The Member Group Working Group (MGWG) was formed by the Programme, Practice and Policy Committee (PPP) in late 2020 and applications for interested volunteers were then requested.

The MGWG officially launched at the convention in January 2021 ( and has met monthly (except August) throughout this year.

I am pleased to report that the MGWG has achieved its original timing plan and has concluded the analysis phase of reviewing the many issues discussed at earlier conventions as well as undertaking a wider review of what Member Groups consider as necessary to make a better BCS.

The MGWG is making thirty-six change suggestions. To understand which area these suggestions have been made about, then please take a few minutes to review the 'Overview Diagram'  mind map which can be found here:
Overview Map Diagram

These recommendations are officially launched following an online event on the evening of Tuesday 28th September 2021.
The slides are available.
A recording of the event.

Over the next four weeks (consultation closes on Friday 29th October 2021) , you now have the chance to review and comment, agree or disagree.  The hope is that these suggestions will create debate, which can lead to a consensus for real improvement to how BCS Member Groups can operate, removing impediments and supporting transparent collaboration across the BCS.

Please note: The Community Board has to give final approval for any of these suggestions.

Charlie Houston-Brown
Chair, Member Group Working Group (MGWG)


Business case

Hi Charlie
Where can I find an assessment of the estimated benefits and difficulty (of ease) of implementation for each of the recommendations? A few have a brief sentence of benefit but nothing objective and measurable.
Many thanks

Thanks for taking the time to

Thanks for taking the time to review Keith.

The MGWG has looked at the many issues presented and using its collective member group experience has arrived at these conclusions as actions that 'could' be taken. Some of the actions are generic on purpose, so that a specific solution is not being presented as the only answer.

This next consultation phase is to gain consensus within the membership as to whether the thinking is correct or not.

You are right that some items may need a cost benefit to demonstrate their implementation 'worth', but a lot would not. So, the full assessment that you are seeking has yet to be done - the thinking is that there isn't much point doing a detailed analysis if the membership thinks the proposal itself isn't correct.

We have requested the AGREE, DISAGREE and REFER responses to try and catch those where the membership see implementation problems or not.

So - once this consultation is concluded - the responses will be collated, summarised and made ready for the 'worth' questions.

Please feel free to comment on specific items where you feel such an analysis would be needed before you could support them.

It should just be noted that any actual changes would need to be approved by Community Board.

Thanks again for your interest and support.

Thanks for the comments Carol

Thanks for the comments Carol and taking the time to navigate the portal to make them.
Apologies, I wasn't aware that the BCS Volunteer Portal was not so 'friendly' for mobile devices.
Let's hope any future systems' replacement projects have such cross device compatibility within the requirements !

Just needs a responsive

Just needs a responsive design with breakpoints based on the pixel width of the device.
1 design for large tables 8'+ and laptops/workstations. Including device orientation, when 8' table is in landscape, use desktop design, when device in portrait use mobile design.
2 design for small tables,7'and smart phones.
To be tested in and emulator or a small number of devices, MS, Android and Apple, with different screen sizes.
Once the design has been created it can be reused.

Review captcha requirements


It's just taken me 4 attempts to add a comment because the captcha's were incorrect. Can we get less pernickety captchas or get rid of the requirement all together? This is a real discouragement to reviewing all the proposals.


Thanks for taking the time to

Thanks for taking the time to comment Kylie.
I agree - it isn't great - but it is all there is ...
This is the first time such an open and wide consultation has been attempted, so it is being done on a best endeavours basis with the tools currently available.

Member Group Review Mind Map

- mentions university students, FE colleges, industry etc but not specifically apprentices, which I would expect to be a matter of relevance, considering BCS's strong involvement, the recent change whereby apprentices successfully competing EPA through BCS no longer get a year's membership, but moreso because it is a very strong future for IT and BCS is playing a big part
- mentions members and some of the types but not specifically CITP, CEng and in particular CITP current competence - I would have thought this is a big topic for membership moving forward considering it is both related to the very large hike in members around 2004-6, and equally a big part in membership decline in numbers ever since. Any strategy needs to have a way forward around this.
Maggie Kneller - BCS Women, Leader Forum, Bristol Branch

Thanks Maggie.

Thanks Maggie.

As I am sure you are aware, CITP and CEng are not BCS membership grades and not related to Member Groups per se, so were outside the scope of what the MGWG was looking at.
I do agree that the post nominals (achieved via BCS) are a big draw to membership.
Holly Porter's recent presentation identifies that there is to be a 'push' to encourage the applications for these professional post nominals.

You comments on apprenticeships specifically are well made - many of the recommendations around the Branch network are to do with increasing the relevance of the BCS brand in a local context, supporting outreach into the institutions that are delivering apprenticeships. Where IT professionalism is on the curriculum in any form, the BCS can (should ?) be there to support the students.

Add new comment