This seems to be one of those truths about associations that “everybody knows” but few try to deal with in any systematic way. Most associations have far fewer volunteers than members, so right away we know that non-volunteers are typical and volunteers are atypical. Yet projects (and products) are often undertaken for little more reason than the fact that a particular segment of volunteer leaders (whether a committee, council, chapter, section, sig or other sort of “silo” as you mention) thinks it’s a good idea.

Part of this stems from what I would call “the cult of the volunteer” but that is definitely a story for another day.

I haven’t had a chance to read your article yet, but will do so as soon as I can. Thanks for the great comment!

In my experience, however, I find IMOs, like my association, often tend to think that their role in life is to support the personal interests of volunteers. These (often energetic and dedicated) volunteers organize themselves into groups of common interest, where they happily engage in activities (including producing products) based on their personal interests. They tend to think and act as if the rest of the world will be interested in what they, themselves, are interested in.

My observation is this is the primary reason IMOs evolve into silos, and pump out products that may have little or nothing to do with the current or future markets. This is why I wrote my article on membership in the January Associations Now.

My association is engaged in a formal voice of the customer process to see what our customers tell us they need and want. From the information we hope to be as knowledgable about our customer’s interests as we are about our volunteer’s interests.

That brings up the issue of the tension between enterprise interests (based on customers) as opposed to volunteer interests (based on active volunteers). But that’s another story for another time.

Thanks for your good post.