Recent discussions among the leaders of the Optical Society of America may
have important implications for the society's future structure. The OSA
Board of Directors has established a Task Force to explore the possibility
of a closer collaboration or an expanded structural relationship between
OSA and SPIE. This change, were it to occur, might take any of a number of
forms ranging from, for example, an agreement to increase cooperation, to a
strategic alliance, to a complete merger. Discussions have only recently
begun on this issue, and no decisions to change the relationship between
the two societies will be made until the memberships of each society have
had ample opportunity for discussion. The OSA Task Force, working with a
complimentary one formed by SPIE, will generate a recommendation by the OSA
Annual Meeting this fall at the earliest. Now is the optimum time to
provide your input on this issue, as the Task Forces begin their work. To
stimulate thinking about possible pros and cons, see below the report of an
OSA ad hoc committee on this issue. The trick is figure out how to
preserve those things we value about each society while identifying and
taking advantage of new opportunities that a more collaborative
relationship might provide.
EMAIL YOUR COMMENTS TO ME AT DAVID@CVS.ROCHESTER.EDU.
I will share them with the Task Force and the OSA Leadership.
David R. Williams
OSA Director at Large
OSA Ad Hoc Task Force re SPIE
Report to the OSA Board of Directors
January 24, 1998
Background-In October 1997, the OSA Presidential Chain concluded that the
time might be propitious to explore once again whether some sort of closer
working partnership with SPIE could be developed that would better serve
the interests of the members of the two Societies. This possibility was
discussed with the SPIE Presidential Chain and met with enthusiastic
support. This initiated a series of parallel, coordinated activities by OSA
and SPIE designed to assess whether a closer collaboration would be
supported by the membership, what form(s) such a closer collaboration might
take and, if there were continuing support, how to develop a specific
action plan for respective member approval.
One such activity was a telephone conference call on December 6, 1997
during which the OSA Board of Directors discussed the pros and cons of
taking such an initiative at this time. An outcome of this OSA Board
meeting was the establishment, by Janet S. Fender and Gary C. Bjorklund, of
an Ad Hoc Task Force re SPIE. This Task Force was constituted to develop a
recommended course of action regarding a closer relationship between the
OSA and SPIE. The Ad Hoc Task Force was charged with preparing a report for
presentation at the OSA Board of Directors meeting on February 8, 1998. The
report should include:
1. A recommended course of action-Whether OSA should establish a Task Force
to study how, working in closer relationship with SPIE, OSA could better
serve the interests of its members and the optics community.
2. An initial plan-In broad terms, what issues such a Task Force should
consider and how these issues might best be addressed.
3. An initial cut at a budget- What resources and expenses might be
required to support the Task Force.
Participants-The following is a list of the participants at the meeting of
the Ad Hoc Task Force held on January 19, 1998 in Washington.
name phone # fax e-mail address
Paul F. Forman, Chair 203 481-3361 203 481-3500 pforman@snet.net
Stephen D. Fantone 617 354-7557 617 354-5946 sdfantone@aol.com
G. Michael Morris 716 272-3010 716 272 9374
morris@optics.rochester.edu
Jarus Quinn 919 545-0873 919 545-2996 jquinn@nuteknet.com
Richard Powell 520 621-6997 520 621-9613 rcpowell@u.arizona.edu
Bahaa Saleh 617 353-7176 617 353-6440 besaleh@bu.edu
David Williams 206 616-3881 206 860-3650 david@cvs.rochester.edu
ex-Officio:
Gary C. Bjorklund 415 855-0221 415 855-0222
bjorklund@optivision.com
Janet S. Fender 505 846-2601 505 846-6689 fender@plk.af.mil
Erich P. Ippen 617 253-8504 617 253-9611 ippen@mit.edu
Anthony E. Siegman 650 723-8669 650 725-7509 siegman@ee.stanford.edu
Consultant:
Robert J. Berendt 202 363-2888 202 363-2888 rberendt@aol.com
Considerations-The Task Force discussed and evaluated the pros and cons of
whether it would be in the best interests of OSA's members and optics
constituencies to explore a closer working collaboration and/or an expanded
structural relationship with SPIE.
Discussion items PRO:
* The growing continuum spanning from basic science/research through to the
development, manufacture, and marketing of product makes it increasingly
important and relevant for members to interface with a broader spectrum of
professionals working in the same industry. The benefits of closer
interactions between academia and industry, between researchers and
engineers, have been well established. As a result, a clear national trend
has taken place to decentralize industrial research centers and to bring
academia and industry closer together. Joining the academic/research focus
of one society with the applied/engineering focus of the other may be an
enlightened combination whose time has come.
* There is only a small (~7%) overlap in the membership of the two
societies, and this overlap has been growing smaller over the past ten
years, implying that although both societies have similar objectives and
scope of activities, neither is doing a good job of serving the needs of
the broader spectrum of professionals in the optics and photonics
communities.
* OSA and SPIE have similar objectives and scope of activities. Presently
there is competition between the two societies for the attention of the
small overlapping constituency and/or for expansion into areas already well
served by one of the societies. The energy and expense consumed in such
competition might be better channeled into improved or expanded services
for members of two cooperating societies.
* Many tasks presently undertaken by OSA and SPIE separately might be
better served by an affiliation of OSA and SPIE, tasks such as public
policy, education, cooperation on an international scale, improved
bargaining positions for shows and exhibits. Such an affiliation would
enable academics, researchers, engineers, and other professionals working
in the field of optics to have uniform representation of the field and
serve the practitioners on a world-wide basis.
* An affiliation that preserves the important individual cultures and
strengths of each society, yet brings the benefits and economic strength of
a combination, may indeed by worth more than the sum of its parts.
* OSA and SPIE each offer their members basically two benefits: networking
and educational benefits. It may be possible for both societies to fulfill
this charter better and at lower cost by cooperation rather than
competition.
* The field of optics/photonics is growing rapidly; optics is becoming
pervasive throughout many product areas that touch our lives. An indication
that OSA is not adequately serving this growing optics constituency might
be inferred from the extent that the growth of optics is far outstripping
the growth in OSA's membership. While membership growth may not be
important, in and of itself, it is an important measure of the relevance of
the society to those working in the field.
* Competing student chapters, local sections, and international sections of
OSA and SPIE lead to confusion and a watering down of greater potential
benefits that might otherwise be derived by the local members from a
unified effort.
* M.J. Soileau, SPIE's immediate past president was given an opportunity to
address the OSA Ad Hoc Task Force during our deliberations. We found his
remarks to be very positive and optimistic with respect to the potential of
a joint OSA/SPIE Task Force charged with investigating a closer
collaboration or an expanded structural relationship between the two
societies. He mentioned that the SPIE representatives to serve on such a
group had already been identified, and that they were amenable to
accommodating the preferences of OSA in areas such as structure and
process. This approach and attitude augurs well for the joint group and its
ability to collaborate effectively. It also seems to demonstrate a
commitment to the task ahead on SPIE's behalf.
* Gary Bjorklund on behalf of OSA and M.J. Soileau on behalf of SPIE have
each solicited feedback from their respective memberships about whether it
makes sense to explore a closer collaboration between the two societies.
While there have been a few responses suggesting maintaining the status
quo, overall the responses to date have been overwhelmingly favorable to
such an exploration.
Discussion items CON:
* The fact that OSA is without an Executive Director was initially
perceived as an opportunity to explore an expanded relationship that avoids
the issue of a winner/loser of the Executive Director successor issue.
However, it is more important to have a strong Executive Director and staff
participation in the exploration process, to insure a full and enlightened
understanding of any proposed arrangement and the consequences thereof. At
the present time, staff is extra busy because there is no Executive
Director, and perhaps this issue should be postponed until such time as OSA
is back to full strength.
* Each society has certain cultural aspects that attract, and are strongly
valued by, different parts of its membership. Any change in these aspects,
or perceived impending change, is likely to drive some groups of members
away. A proposal for collaboration or change in relationship should try to
minimize this problem, but some members may leave anyway.
* Is it realistic to attempt to bring such different cultures together?-
Research/science/academic/peer-review/filtered/member driven
vs.
Applied/engineering/practical/timely/rapid/unfiltered/staff
driven
Are we exploring a challenge, applying our energies, and going to
considerable expense in an effort that is doomed from the start?
* Any meaningful collaboration or structural relationship will take
significant time to develop-probably a matter of years. There are multiple
gates to get through and "battle fatigue" to anticipate. Is it worth it?
Recommended Course of Action-Overall, the Ad Hoc Task Force concluded:
* That it is in the best interests of OSA's members and the
optics/photonics community to seriously explore an expanded structural
relationship between OSA and SPIE.
* Such an exploration must be conducted in a deliberate, enlightened manner.
* The possibilities examined should run the gamut from a continuation of
the status quo, to increased cooperation on projects that are sufficiently
non-competitive or non-threatening to be acceptable, to joint symposia,
meetings, exhibits and publications with equitable cost and profit sharing,
to the formation of a federation, or to the eventual merger of both
societies into a single organization that preserves the critical elements
of each.
Ground Rules for the Ad Hoc Task Force- It was further recommended:
* That an "OSA Task Force On SPIE Collaboration" consisting of eight
members, should be appointed and charged with conducting this exploration.
* That the OSA Task Force should cooperate and periodically meet with an
equivalent SPIE Task Force appointed and charged by SPIE with a similar
mission.
* That the work product of the OSA Task Force should be a recommendation,
prepared for the OSA Board of Directors, detailing what course of action
the OSA should take, if any, with regard to a closer collaboration or an
expanded structural relationship between OSA and SPIE, including a "Plan of
Action" (the steps and timing) required to accomplish it.
* The OSA Task Force should not be authorized to negotiate and/or enter
into any agreements with SPIE. The charter of the OSA Task Force should
clearly be limited to exploring alternatives and to presenting a
recommended Plan of Action to the OSA Board.
* The OSA Task Force should be empowered to establish, charge, and direct
subcommittees, consisting of members and staff with the appropriate
expertise, required to explore specific facets of OSA/SPIE cooperation,
such as meetings, publications, awards and fellows, governance, etc.
* In its charge to the OSA Task Force, the OSA Board should make clear its
desire that the deliberations of the OSA Task Force should benefit from the
participation and opinions of the OSA staff and Executive Director, but
that during the period prior to when an OSA Executive Director is hired and
able to direct some of his/her and staff's time to this activity, staff
involvement should be judiciously limited and solicited only with the
approval of the GOT ("Gang-of-Three," namely Liz Rogan, Andrea Pendleton
and Ghassan Rassam, who together, on an interim basis, are fulfilling the
Executive Director function.
* The OSA Task Force should, on a best efforts basis, attempt to complete
its work and present its recommendations to the OSA Board of Directors at
the time of the 1998 Annual meeting; but in no event not later than the
Board meeting at the OSA Leadership Conference in 1999.
* The OSA Task Force should provide periodic progress updates and briefings
to the OSA Board of Directors.
* To the extent appropriate and possible, the OSA Task Force should also
keep the OSA membership appraised of issues and progress. This might be
done through postings on the OSA Web site, articles in OPN and possibly
even through briefings at major meetings. The motivation for keeping
members and staff informed is to encourage enlightened feedback and to
remove any hint of collusion or secrecy from the process.
* It is recommended that a not-to-exceed budget of $200,000 be established
for the use of the OSA Task Force to cover travel, subsistence, telephone,
postage, meeting rooms, consulting, and legal services charges. This budget
does not include charges for OSA staff time. Any costs for services used by
both OSA and SPIE, such as the cost of a common meeting room, or a
consultant to both societies, will be shared equally by both societies.
* Finally, it is recommended that except if appointed to serve directly as
a member of the OSA Task Force, all members of the OSA Presidential Chain
should be non-voting, ex-officio members of the Task Force, invited to all
meetings and receive all written communications.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS (MOTIONS):
MOVED, that the OSA Board establish an "OSA Task Force On SPIE
Collaboration" consisting of eight OSA members which will work with a
matching SPIE Task Force to explore the possibility of a closer
collaboration or an expanded structural relationship between OSA and SPIE,
including a "Plan of Action" (the steps and timing) required to accomplish
it; that the Task Force work under the "Ground Rules" appended hereto,
except to the extent amended by the Board or authorized by the OSA
President; and that a not-to-exceed budget of $200,000 be established to
cover the cash expenditures of the Task Force.