National committee reorganization

[Trevorum]

Does anyone have any background information on the recent reorganization of national committees and sub-committees (oops, make that "task forces")? All organizations like to reorganize now and then, but I am wondering about the reasons for this one.

[click23]

This is one of the results of the McKinsey report.

 

You can find some more info here, http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=202418&p=1

[Trevorum]

Thanks, I hadn't seen that earlier thread. I'm sure this is all part of the same reorg, but that thread had no discussion about the working committees and subcommittees.

 

Neil, do you have any insights?

[click23]

Here is the volunteer chart http://www.seascout.org/for_leaders/organizational_structure/BSA_organization_chart.jpeg

and here is the professional chart http://www.scoutingnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/new-bsa-org-chart-copy.jpg

 

(This message has been edited by click23)

[emb021]

My understanding is that there are further committees (subcommittees actually) underneath those shown.

 

There is still a Relationships Committee, but I don't see it listed, and so its probably at another layer deeper.

[Apache Bob]

Trevorum - Reorganization is good for the soul. I have understood this for many a year from different business reorganizations I have been associated with.

But always remember:

We trained hard but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form into teams, we would be re-organized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by re-organizing; and what a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.

It looks like the Scouting movement has moved into the next century. May it be a good move.

 

[sdcc57]

I have observed the changes in the national BSA office from a distance for many years.I believe the largest sub-divisions of staff have been known as "groups",whose directors were members of the CSE Cabinet,the top staff policy making/implementing entity.These groups were composed of "divisions",some of which were composed of "services".

I believe the chart posted earlier shows only the groups.I would expect they still have divisions or their equivalent,though I haven't seen a list/chart of these;perhaps this was distributed later.I'd be very interested to see how the new groups are organized,since it appears to be based on similar functions rather than by programs.

I also have noticed that various assignments have been changed over the years due to various factors.For example,supply began as a service,was "promoted" to a division,and later to group status.

It also appears the volunteer committees track the professional structure fairly closely.

If anyone has details on the internal structure of the new professional groups and/or volunteer committees I would be very interested.

[emb021]

Both the professional organization and the volunteer organization have been posted.

 

See Click23's message for links to these charts.

 

Keep in mind they are high level, and don't show the various sub & sub/sub groups.

[sdcc57]

Thank you;I tried the links shown above,and they directed me to charts I'd already seen.I realize both the professional and volunteer charts show only the professional groups/volunteer committees without showing their components.It's those components that I'm interested in:the professional divisions and services(or whatever they're now called),and the volunteer sub-committees.

I expect this is probably posted on the Scoutnet intranet,but I don't have access to that.

[emb021]

You're not alone in wanting to see further detail in terms of what groups are under the ones we see in the chart. I'd like to see that myself.

 

I'm not holding my breath for them to appear.

 

The BSA has always been pretty bad about making it know how they are organized. Its taken me years to kind of figure some things out. Then they went and re-orged and I'm totally lost. :

 

[sdcc57]

It appears that I'm not alone.I've never understood why the BSA has been so reluctant to provide details on how its national office is organized.You see references to various components in various documents or sections of the website,but I haven't been able to learn about it in its entirety.Just try using their search engine,and see how far you get.

My primary assignment has been Venturing since the program was first announced. Several of our Scouters have gotten to know the staff in that(former)division when they have visited us,and later we have become involved as instructors in various national trainings.First one assistant director left to join the faculty of BYU.Then the director was transferred to national events,and the remaining staff man was transferred to training.

I understand the concept of organizing by function rather than by program,and I suppose it could be effective.But I still would like to see the internal composition of the new professional groups and volunteer committees.

I expect this is accessable to professionals in their Scoutnet intranet.Is there one willing to extract just that information and share it with us?

[emb021]

sdcc57-

 

The BSA has always been a little too tight lipped for my me on its organization, etc. Wasn't always that way.

 

Most organizations (certainly all the ones I'm a part of) provide or give access to its operating documents (bylaws, etc) to all its members. The BSA no longer does that.

 

Most organizations provide or give access in some way to is members of its internal organization (officers, committees, etc), including means of contacting them. While this may not be publically available, its certain available internally to its members. the BSA has for a long time not done this.

 

Why does the BSA do this?

 

Some have said they do so to prevent the 'wrong people' (ie certain outside groups) from getting this info. There is also the attitude that people should go to their council for information, forgetting that many times our councils don't know jacksh*t or are part of the problem we're trying to solve.

 

Like sdcc57, I'm involved in the Venturing program. I've become a sort of 'subject matter expert' on the program, but I did so by being proactive about getting the literature, chatting with people on-line, etc. If I had relied on the info coming from the councils, I would be lost. It gets a little tiresome of getting involved with 'discussions' in person or on-line with people who have been misinformed about this or that and try to correct their misinformation. I've had to do this recently on 2 other forums, and its a pain.

[BadenP]

I think it is humorous for anyone to call themselves an expert about anything going on in National emb21, even National don't seem to know what the heck is going on. The memos, books, and references concerning Venturing and the reorg of Sea Scouts are all full of contradictions, daily revisions, and plain disorganization including the National website. So if you really think you know more than National emb 21 more power to you.

[emb021]

"So if you really think you know more than National emb 21 more power to you."

 

Never said that, never implied that. And I find your statement a bit insulting.

 

We use the term "subject matter expert" in a corporate setting to indicate someone who is very knowledgable about a subject. Are they THE expert on the subject. No. But they are the local expert.

 

Because of my interest in the program, and my efforts to educate myself, I've wound up being the 'venturing SME' in my general area. Nothing more was implied.

 

It's little different then having a longtime OA adult who is the "OA SME", or someone in your council who is the 'cub scout SME'. They become the 'go to guy/gal' when you have a question about that particular program.

 

 

[sdcc57]

I recently received a mailing from the national office that related to this subject.It was a newsletter to Scouters who had participated in various donation programs to solicit future doantions and advise us of special events,such as the travelling exhibit of Scouting art.It was from the "Finance Impact Department".

I'd guess this is one of the mysterious new entities within the new structure of the national office,which isn't listed on the new organization chart referred to above.

I also wonder about the term "department".Although this is commonly used within councils I don't believe I've seen it used by the national office in the past.Is it the new term for what used to be called a "division"?