development Peter Cestaro Director, Benefits and Payroll Michael Cowan Director, Public Information Noha El-Ghobashy Associate Executive Director, Programs & Philanthropy John Falcioni Director, Editorial Elena Gerstmann Deputy, Executive Operations Tim Graves Director, Conferences Heidi Hijikata Director, Global Development Katherine Holmes Director, Government Relations


Michael Ireland Associate Executive Director, Engineering Phyllis Klasky Director, Events Management John Koehr Managing Director, Technology and Personnel

Certification John Labrador Managing Director, Conformity Assessment Robert Lettieri Manager, International Relations Reese Meisinger Managing Director, Government Relations Elio Manes Director, Communities & Services Tom Meehan Controller, Finance Michael Merker Associate Executive Director, Standards and

Certification Jeff Patterson Associate Executive Director, Marketing and Sales Allian Pratt Project Director, Executive Office Laurel Raso Associate Executive Director, Human Resources and

Facility Operations James Ramirez Manager, Global Technology Christine Reilley Director, Emerging Technologies Luis Rodriguez Associate Executive Director, Technical Services Karen Russo Project Manager, Executive Office Brandes Smith Program Manager, Emerging Technology David Soukup Managing Director, Governance Elizabeth Sumpter Administrator, Board Operations Gemma Tansey Director, Special Projects

16. Adoption of the Agenda: The Board

VOTED: to adopt the agenda as circulated on October 28, 2016.

17. Announcements:

President Roe welcomed all to the meeting and recognized Past Presidents Nancy Fitzroy, Marc Goldsmith, Richard Goldstein, Amos Holt, Madiha Kotb, John Parker, Victoria Rockwell, Terry Shoup, Robert Simmons, Sue Skemp, J. Robert Sims, Keith Thayer, Reginald Vachon, William Weiblen, Sam Zamrik, Terry Shoup, and Keith Thayer.

18. Consent Items for Action: The Board

VOTED: to approve the following items: (1) Minutes from October 4, 2016; (2) Manufacturing General Position Paper (Agenda Appendix 1.4.2 and Minutes Appendix I); (3) Proposed Appointment (Agenda Appendix 1.4.3 and Minutes Appendix II); (4) Service Royalty Agreement with Liaison International, LLC (Agenda Appendix 1.4.4 and Minutes Appendix III); (5) Delegation of Authority for an ASME Officer to Sign UBS Corporate Resolution (Agenda Appendix 1.4.6 and Minutes Appendix IV); (6) By-Law B5.2 for first reading (Agenda Appendix 1.4.7 and Minutes Appendix V).

19. Items for Discussion:

The Board heard reports concerning and discussed the following items: (1) President’s Remarks


(2) Executive Director’s Remarks

(3) Financial Update by Victoria Rockwell and William Garofalo (Agenda Appendix 2.1 and Minutes Appendix VI)

(4) Technology Roadmaps by Michael Ireland (Agenda Appendix 2.2.1 and Minutes Appendix VII)

(5) Enterprise Readiness by Thomas Loughlin (Agenda Appendix 2.2.1 and Minutes Appendix VIII);

(6) Progress on Growth Initiatives by Jeff Patterson (Agenda Appendix 2.2.2.1 and Minutes Appendix IX)

(7) IT’s Roles in Strategy by Luis Rodriguez (Agenda Appendix 2.2.2.2 and Minutes Appendix X)

(8) Board Resolution: Tom Loughlin read a resolution acknowledging Michael Ireland’s service and dedication to ASME (Agenda Appendix 2.3 and Minutes Appendix XI)

The open session concluded and the Board went into closed session at 12:45 PM. Following the closed session, the Board resumed into open session at 2:00 PM.

20. Report on Closed Sessions: President Roe reported on the following Closed Sessions of the Board:

At the October 4, 2016 Closed Session, the Board

o Approved the FY16 Enterprise Performance Results o Received a legal report from Corporate Counsel

At the November 12, 2016 Closed Session, the Board

o Approved the increase of the Volunteer Travel Expense Contribution, as described in Society Policy P-4.5 III B.2, from $150 per day to $175 per day, except for the cities included in the ten-city index.

o Approved the increase of the Volunteer Travel Expense Contribution, as described in Society Policy P-4.5 III B.2, from $225 per day to $250 per day for the cities included in the ten-city index.

o Approved amending Society Policy P-4.5 as of January 1, 2017, to reflect the actions taken in the above motions.

o Discussed information from the EDESC o Received a legal report from Corporate Counsel o Received information on FY16 Incentive Compensation and Bonus Pay-out o Received information on the FY17 Q1 Incentive Performance

21. Items for Discussion:

The Board heard reports concerning and discussed the following items: (9) Sector Management Report by Charla Wise (Agenda Appendix 4.2.1 and Minutes

Appendix XII.)


(10) Sector Deep Dive – Standards and Certification by Laura Hitchcock and William Berger (Agenda Appendix 4.2.2 and Minutes Appendix XIII)

(11) Strategy and Planning Task Force by John Goossen (Agenda Appendix 4.3 and Minutes Appendix XIV.)

(12) High Performing Board by Laura Hitchcock and Bobby Grimes (Agenda Appendix 4.4 and Minutes Appendix XVI.)

(13) Progress towards our vision and mission by Keith Roe and Charla Wise (Agenda Appendix 4.5 and Minutes Appendix XVII.)

22. The meeting adjourned at 5:00 PM Mountain Time.

________________________ James Coaker Secretary

ASME Board of Governors Agenda Item Cover Memo

Date Submitted: October 18, 2016 BOG Meeting Date: November 2016 To: Board of Governors From: (Sector/Unit/Task Force/Other) Public Affairs & Outreach Council Presented by: Tim Wei, Senior Vice President, PAO Lester Su, Chair, Government Relations Agenda Title: ASME General Position Papers Updated Agenda Item Executive Summary: The attached ASME General Position Paper has been updated in accordance with Society Policy 15.1, which states: “Three years following the issue date of each Statement and General Position Paper, the sponsoring unit of ASME must review the statement to determine whether it should be re‐affirmed, updated or sunset. Statements not re‐affirmed or updated will be sunset.” ------------------------------------------ PS17-XX: Strengthening the U.S. Manufacturing Sector This paper is an update to ASME’s General Position Paper entitled “Strengthening the U.S. Manufacturing Sector,” which was initially issued in November 2014. The paper outlines ASME’s ‘guiding principles’ in driving federal advanced manufacturing policy and investment. It includes specific recommendations for investing in advanced manufacturing initiatives by prioritizing Federal funding to support key programs focused on: fostering cooperation among manufacturers and other R&D performers and users; training, educating, and building a skilled workforce; securing a robust and enduring domestic manufacturing base; developing innovative industrial technologies through basic research; ensuring the national security of the U.S.; and protecting our ability to compete globally. This position paper was revised by the Committee on Government Relations of the Public Affairs and Outreach Council. The November 2014 paper is available to view at http://ppec.asme.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ps14-25-manufacturing1.pdf. Proposed motion for BOG Action: (if appropriate) To approve the General Position Paper to communicate ASME’s guiding principle to the U.S. Congress, the Administration and the engineering, science and technology community at large. The date of issuance for this position paper will be “January 2017.” Attachments: Updated versions of the “Strengthening the U.S. Manufacturing Sector” ASME General Position Paper.

Minutes Appendix I Page 1 of 9

http://ppec.asme.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ps14-25-manufacturing1.pdf

STRENGTHENING THE U.S. MANUFACTURING SECTOR

January 2017

1The American Society of Mechanical Engineers® (ASME®)



January 2017


BACKGROUNDManufacturing is an integral part of the U.S. economy. “One in seven U.S. private sector jobs depends on the U.S. manufacturing base”¹ and in 2015, manufacturers contributed $2.17 trillion to the U.S. economy. However, manufacturing today stands at a crossroads between the “dirty, dark, and dangerous” manufacturing jobs of the past, and the new, high-skill/high-wage jobs of the future. As manufacturing worldwide enters a season of renaissance, the potential exists for the U.S. to reemerge as a global leader in advanced manufacturing, creating high-skilled, high-wage jobs here at home. Other countries such as China, Germany, and England have already begun to seize this moment and have successfully instituted innovative, 21st century advanced manufacturing polices, whereas the U.S. is just beginning to lay the groundwork. While the U.S. has made major progress in recent years with the creation of the Manufacturing USA program and the passage of the Revitalize American Manufacturing Innovation (RAMI) Act, there is still much that needs to be done to ensure that the U.S. remains globally competitive in this new, high-tech field of advanced manufacturing.

For America to remain a global technology leader, there must be continued, sustained investment in the scientific and engineering enterprise. The lack of proper investment has the U.S falling behind in critical measures of technology, education, innovation, and highly skilled workforce development. This is especially worrisome given that new, emerging manufacturing technologies are spurring growth in the demand for highly-skilled workers. Over the next decade, it is predicted that “nearly 3½ million manufacturing jobs will likely be needed, and 2 million are expected to go unfilled due to the skills gap.”² For the U.S. to be able to confront these challenges, we need to commit to invest in preparing the work-force for advanced manufacturing practices. If the U.S. does not act now, we will miss out on the opportunity to fulfill the global demand for manufacturing processes development, making the U.S. obsolete in the global manufacturing community.

Investing in manufacturing processes development and readying a workforce to meet the manufacturing challenges of the future will have significant short- and long-term impacts. The jobs produced by manufacturing activities are generally high-wage and represent an entry point into the middle class for a significant portion of the workforce. Furthermore, a strong manufacturing base is critical to America’s national security as domestic capacity for the manufacturing of key products and a highly skilled and creative workforce make up the foundation of a strong national defense. The U.S. must seize this opportunity and com-mit to investing in the future of U.S. advanced manufacturing or we will see the continued erosion of the U.S. manufacturing base, which will only increase procurement costs for the DOD and place further strain on defense funding resources in a time of already tightened defense budgets.

1 http://www.themanufacturinginstitute.org/Research/Facts-About-Manufacturing/Economy-and-Jobs/Jobs-Supported/Jobs- Supported.aspx ² http://www.themanufacturinginstitute.org/Research/Skills-Gap-in-Manufacturing/~/media/ FF00360FC3344AD9B62F600B9FDEBD5B.ashx



January 2017


ASME recommends that the U.S. commits to investing in advanced manufacturing initiatives by prioritizing Federal funding to support key programs focused on:

Existing programs that work to accomplish these goals include:

Fostering cooperation among manufacturers and other R&D performers and usersTraining, educating, and building a skilled workforceSecuring a robust and enduring domestic manufacturing baseDeveloping innovative industrial technologies through basic researchEnsuring the national security of the U.S. Protecting our ability to compete globally

The Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia (AMTech) competitive grants program at NISTThe Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) at DOEThe Advanced Technological Education (ATE) at NSFThe Alliance for Manufacturing Foresight (MForesight) at NIST and NSFThe Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) at DODThe Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) at the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) at DOEThe Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership (IMCP) multi-agency program led by NISTThe Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) at NISTThe Manufacturing Technology Program (ManTech) at DODThe Manufacturing USA multi-agency program led by NISTThe National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) multi-agency programThe NSF Innovation Corps (I-Corps)The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) multi-agency programThe Technology Innovation Program (TIP) at NIST

³ http://www.nist.gov/mep/about/

These programs have resulted in a number of innovations that have spawned new technologies and industries essential to U.S. manufacturing leadership, and contributed to improved capabilities and cost savings for U.S. national security needs. Many of these programs are operated in partnership with the private sector, leveraging and attracting additional outside funding to achieve innovation and create jobs. For instance, for every $1,900 of Federal investment, MEP creates or retains one manufacturing job, and since 1988, MEP has helped create and retain more than 797,994 U.S. jobs.³



January 2017


Given the challenges our country is facing in the globally competitive field of manufacturing, strong, committed funding for these initiatives is vital to bolstering the proven success of these programs as well as to spurring further innovation, job creation, and economic growth. U.S. manufacturers need additional skilled workers, an efficient fiscal and regulatory environment, open markets, and strong partnerships between government, industry, and academia to ensure a healthy innovation pipeline. Accomplishing these goals requires we take a surround-sound approach to the problems facing the manufacturing sector by addressing challenges beyond the traditional trade and tax issues commonly associated with it. While trade and tax policies are important to business in general (i.e. lower tax rates and greater access to markets), these policies will have little effect on the U.S. manufacturing sector if our domestic manufacturing base is not adequately equipped to handle the demands of the day. In order for the U.S. to compete with other nations that are investing heavily in advanced manufacturing technologies, our domestic policies need to support a robust and sustainable manufacturing R&D infrastructure. For this reason, our recommendations focus specifically on the challenges most significant to the U.S. manufacturing sector and support programs that will allow the U.S. to better compete globally and strengthen our own workforce and security.

Specific recommendations are as follows:

The U.S. attained its position as a world leader in R&D through substantial, dedicated Federal funding for our research universities and national labs. However, there is a clear disconnect between the government’s commitment to R&D and the lack of proper investment to ensure that research is brought to market. In fact, many of the discoveries that occur in the U.S. are taken overseas to be further developed and manufactured. This has a negative impact on our nation’s economy, evidenced by the decline of U.S.-manufactured goods exports. From 2015 to 2016, U.S.-manufactured goods exports fell 5.9 percent with significant decline to the top six markets, including Canada, Mexico, China, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Germany.4 To reverse this negative trend, America must invest in manufacturing processes development to bridge the gap between basic research and scaled production.

There needs to be a clear, quick, and dedicated path for basic research to move forward through validating and prototyping, and on to commercialization. Strategic, sustained investments in moving projects through Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) as well as Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRLs) will not only reduce the time it takes for new innovations to be brought to market, but further stimulate technological progress. To best accomplish this, the Federal government should:

SUPPORT AN APTLY BUILT DOMESTIC MANUFACTURING SECTOR

4 http://www.nam.org/Newsroom/eNewsletters/Global-Manufacturing-Economic-Update/2016/Global-Manufacturing- Economic-Update--August-2016/#sthash.bc2ZCbGP.dpuf



January 2017


Fully fund and expand the Manufacturing USA program. The U.S. has begun to invest in establishing manufacturing institutes, each with a specific focus. However, the full impact of Manufacturing USA cannot be realized with just a few institutes. For the network to function as intended and truly spur manufacturing innovation and technological progress, the U.S. must commit to developing a large, nationwide network of dozens of institutes.

Commit to continued investment in the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP). The MEP program fosters partnerships between small-sized manufacturers to promote collaboration that enables U.S. manufacturers to develop products, expand their markets, and adopt new technologies that help to strengthen the innovation pipeline in the U.S.

Authorize and fund a grant program supporting manufacturing curricula at designated institutions of higher education to build a skilled and ready workforce.Through this legislative initiative, designated instituttions of higher education chosen through a competitive grant process will support industry-relevant, manufacturing-focused, engineering training in the U.S. Designated universities and institutions will be given the resources necessary to infuse manufacturing education throughout their curricula and align their educational offerings with the needs of modern U.S. manufacturers. Updating existing programs and creating manufacturing- focused education tracks that align with the actual skill-needs of U.S. manufacturers will allow students and researchers to better navigate commercialization, encourage new partnerships between manufacturing firms, grow hands-on training opportunities for students, and foster manufacturing entrepreneurship nationwide.

5 http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/Budget%3B.jpg

The government plays a key role in promulgating policies that encourage innovation and set the groundwork for competitiveness. These policies must be mindful of the long-term, capital-intensive nature of investments in manufacturing capacity, as well as those of engineering and basic science innovation. Federal R&D investments as a percentage of GDP has been declining steadily5 and furthermore, Federal R&D investments as a share of GDP has begun to fall behind that of other nations. If the U.S. does not begin to reverse this trend immediately, we could see a significant and rapid decline in our science and technology ecosystem.

In order to ensure strong growth in domestic R&D and to support the U.S. manufacturing innovation pipeline, beginning with fundamental advancements in science and progressing through technology commercialization, the Federal government should:

PROMOTE MANUFACTURING INNOVATION AND COMPETITIVENESS



January 2017


Federal investments in fundamental scientific discovery and technological development have declined almost 60 percent in the last 40 years, when adjusting for inflation. Fewer research dollars over time has resulted in fewer companies with skilled workers capable of designing and building complex systems. As a result, the U.S. is increasingly dependent on immigration to meet its technical workforce needs. The NSF’s 2016 S&E Indicators report found that from 1993 to 2013, (which is the most recent data collected and published in the NSF’s 2016 S&E Indicators report) the number of foreign-born individuals that account for college-educated workers employed in S&E occupations in the United States rose 10.7 percent.6 Further, the Government Accountability Office and National Science Foundation have consistently reported that the U.S. remains dependent on foreign talent for a large percentage of highly skilled workers to perform the critical tasks needed to sustain the key parts of our industrial base, particularly with respect to aerospace and defense industries.

The decline in the U.S. manufacturing base and rise of manufacturing competitors abroad pose further workforce training and capacity issues for the economy. As other nations develop their production and design capacity, and are therefore better able to educate and retain the best science and engineering talent, our ability to attract foreign talent will erode. As the manufacturing workforce becomes increasingly more global and technology-driven, it is essential that the U.S. aligns its K-12, undergraduate, and graduate core curricula and education systems to better address the knowledge and skill requirements of its 21st century workforce. However, just preparing out students to meet the skills-gap isn’t enough. The U.S. must also invest in training programs for experienced workers so that our current workforce is better equipped to meet the needs of the day.

Expand the Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit to increase competitiveness and prevent the U.S. from falling further behind other countries in tax incentives. The R&D Tax Credit rates should be periodically revisited to make sure they are competitive globally. Increasing the R&D Tax Credit will strengthen innovation at home and make the United States more competitive abroad.

Prioritize long-term Federal research projects and support a balanced portfolio of engineering and scientific research among the physical and life sciences. Congress should do this by supporting basic research at key agencies, including NSF, DOE Office of Science, and NIST, agencies that support basic research in engineering and have a high impact on economic competitiveness.

Make permanent the first-year 50 percent Bonus Depreciation Tax Credit.The Bonus Depreciation Tax Credit allows small- and medium-sized manufacturers a chance to establish themselves firmly as a U.S.-based business. To ensure this tax credit is able to accomplish its purpose, it is necessary to extend the 50 percent depreciation bonus amount to all future fiscal years.

6 https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/#/report/chapter-3/immigration-and-the-s-e-workforce

INVEST IN WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT



January 2017


The decline in the U.S. manufacturing base and rise of manufacturing competitors abroad pose further workforce training and capacity issues for the economy. As other nations develop their production and design capacity, and are therefore better able to educate and retain the best science and engineering talent, our ability to attract foreign talent will erode. As the manufacturing workforce becomes increasingly more global and technology-driven, it is essential that the U.S. aligns its K-12, undergraduate, and graduate core curricula and education systems to better address the knowledge and skill requirements of its 21st century workforce. However, just preparing out students to meet the skills-gap isn’t enough. The U.S. must also invest in training programs for experienced workers so that our current workforce is better equipped to meet the needs of the day.

We do not have time to wait for our kindergarteners to become engineers to address the challenges and opportunities facing our nation today. We need to invest in our current workforce and train workers to be able to utilize the technologies available to them today, as well as learn to adapt to the technologies of the future. While some of these issues have suffered decades of neglect and will take decades to correct, all require immediate attention and a national commitment to improvement. Accordingly, the Federal government should:

Commit to continued, sustained investment in the Manufacturing USA and MEP programs to promote workforce development programs that will help build a skilled workforce here at home, prevent companies from producing new products overseas, and speed up the time it takes for innovations to travel from conception through commercialization.

Establish a grant program to fund manufacturing-focused universities and institutions that will engage in developing new curricula to be used in manifesting manufacturing education throughout institutions of higher education. Supporting this program will encourage partnerships with manufacturing companies. These partnerships will work to address the need for increased manufacturing education in STEM curriculum and support the retraining of workforce to meet future industry needs.

Support scholarships and fellowships to students and workers pursuing manufacturing engineering degrees and technical certificates.

Strengthen tax incentives for workforce development and continuing education, including those at the graduate level, both for employers and employees.

Conduct a high level review of the health and sustainability of the U.S. high-tech workforce to ensure that education and immigration policies are working to expand the number of highly-skilled workers in STEM fields.

Support community colleges and technical schools to ensure worker training programs provide the next generation of technically skilled workers.



January 2017


CONCLUSIONManufacturing has tremendous potential to spark economic growth and job creation in theU.S. In addition to being a critical part of the U.S. national security apparatus, innovation pipeline, and process for job creation, manufacturing holds the promise for the establishment of wholly new industries and the reinvention of new methods of doing business. The U.S. maintains leadership in a range of machinery and equipment manufactured goods, as well as in the pharmaceutical, transportation, food processing, and electronic products industries, with each sector slated for future expansion fed by global demand from expanding and emerging markets.

Other countries have already recognized the importance of spurring the creation of new products and industries – particularly in the energy technology sector – and have taken steps to ensure a healthy science and engineering workforce and a competitive market for attracting investment. The U.S. must use this opportunity to level the playing field and build a strong foundation here at home that will allow industry to properly invest in advanced manufacturing processes and technologies in the U.S. In particular, key steps the U.S. should immediately take to signal commitment to a long-term growth strategy include:

Fully-funding the Manufacturing USA program to encourage and sustain the formation of R&D partnerships among government, industry, and universities. Congress should do this by supporting the goals of the NIST MEP provision in the America COMPETES Act.

Authorizing and funding a grant program for manufacturing-focused universities and institutions.

Further investing in and expanding the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program as outlined in America COMPETES Act legislation.

Expanding the R&D tax credit and strengthening tax incentives for workforce development and continuing education.

Supporting scholarships for students and workers pursuing science and engineering degrees and technical certificates and are committed to working in a manufacturing environment after completing their educational programs.

Committing to long-term Federal investment in engineering and scientific research and support a balanced portfolio of engineering and scientific research among the physical and life sciences. Congress should do this by supporting the goals of the America COMPETES Act – an effort to double investments at the NSF, DOE Office of Science, and NIST that support basic research in engineering and have a high impact on economic competitiveness.

Encouraging and sustaining the formation of R&D and STEM education partnerships among government, industry, and universities.



Date Submitted: October 25, 2016 BOG Meeting Date: November 12, 2016 To: Board of Governors From: (Sector/Unit/Task Force/Other) Committee on Organization and Rules Presented by: Larry Dickinson Agenda Title: Proposed Appointment Agenda Item Executive Summary: (Do not exceed the space provided) Proposed appointment reviewed by the COR on October 25, 2016. Proposed motion for BOG Action: (if appropriate) Approve the proposed appointment. Attachment: Appointment listing.

Minutes Appendix II Page 1 of 4

November 2016 PROPOSED APPOINTMENT TO

ASME UNIT

Internal Unit Nominee Appointment Position/Title

Appointment Term/Category

Appointment Type History

Committee on Honors Vijay Kumar Member-at-Large 7/1/2016 – 6/30/2019 Initial Editor, Journal of Mechanisms & Robotics, Chair, Nominating Committee, Vice Chair, Design Engineering Division Executive Committee


Please return this form to Dave Soukup ([email protected]) along with the Personify member profile and committee activity reports. Please answer the policy compliance questions at the bottom of this form.

Position Information Nominee Information Position: Member-at-large, Committee on Honors Nominee: Vijay Kumar External Organization/ASME Committee:

Nominee’s Business and Title: University of Pennsylvania UPS Foundation Professor

External Organization Address:

Nominee’s Address: (select one) business School of Mechanical and Applied Science University of Pennsylvania Levine Hall 4th Floor 220 S. 33Rd St Philadelphia, PA 19104-6315

External Organization Contact: Phone Number: 215-898-3630

External Contact’s Email Address: Email: [email protected]

Appointment Dates: From July 2016 To June 2019 ASME Membership Grade: Life Fellow Appointment Category: Reappointment Initial

ASME Current Activities (attach committee history report) See attached

If Reappointment, list previous appointments to position 1st - From: To: 2nd - From: To: 3rd - From: To: Policy 4.4 states that for reappointment beyond 10 years, the unit must provide specific reasons as to why this reappointment is critical to its well-being, and the exceptional circumstances involved. IF REAPPOINTMENT GOES BEYOND 10 YEARS, AN EXPLANATORY LETTER MUST BE ATTACHED WITH THIS FORM.

ASME Activities Past 5 Years: See attached

Full Name of Person Being Succeeded: Karman Ghia

If Initial Appointment, list experience related to position:

Responsible Unit in ASME: Committee on Honors Responsible ASME Staff: Leila Persaud Policy 15.11 requests that ASME encourage a diverse and inclusive membership by ensuring leadership opportunities for members from all segments of society. Has the unit complied with this policy request? Yes No (check one) Policy 4.4 requests that units of the Society seek out volunteers who are not already serving in other capacities. Has the unit complied with this policy request? Yes No (check one) Conflicts of Interest: The nominee is aware of Society Policies 15.7 (Ethics), 15.8 (Conflicts of Interest), 14.6 (Society Name, Seal, Logo, Emblem, Initials, Titles, Identification and Certificates), and 4.3 (Qualifications of ASME Elected Officers and Requirement of Office), and has signed or will sign a statement that he or she has read and understood and will comply with these Society Policies. Yes No

(check one) Responsibilities: The nominee has committed to participate actively and accepts the responsibilities of the position if appointed? Yes No (check one)

APPROVAL: Name: Krish Gupta Title: COH Chair Signature: Date: 7/7/2016

APPROVAL For ASME Staff Nominees: Signature: Date:

Executive Director


mailto:[email protected]

ASME Board of Governors Agenda Item

Date Submitted: 11/01/16 BOG Meeting Date: 11/12/16 To: Board of Governors From: EMT Presented by: Luis Rodriguez and Noha El-Ghobashy Agenda Title: Service Royalty Agreement with Liaison International, LLC This item is the first of several new initiatives which will be coming before the Board this term. It is an operational contract which ordinarily does not call for board review, however, because this is new activity, I thought it appropriate to put this forward for board review and this vote. As is always the case, if the Board wants discussion on this matter, it may be pulled from the consent agenda to be discussed at a subsequent meeting.

Tom Agenda Item Executive Summary: (Do not exceed the space provided) Liaison helps higher education institutions identify, recruit, and enroll students in more than 5,000 programs including processing over 1MM applications a year for over 800 schools. These institutions, rely on Liaison’s admissions management and marketing automation tools to reach prospective students, streamline administrative tasks, and create exceptional experiences for applicants across the full enrollment cycle.

The proposed arrangement is for ASME to work with Liaison to develop a Central Application System (CAS) for prospective engineering students to complete a standard application once which would then be used to apply to many schools. ASME’s role would be to help design the CAS portal, facilitate the standard application development (with key representatives of the academic community), and support the marketing efforts to schools and students. Note that no costs other than staff time for the above activities is part of arrangement. As part of this arrangement ASME will receive:

• Royalty revenue for both mechanical and all engineering students based on a % of student application fees (has the potential for $300K+ revenue in year 3)

• Access, at no cost, to aggregate data on applicant pool • New CRM software and analytic tools that specializes in individualized marketing

This venture supports our mission especially as it relates to students and increasing interest and diversity in the profession. It also allows us to gain access to a larger base of young professionals and students to leverage so to increase our level on engagement with them. The initial term of agreement is 6 years which is necessitated based on the fact that it has taken Liaison up to 5 years with other associations to create and build up product into a sustaining model (90%+ adoption rate). Proposed motion for BOG Action: (if appropriate) To approve entering into a contract with Liaison on commercially reasonable terms. Attachments: None.

Minutes Appendix III Page 1 of 1

Minutes Appendix IV Page 1 of 4


Date Submitted: October 23, 2016 BOG Meeting Date: November 12, 2016 (Closed Session Consent Agenda) To: Board of Governors From: EDESC Presented by: Julio Guerrero Agenda Title: Recommended Change to By-Law B5.2 Agenda Item Executive Summary: (Do not exceed the space provided) A redlined version of the proposed changes is attached. There are three reasons for the recommended changes. The first is to add the new ASME 401(k) plan (which will be effective 1/1/17) to the plans administered by this Committee. The new 401(k) plan was approved after this Committee was originally formed. The second is to change the name of the committee. Since this committee’s responsibilities are as administrators and fiduciaries for ASME retirement plans, the EDESC is recommending the name be changed to the Retirement Plan Committee. The term Fiduciary Committee was causing some confusion, as this committee’s Fiduciary responsibilities are limited to the retirement plans. The third reason for the proposed changes is to allow some flexibility to the EDESC in selecting Executive Management Team members to serve on the committee, as well as to not have to change the By-Law, if a member’s title were to change. The EDESC retains the authority to recommend committee members for appointment. Due to the busy schedule of the Executive Director, the EDESC is recommending (at the ED’s suggestion) that John Delli Venneri replace him on the Retirement Plan Committee. This is the one proposed membership change at this time. This would make the current membership, John Delli Venneri, Laurel Raso and Bill Garofalo as the EMT members, Peter Cestaro as the Human Resources member and Webb Marner as the PPT member. Proposed motion for BOG Action: (if appropriate) Approval of the Changes to By-Law B 5.2 Attachments: Redlined version of revised By-Law

Minutes Appendix V Page 1 of 3

B5.2 SECTORS AND COMMITTEES REPORTING TO THE BOARD

OF GOVERNORS

B5.2.5.1 The Committee on Executive Director Evaluation and Staff Compensation, under the direction of the Board of Governors, has specific responsibility for making recommendations to the Board regarding the Executive Director's performance planning and evaluation and for making recommendations to the Board regarding the Executive Director's compensation, including salary and bonus recommendations.

The Committee shall also have the responsibility to advise the Board of Governors on activities of the Society's staff regarding: staff compensation, including bonus programs; volunteer evaluations of staff; staff planning and organization; staff training and development; staff and retiree benefit programs, including pension plans. The committee will also be responsible for staff related Society Policies P-7.1, (Recognition of Staff Members - 5 Years or More of Service) and P-7.2, (Staff Employment Guidelines).

In addition, the Committee has oversight responsibilities for the Pension Plan Trustees and the Fiduciary Retirement Plan Committee for Defined Contribution Plans.

B5.2.5.3 The Pension Plan Trustees, under the direction of the Committee on Executive Director

Evaluation and Staff Compensation, shall have responsibility, as specified in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Pension Plan, for the investment and ultimate distribution of the funds and may also act as Plan agent for the service of legal process.

The Pension Plan Trustees shall consist of up to seven members: the Treasurer of ASME; the Assistant Treasurer, and three to five at-large members recommended by the Committee on Executive Director Evaluation and Staff Compensation for appointment by the Board of Governors.

The terms of the at-large members shall be three years ending at the close of the second Society-Wide Meeting on a schedule established by the Committee on Executive Director Evaluation and Staff Compensation. Except as provided in this section, a Pension Plan Trustee who is a member-at-large may serve no more than two consecutive full terms. To be eligible for additional full terms, a member-at-large must be nominated by the Committee on Executive Director Evaluation and Staff Compensation upon a finding by the Committee that specifies exceptional circumstances warranting the additional terms, and a written statement of such findings must accompany the nomination when it is communicated to the Board of Governors by the Chair of the Committee. The


nominee may then be appointed only upon the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the entire Board of Governors.

B5.2.5.4 The Fiduciary Retirement Plan Committee for Defined Contribution Plans, under the

direction of the Committee on Executive Director Evaluation and Staff Compensation, shall have responsibility, as specified in the ASME Thrift Plan, and The ASME Defined Contribution (DC) Plan, and The ASME 457(b) Plan a n d t h e A S M E 4 0 1 ( k ) P l a n documents, including to act as Plan Administrator and Named Fiduciary for such plans and assume such responsibilities as developing investment policy statements, selecting and monitoring investment choices, benchmarking Plan administration expenses and investment plan administrators performance and selecting, appointing and retaining plan investment, governance and plan administration compliance advisors, as well as having the power to make ministerial and technically required plan amendments.

The Fiduciary Retirement Plan Committee for Defined Contribution Plans shall consist of five members; t h r e e m e m b e r s o f t h e E x e c u t i v e M a n a g e m e n t T e a m , the Executive Director, the Associate Executive Director of Finance and Administration, the Associate Executive Director of Human Resources and Facility Operations, the Director of Benefits and Payroll and one member of the Human Resources Department, and one Volunteer member of the Pension Plan Trustees., recommended to the EDESC by the Pension Plan Trustees. The four staff members will be nominated by the Executive Director and appointed at the discretion of the EDESC. The pension plan trustee shall be recommended by the Pension Plan Trustees and may be appointed at the discretion of the EDESC.

The ASME Staff members of the Committee may will be ex-officio members with vote for as long as they hold the ose positions described in this By-Law B5.2.5.4.in the Society. The Pension Plan Trustee member’s term will be for as long as he/she is a member of the Pension Plan Trustees.


Financial Update

November 12, 2016

Victoria Rockwell, Chair COFIWilliam Garofalo, Associate Executive Director, Finance

Confidential and Proprietary - Not to be disclosed outside of ASME 1

Minutes Appendix VI Page 1 of 17

2

What to Expect from this Presentation

Brief Description – High level overview of the financial position of ASME.

Desired Outcome – Information only to raise the BOG’s knowledge.

Questions – Please ask questions during the presentation.

Duration – Presentation will last 25 minutes.


Agenda

3Confidential and Proprietary - Not to be disclosed outside of ASME

1. Financials Statements and Revenue Trends

2. Investment Guidelines and Portfolio Trends

3. FY 17 Q1 YTD Actuals vs.

Budget

4. FY 17 Q1 YTD Actuals vs. Prior Year (FY 2016)


ASME Statements of Financial Position


Assets

Cash and cash equivalents $ 14,038,592 $ 10,455,723 Accounts receivable, less allowance for

doubtful accounts of $289,000 in 2017and $278,000 in 2016 11,096,841 16,781,016

Due from The ASME Foundation, Inc. 818,233 367,767 Inventories 480,664 553,202 Prepaid expenses, deferred charges, and deposits 2,914,238 3,099,233 Investments 119,720,111 125,127,607 Property, furniture, equipment, and leasehold

improvements, net 22,146,068 23,479,450

Total assets $ 171,214,747 $ 179,863,998

Liabilities and Net Assets

Liabilities:Accounts payable and accrued expenses $ 7,191,882 $ 9,966,341 Accrued employee benefits 28,822,727 35,180,724 Deferred publications revenue 7,561,776 10,078,218 Deferred dues revenue 4,983,096 3,055,753 Accreditation and other deferred revenue 19,247,362 20,924,368 Deferred rent 11,541,347 11,683,376

Total liabilities 79,348,190 90,888,780

Commitments

Net assets:Unrestricted 91,366,066 88,485,717 Temporarily restricted 363,924 352,934 Permanently restricted 136,567 136,567

Total net assets 91,866,557 88,975,218

Total liabilities and net assets $ 171,214,747 $ 179,863,998

Total Total

June 30, 2016

FY 2017 FY 2016

September 30, 2016


ASME Statements of Cash Flows


Cash flows from operating activities:Increase (decrease) in net assets $ 2,891,339 $ (4,328,480) Adjustments to reconcile (decrease) increase in net assets

to net cash (used in) provided by operating activities:Depreciation and amortization 1,404,643 7,209,405 Gain on sale of fixed assets — (1,459,119) Realized and unrealized (gain) loss on investments (4,153,397) 1,994,005 Bad debt expense (288,524) 10,360 Pension and post-retirement charges other than net periodic costs — 2,204,013 Change in operating assets and liabilities:

Accounts receivable 5,972,699 (4,409,303) Due from The ASME Foundation, Inc. (450,466) 186,604 Inventories 72,538 202,228 Prepaid expenses, deferred charges, and deposits 184,994 385,318 Accounts payable and accrued expenses (2,774,459) (1,975,222) Accrued employee benefits (6,357,997) (3,334,142) Deferred publications revenue (2,516,443) 9,473,240 Deferred dues revenue 1,927,343 (412,040) Accreditation and other deferred (1,677,006) (67,534) Deferred rent (142,029) 1,684,342

Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities (5,906,765) 7,363,675

Cash flows from investing activities:Purchases of investments (9,704,679) (46,172,124) Proceeds from sales of investments 19,265,574 34,232,839 Acquisition of fixed assets (71,261) (2,971,189) Proceeds from sale of fixed assets — 3,430,079

Net cash provided (used in) by investing activities 9,489,634 (11,480,395)

Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents 3,582,869 (4,116,720)

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period 10,455,723 14,572,443

Cash and cash equivalents at end of period $ 14,038,592 $ 10,455,723

Sept 30, 2016 June 30, 2016FY 2017 FY 2016


Financial Summary – ASME Operating Revenue

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

Operating Revenue($ 000s)

Historical CAGR Thru FY16 of 5.25%

$27,990

FY16 $117,163

FY17 $23,293



Agenda





Budget



Investment Guidelines and Policies


COFI shall be responsible for the management of the investments of the Society.

Investments shall be limited to readily marketable securities, registered with the SEC. There shall be no leverage used in the

Investment Portfolio.

No equity securities of a single issuer, or its affiliates, shall comprise more than 5% of the equity portion of any investment manager. Investments of the Investment Portfolio will be diversified.

COFI may set ranges for the allocation of equities, fixed income securities and other types of investment, which is currently

approximately at 60% Equity & 40% Fixed Income.

COFI will appoint a professional investment consultant for advice on the investment allocation and on the specific investments to be

purchased and sold.

1 2

3

4

5 6


ASME Investment Portfolio[as of Q1 FY17]



ASME Investment Returns



Agenda





Budget



ASME FY17 Q1 Financial Results – vs. Budget


Actual Budget Variance $ Variance %

Revenue $23.3 $25.0 ($1.7) -6.8%

Expense $24.1 $27.9 $3.8 13.6%

Net ($0.8) ($2.9) $2.1


ASME FY17 Q1 Financial Results – vs. Budget


Revenue Expense Net Revenue Expense Net Revenue Expense NetProductsStandards $7,917 $2,696 $5,221 $8,405 $2,761 $5,644 ($487) $65 ($422)CA & Process Mgmt 5,617 3,381 2,235 5,718 3,515 2,203 (101) 133 32Publishing 3,185 1,768 1,417 3,568 2,134 1,434 (384) 366 (18)Training & Development 678 921 (243) 1,160 1,202 (42) (482) 281 (201)Constituent Engagement 2,892 772 2,121 2,901 984 1,917 (8) 212 204Technical Events & Content 2,788 3,053 (266) 3,186 4,180 (993) (398) 1,126 728Products Subtotal $23,077 $12,592 $10,485 $24,938 $14,776 $10,162 ($1,861) $2,184 $323

Programs / ServicesPrograms & Philanthrophy $100 $620 ($520) $53 $757 ($704) $47 $137 $184Technology Advancement & BD 48 1,002 (954) 31 1,295 (1,263) 17 293 310Programs / Services Subtotal $148 $1,622 ($1,474) $85 $2,052 ($1,968) $63 $430 $494

OperatingHuman Resources $0 $618 ($618) $0 $861 ($861) $0 $243 $243Facilities 0 2,514 (2,514) 2 2,637 (2,635) (2) 123 120Technology Services 0 2,324 (2,324) (0) 2,454 (2,454) 0 130 130Finance, Accounting & Purchasing 0 1,166 (1,166) (0) 1,205 (1,205) 0 38 39Marketing Services 0 987 (987) 0 1,581 (1,581) 0 594 594Executive Office 0 1,109 (1,109) (1) 1,273 (1,274) 1 164 164Executive Operations 0 820 (820) (1) 828 (829) 1 8 9Governance 0 139 (139) (0) 136 (136) 0 (3) (3)Miscellaneous 68 202 (134) 0 111 (111) 68 (91) (24)Operating Subtotal $68 $9,880 ($9,812) $1 $11,085 ($11,085) $67 $1,205 $1,272

Operating Surplus / (Deficit) $23,293 $24,094 ($801) $25,024 $27,914 ($2,890) ($1,731) $3,819 $2,089

Actual Budget Actual vs Budget


Agenda





Budget




Actual Prior Variance $ Variance %

Revenue $23.3 $30.1 ($6.8) -22.6%

Expense $24.1 $28.0 $3.9 13.9%

Net ($0.8) $2.1 ($2.9)

ASME FY17 Q1 Financial Results – vs. Prior Year (FY16)

Excluding initiatives


ASME FY17 Q1 Financial Results – vs. Prior Year (FY16)


Revenue Expense Net Revenue Expense Net Revenue Expense NetProductsStandards $7,917 $2,696 $5,221 $14,436 $3,750 $10,686 ($6,519) $1,054 ($5,465)CA & Process Mgmt 5,617 3,381 2,235 5,906 3,932 1,974 (290) 550 261Publishing 3,185 1,768 1,417 3,171 1,833 1,338 14 65 79Training & Development 678 921 (243) 632 1,065 (434) 47 144 191Constituent Engagement 2,892 772 2,121 2,781 767 2,014 111 (4) 107Technical Events & Content 2,788 3,053 (266) 3,115 4,165 (1,050) (327) 1,112 785Products Subtotal $23,077 $12,592 $10,485 $30,041 $15,513 $14,527 ($6,963) $2,921 ($4,042)

Programs / ServicesPrograms & Philanthrophy $100 $620 ($520) $32 $701 ($669) $67 $81 $149Technology Advancement & BD 48 1,002 (954) 27 739 (712) 21 (263) (242)Programs / Services Subtotal $148 $1,622 ($1,474) $59 $1,440 ($1,381) $89 ($182) ($93)

OperatingHuman Resources $0 $618 ($618) $0 $971 ($971) $0 $352 $352Facilities 0 2,514 (2,514) 0 2,288 (2,288) 0 (226) (226)Technology Services 0 2,324 (2,324) 0 3,091 (3,091) (0) 766 766Finance, Accounting & Purchasing 0 1,166 (1,166) 0 1,183 (1,183) 0 17 17Marketing Services 0 987 (987) 0 1,243 (1,243) 0 256 256Executive Office 0 1,109 (1,109) (0) 1,167 (1,167) 0 57 58Executive Operations 0 820 (820) 0 532 (532) 0 (288) (288)Governance 0 139 (139) 0 313 (313) 0 174 174Miscellaneous 68 202 (134) 9 230 (220) 58 28 86Operating Subtotal $68 $9,880 ($9,812) $9 $11,017 ($11,008) $59 $1,137 $1,196

Operating Surplus / (Deficit) ex. BOG approved Initiatives & Building Sale

$23,293 $24,094 ($801) $30,109 $27,971 $2,138 ($6,816) $3,876 ($2,939)

Board of Governors Approved Initiatives $0 ($0) $0 $14 $226 ($212) ($14) $226 $212

Sale of New Jersey Building $0 $0 $0 $1,642 $216 $1,426 ($1,642) $216 ($1,426)

Total Operating Surplus / (Deficit) $23,293 $24,094 ($801) $31,765 $28,413 $3,352 ($8,472) $4,318 ($4,153)

2017 2016 Actual vs Prior



Questions?


ASME Technology Roadmap Model & TAPs

ASME Board of GovernorsNovember 2016

Minuts Appendix VII Page 1 of 31

What to Expect from Presentation

• Brief Description – The purpose of this presentation is to outline the technology roadmap and TAP 2.0.

• Desired Outcome – FYI on current status. No vote, but consensus we are headed in right direction desired.

• Questions – Please ask only clarifying questions during the presentation.

• Duration – 30 minute presentation with 30 minute Q&A.

2


3

Enabling Applications:• Internet of Things• Big Data Analytics• Artificial Intelligence• Cybersecurity• Design• Materials• Nanotechnology• Sustainability


4

Roadmap Template • Starting point: Where we are today• Destination:

– Go-To Organization– Solving Technological Challenges– Engaging Global Constituents– Advancing Mission– Grow Business

• “Lanes” established to align with tactics and metrics– Market Facing – identify and validate needs/ opportunities for the Technology Portfolio– Product Development – align Solutions Portfolio to market needs; Collaboration– Engagement – grow engagement with Global Constituents– Leadership Position – One piece of “Go-To” will be our multimedia strategy

• “Steps” established within lanes to bound major initiatives and actions– Multiple paths to destination– Don’t need all the steps in place to reach destination– Interdependency between lanes and bricks– Flexible sequencing


5

Overall Roadmap – Lanes and StepsMinuts Appendix VII

Page 5 of 31

6


7

Each technology roadmap follows the template• There are and will be variations for each • Some are more complete than others (we already knew more about Energy

and PT than bio, manufacturing and robotics)• We need more input from TAP, Board, VOC and other research• They are living/flexible documents• This presentation covers highlights from each roadmap


8

Overall Roadmap – Lanes and Steps

TAP 2.0


9

Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) 2.0

• Technology Advisory Panels (TAPs), version 2.0, formed for each technology area, plus digital engineering (six TAPs total).

• TAP membership represents a diverse group of individuals having technical knowledge and experience in technologies and corresponding industries (markets).

• TAPs assist with creation and monitoring of strategic roadmaps for each technology, will provide technology and market insights, will support identification of constituent needs, and will provide advice for development of new ASME products and constituent engagement.

• We have TAP members identified, but can add more as needed• Interested parties can submit CV• Meetings start this winter• Each technology roadmap still requires further development with input from TAPS


10

Bioengineering:TAP 2.0

Gang BaoNanomedicine Center for Nucleoprotein Machines, Rice University

Michelle BradburyMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

Tony DickherberNational Cancer Institute

Gloria Elliott BiostabilityLaboratory, UNC-Charlotte;Organ Preservation Alliance

Robert GiasolliCagent Vascular

Lacey GorochowCodman Neuro (Division of Johnson and Johnson)


11

Bioengineering:TAP 2.0

Marc HornerANSYS

Kesh KesavadasIllinois Health Care Engineering Systems Center

Orlando LopezNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research

Martin TanakaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering Western Carolina University


12

BIOENGINEERING TAP AGENDA1. Introductions

2. ASME Strategy Overview

3. Technology Definition

4. Role of TAP

5. Technology Roadmap Review and Discussion:

a. Market Facing

b. Product Development

c. Engagement

d. Leadership Position

6. Market Insights

a. Market trends

b. Emerging technology trends

c. Current challenges and “Pain Points”

7. Summary of TAP Recommendations

8. TAP Operations and Administration

9. Next Meeting

10. Adjourn


13

Clean Energy:TAP 2.0

• David Blee, US Nuclear Infrastructure Council (invited)• Dan Lipman, Nuclear Energy Institute (invited)• Chris Tye, Fluor (invited)• Laura Herman, Potomac Communications Group, Inc. (invited)• Paul Murphy, Gowling WLG / Murphy Energy & Infrastructure Consulting, LLC (invited)• Raymond Hudson, DNV GL (invited)• Jack Peurach, SunPower (invited)• Andrew J. Lammas, GE Power (invited)• Brian Maragno, Siemens Energy (invited)• David Rosenberg, Gamesa (invited)• Thomas Nemila, Gold Wind (invited)• Peter Gray, Acciona (invited)• Jeffrey Phillips, Electric Power Research Institute (invited)• Caren Anders, Duke Energy (invited)• Frank L. Michell, American Electric Power (invited)• Timothy C. Lieuwen, Georgia Institute of Technology (invited)• Binyamin Koretz, BrightSource Industries (invited)• Matthew R. Thibodeau, Sargent & Lundy LLC (invited)• Roland Risser, U.S. Department of Energy (invited)• Sue Babinec, Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) (invited)• Brett Galura, AES Energy Storage (invited)


14

Pressure Technology:TAP 2.0

• Jason Lee, Babcock Power Services Inc.• Roger Cordes, Stress Engineering Services, Inc.• Daniel Peters, Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.• Charles Withers, National Board (invited)• Robert Smith, US DOT, PHMSA (invited)• Thomas Pastor, HSB Global Standards (invited)• Mark White, Victory Energy Operations, LLC (invited)• Clayton Smith, Fluor Nuclear Power (invited)• Daron Moore, TransCanada (invited)• Frederick B. Dicks, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners (invited)• Paul Davis, Amec Foster Wheeler (invited)• Christopher DePodesta, Indeck Energy Services, Inc. (invited)


15

Manufacturing:TAP 2.0

• Adam Clark, Tangible Solutions• Tim Simpson, Penn State University• Tuan TranPham, Desktop Metal• Don Godfrey, Honeywell Aerospace (invited)• Stuart Trouton, Deloitte (invited)• Jose Coronado, PTC (invited)• Stacey Delvecchio, Caterpillar (invited)


16

Robotics: TAP 2.0

• Zohaib Mian, United Technologies Research Center• Reina Ellis, Rethink Robotics (invited)• Roland Menassa, GE Global Research• Tom Ryden, MassRobotics (invited)• Paul Santi, FANUC America Corp. (invited)• Jim Lindsay, iRobot (invited)


17

Digital Engineer:TAP 2.0

• Amip Shah, Hewlett-Packard• Joe Salvo, General Electric• Jim Davis, UCLA• Tim Shinbara, Association for Manufacturing Technology• Rick Jarman, National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

(NCMS)• Jim Wetzel, General Mills• Steve Walsh


18

Pause for Discussion

• General Reactions?

• Being Market Facing. How can volunteers help us get closer to the customer?


19

A toAst to AsME’s strAtEgy

And

A fEw pArting shots


20

Building Muscle


21


22


23


24

The Sponge Bob Content Ecosystem

By 2009, for Nickelodeon, the revenue from merchandise exceeded…

8 Billion clams Stephen Hillenburg

Net Worth: $120m


25

If you build it, they will come…um…


26


27

“Knee-High Marketing”

Target Market: 2-4 years old


28

Harriett's Hamster Hotel*

*pilot in production and scheduled to be aired in March


29

Cute Story, Mike, but…?• Market-facing. They understand their target

customer and what they want.

• Integrated. And intergalactic. Huge brand. Products are part of a universe. Extreme focus across enterprise.

• Knowledge-based. They are the Go-to-place for content and use multiple delivery channels. People even build their own content.

• Engagement. People congregate virtually and face-to-face. Lifelong.


30

A Way to Remember ASME Strategy

arket-facing. We understand our target customer and what they want.

ntegrated. And intergalactic. Huge brand. Products are part of a universe. Extreme focus across enterprise.

nowledge-based. We are the Go-to-place for content and use multiple delivery channels. People even build their own content.

ngagement. People congregate virtually and face-to-face. Lifelong.


31

Remember M.I.K.E. to Remember our Strategy

• I may be despicable, but ME’s are not. Your mission will change the world for the better. It’s why we all work together here.

• Thank you for letting me sponge off your talent, skills, imagination, passion, and dedication. I will miss you.

• Keep your eye on the prize and stay the course (and stay awake)

• Oh, and please buy Harriett’s Hamster Hotel merchandise.


Business Transition Update

November 12, 2016

Technology Innovation

Enhanced Com-

muniation

Personify Assessment

Change Management

Product and Program

Evaluation Worksheet 10-3-1

Analysis

Business Intelligence

Reduce Risks and

Inefficiencies

Integrated Operating

Plan Data-Driven Decision Making

ASME’s New Strategy

Process Re-Engineering

MS Dynamics Assessment

Skills Development

Minutes Appendix VIII Page 1 of 10


• Brief Description – This portion of the agenda serves as a bridge from the strategy planning to operations and execution.

• Desired Outcome – This is for “Information Only” to raise the BOG’s awareness and knowledge of the activities underway to build operational competence.

• Questions – Please hold questions for now. You will be able to engage in questions with both Jeff and Luis presentations and in the discussion following.

• Duration – 10 Minutes

2


ASME Transition:Executive Function:

• Specific Growth Goals Outlined in Strategy Approved by the BOG

• Ensure high-performance leadership appropriate to the organization we strive to become.

• Build operations model suitable to 21st century with a growth orientation.

Construct and Implement an Enterprise Business Plan (a.k.a. Integrated Operating Plan)

Build a leadership/operating model that appropriately enables the operation.

• Ensure accountability in planning & execution

• Embrace a 10-3-1 approach

• Continue operating improvements (e.g. ERP, SCR, and more)

Build customer orientation as a core competency in driving change.

Leadership + Strategy + Businesslike Planning/Operations



Enterprise Strategy Approved in September 2015

ENTERPRISE STRATEGIC GOAL:ASME will enhance its relevance and impact to global constituents by being the leader in advancing engineering technology

ENTERPRISE OBJECTIVE:By 2025, ASME is called upon to be the go-to organization to help address key technology-related challenges in the public interest in a manner that engages core engineering constituencies (government, academia, industry, engineers, students, and technology-development professionals); to increase its mission impact as measured by reliable metrics, including growth in donations and program revenues of at least 100%; and to diversify its revenue streams so that 50% or more of all revenues derive from new and existing sources other than Standards and Certifications

4


Enterprise Strategy Approved in September 2015

STRATEGIC ACTIONS: Leadership Position - Leverage distinct, under-tapped, assets to establish value as technology innovation

partner to executive leadership Technology Portfolio - Create and manage a well-balanced, sustainable technology portfolio, plus

associated industry and geographical strategy Solutions Portfolio - Strengthen/expand solutions portfolio: defend S&C against agile competitors, while

developing diversifying the revenue base by growing solutions with strong customer demand. Develop deep expertise in, focus content development on better managing technology development and deployment across the Technology Development Curve

Collaboration - Enhance ASME’s impact in the ME field through greater collaboration with peers, creating greater scale and impact, reducing barriers to entry and continue to promote diversity and student engagement

Engagement - ASME will significantly increase core constituent engagement around the world by providing high-value relevant, impactful and rewarding opportunities to network, participate and learn through a “signature” set of technology- and purpose-advancing activities delivered through a variety of platforms

5


6

ASME Transition:(from earlier presentations)



ASME Transition:(from earlier presentations)



Path to 2025FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25

Execution: (by 2020 - 3 yrs)• BOG:

• High Performing Board fully realized• High Performing Strategy Staff and Committee

(if accepted) in place• "Go -To" organization clearly defined and understood

2025 financials supported by well developed business plans and organizational support and resources -double revenue target confirmed ( or adjusted based on sustainable business practices ), stretch and minimum acceptable financials established for 2025

• Enterprise Incentives directly link to strategy and business plan outcomes

• Org in place to complete and fully functioning to achieve Enterprise Strategy Objective (Go-To Org and double financials)

• Bus. planning & Execution continues• Business plans completed for the 5 technologies,

including supporting plans for media, conferences, engagement, etc.

Transition (by 2017 - yr 1):• BOG:

• HPB, Strategy & other TF • Strategy

• Establish TAPS & Roadmaps• Pilot Adv Mfg.• Us. Plan for other Tech.

• KPI/Goals• Define “GoTo”

• Transition Activity:• IOP & Bus. Dev. &

Execution.• ERP & Reporting• Marketing +• HR, C&S, IT+• Org Refinements

Target (by 2025 -10 yrs):• We are the

“GOTO” organization

• Rev = $225 Mil. (2x FY2015)

• GT 50% Revenue from Sources outside C&S

• Other objectives to be defined.



Path to 20252016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Execution: (by 2020 - 3 yrs)• BOG:

• High Performing Board fully realized• High Performing Strategy Staff and Committee

(if accepted) in place• "Go -To" organization clearly defined and understood

2025 financials supported by well developed business plans and organizational support and resources -double revenue target confirmed ( or adjusted based on sustainable business practices ), stretch and minimum acceptable financials established for 2025

• Enterprise Incentives directly link to strategy and business plan outcomes

• Org in place to complete and fully functioning to achieve Enterprise Strategy Objective (Go-To Org and double financials)

• Bus. planning & Execution continues• Business plans completed for the 5 technologies,

including supporting plans for media, conferences, engagement, etc.

Transition (by 2017 - yr 1):• BOG:

• HPB, Strategy & other TF • Strategy

• Establish TAPS & Roadmaps• Pilot Adv Mfg.• Us. Plan for other Tech.

• KPI/Goals• Define “GoTo”

• Transition Activity:• IOP & Bus. Dev. &

Execution.• ERP & Reporting• Marketing +• HR, C&S, IT+• Org Refinements

Target (by 2025 -10 yrs):• Rev = $225 Mil.

(2x FY2015)• GT 50% Revenue

from Sources outside C&S

• Substantial increase in membership & engagement


Confidential and Proprietary - Not to be disclosed outside of ASME10

Monthly & Consolidated

Reporting Package

Business Unit “Nutshell” Documents

End-to-End Analysis

Alignment with Strategy

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

Financial Reporting

PersonifyGPExcel

Operational Reporting

PersonifyExcel

Project Reporting

Clarizen

Business UnitSpreadsheets

Pre-Close ReportsProfitability by Product LineIn-Company Customer Analysis

Excel

High LevelProcess

Documentation

Deeper Analysis

Level 1&2 Materials

“Desktop” Reviews /

WalkthroughMeetings

SampleSelection / End to End

WalkthroughContractsMarketing Campaign

Cost Accounting

By B.U., Program, CourseAllocation of Staff Benefits

Detailed Lower Level

DocumentationHigh LevelMarket

Research(Secondary)

DetailedMarket

Research(Primary & Secondary)

CustomerSurvey Analysis

1

Heavy reliance on ASME’s new Marketing competency

Spend by Category

FY13-FY16 Actuals vs BudgetExpenses Lenses & Headcount Analysis

Vendor Spend Analysis

Crystal

1CustomerResearch

1Content

Development Strategy

1

1


Fulfilling the Mission of ASME in a Business-like Way

Jeff PattersonBoard of Governors Meeting

12 November 2016

Minutes Appendix IX Page 1 of 41

What to Expect from This Presentation

• We’ll review:• Progress to date in upgrading Marketing & Corporate Sales staff competencies and improving

program effectiveness.• Account Based Management as a tool to increase large account sales.• Initial work on new product development.

• This presentation is for the Board’s information.

• This presentation consists of three sections which contain 12-14 slides each.

• Please hold your questions until the end of each section.

2


Marketing & Corporate Sales Progress Since June Meeting


935% ROI on two-month paid search

test 9/2

IHS reseller review, Denver,

9/7-9/8

New Managing Director,

Sales 9/28

Marketing & Corporate Sales progress since June Board of Governors meeting in Louisville

June July August September October

Marketing & Corporate Sales restructuring: 7

positions vacated and redefined

7/27

Brand guidelines project begun

7/28

Autodesk commitment to

$20K E-Fest sponsorship

10/3

Microsoft CRM demo 10/26

New Managing Director, Marketing

10/24

Completed skills assessment and organizational

design6/20

Reseller reviews with Techstreet

8/15 and SAI Global 8/16

Top customer analysis identified 28 organizations

that spent >$100K in FY16

8/17

Met with BSB 8/31

4


Marketing & Corporate Sales restructuring

Managing Director, Corporate Sales• Multi-channel sales management• Customer relationship management• Customer insights that drive product creation

Managing Director, Marketing• Enterprise lead generation and sales support• Thought leadership and content marketing• Branding and value proposition

Marketing Manager, Standards and Certification• Program management• Competitive positioning• Sales support

Marketing Manager, Publishing• Program management• Competitive positioning• Sales support

Sales support engineer• Customer support and training• Reseller support and training• Located in China

Director, Email Marketing• Program management• Inventory management• Performance reporting

HIREDHIRED

HIRED

Manager Production and Traffic• Supervision of project workflow• Coordination with Purchasing and vendors• Standardize use of Clarizen project mgmt. tool

5


Customer Analysis

5,244Buying entitiesincluding resellers

53.1% Percentage of FY16 Codes & Standards revenue through IHS

28Number of customers over $100K in FY16

$5,239,801Total revenue from customers over $100K in FY16

34.1%Percentage growth of FY16 customers over $100K compared to their FY15 spend

6


Codes &Standards

ConformityAssessment

Training &Development

Publishing Advertising Event SP/EX

37.5%

29.0%

13.3% 12.1% 7.5%

0.5%

41.7%

8.4%

18.4% 19.0%

8.8%3.6%

>$100K CUSTOMERS' FY16 REVENUE, BY PRODUCT TYPE, AS % OF THEIR TOTAL SPEND

2016 2015

7


Experimentation delivers results

Print production budget redeployed to ad

retargeting and SEM testing that delivered

5x-10x ROI

Replaced T&D print catalog with e-catalog that enables

purchase trackingFY16:

$230K spent on printed catalog with no

purchase tracking

8


Paid Search Test Results: Phase I (two months)

Outcomes-based marketing• Measurable results• Continuous learning• Relentless experimentation• Superior ROI

Google Bing Total

Impressions… 87,797 21,508 109,305Clicks… 6,782 2,440 9,222CTR… 7.72% 11.34% 8.44%Cost… $15,310 $2,640 $17,950CPC… $2.26 $1.08 $1.95Avg. Position… 1.5 1.4Conversions… 459 314 773Conversion Rate… 6.77% 12.87% 8.38%Revenue… $69,994 $97,861 $167,855ROI… 457% 3,707% 935%

9


Paid search elements

Search terms

Ad copySite links(Call-out extensions)(Structured snippets)(Reviews, etc.)

Organic search results

Knowledge

graph

10


Generating 50 qualified enterprise sales leads

• Sales and Marketing agree on definition of qualified lead.

• Marketing deploys targeted campaigns.

• Team uses Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system to manage sales pipeline.

• Sales management engages with resellers to optimize sales channel performance.

11


A holistic view of our customer’s priorities

Functional management

Senior management

12


First marketing automation test

Analysis of second A/B split email

offer testing

Draft of email deployment policy

Milestones to be reported at April 2017 BoG meeting

November December January February March

ABM test campaign planning

Analysis of first A/B split email

offer testing

Draft of brand guidelines

Analysis of first marketing

automation test

Deploy third A/B split offer test

Final brand guidelines draft

complete

New Marketing Manager, Publishing

11/7

Phase II of paid search test begins

11/7

Email practices review 11/15

Analysis of Phase II paid search test

First ABM test campaign

Deploy second A/B split email offer

testing

Deploy social media promo

13


1. What’s your most important take-away from this overview?

2. How does this process compare to your own organization?

3. What more would you like to know in April?

14


Account-Based Marketing:Turning Key Customers and Prospects

Into Markets of One


Account Based Marketing Defined

“Instead of leveraging a set of broad-reaching programs designed to touch the largest possible number of prospective customers, an ABM strategy focuses marketing and sales resources on a defined set of targeted accounts and employs personalized campaigns designed to resonate with each individual account. With ABM, your marketing message is based on the attributes and needs of the account you’re targeting.”

-- David Cain, GVP, Global Marketing, Marketo

16


Or put another way…

“Account based marketing is simply this:instead of fishing with nets, we’re fishing with spears.”

-- Matt Heinz, President, Heinz Marketing

17


28 accounts spent $100K or more in FY2016

Codes FY15 Codes FY16 CA FY15 CA FY16 T&D FY15 T&D FY16 Pub FY15 Pub FY16 ADV FY15 ADV FY16Event SP/EX

FY15Event SP/EX

FY16 Total FY15 Total FY16 Change $ Change %1 Qatar National Library $520,800 $403,014 $520,800 $403,014 -$117,786 -22.6%2 CB&I Inc $144,163 $151,992 $174,953 $241,820 $26,042 $9,140 $345,159 $402,952 $57,793 16.7%3 Navy $175,645 $188,140 $60,282 $172,111 $15,660 $39,960 $2,515 $254,102 $400,210 $146,108 57.5%4 GE $112,894 $250,364 $8,200 $49,923 $23,796 $15,384 $37,824 $29,378 $55,840 $12,500 $238,554 $357,550 $118,996 49.9%5 Exxon Mobil $108,179 $111,455 $131,464 $129,463 $34,083 $32,832 $273,726 $273,750 $24 0.0%6 Mitsubishi $38,748 $59,568 $35,997 $180,132 $26,890 $9,985 $13,927 $14,701 $115,562 $264,386 $148,825 128.8%7 KSB $55 $308 $250,623 $55 $250,931 $250,876 456137.8%8 Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection $119,559 $245,195 $119,559 $245,195 $125,636 105.1%9 Bechtel $102,563 $49,720 $0 $74,401 $26,820 $63,428 $15,660 $17,015 $145,043 $204,563 $59,520 41.0%

10 HQ AMC $61,896 $188,384 $61,896 $188,384 $126,488 204.4%11 Comsol Inc $154,868 $152,904 $154,868 $152,904 -$1,964 -1.3%12 Toshiba Corporation $17,237 $18,491 $3,100 $126,954 $4,045 $695 $4,581 $4,563 $5,479 $34,443 $150,702 $116,259 337.5%13 NRC $42,686 $44,517 $182,291 $96,500 $224,978 $141,017 -$83,961 -37.3%14 NASA $124,478 $42,008 $135,322 $91,665 $6,370 $6,275 $18,800 $284,971 $139,948 -$145,023 -50.9%15 Proto Labs Inc $105,500 $136,375 $105,500 $136,375 $30,875 29.3%16 Velan Inc. $133,926 $0 $133,926 $133,926 n/a17 Dresser Inc $11,060 $133,006 $11,060 $133,006 $121,946 1102.6%18 BP International Ltd $93,184 $114,465 $22,182 $18,205 $26,479 $141,845 $132,670 -$9,175 -6.5%19 Petrobras S A $124,525 $127,859 $6,262 $105 $7,076 $1,362 $137,863 $129,326 -$8,537 -6.2%20 Shell $45,196 $73,446 $48,627 $50,560 $871 $981 $7,821 $102,516 $124,987 $22,471 21.9%21 Boeing Co $108,851 $77,451 $5,195 $1,450 $44,514 $45,850 $158,560 $124,751 -$33,809 -21.3%22 Alfa Laval $7,097 $928 $76,472 $107,515 $2,150 $3,419 $2,793 $86,988 $113,385 $26,397 30.3%23 Mercer Consumer $80,450 $103,422 $26,000 $7,500 $106,450 $110,922 $4,472 4.2%24 Fluor Enterprises Inc $86,790 $92,547 $8,962 $1,500 $6,500 $88,290 $108,009 $19,719 22.3%25 Weir Valve & Controls $3,906 $4,620 $3,100 $101,991 $7,006 $106,611 $99,604 1421.6%26 Honeywell Inc $48,090 $55,194 $1,290 $9,125 $36,859 $37,571 $2,500 $86,239 $104,390 $18,151 21.0%27 Westinghouse Electric Co $58,535 $61,297 $24,800 $17,837 $16,370 $1,500 $76,372 $103,967 $27,596 36.1%28 Larsen & Toubro Limited $6,494 $5,455 $16,312 $96,515 $195 $772 $23,774 $101,970 $78,196 328.9%

$1,630,774 $1,963,404 $329,194 $1,521,605 $718,540 $695,296 $742,416 $636,295 $343,333 $395,201 $141,919 $28,000 $3,906,176 $5,239,801 $1,333,625 34.1%Percentage of total revs for the year 41.7% 37.5% 8.4% 29.0% 18.4% 13.3% 19.0% 12.1% 8.8% 7.5% 3.6% 0.5%Year-on-year change by product 20.4% 362.2% -3.2% -14.3% 15.1% -80.3%

Customer

2016 Top Customers by Revenue vs. 2015: All Products

18


Example:

Codes FY15 Codes FY16 CA FY15 CA FY16 T&D FY15 T&D FY16 Pub FY15 Pub FY16 ADV FY15 ADV FY16Event SP/EX

FY15Event SP/EX

FY16 Total FY15 Total FY16 Change $ Change %1 Qatar National Library $520,800 $403,014 $520,800 $403,014 -$117,786 -22.6%2 CB&I Inc $144,163 $151,992 $174,953 $241,820 $26,042 $9,140 $345,159 $402,952 $57,793 16.7%3 Navy $175,645 $188,140 $60,282 $172,111 $15,660 $39,960 $2,515 $254,102 $400,210 $146,108 57.5%4 GE $112,894 $250,364 $8,200 $49,923 $23,796 $15,384 $37,824 $29,378 $55,840 $12,500 $238,554 $357,550 $118,996 49.9%5 Exxon Mobil $108,179 $111,455 $131,464 $129,463 $34,083 $32,832 $273,726 $273,750 $24 0.0%6 Mitsubishi $38,748 $59,568 $35,997 $180,132 $26,890 $9,985 $13,927 $14,701 $115,562 $264,386 $148,825 128.8%7 KSB $55 $308 $250,623 $55 $250,931 $250,876 456137.8%8 Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection $119,559 $245,195 $119,559 $245,195 $125,636 105.1%9 Bechtel $102,563 $49,720 $0 $74,401 $26,820 $63,428 $15,660 $17,015 $145,043 $204,563 $59,520 41.0%

10 HQ AMC $61,896 $188,384 $61,896 $188,384 $126,488 204.4%11 Comsol Inc $154,868 $152,904 $154,868 $152,904 -$1,964 -1.3%12 Toshiba Corporation $17,237 $18,491 $3,100 $126,954 $4,045 $695 $4,581 $4,563 $5,479 $34,443 $150,702 $116,259 337.5%13 NRC $42,686 $44,517 $182,291 $96,500 $224,978 $141,017 -$83,961 -37.3%14 NASA $124,478 $42,008 $135,322 $91,665 $6,370 $6,275 $18,800 $284,971 $139,948 -$145,023 -50.9%15 Proto Labs Inc $105,500 $136,375 $105,500 $136,375 $30,875 29.3%16 Velan Inc. $133,926 $0 $133,926 $133,926 n/a17 Dresser Inc $11,060 $133,006 $11,060 $133,006 $121,946 1102.6%18 BP International Ltd $93,184 $114,465 $22,182 $18,205 $26,479 $141,845 $132,670 -$9,175 -6.5%19 Petrobras S A $124,525 $127,859 $6,262 $105 $7,076 $1,362 $137,863 $129,326 -$8,537 -6.2%20 Shell $45,196 $73,446 $48,627 $50,560 $871 $981 $7,821 $102,516 $124,987 $22,471 21.9%21 Boeing Co $108,851 $77,451 $5,195 $1,450 $44,514 $45,850 $158,560 $124,751 -$33,809 -21.3%22 Alfa Laval $7,097 $928 $76,472 $107,515 $2,150 $3,419 $2,793 $86,988 $113,385 $26,397 30.3%23 Mercer Consumer $80,450 $103,422 $26,000 $7,500 $106,450 $110,922 $4,472 4.2%24 Fluor Enterprises Inc $86,790 $92,547 $8,962 $1,500 $6,500 $88,290 $108,009 $19,719 22.3%25 Weir Valve & Controls $3,906 $4,620 $3,100 $101,991 $7,006 $106,611 $99,604 1421.6%26 Honeywell Inc $48,090 $55,194 $1,290 $9,125 $36,859 $37,571 $2,500 $86,239 $104,390 $18,151 21.0%27 Westinghouse Electric Co $58,535 $61,297 $24,800 $17,837 $16,370 $1,500 $76,372 $103,967 $27,596 36.1%28 Larsen & Toubro Limited $6,494 $5,455 $16,312 $96,515 $195 $772 $23,774 $101,970 $78,196 328.9%

$1,630,774 $1,963,404 $329,194 $1,521,605 $718,540 $695,296 $742,416 $636,295 $343,333 $395,201 $141,919 $28,000 $3,906,176 $5,239,801 $1,333,625 34.1%Percentage of total revs for the year 41.7% 37.5% 8.4% 29.0% 18.4% 13.3% 19.0% 12.1% 8.8% 7.5% 3.6% 0.5%Year-on-year change by product 20.4% 362.2% -3.2% -14.3% 15.1% -80.3%

Customer

2016 Top Customers by Revenue vs. 2015: All Products

19


But GE is actually 982 different accounts.

20


Spending in all channels 2014-present

Company Direct

ConformityAssessment

IHS Individuals

8 accounts

$1,204,206

$123,206 $144,488 $396,523 $540,748

7 accounts 3 accounts 964 accounts

21


Measurement & Control

Healthcare Austria

Multiple enterprise units and locations

Reuter Stokes

International

Operations

Energy

Global Research

Oil & Gas

Hitachi Nuclear

22


Measurement & Control

Healthcare Austria

We are mapping GE to identify new sales opportunities

Reuter Stokes

International

Operations

Energy

Global Research

Oil & Gas

Hitachi Nuclear?

?

?

?

?

?

23


Different buyers have different motivations

Individuals buy personal wins:Intangible, not measurable,

often not quantifiable

Companies buy results:Tangible, measurable,

quantifiable

24


All customers like to be understood and respected.

“They know who I am.”

“They know what I need.”

“They know what I value.”

25


Measurable marketing

Building that understanding

Conversations with customers

User studies

Clean, usable data

26


Milestones to be reported on at April 2017 BoG meeting


Customer visits

Audit of IHS accounts

ABM test campaign planning

Draft of brand guidelines

Customer visits

Analysis of second ABM

campaign

Complete brand guidelines

20 qualified enterprise sales

leads

Customer visits

Phase II of paid search test began 11/7

Email practices review 11/16

CRM training 11/17

Customer visits

Joint sales calls with IHS

Analysis of Phase II paid search

test

First ABM test campaign

Customer visits

Joint campaign planning with

IHS

Analysis of ABM test campaign

response

Deploy second ABM campaign

27





28


New Product Development


We have plenty of product ideas

30


But first, what customer problem are we trying to solve?

31


What’s unique about the solution we propose to provide? And at what price?

Satisfied

Unsatisfied

Low fulfillment

Highfulfillment

Excitement need

Performance need

Basic need

32


Are there enough customers to warrant the effort?

33


What’s the predicted return on investment in budget and time?

34


Essential elements of business planning

• What customer problem does our new product or service solve?

• What is unique about our solution within the competitive landscape?

• How many potential customers are there for this solution?

• What price can we charge for this product/solution?

• What is the 10-3-1 financial model?

35


Case study:Training course for Thermal MedicineThe idea:

Provide a training course for MEs in the medical devices market.

Work completed to date:

Interviews with subject-matter experts, including:

Dr. Robert Roemer, the mechanical engineer who was recognized for his oncology work in the thermal medicine field by the Society for Thermal Medicine. Dr. Roemer is also a former head of the mechanical engineering department at the University of Utah.

Mike Sekins, former Director of Ultrasound Innovations Applications at Siemens

Aaron Strunk, Senior Mechanical Test Engineer at Medtronic Ablation

Market-sizing research.

36


Case study:Training course for Thermal Medicine

Conclusions:

1. Thermal medicine is still very much in the R&D phase, with relatively few participants on the commercial side and a potentially limited universe of companies for a T&D course.

2. The teams that focus on thermal medicine are small: ≤ 10.

Next stepsOn 24 October, the team agreed to expand the scope to include bio-ceramics and cell preservation, plus identify key areas of R&D for the key medical device companies that we will be profiling over the next few weeks.

37


Employing the Lean Startup Approach to Minimum Viable Product development

The minimum viable product (MVP) is a product with just enough features to gather validated learning about the product and its continued development.

Ideas

Build

Measure

Learn

38


Milestones to be reported on at April 2017 BoG meeting


Product whiteboarding

In-depth interviews with

SMEs in Bioengineering

Acquire and review

additional secondary research


In-depth interviews with SMEs in the five

technologies


Customer visits for concept validation


technologies


Revise product concepts based

on customer feedback


technologies


Revise product concepts based

on customer feedback

39


Looking ahead

FY17 FY19 FY25

Minimum of three product concepts validated or

discarded in each of the five technologies

Minimum of five products in development by 6/30

Revenue of $35M from products launched 1/1/17

or later

Revenue at least $5M from products launched 1/1/17

or later

40





41


Technical ServicesIT’s Roles in Strategy

Luis Rodriguez

Minutes Appendix X Page 1 of 14


• Brief Description – Overview of Technical Services organization and initiatives and their alignment to strategy

• Desired Outcome – Information only to raise the BOG’s awareness and knowledge and to solicit support

• Questions – Please ask only clarifying questions during the presentation and hold off any other questions until the end

• Duration – 25 minutes

2


IntroductionThe Technical Services business unit is comprised of four key functional areas:

1. Technical Project Management Services – (TPO) this team aligns with each business unit to initiate projects and after approval manages them through completion by providing business analysis, project management and testing resources.

2. Architecture & Development Services – this team architects, builds and supports systems used internally by staff and externally by online visitors, volunteers and members.

3. Infrastructure & Desktop Support – this team maintains and supports all technology and software used by the organization to sustain availability and responsiveness.

4. Online Services – this team designs, maintains and produces web sites to support the organization and its volunteers and members.


Technical Services Mission

It is the mission of the Technical Services department to:

• Ensure that technology always provides value to the organization through alignment with business strategy, superior execution and disciplined cost management.

• Lead and cultivate a team of professionals who collaborate with their business peers.

• Provide technical guidance and leadership to the organization and externally within the association community.


Types of IT Roles in Strategy• Technology drives a strategic initiative

• Must be fundamental and core to strategic initiative• Must be sustainable to maintain strategic advantage

Usually applies to a technology company or those driven by technology capabilities

• Technology supports a strategic initiative• Process and functionality Capabilities• Technology ideally is used to enhance and create new capabilities• Improved capabilities must be aligned to tactical undertakings which drive

strategic initiatives


Challenges and Opportunities

Key challenges faced by the department are focused on these five areas:

• Alignment of technology initiatives to strategic plans are not always consistent.

• Dysfunctional processes contribute to slow response times, additional costs and reduction in customer satisfaction.

• Misuse of resources and skill sets result in service gaps, poor morale, higher costs and increased risks.

• Deficient skill sets result in missed opportunities, delayed response and cost overruns due to too much reliance on outside vendors.

• Weak infrastructure does not provide secure, dynamic and stable foundation.


Efforts to Change – Realign Towards Strategic DirectionEfforts are on their way to deal with these challenges. Specifically:

• Implement Demand Prioritization Process– Establish a unified PMO process to prioritize projects.– Ensure the aligned IT priorities are focused on the Association’s strategic and tactical goals while

getting the highest return on our technology investment.

• Restructure IT organization to:– Rationalize the structure and eliminate duplicate costs.– Streamline decision making and establishing clear accountability. – Improve service levels by defining SLAs accelerating time-to-fix .– Leverage strategic vendors to minimize applications support emphasis.– Inject quality people and build skill sets within the organization to fill gaps and improve quality.

• Define & Implement Best Practice Processes– Consistent measure of performance that provides baseline for continuous improvement.– Defined roles and responsibilities that are aligned to functional areas and establish accountability.


Priorities and GoalsActionable efforts that establish technical foundation and support strategic initiatives


Key Strategic Initiatives - SystemsSystem Initiatives – applications and functions that improve key business areas, transactions and processes.

• Business Transformation Project - (including Enterprise Resource Planning system assessment –ERP) will span multiple quarters. Will evaluate, select and implement best-in-class processes and systems to automate and streamline accounting, reporting and association management areas (e.g., conference, standards).

• Sales Data Cleanup/Data Governance - Project to be delivered in multiple phases. Initial phase to be completed 2016 calendar year, focusing on all ASME sales contacts. This will be followed by projects designed to incorporate data governance tools to significantly improve the accuracy and responsiveness of sales reporting.

• Personify Upgrade/Replacement - Project to be delivered in multiple phases to establish a stable baseline environment and to recommend Personify as an RFI candidate for business transformation project. Further work would be dependent on the results to determine the best long term solution to manage and process association activities and transactions.


Key Strategic Online InitiativesOnline Initiatives – initiatives that improve or establish any online ASME presence where our constituents are engaging with us.

• Improve Non-member Customer Experience – will work with external consultants (New Madison Avenue) to define and select major non-member online experiences to improve digital online experience in a manner that provides a responsive experience which should lead to increase in engagement time and transaction volume.

• Enhance Analytics - working with external vendor (BEM) to improve the online data capture via Google Analytics which will give us better data that will be used in analytics that help drive marketing campaigns, improve decision making and provide a comprehensive and objective measure for online success.

• Enhance Conferences/Engagement – improve the conference websites that are on ASME.org, enhance client experience, and create more agile backend process for updates which will improve the overall effectiveness of the online presence. The initial EFest iteration will be delivered in November, with future phases focusing on launching registration, regional websites and competition registration integration for ASME’s new global E-Fest events.


Key Infrastructure InitiativesInfrastructure Initiatives – designed to improve the overall architecture, reliability, performance and responsive of our infrastructure including network, servers, telecommunication and peripherals.

• Infrastructure Asset Inventory – Project to be delivered 2016 calendar year that will document and assess ASME’s technology assets, enabling IT to create a plan to enhance or replace the infrastructure that will effectively address critical environments and define needs for longer term objectives.

• Document Retention and Backups – Implement existing retention and backup policies in a manner that establishes both a go-forward procedure that meets ASME’s needs and no longer retains documents beyond their useful purpose.

• Data Center Evaluation – This initiative will be a 2017 effort to consolidate, reduce and improve overall technology in a manner that will reduce costs, increase responsiveness and capabilities, and build a strong foundation for future projects.


Key Process and Organizational Initiatives

Process and Organizational Initiatives – designed to create a more effective team that utilizes best practices and continuous improvement with clear roles and responsibilities.

• Help Desk Software Upgrade – This 2016 – 2017 project will upgrade the existing service management software “Service Now” to the enterprise level that will allow for automated workflow and escalation and user self-service. Designed to significantly improve communication, accountability and transparency of support services provided increasing the organization’s effectiveness

• Organization Realignment - This effort will establish a complete organizational team with filled open head counts, complete and transparent job descriptions and clear career paths that are designed to increase employee effectiveness, satisfaction and retention.


Targets and ObjectivesSpecific target areas for improvement over the next three years will be:

• Reduction of technical operational deficiencies through fully functional help desk and secure and managed infrastructure that is efficiently operated

• Consolidated reporting through modern tools that are easy to use and require little time to clean and aggregate data

• Clear system path for financial systems and association management systems that are implemented or upgraded and achieve the goals set out

• Modernize and consolidate online presence so that it is fully integrated with the business systems, has the appropriate analytical feedback mechanisms and is engaging and completely responsive

• Reinvent our automated standards creation process to make it easier and more intuitive to use for volunteers, more fully automated into our internal business approval processes, and produce a final finished product that is dynamic and incorporates interoperability


Strategic Impact to BusinessSuch capabilities will enable us to:New Technology Benefits• New strategic technologies will be measured based on the level of online engagement.• Analytics will be used to implement better measurement tools to define success for strategies and tactics.• As new business lines and products grow beyond their initial incubation periods more specific P&L cost

reporting will be available on reporting lines and scope of business being managed.

New Product Deliveries Impact• Technical Services department will work closely with all business groups to understand new product

deliveries to ensure growth.• Proactively increase the flexibility of systems and work closely with strategic vendors and internal resources

to quickly deliver solutions.• Management of the Technical Services team will be trained to effectively collaborate and understand

business opportunities.


2016.11.07 Mike Ireland Tribute November 12, 2016 To our esteemed friend and colleague Mike Ireland: Earlier this season, ASME learned that your extraordinary combination of keen intelligence, wise leadership, good humor and professional excellence had been recognized by another fine organization -- in the form of an extraordinary offer, which you have of course accepted. It is thus an extraordinary and bittersweet moment in the life of ASME. We understand keenly why the Portland Cement Association has pursued a leader of your caliber and qualities. and we extend them and you our sincerest congratulations on your coming work together. Our regret to see you go is keen; our pride in you could hardly be stronger. While your tenure at ASME has been a mere decade in length, its effects have been felt both throughout this organization and by every one of us who has had the good fortune to work with and know you. You began your time with us as Managing Director of ASME’s International Gas Turbine Institute in Atlanta, and since those days you have shouldered continually increasing responsibility. Five years ago, ASME managed to persuade you to move with your family to New York City to take an even more direct role in the leadership of our Society, culminating as it has in your tenure as Associate Executive Director. Your invaluable contributions include the leadership of ASME’s consolidated banking effort, the reorganization of ASME’s Knowledge & Communities groups, and service as chair of the Product/Program Leadership Team of Managing Directors. Just in the last year, you both spearheaded ASME’s vital work to re-envision our strategic focus as well as led our Engineering Group, where plans to implement that vision are being brought to life. Your leadership within ASME’s Executive Management Team (EMT) as well as organization-wide in implementing ASME’s new BOG-approved strategy has been central to the Society’s work as it seeks a truly revitalized approach to pursuing our mission in the 21st century. Simply put, your departure will be felt keenly at every level of ASME, and you will be missed. Nonetheless, your dedication and talent will continue to remind us of the excellence we can achieve by working together. There is however one aspect of your service which undoubtedly will be irreplaceable – Sponge-Bob has, I’m afraid, will most likely not be making frequent appearances at future strategy meetings. I’m sure however that Sponge-Bob will hold many illuminating lessons for the good folks at the Portland Cement Association. And so, Mike, let us all join together to salute you, thank you, and wish you and your family all the best.

Minutes Appendix XI Page 1 of 1


Date Submitted: October 24, 2016 BOG Meeting Date: November 12, 2016 To: Board of Governors From: Sector Management Committee Agenda Item Executive Summary: (Do not exceed the space provided) The report updates the BOG on Sector, GPS/GETT and VOLT related activities and is for information only. Proposed motion for BOG Action: (if appropriate) No Action Attachments: One

Minutes Appendix XII Page 1 of 13

Sector Management Committee (SMC) Report to the Board of Governors

October 21, 2016

I. SMC Operations • The SMC held a face-to-face meeting on June 8 in Louisville, focusing on the newly

chartered presidential task forces. Outgoing SMC Chair Roe passed the gavel to incoming Chair Wise.

• The SMC held teleconferences on July 27, September 19 and October 13. The next SMC face-to-face meeting is scheduled for November 15 in Phoenix.

• The Task Forces(TF) are actively meeting and working on their chartered activities: o Building a High Performance Board of Governors TF (Bill Wepfer, chair) o Group Engagement & Alignment TF (Rick Marboe, chair) o Increasing Industry Leadership Engagement TF (Stacey Swisher Harnetty, chair) o Increasing Engagement of Student, Early Career & Digital ME TF (Terry Shoup, chair)

II. Sector Highlights Standards & Certification – Laura Hitchcock, Bill Berger Quarterly Highlights • The Council on Standards and Certification(S&C) last met on June 7, and will be meeting on

November 14 in conjunction with Congress. • Work continues on the S&C Strategic Plan. Good progress has been made by the four Task

Teams established by the Council to seek and analyze input in the following areas: International Working Groups, Derivative (or Companion) Products, Benchmarking Other SDO’s (in how they identify standards opportunities for emerging technologies in their areas), and Committee Best Practices. The Task Teams will be submitting their final reports and any recommendations for action to the Council at its November 14 meeting.

• The B30 Committee on Cableways, Cranes, Derricks, Hoists, Hooks, Jacks, and Slings celebrated the 100th Anniversary of the issuance of the first B30 Standard at its meetings during the week of Sept. 19. The highlight of the week was a recognition dinner attended by more than 100 committee volunteers; the ASME Managing Director, Standards addressed the members and thanked them for their continuing commitment to ASME, and congratulated them on their achievement. Relevant articles also appeared in ME magazine.

• The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) has completed its review of ASME’s response to the report of ANSI’s March, 2016 audit of ASME’s standards development activities, and has accepted ASME’s response and closed the audit with no significant findings.

• A new China International Working Group (IWG) for Boiler and Pressure Vessel Standards Committee VIII on Pressure Vessels was launched in Hefei, China. ASME S&C staff attended the launch meeting to contribute to the indoctrination and training of the IWG members.


• A series of events was held in China during the period of Sept. 18 thru 27, including meetings of the Board on Nuclear Codes and Standards; Boiler and Pressure Vessel (BPV) Standards Committee III on Construction of Nuclear Facility Components; and the China International Working Groups for BPV Standards Committees II, III, and XI. A Workshop on Nuclear Codes and Standards Development was also held.

• ASME has been appointed to, and has been participating in the new Additive Manufacturing Standardization Collaborative that was established jointly by America Makes and ANSI. Their initial goal is to develop by the end of 2016 a comprehensive standardization roadmap for additive manufacturing (AM).

Upcoming Activities/What’s on the Horizon? • A proposal for the establishment of a new standards development committee on

Manufacturing and Advanced Manufacturing will be presented for approval of the Council on Standards & Certification at its November 14 meeting.

• As a result of recent program prioritization efforts, S&C is exploring options for the transfer of its A112 Committee on Plumbing Materials and Equipment, with several standards development organizations expressing interest.

Technical Events and Content (TEC) Rick Marboe, John Koehr Quarterly Highlights

• Technical Events and Content (TEC) Council

o TEC Council held a face-to-face meeting on June 26, 2016 in Charlotte, NC, concurrent with the ASME Power & Energy Conference.

o TEC Council held a web conference on September 30, 2016. o TEC created an ad hoc Conference Tool Advisory Committee of volunteers and staff.

The mission will be to address and implement web tool updates so that there is common understanding, acceptance, and communications within the community to how changes to the web tool are made. The group will provide assistance in vetting requests and in creating consensus about what upgrades will be made on an ongoing or scheduled basis. An initial face to face meeting was held on September 9 in New York. Some immediate changes were approved for the paper review tool. Teleconferences will be the normal mode of engagement.

o The Gas Turbine Sector was approved by TEC Sector Council and SMC. The sector leadership team (SLT) was approved and is operating.

o All of the SLTs performed portfolio reviews and assessments of new product ideas particularly in alignment with the five focus technology areas and enabling technologies. This will be an iterative process with the product development teams.

o Summer conference activity is described below for each segment.

• Design, Materials, and Manufacturing (DMM) Segment

o DMM held a face-to-face meeting at Additive Manufacturing 3DPrinting/International Design Engineering Technical Conference/Computers in Engineering Conference


(AM3D/IDETC/CIE) in Charlotte, North Carolina from Saturday August 20 to Sunday August 21, 2016 to educate new SLT members and to evaluate the AM3D conference.

o AM3D 2016 was successfully offered from August 21-24, 2016 in Charlotte, North Carolina and attracted 213 total participants versus 191 participants in 2015.

o The Manufacturing Engineering Division offered its annual MSEC (Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference) alongside SME’s NAMRC conference at Virginia Tech from June 27- July 1, 2016.

• Energy Sources and Processing (ESP) Segment

o Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering (OMAE) Conference 2016, Busan South Korea, June 2016

o PVP 2016 50th July 2016, Anniversary Vancouver Canada Served as host for EPRI Creep-Fatigue Workshop

o International Pipeline Conference, September 26-30, 2016

• Energy Conversion and Storage (ECS) Segment

o P&E 2016 Conference (with ICONE) in Charlotte end of FY16Q4 o SLT Meeting in Charlotte end of FY16Q4 o SLT created Working Groups (WG) of volunteers and staff organized by sub-

technologies to focus on potential new business development initiatives, and these have been progressing with some opportunities already outlined.

• Gas Turbine Segment (GTS)

o Turbo Expo Conference in Seoul, Korea, June 2016 o GTS formed at end of FY16Q4 o First GTS SLT meeting being held October 2016 in Munich

• Engineering Sciences Segment (ESS)

o 2016 Heat Transfer/Fluids/ICNMM joint conference was successfully held on July 10–14

in Washington, DC. ~800 attendees (100 more than budgeted) o F2F meeting was held at ASME Headquarters on September 12-13 with the next one

scheduled on November 12 in Phoenix. Frequent telecons have been held. o ESS established liaison positions from select technical divisions to facilitate a two-way

information exchange.

Upcoming Activities/What’s on the Horizon? • TEC Council

o With the sunset of the IGTI Board that occurred with the creation of the Gas Turbine Segment, there is a need to create the IGTI Division. Those details are being resolved for near-term presentation to SMC for approval.

o We have a continuing need to refine the process for the review and approval process of spending requests of groups as they go through GPS and, if large enough, to COFI. The SMC Group Engagement / Alignment Task Force is working on this.


o Next TEC Council meeting is scheduled for November 13, 2016, in Phoenix, AZ, concurrent with IMECE.

• Energy Sources and Processing (ESP) Segment

o Energy Technology Center as a business development initiative o Working to collaborate with other groups such as SECD, PAO, S&C V&V o Arctic Technology Conference, October 2016, St. Johns, Newfoundland, Canada

• Energy Conversion and Storage (ECS) Segment

o Internal Combustion Engine fall Conference (ICEF) October 2016, Greensville, SC

• Gas Turbine Segment (GTS)

o Congressional briefing on gas turbine technology held, September 2016, Washington, DC

• Engineering Sciences Segment (ESS)

o Planning for the following ESS conferences are underway and on target for execution:

2016 IMECE, November, Phoenix 2017 Fluids Engineering Division Conference, July 30-August 4 in Waikoloa, HI.

Fluids 2018 is under consideration by ESS. 2017 Summer Heat Transfer Conference, July 9-14 in Bellevue, WA.

Programs Public Affairs & Outreach – Tim Wei, Reese Meisinger Cross-cutting Initiatives The National Institute for Standards & Technology (NIST) has funded an approximately $50K grant proposal in support of the ASME Engineering Education(EE)Standards Education project aimed at creating free/open access technical problems and instructor presentations that are infused with standards content

Engineering for Global Development (EGD)/ Engineering for Change (E4C) Quarterly Highlights • Innovation Showcase (ISHOW) Global – ISHOW 2016 circuit in India, Kenya and the US

concluded with much success. Finalists presented hardware technologies that address social/environmental problems in emerging markets. Quality of applicants/finalists is much higher than last year, which is very encouraging trend.

• DEMAND, ASME Global Development Review – summer issue was officially released late August. Working on special edition of Demand for the USAID sponsored Tech-Con event at MIT in Boston - http://www.hesntechcon.com/. New web portal and blog will continue to expand our reach in the Engineering for Global Development (EGD) space.


http://www.hesntechcon.com/

• Conference Programming – The 4th Annual EGD Research Forum at IDETC was seen as the best yet. Expanding collaboration with conferences within IDETC that are both co-hosting the forum and opening up technical sessions for EGD-related paper submissions. Expect to expand to multiple other conferences that have expressed interest in getting involved with EGD as we celebrate our 5th anniversary in 2017

Upcoming Activities/What’s on the Horizon? • ISHOW Global – Planning for 2017 is underway. • DEMAND, ASME Global Development Review – Content for fall issue is in development. • EGD Committee – Bob Hauck of GE Healthcare (retired) has taken over as chair for Micki

Marshall. EGD staff team is currently finalizing “EGD 2.0” strategy, which is based on Committee’s feedback on first four years of lessons learned and identifying market gaps.

K12/Diversity/Scholarships Quarterly Highlights • INSPIRE ended academic year 2015/16 reaching 718 schools across 46 states engaging

790 teachers and 28,953 students. In its first two years, ASME INSPIRE has been used by over 50K middle and high school students. 92% of INSPIRE students said they are interested in at least one STEM-related career post online experience with the program; 94% of teachers would recommend INSPIRE to a peer. Launching academic year 2016/17, INSPIRE is now in 154 schools with 5,204 students on the platform in the first quarter.

• More than 400 K-12 students entered the Star Trek Replicator Challenge, which was the 4th in a series of Future Engineers competitions. The latest competition asked pre-college students to design a digital model of a non-edible, food-related item that astronauts would be able to 3D print and use in the year 2050. Two young innovators-17 year-old Kyle Corrette of Phoenix, AZ , was declared the Teen Winner (ages 13-19) and 12 year-old Sreyash Sola of Ashburn, VA, selected as the Junior Winner (ages 5-12)-were named the grand-prize winners during a July 17 ceremony at the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum.

Upcoming Activities/What’s on the Horizon? • ASME INSPIRE and Future Engineers will be participating at the SWE supported Invent It.

Build It. Expo on October 29th in Philadelphia. Aimed at reaching 2,000 young girls, the exhibit will feature hands-on activities.

• The next Future Engineers challenge is scheduled to launch in late October and will focus on bioengineering innovations and potential requirements on the international space station.

• Diversity and Inclusion Strategy Committee (DISC) will be reviewing and making edits to both the ASME Society Policy and General Position statement to better reflect a more diverse and inclusive vision for the Society.


Engineering Education Quarterly Highlights • 85 ME Programs have responded to the latest ASME Engineering Education Vision 2030

BSME Curriculum Study. This helps the evolution of V2030 advocacy and the pursuit of externally funded project support.

• ASME scheduled 82 ABET assignments for the 2016-17 accreditation cycle. ME/MET programs underway at 57 domestic universities, and 25 international visits at institutions in 13 countries: Egypt, India, Jordan, Lebanon, Mexico, Palestine, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and United Arab Emirates.

• ME/MET Department Heads meetings and special Women in Engineering ProActive Network (WEPAN/ASME) /Transforming Engineering Culture to Advance Inclusion and Diversity (TECAID) session was featured at the ASEE Annual Conference, June 26-29, New Orleans, LA

• ASME Committees on Eng & Eng Tech Ed, July 13, in conjunction with ABET meetings in Baltimore, MD

• The last of four NSF-funded TECAID workshops was conducted August 1-3 in Chicago, IL. The project now begins more focused efforts on institutionalizing the work within ASME Engineering Education.

• In September, the WEPAN/ASME/Purdue TECAID Project was awarded a supplement, additional NSF support, beyond the original grant.

• ASME 2016-2017 Graduate Teaching Fellows: C. Ortega, University of Houston; A. Mahvi, Georgia Tech; T. Terrill, Texas A&M; J. Menold, Penn State; and A. Lee, Brigham Young

• 2017 Summit Int’l ME Ed Leadership (MEED) contract signed for Wash DC, April 17-20, 2017. The general co-chairs from George Mason University. Ken Ball, Dean of Engineering and Oscar Barton, Chair of ME Dept.

Upcoming Activities/What’s on the Horizon? • Vision 2030 advocacy strategy and role in ABET to be featured at Colombian Association of

Engineering Faculty Conference, October 4-7, Cartagena, Colombia and Pan American Union of Engineering Societies, October 24-26 in Panama.

• ABET Society Liaison, Board of Delegates & Board of Directors meetings, October 27-29, Baltimore, MD

• Engineering Education meetings and forums for ME/MET department heads at the 2016 IMECE in Phoenix, AZ

• Engineering Education Awards (Church and Sparks) will be selected in October.


Government Relations (GR)

Quarterly Highlights

• ASME convened three Congressional briefings: Advanced Manufacturing Communities: Encouraging Innovation and Building the Advanced Manufacturing Economy of the Future (July 14); Advanced Biosciences for Manufacturing: Driving Solutions in Energy, Health, and the Environment (July 28); and Advanced Gas Turbines: Strengthening U.S. Leadership in Energy, Health, and the Environment (September 28) and co-sponsored a June 16 Congressional briefing related to the Nat’l Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Technology and Engineering Literacy assessment.

• GR also held a September 15th webinar that featured two ASME Foundation Swanson Fellows who provided an update on the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) Program, the network of manufacturing innovation institutes, the Strategic Plan, institute partnerships, current and future opportunities and highlights of their Fellowships. Sign in with email address and password to hear recorded webinar at https://shop.asme.org/Registrations/Conference/FNDWEB2016.

• ASME’s 2016 Washington Internships for Students of Engineering (WISE) interns, Brenna Doherty and Emily Sheffield, completed their policy papers on planetary defense and imaging the image of manufacturing respectively. They will be attending IMECE 2016.

Upcoming Activities/What’s on the Horizon? • Solicitation has begun for a 2017-2018 Congressional fellow. Applications accepted through

Jan 31, 2017. • Two Congressional briefings (one on small modular reactors, the other on advanced

manufacturing) are slated to be held during the lame duck session. Industry Advisory Board (IAB)

Quarterly Highlights • The IAB Executive Committee met via conference call to plan the upcoming webinars for FY

17 (the first of which will be bioengineering-related), and to plan the fall meeting, which will be held after the election to allow the IAB to focus on energy policy, manufacturing and research and development priorities for the new President’s administration.

Upcoming Activities/What’s on the Horizon? • The (IAB) fall meeting will be held December 12-13, 2016 in Washington, DC. The

December 12th reception will take place at the Decatur House, and the December 13th meeting will take place at the Hay Adams.


https://shop.asme.org/Registrations/Conference/FNDWEB2016

Student & Early Career Development (SECD) – Paul Stevenson, Noha El-Ghobashy

Quarterly Highlights Programmatic / Operational Activities SECD Sector SECD council is reviewing its processes, communication plan and success metrics as part of the implementation of its strategic plan. Student Programs Quarterly Highlights • Plans are underway for the 2017 ASME E-Fests. The E-Fest steering team, E-fest regional

leads and Student Programming committee are working very closely with the host teams on program development

• Pre-qualification registration for Human Powered Vehicle Competition (HPVC) at ASME E-fest Asia Pacific was opened on Sept. 5, 2016

• ASME Innovative Design Simulation Challenge (IDSC) finals took place at IDETC/CIE/AM3D conference in Charlotte, NC on Sun, Aug 21, 2016. Thirteen teams had participated in the finals. Six student teams were named winners in the IDSC’s various categories.

• ASME Innovative Additive Manufacturing 3D (IAM3D) Challenge finals took place at IDETC/CIE/AM3D conference in Charlotte, NC on Sun, Aug 21, 2016. Thirteen teams had participated in the finals. Five teams were named winners.

• Sixty Four Scholarship recipients were selected and announced via the Scholarship Winners webpage, Facebook, and highlighted in the Foundation Report.

Upcoming Activities/What’s on the Horizon? • Student Design Competition (SDC) finals will take place at IMECE2016 in Phoenix, AZ on

Nov 13, 2016. 12 teams are invited to participate in the event • Planning is in full swing for ASME E-fests events in FY17 Early Career Programs Quarterly Highlights • Future ME Mini-Talks were held at the 2016 Power & Energy/ICONE and IDETC/CIE 2016

conferences: both events attracted about 120+ attendees. • Program plans for IMECE2016 Future ME Mini-Talks are underway:

o The team completed presenter interviews and has successfully identified (4) four presenters


o Presenters matched with coaches to collaborate and hone talking points for the mini-talks

• The on-site production equipment & setup/layout for the mini-talk production has been standardized streamlining the production process and reducing our overall expenses

• Preliminary plans for Mini-Talks at the 2017 Power & Energy/ICOPE/Turbo Expo conferences are underway: o Partnering with the conference organizers and TEC volunteers. o A call for Mini-Talk presenters was added to conference email communications

• The two (2) remaining Future ME Mini-Talks from IMECE2015 released on .ORG and ASME Future ME YouTube channel. The videos are: o Leading Change: Follow Your Passion o A Recipe for Engineering Leadership

• Conducted a Join2Win campaign (June-July) to drive traffic to the Future ME Community.

As of 9/21/16 we’ve attracted roughly 100 participants. Four (4) ASME books were given away as an incentive to join the group.

• The Early Career Engineer Programming Committee (ECEPC) finalized job descriptions for its committee members along with the market segment team members’ roles and responsibilities

• Campaign to recruit and select the most qualified volunteers is underway; applications due September 30.

• To align with the top 5 technologies the ECEPC has merged its Power Generation and Energy Sources teams to represent one team: Power & Energy.

• Post-production is underway for the Power & Energy/ICONE and IDETC/CIE Mini-Talks • Eight transcripts reviewed by the content development lead. • Transcripts have been provided along with the raw footage to IT for post-production editing.

Upcoming Activities/What’s on the Horizon?

• IT to select an editor and manage the editorial process to produce the (8) eight mini-talks. • Develop a strawman to map out the process as the initial step in drafting the FutureME and

Content Development strategies • Assembling mini-talk team to plan the next set of mini-talks at the 2017 Power &

Energy/ICOPE/Turbo Expo conferences and continue discussions of the integration of new programming

• The ECEPC continues to modify its operations guide


Community Development Quarterly Highlights • Published two issues of ME Today; July and September. Topics featured included “A New

Type of Engineer is Emerging - Meet the Digital Engineer”, “Jobs Rated Report 2016: Ranking 200 Jobs”, “FutureME Videos (Recipe for engineering leadership, Project Success defining the Problem and Follow Your Passion)”, “Arthur L Williston Award Winning Paper”, “DAG Project Outcomes”, and “Engineering Entrepreneurs Working at Positive Change in the World”.

• Bumper Sticker Learning content has been developed and is currently being posted on social media and ASME community.

• The Student & Leader Training Conference (SLTC) planning is in progress with promotion going on existing social media pages.

• Past SLTC participants have been leveraged as ambassadors for E-Fest via social media and are currently posting about the events.

Upcoming Activities/What’s on the Horizon? • SLTC Program is in development and planning is in progress for SLTC at IMECE 2016. • SLTC Reunions are being planned at E-Fests. • Future Bumper Sticker Learning posts will include FutureME and E-Fest tagging. III. Volunteer Orientation and Leadership Training (VOLT) Academy – Marc Goldsmith, Clare Bruff Quarterly Highlights • The VOLT Executive Committee held a retreat on September 16-18 in Miami, FL. At the

retreat, the committee laid out plans for the year’s activities. VOLT will focus its leadership development programming on key areas of need, including communication, critical thinking, and business acumen with a focus on cross-sector collaboration.

• VOLT provided an orientation webinar for the Nominating Committee on September 22, 2016.

• Applications for the 2017-2018 ECLIPSE program are now available on asme.org. The application deadline is January 3, 2017.

Upcoming Activities/What’s on the Horizon? • There will be an ECLIPSE Alumni Reception on November 12, 2016 during IMECE. • VOLT will hold an Officer and Governor Elect Orientation on November 13, 2016, during

IMECE. • There will be an ECLIPSE intern breakfast during IMECE on November 13, 2016. This year,

VOLT will provide some programming to the breakfast meeting designed to help the interns get started on their group project.


• VOLT will hold a volunteer leadership workshop during IMECE. The topic of the workshop will be, “Advocacy for Engineers: Personal, Professional, and Public.” The workshop will be offered twice, on November 13 and 14.

• VOLT will host a meet-up for Cross-Sector Leadership Development Workshop participants from all three workshops on November 14 during IMECE.

• VOLT will host the Career Workshop at IMECE this year on November 15. The title of the workshop is, “Finding Your Dream Job Online – and Getting it Offline.” The workshop will be followed by a networking opportunity for attendees.

• VOLT continues to develop e-learning modules, with a third topic – “ASME Around the World” – near completion. We aim to put the first three modules online by the end of 2016.

IV. Group Pathways & Support (GPS)/Group Engagement & Transition Team (GETT) – Karen Ohland, Elio Manes

Quarterly Highlights • GPS implemented a new process for FY17 – receiving leadership from all GPS-supported

groups. (Previously some groups self-recorded their leadership, while others didn’t.) o As part of this process, GPS also enabled volunteer access to online tools and the

group’s ASME.org group page upon receipt of leadership, as well as initiated the group’s FY17 annual plan. (Previously, volunteers/groups would contact GPS staff separately for access requests)

o GPS standardized volunteer leadership roles (position names, titles). o Making this change has created improvements in work efficiencies and group/volunteer

support, while also allowing GPS to capture better leadership data. • Total group requests processed: 343

o 128 general admin requests (leadership updates, questions, etc.) o 153 activity requests o 62 activity-related tasks (reimbursements, awards, etc.)

• Total annual plans initiated: 151 o Total annual plans completed (to date): 50

• On September 27, GPS made a presentation to the Committee on Finance and Investments (COFI) on Group segregated accounts, providing an overview of FY16 performance as well as FY17 financial plans. Among the issues noted was that from FY15 and FY16, total account balances have decreased by $2.9M from $29.8M to $26.8M in total assets. COFI also reviewed and approved 6 FY17 Annual Plans submitted by Divisions with aggregated spends of over $100K.

• GPS group page: Communicated various updates to group via the group page News/Updates and messaging feature, as well as e-mail. We also added a high level Group Leader Training content to the page, with plans for expanding this type of information.


Upcoming Activities/What’s on the Horizon? • GPS plans to expand on its training content, in order for volunteers to engage in more self-

service training. GPS also expects to start planning a group training event as well as increase regular communication with volunteer groups.

• GPS staff will soon be working on reviewing our current group-level honors/awards processes to determine how we can make improvements.


Standards & CertificationBoG Presentation

Laura HitchcockSenior VP, S&C

Bill BergerManaging Director, Standards

Minutes Appendix XIII Page 1 of 20

What to Expect from this Presentation• Brief Description – A quick overview of the Standards and

Certification Sector with a few key “take-aways” • Desired Outcome – Primarily “Information Only” to help the BOG

better understand the S&C Sector as they move forward with Strategies for the Society. As the primary source of revenue for the organization, it’s important that BOG decisions support the future of the S&C Sector.

• Questions – Please hold questions until after the presentation. • Duration – 30 minutes (approx. 15 for presentation and 15 for Q&A)

2


VISION, MISSION, AND STRATEGIC FOCUS AREAS

VISION STATEMENTS MISSION STATEMENTS

ASME STANDARDS & CERTIFICATION

ASME

To be the essential resource for mechanical engineers and other technical professionals throughout the world for solutions that benefit humankind

To serve diverse global communities by advancing, disseminating and applying engineering knowledge for improving the quality of life; and communicating the excitement of engineering

To be the world leader in mechanical and multidisciplinary engineering codes, standards, conformity assessment programs, and related products and services

To develop the best, most applicable codes, standards, conformity assessment programs, and related products and services in the world for the benefit of humanity

Vision and Mission

S&C is the epitome of ASME’s Mission3


S&C By the Numbers…STANDARDS

• Over 125 years of service to public safety, lessening the burdens of government, and improving the quality of life of people about the world -- First Standard issued 1884

• 0ver 500 Standards – more recently, over 50 technical related non-standards publications• Over 700 Committees• 5,400 Subject Matter Expert Volunteers (19 percent from outside the United States)• Administer over 40 U.S. Technical Advisory Groups to the International Organization for

Standardization (ISO)

CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT

• More than 3,000 Certified Individuals• Over 7,300 Certified Companies spanning 79 nations• Eight major programs (BPV, Nuclear, QSC, AIA, BPE, NQA, GDTP, QRO)• Two new programs soon to be released (ANDE, GDTP-2009)

S&C Annual Revenue: $70+ MS&C represents the largest global engagement of industry in ASME

4


ASME S&C Staff Org. ChartORGANIZATION

5

S&C continues to grow with little increase in staff size

Open position


ASME Council on

Standards & Certification

Energy and Environmental

Standards Advisory Board

Board onHearings and

Appeals

Board on Codes &

Standards Operations

Board on Nuclear Codes & Standards

Board on Safety Codes & Standards

Board on Pressure Technology

Codes & Standards

Board on Standardization and

Testing

Supervisory Board

Advisory Board

Board on Conformity Assessment

Board onStrategic Initiatives

ASME S&C Volunteers Org. ChartORGANIZATION

6

The Council on S&C is structured to manage the output, ensure continuous improvement, and facilitate growth


Duties of Council on Standards & Certification• Under the direction of the ASME Board of Governors, responsible for the

activities of the Society relating to codes, standards, and related conformity assessment programs

• Provide strategic direction and planning for ASME Standards and Certification; monitor performance

• Approve the structure of boards and standing committees of the CSC,technical committees, and programs

• Establish and revise S&C operating policies; ensure due process, and allow for appeals

• Interact with government, industry, and academia on matters such as proposed legislation relating to voluntary standards or conformity assessment

• Outreach, education, and awareness on standards and conformity assessment

• Cooperate with other standards developing organizations

7

The Council on S&C is responsible for the health of the Sector


STANDARDIZATION

Pressure Technologyboilers, pressure vessels, piping, materials, welding, valves, flanges

Standardization/Performance Test Codesgeometric dimensioning and tolerancing, plumbing, turbines and power plant equipment, fasteners, hand tools, energy assessment

Safetyelevators & escalators, cranes, automotive lifts, conveyors, rail transit

Nuclearcomponent design, containment, quality assurance, risk assessment, air and gas treatment, inspection

8

S&C’s Scope can easily accommodate new technologies

Scope of Activities Minutes Appendix XIII Page 8 of 20

STANDARDIZATION

The Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code

12 Sections28 volumes16,500 pages

Updated every 2 years

ConstructionSections

ServiceSections

NuclearSections

9

The BPVC is our largest product…which has its benefits and its risks


CONFORMITY ASSESSMENTConformity Assessment: Activities taken to verify that products, processes, and qualifications of individuals conform to particular standards

ASME accredits third party organizations that satisfactorily demonstrate they are capable of implementing activities such as inspection and testing services

ASME certifies individual manufacturers that satisfactorily demonstrate they can build products that meet ASME standards. ASME also certifies personnel to attest that their qualifications conform with its applicable standards

10

The “C” in S&C Minutes Appendix XIII Page 10 of 20

http://www.acmeboilers.com/boilerImages/Repairs/Repair1.jpg

http://www.acmeboilers.com/boilerImages/Repairs/Repair1.jpg

CONFORMITY ASSESSMENTScope of Activities

Conformity Assessment

Product Certification• Boilers, pressure vessels, nuclear components• Nuclear material quality systems• Bioprocessing equipment

Personnel Certification• Geometric dimensioning & tolerancing

professionals • Plant operators

Organizational Accreditation• Authorized inspection• Pressure relief laboratory testing

11

Industry wants assurance that the standards are being followed by capable practitioners


CONFORMITY ASSESSMENTBPV Product Certification

12

Standards, conformity assessment, and our stakeholders…a critical ecosystem


http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=Hohd2lRtm3GNTM&tbnid=OXvdlvbQdOpn1M:&ved=0CAgQjRwwADjNAQ&url=http://memagazine.asme.org/articles/2009/june/standards_certification_now.cfm&ei=NQKAUaHbD-Oh0AH-y4DYCA&psig=AFQjCNET6PL-5qzZIzgdRbO3UYitmswYnA&ust=1367430069296217

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=Hohd2lRtm3GNTM&tbnid=OXvdlvbQdOpn1M:&ved=0CAgQjRwwADjNAQ&url=http://memagazine.asme.org/articles/2009/june/standards_certification_now.cfm&ei=NQKAUaHbD-Oh0AH-y4DYCA&psig=AFQjCNET6PL-5qzZIzgdRbO3UYitmswYnA&ust=1367430069296217

Number of Manufacturers with ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel and Nuclear Certifications

Examples of Conformity Assessment Growth

13

Conformity Assessment programs continue to grow in major international markets


STDS FTE: 33 33 33 34 37* 37 37 38CA FTE: 15.5 15.5 16.5 16.5 17.5 18.5 19.5 19.5

(*Global Development Staff moved from Training & Development, Jan. 16)

Standards and Certification Revenue and Net

22.5

32.7

28.1 28.1

35.4

32.433.1

38.6

36.4

38.938.1

41.140.2

15.7

17.7

20.1

24.2

27.028.5

27.8

31.7 31.4 31.2

35.336.4

37.4

13.7

21.1

17.6 17.9

22.7

20.621.9

23.124.4 24.6

26.327.5

28.4

6.67.3

8.4

11.1 11.712.7 12.2

14.815.9

17.3

15.4 15.216.8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19

Mill

ions

of D

olla

rs

Standards Revenue

CA Revenue

Standards Net

CA Net

FY 07 – 16 ActualsFY 17 BudgetFY 18 – 19 Projections

14


S&C’s Strategic Planning Activities

15

• Developed our end Visions (what does S&C look like 25 years from now)– Globalization– Products and Services– Improved Processes

• Our Vision Descriptors will serve as steady guide posts as we undertake actions to move us towards our Vision

• Annually we Identify potential tactics and actions which move us to our goals– Plan is to take focused, concrete steps to move us towards the end states

• Selected 4 actions to accomplish in 2016 • This is a very enduring process

S&C’s Strategic Planning fits into and supports the BOG’s Strategies for the Society


S&C’s 2016 Statement of Work1. International Working Groups (IWG’s)

• Survey of IWG’s and similar groups to identify areas for process improvements. • Supports Globalization End State

2. Derivative Products• Challenge Committees to identify derivative or companion products that can be created to

support and enrich their existing standards. • Supports Product Growth End State

3. Benchmarking other SDO’s• Construct and conduct a benchmarking of other standards development organizations to

determine their best practices for identifying emerging technologies relevant to their activities. • Supports Improved Processes End State

4. Committee Best Practices• Request Committees to identify tools, methods, etc. used to manage their activities that other

committees can learn/benefit from.• Supports Improved Processes End State

16

S&C’s Activities are SMART and position us for growth


Some S&C Highlights/Initiatives/Opportunities• Continued growth in net surplus• Continued growth in committee participants and certificate holders, primarily international• More than 20 International Working Groups (e.g. China, India, Korea, EU, Argentina)• Advanced/Additive Manufacturing activities underway in Y14, V&V, B46, and BPTCS; participating in the

new Additive Manufacturing Standardization Collaborative established jointly by America Makes and ANSI• New Standards Committee on Manufacturing/Advanced Manufacturing Proposed• In progress: 2 new Energy Storage standards; V&V standard for Medical Devices; and Guideline for Additive

Manufacturing• Recent adoptions of ASME Standards into national regulations include India, Brazil, Israel, Kazakhstan,

Nigeria, South Africa, Colombia, Ecuador, and Chile • Increased global outreach and promotion of value proposition for ASME standards and conformity

assessment programs• Lead SDO for a standards-as-data initiative, SWISS (Semantic Web for Interoperable Specs and

Standards); working with industry, government, and other SDO’s to develop service • Increase student understanding of standards, both by incorporation into curricula and by increasing access

via a subscription platform• Benchmarking other SDO’s on how they identify and evaluate opportunities in emerging technologies• Considering sunsetting of several low-priority activities

17

S&C is working hard to continue to meet our mission


Strengths: Now and into the Future• Accepted as-is in most nations and equivalent in many others

• ASME conformity assessment mark accepted everywhere

• Engagement of the best and the brightest people from all around the world.

• ASME processes easily integrate geographic variations – language, local content, etc.

• Stay at the forefront of technological advances

• Close technical alignment with other national and international codes and standards

• Stakeholders involvement is at its greatest

• ASME standards are premier technical standards for international trade and regulatory acceptance

18

S&C is strong with plenty of potential for growth


Current challenges or threats• Succession planning for committee members• Staff turnover and constrained resources• IBR Policies (i.e., the movement to provide standards for

free in the US and around the world)• Growing global capability and competition• National vs International agendas• Culture, language, time-zones• Tools and support capabilities need to be continually

updated/improved

19

S&C’s successful future depends on remaining ever vigilant and on positioning ourselves to respond to these and any new threats or challenges


What the BoG can do…• Be prepared to reinvest in Standards and Certification as needed

going forward • Ensure that the Board membership includes individuals with

knowledge/experience of the Standards and Certification Sector• Continue the focus on growing other aspects of the Society to

help reduce the dependency on S&C

20

S&C is ASME’s “goose that lays the golden eggs”. Please help us keep S&C strong so that we can continue to carry out the Society’s Mission.


1

John Goossen, Chair, Task ForceNovember 2016

ASME Board of Governors Meeting

Minutes Appendix XIV Page 1 of 11


• Brief Description – The purpose is to review the 4 deliverables of the Strategy and Planning Task Force and to have generative discussions on at least 2 of the key deliverables

• Desired Outcome – To raise the BOG’s awareness and knowledge and to solicit BOG’s Feedback

• Questions “Please ask only clarifying questions during the presentation” there is plenty of time allocated for discussion at key points in the presentation

• Duration – The Presentation is approximately 20 mins with 25 mins for discussion ( Total 45 mins )

2


DeliverablesPropose an annual process for maintaining, updating and communicating ASME’s strategic plan

Create a mechanism and process for BOG to monitor ASME’s progress towards its strategic goals

Develop a proposal, for board approval, for a sustainable entity that would engage the board, staff, volunteers…with respect to strategy development, monitoring and implementation matters that impact these groups and/or require their review and/or feedback…

Explore the operations of the Board interfacing with others (staff, committees, volunteers) on strategy matters

3


TimelineDeliverables As of 10/18/16 10/26/16 11/11/16

NovBOG Mtg

Jan/Feb BOG Mtg

April BOG Mtg June BOG Mtg

#1 - Annual process for maintaining, updating & communicating ASME’s strategic plan

TF receive draft

Briefly discuss In-depth discussion & input from

other TF

Generative discussion with

BOG

Recommendation to BOG, motion to adopt new

process

#2 - Create a mechanism and process for BOG to monitor ASME’s progress towards its strategic goals

Distributed to TF on 10/18/16

Briefly discuss More discussion by

TF

Status Update to BOG w/o discussion

Possible workshop on

KPIs and GoTo definition

Share draft for generative discussion

Discuss & Vote

#3 - Recommendation for a sustainable entity that would engage the board, staff, volunteers… with respect to strategy development, monitoring and implementation matters that impact these organizations and/or require their review and/or feedback

- - Input from HPB TF and in-

person discussion

Generative discussion by

BOG

Recommendation to BOG for

generative discussion

TBD based on BOG’s input

Vote

#4 Interface with others (staff, committees, volunteers) on strategy matters

- - - - TF to start discussion

Share with BOG

Review & provide feedback on strategy related presentations prior to BOG

ONGOING

Task Force Actions

4

Review Schedule and Progress at each MeetingAdjust as Appropriate while Maintaining Draft Due at April BOG Meeting


5

Board retreat (July)

• Discuss current strategic plan• Receive & discuss environmental

scan• Review & determine if changes are

needed to Enterprise Strategy including mission & vision (if changes are needed, determine timeline)

• Implementation of communications plan

• Review strategic deliverables for the fiscal year – i.e., what and when the BOG be engaged (consider the recommendation made by PEDT, staff or strategy committee)

Ongoing

• Review progress towards Enterprise Strategic Goal & Objectives by evaluating outcomes

• Receive and discuss reports related to ongoing trends affecting ASME

• Deep dive - Generative discussion on a particular project/ initiative/roadmap

• Monitor progress of communications plan

• Review recommendations from strategy group regarding changes to strategic plans, if any

Quarter 4 (June meetings)

• Review progress towards Enterprise Strategic Goal & Objectives by evaluating outcomes

• Review recommendations from strategy group, revise, as needed

• Deep dive - Generative discussion on a particular project/ initiative/roadmap

• Last meeting of BOG – discuss recommendations that can be made to new BOG

• First meeting of new BOG - Reviews the recommended “deep dives” it wants to do for the upcoming year (recommendations made by PEDT, staff or strategy committee)

• Review proposed communications plan for the following 12 months


• What does it mean for ASME to be the “go to organization?”

• How to quantify for meaningful metrics?• What level of detail is needed by the BOG?

6


Board of Governors• Owns the strategic direction and plan of ASME• Reviews & approves strategic plan• Is knowledgeable about current and future trends impacting ASME• Evaluates outcomes• Establishes financial objectives & approve final budget• Monitors progress towards achieving Enterprise Strategic Goal & Objectives • Reviews organizational performance

Strategy & Planning staff team• Provides recommendations to BOG• Maintains a current environmental scan and present to BOG annually • Scans the horizon for opportunities/threats and regularly update BOG• Drafts strategy-related documents for review, discussion, revision, and acceptance by BOG• Identifies relevant speakers and materials for BOG• Makes recommendations of Deep Dive generative discussions needed by the BOG• Maintains a process for reviewing & updating the strategic plan• Interfaces with other committees (e.g., EDESC, SMC) to ensure alignment • Discusses and recommends funding strategies including recommendations on strategic transactions (e.g., mergers & acquisitions,

partnerships, alliances) • Maintains a comprehensive communications plan that keeps stakeholders informed of progress & process• Maintains a mechanism for stakeholders to provide input on trends, opportunities and/or threats

Strategy Advisory Committee (volunteer & staff team) – an interstitial-like team• Reviews and provides feedback on strategy-related presentations & recommendations prior to them being presented to the Board • Provides direction & guidance on tasks related to strategy & planning • Receives regular updates on progress towards Enterprise Strategic Goal & Objectives • Provides input to staff and reviews recommendations related to proposed Deep Dive generative discussions, relevant speakers and materials

for BOG

Develop a proposal, for board approval, for a sustainable entity that would engage the board, staff, volunteers…with respect to strategy development, monitoring and implementation matters that impact these groups and/or require their review and/or feedback…


• Reviewed charters of other committees to determine where strategy is mentioned

• More work still is needed

8


Generative Discussion

June BOG Meeting (Last Meeting of Board)• Review progress towards Enterprise Strategic Goal & Objective by evaluating outcomes• Review recommendations from strategy group, revise, as needed• Deep dive - Generative discussion on a particular project/ initiative/roadmap • Discuss recommendations that can be made to new BOG

June BOG Meeting (First Meeting of New Board)• Review Enterprise Strategy and conclusions from last BOG meeting• Endorse commitment to strategy• Reviews the recommended “deep dives” it wants to do for the upcoming year (By PEDT, staff or strategy committee)• Review proposed communications plan for the following 12 months

Mid-Summer Meeting• Receive & discuss environmental scan• Review & determine if changes are needed to Enterprise Strategy including mission & vision (if changes are needed,

determine timeline)• Review strategic deliverables for the fiscal year

On Going• Monitor progress towards Enterprise Strategic Goal & Objective • Discuss ongoing trends affecting ASME• Generative discussion on a particular project/ initiative/roadmap • Review recommendations from strategy group regarding changes to strategic and business plans, if any• Review communications and monitor feedback 9


Generative Discussion

Question to tee up the discussion…

10


Defining a “Go To” Organization(Attributes to consider for developing metrics)

Positive Trending ExpectedVolunteers

• Membership

• Attraction to and participation in “ASME Life”

• World Technical Experts involvement in committees and conferences

Industry

• Executives refer to ASME for solutions to technical issues and new technology applications and uses

• Support and Sponsorship for and Attendance at Conferences

• Companies look to ASME for training courses and material

Academia

• Research and development material and results are reported in ASME publications as the preferred reference material

• Students join ASME and stay

Governments

• Officials look to ASME to develop credible neutral options. plans and solutions to country/global technical issues

General

• Convening of World technical and business experts and public officials to address and provide credible neutral solutions to Global issues

• Constituents develop material for Publications and use as references

11


The American Society of Mechanical Engineers Board 2016 Summer Retreat – Summary Report (draft) High Performing Board Task Force Last edited: November 4, 2016

Minutes Appendix XV Page 1 of 16

Executive Summary

Project Overview The ASME Board of Governors (BOG) scheduled its 2016 annual BOG Retreat meeting to focus on reviewing attributes and best practices of High Performing Boards (HPB). The purpose of the Retreat was to enable the Board to fulfill its critical leadership role in advancing and implementing the new Enterprise Strategy recently adopted by the Board. The new technology-based strategy is transformational for ASME and will raise expectations by constituents across the Society. For this transformation to be truly successful, the Board must raise its performance to match that level of expectations, namely to become a High Performing Board. Professional consultants from Grant Thornton were engaged to facilitate the HPB portion of the retreat meetings and, once familiarized with the current state of ASME leadership, to provide recommendations for next steps to be taken by the BOG and senior Staff. The BOG intends to continue pursuing this transformation through the efforts of the HPB Presidential Task Force, which will develop recommendations for the full BOG’s consideration and vote. The desired outcome is that ASME leadership’s roles and responsibilities will be refined and clarified and HPB-based best practices will be identified and recommended for implementation, and then fully institutionalized for sustained success into the future. Key Takeaways Nonprofits in general, and associations in particular, are examining and enhancing their board practices and structures. Expectations of boards are increasing and associations are struggling to maintain relevance to their constituents and members, causing organizations to assess their leadership structures and to ensure boards are operating as High Performing Boards. ASME is pursuing a series of enhancements to invest in its future, enhance onboarding of new members of both the Board and Staff management team, advance its new strategic plan, and embark on a focused effort to enhance Board performance in order to fulfill its unique responsibility to lead this transformation. ASME’s July 2016 BOG Retreat included a series of presentations and exercises intended to position the Society for success at this critical inflection point, transform the culture within the organization’s leadership team (both Board and Staff management), and enhance the Board’s knowledge and alignment with HPB best practices. In addition to developing a draft Roles and Responsibilities (R&R) matrix, which the High Performing Task Force will continue to evolve, Retreat participants identified a series of opportunities for enhancement to Board practices and structures. The Board has committed to operate in a more “trimodal” manner, appropriately juggling fiduciary, strategic, and generative governance modes. This will require the Board to act and think differently in order to function more effectively in the latter two modes of governance.


Key Questions

Over the course of the Retreat, participants asked a number of challenging questions for the organization to consider in order to position the Board to align with High Performing Board principles and the organization as a whole for ongoing success, and came to some key conclusions for the path forward. These included:

• How do we define success – for the Board, for ASME, and for the organization’s strategy? What do we plan to measure and how – through performance dashboards, metrics, etc. Note this is the linkage to operations and the Integrated Operations Plan.

• How do we make certain that we achieve our strategy and supporting implementation plans at this critical point in ASME’s history? What is the Board’s role in this process?

• How should we conduct board meetings in order to ensure that appropriate generative and strategic conversations occur? To what extent should we be communicating between meetings to reinforce these governance modes and through what channels (e.g., periodic conference calls, Board portal, etc.)? Note: “Ask PEDT” teleconferences are now being scheduled each month.

• What skills do we currently have on the Board, and what additional experiences, perspectives, and skillsets are required? The HPB Task Force is preparing a Board questionnaire to help answer this question for current Board members.

• What is the optimal process to ensure that Board candidates with the desired skillsets and experience are identified, recruited, and included in the candidate selection process?

• How should new Board members be integrated and all Board members be trained (e.g., on HPB principles)?

• What is an optimal tenure for our officers and Board members? How can we ensure a seamless transition between the presidents to effectively achieve our mission, vision, and strategy, as well as maintain/enhance our board culture, over the long term?

• Should we materially alter the roles and responsibilities within our organization to leverage the strength of our volunteer leadership (e.g., the role of Senior VPs, the Sector Management Committee, and the Treasurer/Secretary), as well as our Staff management team? Are we appropriately supported by our committees, and is their work effectively integrated into the Board’s strategic and generative discussions?


Next Steps

We have identified a series of next steps to enable the ASME BOG to enhance its performance and adopt some of the best practices of High Performing Boards. While a number of opportunities for improvement have been identified (as detailed in subsequent sections of this report), the following items have been prioritized in order to focus the organization on executing action items of highest strategic value in the near term.

1. The HPB Task Force should work to evolve the draft Roles and Responsibilities (R&R) matrix that was created at the Retreat. The R&R matrix will be presented for the Board’s consideration at the November 2016 board meeting and further refined for the Board’s vote in early 2017.

a. After the R&R matrix is approved by the Board, the HPB Task Force will determine variances from the current state and develop a detailed plan to identify required updates to policies, procedures, and/or governing documents.

2. Conduct Board meetings in alignment with HPB principles, providing adequate time on agendas for strategic and generative thinking. Further, the Board’s activities should be monitored accordingly (e.g., each meeting should be assessed in alignment with the HPB principles), for example:

a. Consider ending each meeting, at least over the next 12 months, with a brief open discussion on whether or not the meeting reflected a high performing board. [Note that President Roe is attempting to implement these recommendations for the 2016-17 BOG meeting agendas.]

3. Of critical importance is developing organizational metrics and dashboards. Operating in strategic and generative modes can be challenging for a Board, but metrics and dashboards can significantly facilitate this process (as well as facilitate achievement of an organization’s strategic plan). Staff management, in coordination with the Strategy Task Force, should develop an initial draft in 2Q-FY2016 and refine the developed materials accordingly based on feedback gathered from the Board and Committees. It is recommended that metrics/dashboards are developed in an iterative manner in preparation for Board approval during this FY.

4. To maintain the organization’s focus on achieving the newly adopted strategy and tracking progress, the Board should develop a calendar of “briefing” conference calls in between the standard board meetings so that they can stay aligned with the tactics that senior staff take to manage challenges, opportunities, risks, and threats. [Note: “Ask PEDT” monthly teleconferences are now being held; they may be suitable for this purpose.]


5. Developing an “agility muscle” for the Board and Staff management requires effective and timely communication about the external environment (competitors, global trends, emerging markets and new industries). The Board would be well served if ASME’s board portal on asme.org not only contained meeting agendas and materials, but also relevant information on the external environment, which could frame generative discussions between and at board meetings.

6. After executing these initial activities, the Board should consider performing an assessment during 4Q-FY17 for presentation at the year-end meeting. This assessment may include a variety of elements such as: individual interviews with Board and Staff members, facilitated collaboration sessions, and self-assessments or other surveys. The results will be shared at the June 2017 year-end meeting to evaluate the effectiveness of activities and actions taken towards truly developing into a high performing board.

Due Date Action Item Responsible Member

Nov 4 Send report to the BOG Bill Wepfer Nov 11 – HPB TF Work on R&R matrix All Nov 12 Share Task Force progress to date on the R&R matrix from Nov 11th meeting Bill/Laura Nov 21 BOG Feedback on the R&R matrix progress to date from Nov 12th meeting Laura Nov 30-Dec 1 • Synthesize draft and feedback

• Gap analysis All

Jan/Feb BOG Mtg • Pre-read sent 2 weeks prior to meeting, include R&R draft • Discuss Gap analysis • BOG “cuss & discuss” with the understanding they will be asked to vote on

revised R&R matrix in April BOG meeting

Bill/Laura

April BOG Meeting • Vote on R&R matrix • Review/discuss recommendations

Bill/Laura

June BOG Meeting Review and vote on final recommendations Bill/Laura


Achieving Strategic/Generative Thinking at the Board Level (Grant Thornton Recommendations):

As ASME’s Board seeks to operate in a more “trimodal” manner (i.e., appropriately shifting between fiduciary, strategic, and generative governance modes), we need to enhance our ability to operate in the latter two modes of governance. The goal of improved strategic and generative governance is to maintain a sense of urgency with regard to the Board operating in an effective manner in order to add value to ASME and its strategy. As such, ASME might consider deploying some or all of the following tips (based on industry best practices) to improving the strategic and generative behaviors at its board meetings.

• Distribute materials in advance of board meetings to provide adequate time for review and consideration; establish pre-meeting protocols so board members can ask staff clarifying questions on items in the board materials

• Leverage dashboards and metrics to focus board members on the organization’s strategy and key performance measures

• Leverage a consent agenda at board meetings to enable the Board to move through routine matters expeditiously

• Block time on board agendas for strategic and generative thinking, designating an individual as facilitator for these conversations

• During board meetings, increase considered discussion by using quiet, independent work – documenting one’s thoughts before sharing with the group

• Assign an individual to perform a role during board meetings in which he/she will identify governing modes in real time in order make certain that the Board is appropriating operating in strategic and generative modes (e.g., asking challenging questions as opposed to diving into operational details)

• Document shared values/norms at the Board level to make certain that the BOG operates in alignment with its principles and has the opportunity to hold itself accountable; reinforce these concepts at the beginning of each board/committee meeting

• Perform board meeting assessments to determine if appropriate time has been allocated to each mode of governance and to enhance future strategic and generative discussions

• Reinforce the importance of trimodal thinking outside the boardroom (e.g., within committee meetings; through dialog between board meetings, etc.)

• Reinforce strategic and generative modes of governance through ongoing board training and orientation of new members

• Perform activities in and around board meetings to facilitate trust and deeper relationships among board members.


Appendices

Appendices that are included in the following pages include:

• Appendix A: Retreat Participants

• Appendix B: Retreat Participants’ Reflections on High Performing Boards

• Appendix C: Retreat Participants’ Ideas to Achieve a High Performing Board at ASME

• Appendix D: Parking Lot Topics


Appendix A: Retreat Participants

The following individuals from ASME participated in the July 2016 retreat. Board of Governors

• Keith Roe – President • Brian Erler • Urmila Ghia • John Goossen • Caecilia Gotama • Julio Guerrero • Mahantesh Hiremath • Tom Loughlin • Karen Ohland

Treasurer/Secretary

• Jim Coaker BOG Nominees

• Stuart Cameron • Bobby Grimes • Mary Lynn Realff

BOG Intern

• Hasan Akhter

Executive Management Team • John Delli Venneri • Noha El-Ghobashy • Bill Garofalo • Elena Gerstmann • Mike Ireland • Michael Merker • Jeff Patterson • Laurel Raso • Luis Rodriguez

Senior Vice Presidents

• Laura Hitchcock • Rick Marboe • Paul Stevenson • Tim Wei

STAFF

• Phyllis Klasky • John Koehr • Allian Pratt • Karen Russo


Appendix B: Retreat Participants’ Reflections on High Performing Boards

Retreat participants were asked the following question: “What do you think a High Performing Board looks like?” Their ideas were recorded on flip charts, which have been transcribed below. It is important to note that the below concepts relate to boards in general and not specifically to ASME’s.

• Who is at the board table is important; nominating committee needs to operate more like a search committee

• Critical that the board member feels a ‘calling’ to be on the board; commitment to personal growth is important

• Board members must know the organization and understand the strategy and help the organization achieve the strategy in the most efficient manner

• Board knows what is going on throughout the organization

• Board helps to create the strategy and understands what it means to be strategic

• Good listening and trust in each other

• Understand our respective strengths and weaknesses

• Effective at process management at meetings and communications to staff throughout the organization

• Positive team dynamics

• Mission trumps the individual

• Looking out into the future by everyone; not just the voting members

• Everyone needs to do their homework and listen

• Seagull managers to be avoided; need to leave behind the right questions for management to consider

• Engaging in meaningful discussions and asking questions the right way and answering them in the right way

• High performing boards don’t settle for good enough; they strive for improvement

• Established mechanisms for gathering input


• Asks the right questions; not always solve the problem

• Clearly define expectations and metrics for success

• Committed to action

• Defines success

• Understands and models behaviors for the board and the organization; models culture for the entire organization (listening, respect, trust, transparent, communicates)

• Board meetings follow the 80/20 rule for strategic and generative discussions

• Balance between having the answers and developing the answers with CEO and staff

• Provides overall guidance for mission and supports staff in implementation

• Shared understanding of norms for the group (as well as definition of success)

• Teamwork – collective better than the individual

• Clear roles & responsibilities for Board and Committees

• Interdependence (like to know everything but need to depend on others)

• Trust the sub organization and understand how they deliver on mission and strategy

• Present dissenting opinions to think outside the box

• Diverse perspectives

• Empathy for members

• Global understanding and scope of ASME’s global influence

• Know history and do not repeat history

• Open for vigorous discussion and debate; dissent but move forward with decision and empower staff to implement

• Support Board’s decisions


• Clear, consistent, common language of success

• Scans the environment; leads the direction; empower staff to execute

• Ability to respond quickly

• Follow through on board commitments and work constructively with staff

• Passion for the organization

• Leadership = promoting belief in the team


Appendix C: Retreat Participants’ Ideas to Achieve a High Performing Board at ASME Retreat participants were asked the following question: “What immediate changes would you suggest to ASME’s Board practices and structure to achieve a High Performing Board? The ideas that were recorded on flip charts during a facilitated session have been grouped and summarized below. Note this is a basically a brainstormed list, which has not received subsequent discussion to date.

1. Constructive partnership

a. Clear definition of roles and responsibilities and respect for the boundaries

b. Ask questions

c. Make sure the voice of everyone is heard and not just those who vote

d. Agreement on KPIs to facilitate discussions on strategy and products and programs

e. “Our CEO” – if the CEO fails, it is a failure of the Board as well

f. Share responsibility and follow up on action items assigned; have follow-up conference calls between meetings to track progress

g. Move away from the policeman mentality move towards strategic and generative discussions

2. Mission Driven

a. Common understanding between the mission and activities of the Society

b. Consistency between mission and resource allocation

c. Look at mission differently. What is the most impactful place to focus on mission and how does it best align with strategy?

d. How do we engage globally – need clearer plan

e. Better understanding of the passion and mission perspective of each BOG member

f. Onboarding process needs to improve

g. Fit with mission and strategy of BOG members

3. Strategic Thinking


a. Allocate time at meetings to evaluate direction of the strategy based on input from within the organization

b. Taking the long view – looking at the environment and what could happen in the future

c. Ensure board meetings have sufficient time dedicated to strategic and generative discussions; be well prepared for meetings and do pre-reads and homework.

4. Culture of Inquiry

a. High-level agendas, distributed several weeks in advance; post board pages of FAQs; better processes for keeping members informed

b. Facilitate constructive debate – consider if all the right people are at the table for the discussion

c. Work at a high level; have specific sections on the agenda for strategy

d. Move away from “solutioning” to “framing questions”

5. Independent-Mindedness

a. Set example – not representatives of constituents; act freely from internal pressures

b. Change to appointed board members from each of the Sectors

c. Seek information from the opposite viewpoint, expand horizons

d. What is broken = fact (?)

6. Ethos of Transparency

a. Determine the appropriate level of data (financial and operational metrics) to post on the website and share

b. Over-communicate, make sure everyone is in the loop

c. Err on the side of openness once we define what is to be shared

d. Transparency of process doesn’t necessarily mean all details have to be shared

e. Vote does not equal Voice

7. Compliance with Integrity

a. Serve members by commitment to mission not by commitment to members


b. Consent agenda – allow comments and assign action items for follow up

8. Sustaining Resources

a. Understand the who, what, where, when, and why

b. Share contacts and expertise

c. Better understand the structures and current resource allocations

d. Is part of the role of a BOG to help with resources?

9. Results Oriented

a. More timely responses to the Board action items and timely follow-up

b. Set goals, set strategy, set KPIs and assess performance

10. Intentional Board Practices

a. Planning process for fiduciary, strategic, and generative issues

b. Framing the questions for generative topics

c. Process for understanding generative topics

d. Need to have processes and practices to help people know what they need to know and the common practices of the Board

e. Being in a “state of change” at ASME makes it harder to know what the board practices are

f. Each year, hold a briefing seminar for candidates

g. Two-way communication means being receptive to input into the planning process

11. Continuous Learning

a. Numbers – more value to ASME than the financial numbers; the value of the volunteer effort is hidden

b. Govern – responsibility to govern is for all BOG members

c. Engage – BOG to strive to engage the members; two-way communication; learn what is important to the next generation outside of the U.S.


d. Evaluation – learn more about the strengths of others on the Board. Do we evaluate our own performance on the board; do we think about what it was like to be on the other side of me at the last meeting.

12. Revitalization

a. Be “present” and engaged in the discussion

b. Skills of incoming board members aligned with strategy

c. Refresh guidelines to the Nominating Committee

d. Look at all aspects of the organization to give new life to all sub-organizations

e. COFI relationship to the Board could be strengthened and more education provided

f. Nomination Process is broken. Throw it out and start over.


Appendix D: Parking Lot Topics

During the Retreat, various ideas were identified and recorded in a “Parking Lot”. These items have been summarized below.

• Board recruitment and expertise: need better process to move from good candidates to better candidates.

• What does a Board of Governors do? The work of the Board and the impact of the Board’s efforts need to be more visible and tangible to the members and volunteers.

• Celebrate the work of the Board and who we are as a Board. Project positive image. Reinforce the good work of the Board even though improvements are needed.

• Framework for strategy is chosen: how do we know if we are implementing correctly and when to revisit the framework?

• Common sense role in assessing the analysis and making decisions.

• Training needed on different lens used to view operations.

• Ensure organization structure engages volunteers.


Building a High Performance Board of Governors

Bill Wepfer, ChairLaura Hitchcock & Bobby Grimes

November 2016ASME Board of Governors

1

Minutes Appendix XVI Page 1 of 12

What to Expect from Presentation• Brief Description

• We will share our progress to date and explain the value of this task force

• Desired Outcomes• Board understands and acknowledges the criticality of our tasks• We receive feedback and guidance

• Questions• Please hold questions until the end

• Duration• 45 minutes – 20 minutes of presentation & 25 minutes of discussion

2


Report from the Retreat

Set of recommendations

Roles & Responsibilities Matrix

BOG motions to “make it stick”

Major Tasks

3


Summary Report from the Retreat

• Historical record• Starting point but not the end point• Share with BOG prior to November

BOG meeting

Report from the Retreat Set of recommendations



Major Tasks

4


Preliminary Recommendations*

• Improve Board Meetings• Finalize the roles and responsibilities matrix• Consider improvements to BOG Committees• Improve Operations/Processes• Review & enhance BOG training for current and incoming members • Examine/analyze nominating process to recruit, evaluate and select

strong Board members with the needed skillsets, experience, and contacts




Major Tasks

5


BOG Motions to “Make it Stick”

• Past Boards have been down this path before• The Board will be asked to review (and approve) a

portfolio of changes• Some will be done in FY17 and some in FY18




Major Tasks

6



• “To Be”• Are there specific roles that are missing?

• Are there aspects of Roles and Responsibilities that weren’t accounted for in this matrix?

• Today we will discuss General Duties to help communicate the process




Major Tasks

7


• General Duties• Constructive Partnership• Organizational Culture• Board Meetings• Volunteers

• Policy• Strategy and Planning

• General• Creation of Strategic Plan• Implementation of Strategic Plan• Market Orientation and Constituent Engagement• Business Plans

• Finance / Financial Performance• Budget• Major Capital Expenditures / Property and

Equi9pment• Investments and Reserves• Financial Controls• Major Contracts• Mergers and Major Corporate Changes• Product and Program Rationalization

Roles & Responsibilities -- Matrix Categories• External Communication

• General• Crisis communications

• Public Policy Positions• Legal and Ethics • Risk Management• Nominations of Governors and Presidents

• General Implementation• Board Operations

• Committee Charters• Committee and Chair Appointments• Committee Operations• Self Assessment

• Executive Oversight and Compensation • ED Goals• ED Performance Evaluation• ED Hiring• ED Termination• ED Compensation• Staff Hiring/Termination• C-Level Compensation




Major Tasks

8


R&R - General DutiesBoard of Governors (BOG) President Sector Management

Committee (SMC)Executive Director

Oversees general business of ASME Chairs the Board of Governors Reports to the Board of Governors Reports to the Board of Governors; responsible for day-to-day management of

operations

General DutiesGeneral (Overview) • Steers the organization towards a

sustainable future by adopting sound, ethical, and legal governance and financial management policies, as well as making sure the society has adequate resources to achieve its mission

• Ensures ASME’s strategy aligns with its mission and vision, and is implemented by management.

• Responds to institutional threats and opportunities.

• Exercises duties of due care, loyalty, and obedience.

• Serves as chair of the Board of Governors.

• Guides BOG to fulfill its responsibilities to ASME.


• SVP members represent the volunteer leadership of ASME

• Provides consolidated insight regarding the Sectors’ execution of programs and strategic initiatives and planning.

• Exercises fiduciary duties of due care, loyalty, and obedience.

• Represents voice of and engagement opportunities to constituents.

• Serves as subject matter experts and engaged participants.

• Looks for and leverages strategic synergies across the sectors.

• Responsible for management of day-to-day operations of ASME.

• Provides support to the BOG on matters of policy, stewardship of assets, strategy development, and operational alignment across all sectors.


Constructive Partnership • Responsible for building and cultivating a strong working relationship with ED.

• Responsible for building and cultivating a strong working relationship with ED, as well as between Board and ED.

• Responsible for building and cultivating a strong working relationship with staff counterparts.

• Responsible for building and cultivating a strong working relationship with ED, as well as between Board and ED.

DRAFT

9


Board of Governors (BOG)Oversees general business of ASME

General DutiesGeneral (Overview)

•Steers the organization towards a sustainable future by adopting sound, ethical, and legal governance and financial management policies, as well as making sure the society has adequate resources to achieve its mission

•Ensures ASME’s strategy aligns with its mission and vision, and is implemented by management.

•Responds to institutional threats and opportunities. •Exercises duties of due care, loyalty, and obedience.

Constructive Partnership

•Responsible for building and cultivating a strong working relationship with ED.

DRAFT

10


11

Due Date Action Item

Nov 30/Dec 1 – HPB TF Complete full draft of matrixWeek of Dec 6 Share R&R matrix with BOG and ask for feedback from allDec 31 Comments due back

Jan 15 Share revised draft with BOG

Jan/Feb BOG Mtg BOG “cuss & discuss”February Send revised version back to BOG and ask for feedback

March BOG Meeting BOG discussion (Task force will revise as needed)

April BOG Meeting Task force will ask for approval from BOG


Thumbs Vote• Is the HPB task force spending our time on the right

things?

• Are these tasks critical to ASME’s success?• Any lingering concerns?

• Please write down the one thing we should do, or not do, to become a high performing board

12


PROGRESS ON OUR VISION AND MISSION

A Generative Discussion by the Board re: Assessing Progress on Advancing ASME’s Vision and Mission

November 12, 2016

Keith Roe, President and Charla Wise, President-Elect

Minutes Appendix XVII Page 1 of 12

Lord Kelvin: “If you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it.”


ASME VISION

To be the essential resource for mechanical engineers and other

technical professionals throughout the world for solutions that benefit

humankind.


ASME MISSION

ASME serves diverse global communities by advancing, disseminating, and applying

engineering knowledge to improve the quality of life and communicate

the excitement of engineering around the world.


Focus Is on Our Enterprise Strategy

• Board meeting focused on strategy and strategy implementation• Organization being realigned to achieve new strategy• Incentives and goals being set to help achieve our strategic objectives• The picture of our future state is challenging, exciting and very

rewarding. It is built on the enterprise strategy.• Overall strategy and implementation planning is built on doing a

better job of and expanding our reach in achieving our vision and mission.

• QUESTION: HOW DO WE KNOW IF IT IS WORKING?


“ASME will enhance its relevance and impact

among global constituents by being the leader in advancing engineering

technology.”

Enterprise Strategic Goal

Approved by ASME Board of Governors FY16 6


Will Our Strategic Goal/Objectives Tell Us?• Organization Objective: “to be the go-to organization to help address key

technology-related challenges in the public interest in a manner that engages core engineering constituencies”

• Achieving objective: can become a go to organization, but that alone does not mean we have done a better job fulfilling our Vision and Mission

• Financial Objective: “growth in donations and program revenues of at least 100%; and to diversify its revenue streams so that 50% or more of all revenues derive from new and existing sources other than Standards and Certification.”

• Achieving Objective: while good and providing more resources for us to work with, achievement does not insure that we did a better job of fulfilling our Vision and Mission.

• CONCLUSION: Strategic goal and objectives are excellent and important, and should be the continued focus of our activities to achieve them!

……BUT their achievement alone does not insure we increase the fulfillment of our Vision and Mission.


How Do We Measure Progress on Our Vision and Mission?Advancing the Strategy will support the achievement of our vision and mission, but

How do we measure that progressHow do we frame or describe that progress?How do we share that progress?

BOTTOM LINE: what does progress on our vision and mission look like under the new strategy?


Pick Apart the Vision and Mission• Mission – Key Phrases:

• ….serve diverse global communities….• ….advancing, disseminating and applying engineering knowledge….• ….for improving the quality of life…. ….around the world.• ….communicating the excitement of engineering.. …around the world.

• Vision – Key Phrases:• ….essential resource…• ….to Mechanical Engineers and other technical professionals….• ….throughout the world….• ….solutions that benefit humankind.


Generative Discussion• Take each key phrase of the Mission and Vision and ask 2 questions:

• In the context of our new strategy:1) What does {key phrase} improvement look like?

For example: what kind of things should we be doing? What kind of impacts should we be seeing from our work?

2) How do we measure it?• At each of a series of 2 to 4 meetings, the Board could take a couple of

these questions each meeting and frame the answer them.• After reviewing all of the generative questions, in the final meeting, the

Board could synthesize the answers into a broad yet definitive answer to the basic question: are we are making progress on our vision and mission?

• Expected result: some metrics for the Board to use to assess its leadership effectiveness in expanding ASME’s mission impact in the future.


Generative Questions to Consider: Mission

From ASME's point of view and in the context of our strategy:• What does “serving diverse global communities” improvement look

like? How do we measure it?• What does “advancing, disseminating and applying engineering

knowledge” improvement look like? How do we measure it?• What does increased “improving the quality of life” look like? How

do we measure it?• What does “communicating the excitement of engineering”

improvement look like? How do we measure it?


Generative Questions to Consider: Vision

From ASME's point of view and in the context of our strategy:• What does “essential resource” look like? How do we measure it?• What does “to Mechanical Engineers and other technical

professionals” look like? How do we measure it? • What does being the “throughout the world” improvement look like?

How do we measure it?• What does “for solutions that benefit humankind” improvement look

like? How do we measure it?
