CR002 - Branch Advocate Portfolios

Suggestion:

Create and support a new advisory (not mandatory) portfolio for Specialist Group committees. A Branch Advocate (BA) portfolio to become the direct contact for branches to support collaboration. This portfolio would default to the Member Group Chairperson if not re-assigned within the Member Group committee.

A central communications (Basecamp?) area for the holders of both BA and SGA portfolios would be created.  The objective is to encourage/drive Branch and SG collaboration.  Portfolio generic email addresses should be created and added to the Specialist Group website.

Category on Map Diagram:
COLLABORATION

Instructions:
Please complete Add New Comment section fields as requested below:
 

FIELD REQUESTED INPUT
Your name:
WILL BE PUBLISHED		 With your name !
Email:
WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED		 With your email – this will not be made public
Homepage
WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED		 LEAVE BLANK
Subject
WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED		 LEAVE BLANK
Comment
WILL BE PUBLISHED		 Please type JUST ONE these three response options on the first line.AGREE
DISAGREE
REFER
REFER is to be used to either get more information, or if you like the principal, but have concerns about the implementation.
Then from the second line onwards please add any personal comments if you would like to.

Comments

REFER

Submitted by John Rendall on

REFER
You suggest "Create and support a new advisory (not mandatory) portfolio for Specialist Group committees" - should this not be for Member Groups - CR003 is SGA?

Apologies if is isn't so

Submitted by Charlie Houston... on

Apologies if is isn't so clear John.

The recommendations are

CR002 - Branch Advocate (BA) portfolio is needed on a SG committee to advocate on behalf of and be the contact for (communicate with) Branches
CR003 - Specialist Group Advocate (SGA) portfolio is needed on a Branch committee to advocate on behalf of and be the contact for (communicate with) SGs.

The word "portfolio" was chosen on purpose to imply that a separate role is not necessary, more that a formal relationship and support processes should be set up between the SGs and Branch networks.

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

REFER

Submitted by Carol Long on

REFER

Not convinced this needs to be a separate role, we do need a mechanism so SG committee can easily contact a range of branch chairs, secretary etc. And vice versa. However designated new roles are dictating how a branch or SG will work and that may hinder progress if they are working different projects.

Thanks Carol.

Submitted by Charlie Houston... on

Thanks Carol.

The word "portfolio" was chosen on purpose to imply that a separate role is not necessary, more that a formal relationship and support processes should be set up between the SGs and Branch networks.

The CR002 and CR003 recommendations are a mechanism to do exactly as you suggest. If you have any specific alternative suggestions then it would be great to understand how they could work.

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

AGREE. We need to bring

Submitted by Christopher Jam... on

AGREE. We need to bring branches and specialist groups closer together to the benefit of all. As visible proof that we are trying to do this there should be someone on each committee tasked with ensuring it happens.

AGREE

Submitted by Mike Hurst on

AGREE
As others have indicated, currently it can be surprisingly difficult for a Branch to find an appropriate contact in a SG - e.g. to discuss joint events.

REFER

Submitted by Iain Thompson on

REFER
I'm not convinced about the need for a special role to do this, it's something committee members do anyway in my experience.

Thanks for taking the time to

Submitted by Charlie Houston... on

Thanks for taking the time to comment Iain.
Just for clarity - the recommendation is for a specific "portfolio" - so not a new committee role position as such.
I agree that some MGs may already be doing this, but we know that SGs and Branches could do so much more if they can work together with minimal friction.
Having dedicated points of responsibility/contact can only help in my view.

DISAGREE - Don't see the need

Submitted by Len Keighley on

DISAGREE - Don't see the need for a a role to exist for this to happen. Where there is a will there is a way, it is the desire to communicate and collaborate that is missing, giving someone the job of doing it won't change that.

Thanks Len.

Submitted by Charlie Houston... on

Thanks Len.

It depends if you believe the communication between branches and specialist groups is working well or not.

Currently the branch and SG groups often operate in different orbits - by 'joining' both these groups of volunteers in a more formal, directed manner would make us 'stronger together' I think.

DISAGREE

Submitted by Paul Rattray on

DISAGREE
The issues are 1) branches aren't aware of the scope of all of the SGs or if they offer roving speakers. This could be addressed with a simple web page SGs update as necessary with contact details.
2) starting branches - SG communications involves cloak and dagger and Groups facilitating. How about generic email addresses hello.branch@bcs.org to start the comms?

REFER

Submitted by Kylie Fowler on

REFER

However an engagement framework that help SGs and branches to work together more effectively is probably needed more than a portfolio role. Some sort of database or exchange that helps branches understand how specific SGs can support them, and a way for SGs to inform branches when they are doing something that might be in a location, for instance.