mobrien Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Form follows function. This is true in every aspect of human endeavor, not just architecture. So what would be the purpose of restructuring the Board? What "function" of DCI would be changed or corrected by changing the structure? I'm ambivalent on the question myself (I can make arguments for the current model as well as a primarily 'outside' Board), but before you come up with your travel route, you need to know exactly where it is you're headed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Form follows function. This is true in every aspect of human endeavor, not just architecture. So what would be the purpose of restructuring the Board? What "function" of DCI would be changed or corrected by changing the structure? I'm ambivalent on the question myself (I can make arguments for the current model as well as a primarily 'outside' Board), but before you come up with your travel route, you need to know exactly where it is you're headed. DCI has grown to a stage (this is a cool thing) where they have sort of hit a ceiling and to push past this, the function of the board should really be reevaluated. Currently, the board has a very mixed role... mixing business aspects with various logistical aspects of the execution of activities of the group. This was fine for a number of years, but recently started to find clear limitations (see G7 issue) and unless there is a bit of a restructure... not only will there be a cap on potential, but similar issues will persist. Now, if you separate the logistical issues from the board responsibilities and charge them with exclusively business issues... questions arise: 1) Are corps directors best suited for board positions, given their current responsibilities? 2) Emphasis should be placed on explore opportunities for external partnerships and revenue generation. How should this shift of emphasis be reflected in the board? 3) It is only about generating cash to the organization, which will then be distributed to the individual corps based on a number of factors. How can corps directors not only have sufficient bandwidth to address these issues, but how can they do this objectively, outside of the context of the unique and immediate needs of their own organizations? 4) While many corps directors have considerable experience in generating revenues of several million, there is a threshold that they simply do not have experience in crossing. In order to successfully cross this threshold, the board should be composed exclusively of individuals that have experience in generating revenues in excess of the current revenue targets. Again... the board should only be about the business aspects of the organization and laser focused on generating CASH. All other issues are a distraction and are holding the organization back. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 You hit the nail on the head with this sentence, and you illustrate the root of the problem. If a director's responsibility is first and finally to his corps, how can he make decisions that are best for the whole activity? The directors will give up control when they are confident that the decisions made by the BOD will not adversely affect his decisions for his corps. but with the recent realigning, some directors have less control than the executive board now has. What...9 of them are the executive board? They have more say than the other 14. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 25, 2011 Author Share Posted November 25, 2011 For an organization like DCI (turnover, scale, reach, etc.), each seat on a board should realistically represent about $1M in value (cash/in-kind/deals/etc.). If each member is not bringing something to the table that represents at least that amount... why else would they be there? I've always had a problem with this view. Many board members bring experience to the table that isn't measured in their personal financial contributions. I don't believe it's in their purview to "do deals"; this should be left up to the executive committee. If a non-profit is profitable because of it's BOD financial contributions, that organization will soon die as board members rotate off the board. I agree that the board can act as facilitators, but that's where it should end and oversight should take over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 I've always had a problem with this view. Many board members bring experience to the table that isn't measured in their personal financial contributions. I don't believe it's in their purview to "do deals"; this should be left up to the executive committee. If a non-profit is profitable because of it's BOD financial contributions, that organization will soon die as board members rotate off the board. I agree that the board can act as facilitators, but that's where it should end and oversight should take over. It is not about board member financial contributions... in fact, I am not really all that keen on donations, for the most part. It is often a band-aid, rather than a cure. I am suggesting that board members should contribute a value that results in cash... not actual cash, but the expertise and connections to generate sustainable revenues. For the level DCI is at now, they have sort of crossed a threshold... and hit a point where there must be a different view of the board to keep pace in this economy, let alone grow. Bottom line... all DCI needs now is cash... nothing else... 100% of all problems can be easily resolved through increased revenues. Board needs to be composed exclusively of guys who can generate the revenue. To clarify... this should be different for the member orgs. Their mission is different, their stage and scale is different. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFZFAN Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 (edited) No corps directors or board members/representatives of individual corps. Not only should it be more impartial and focused purely on the business aspects of the activity... corps directors and board members have enough to do as it is. Also, 12 members is HUGE... and even. 7 would be better... but still too big for my taste... 5 would be great... 3 would actually be perfect. It isn't an issue of quantity or an argument of quality... you could have insanely qualified and talented guys... just not the right fit. It is only about fit.. and fit for current needs of current stage. If you're doing things right... the right fit might be different a few years down the road. Absolutely zero should come from the non-profit world. The mindset is completely wrong. For an organization like DCI (turnover, scale, reach, etc.), each seat on a board should realistically represent about $1M in value (cash/in-kind/deals/etc.). If each member is not bringing something to the table that represents at least that amount... why else would they be there? DCI board should have absolutely no say in details of things like equipment, membership, age limit, etc. These issues completely split the focus... and distract from the primary role of the board, which should be the BUSINESS aspects of the organization. As it is, these issues receive proportionately higher attention, yet return little actual value. Split ALL of these issues out into a separate committee, congress, working group, whatever.... that is comprised of the corps directors and/or representatives... and let them figure it out. These issues have zero bearing on the business aspects of the organization. I cannot stress enough how much of an immediate impact restructuring the role and composition of the board would have and how many current internal political issues that distract from the potential of the activity would be eliminated or greatly reduced as a result. Good God - Don't give it another platform! Edited November 27, 2011 by SFZFAN 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 (edited) Good God - Don't give it another platform! How many businesses are there out there with revenues in the tens of millions that have been operating pretty much just 'as is' in terms of board structure and general operations for the past 40 years. There are very few. If DCI is to thrive, not just tread water, there needs to be a major overhaul in terms of: 1) Board composition, structure and responsibilities 2) Corporate structure 3) Branding and brand positioning 4) Revenue sources This is not radical... every company out there goes through this from time to time... nor should it be controversial. This is just basic standard operating procedure. Edited November 27, 2011 by danielray 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 27, 2011 Author Share Posted November 27, 2011 How many businesses are there out there with revenues in the tens of millions that have been operating pretty much just 'as is' in terms of board structure and general operations for the past 40 years. There are very few. If DCI is to thrive, not just tread water, there needs to be a major overhaul in terms of: 1) Board composition, structure and responsibilities 2) Corporate structure 3) Branding and brand positioning 4) Revenue sources This is not radical... every company out there goes through this from time to time... nor should it be controversial. This is just basic standard operating procedure. I see the NBA owners have agreed on a 51% - 49% revenue split with the players (not that I care). Would you favor a revenue split between DCI and the corps? Without one, how does DCI retain enough revenue to effectively run and market the business as well as run non-related businesses? Also, this structure appears very similar to the VFW/AL structure that the corps ran away from in '72. How does DCI prevent this from happening again (like the NBA players strike), or worse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 I see the NBA owners have agreed on a 51% - 49% revenue split with the players (not that I care). Would you favor a revenue split between DCI and the corps? Without one, how does DCI retain enough revenue to effectively run and market the business as well as run non-related businesses? Also, this structure appears very similar to the VFW/AL structure that the corps ran away from in '72. How does DCI prevent this from happening again (like the NBA players strike), or worse? I don't think there are really any good analogues out there for DCI. It really is sort of a purple unicorn (it ain't the NBA, PGA, etc.). The main thing is just treat it as you would any other business... focus on the fundamentals and try to bring in as much cash possible from diverse sources (as has been discussed before). So, about the issue of splitting revenues with corps... it should absolutely not be some blanket contract. The most effective model where there are unique and private negotiations with each individual group contracted for the tour that are subject to strict non-disclosure agreements. Stop and think about that one for a second... how effective of a workplace would you have if either A) people got the same salary or tiers of salary .... or ... B) everyone knew exactly what everyone else was getting paid It would be a disaster. DCI is no different. So much of the political issues of today are caused by trying to run the group as a transparent organization where everyone has equal say and equal participation. There is no successful business out there that is run on a model anywhere close to this. As Cook was, I am more in favor of an absolute dictatorship that generates significantly more cash than currently due to having the flexibility of structure and operations to do so. Individuals corps will be better off... making more money and having a more stable sources of support. Backing up... DCI is a business... but it is effectively structured little different than the PTA. You cannot choose a more ineffective structure for business if you tried. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 For the level DCI is at now, they have sort of crossed a threshold... and hit a point where there must be a different view of the board to keep pace in this economy, let alone grow. Frankly, I think this conversation has hit a threshold. Bottom line... all DCI needs now is cash... nothing else... 100% of all problems can be easily resolved through increased revenues. Board needs to be composed exclusively of guys who can generate the revenue. So what are you waiting for? Go create the organization you envision. Why are you even wasting wind on talk of reorganizing DCI? You've already presented your case for why: - there needs to be a separate for-profit org focused on generating $$$, which would then go to DCI - a BOD of outside people is required to run this revenue-generating machine Just do it. Don't fret over reorganizing DCI....you will be fighting over pennies with people who formed an organization precisely to give themselves self-governance, and thus are never going to relinquish that role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts