Strategic Approach of Initiatives
The Task Force’s consensus was that it would be advantageous to take a strategic approach to formulating initiatives rather than to approach them in an ad hoc fashion.
In this regard, the Task Force felt that the strategy should be to concentrate on devising initiatives that increase the value proposition LESI presents to the target groups of corporate employees it wishes to attract. Thus, the vision is to devise ways to enhance the value proposition of LESI to corporate employees, in particular senior corporate employees, with the method being through coordinated, targeted initiatives with corporate membership numbers to be used as a key metric in measuring success.
The Task Force also consciously decided to leave aside other specific initiatives, such as corporate membership, which have been extensively discussed. In this regard, the Task Force pronounced its preference to consider new initiatives instead of revisiting old ones.
The Task Force noted that, due to the low cost of being an LESI Member, the choice to become or not become an LES member was more likely to be due to the corporate employees or the Corporation itself not seeing the value in joining than it would be due to cost considerations. The Task Force further noted that, even among its members who are corporate employees, participation in activities is below what one would hope and expect, indicating that even LES members who are corporate employees themselves do not see the value in participating in LESI activities.
The Task Force then identified senior corporate individuals as the target group who would bring the greatest value to LESI in both the short and long term. In the short term, attracting senior corporate people would increase the status and acceptability of LESI in the corporate world and strengthen the view that it brings value to its corporate members and – by extension – to the corporations employing them. In the long term, it would also add value to other corporate employees, especially junior corporate employees, by giving them the access to, and the ability to interact with, senior corporate employees who they would otherwise be unlikely to meet.
Examples of where LESI can best bring value to senior corporate employees (“aspects of value”) that were identified by the Task Force were: (1) more participation in active policy making and opinion shaping; (2) “targeted” educational offerings, including less legally-oriented topics and more business-oriented topics in conferences and meetings; (3) providing opportunities for networking sessions with other corporate employees, such as business development professionals; and (4) measures to make LES “more hospitable” for corporate employees.
Junior members benefit from greatly from targeted services, such as training courses and meetings that allow opportunities to network with peers who are at a similar stage of career development in this field; while many societies provide many events for this group, provision of such services could usefully be increased in certain territories. In addition, LESI should encourage the internationalization of this product offering (e.g. by encouraging European co-operation) in order to provide an enhanced and differentiated product (given the multiplicity of providers of junior and mid-level courses).
Also, the Task Force noted the need to continuously receive future input from industry on how LESI can bring it value, particularly as Industry’s needs, and LES’s capability to address them, evolve.
The Task Force then took up the issue of what initiatives it could do in the short term and in the long-term to address these “Aspects of Value”.
As to metrics, the Task Force decided that the percentage of membership from the corporate world would be a viable metric to use in gauge the success of its initiatives on the basis that LESI needed a minimum percentage of its membership from the corporate world to be “healthy”.
Questions on which Consultation/Comments are sought
1. Is taking a strategic approach, requiring more time, energy, resources and effort favorable to an “ad hoc” approach which may give more immediate returns?
2. Is the “Value Proposition” approach the correct one to use? If not, what other approaches should be considered to use?
3. Should the focus be primarily on senior corporate licensing executives or should it also include junior, new and “want to be” corporate licensing executives?