Stephen Hawking has launched a new institute called the Cantab Capital Institute for the Mathematics of Information (CCIMI) to task Ph.D. students at the University of Cambridge with finding new ways to analyse the seemingly endless streams of data we have at our fingertips. “In a dazzlingly complex world, you have to be able to discern the meaning in the mess. We are, in a figurative and literal sense, awash with what we call data,” said Hawking. “What we’re only now fully realizing is twofold: the sheer quantity of data in any given domain and the tools we need to make use of the information encoded in it.” CCIMI will tackle everything from financial markets and data processing to data science in healthcare and biology. Plenty of information on these subjects is available; the trick is finding ways to responsibly use that “big data” to understand our world. “The power of information only comes from the sophistication of the insights which that information lends itself to,” Hawking said. “The purpose of using information, in this context, is to drive new insight.” That’s why the institute plans to “drive forward the development of insight” via new mathematical tools. These tools could affect everything from where people decide to live to how medical issues are diagnosed and many other aspects of our everyday lives. CCIMI could also inform Hawking’s plans to search the stars for aliens and study A.I.. Both of those efforts will depend on massive amounts of data, and CCIMI could help unlock its secrets. The institute is a joint effort from Cambridge’s Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics (DAMTP) and Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics (DPMMS). Prospective students must apply by January 15 at the latest.

Outsourcing Maintaining a full-time staff, office space and support services can be expensive and may be difficult for many not for profit organisations. Outsourcing specific departments or indeed the whole areas of administration can provide the advantage of sharing a range of equipment and expertise, giving significant cost savings, whilst at the same time supplying an excellent standard of service. Which functions can be shared? Accounting Database management Event management Mailing fulfillment Meeting administration Membership services Communications Why do it? The Advantages “It’s about raising standards as well as cutting costs.” Sharing support services can improve organisations effectiveness by increasing their efficiency and making better use of resources. Time, skills and money can then be redirected to core activities. Improved or wider range of service. Access to a higher level of expertise and to the latest technology, having greater specialisms available at a fraction of the cost of employing direct. Keeping up to date with developments in specialist fields. Greater confidence in quality of service as the responsibilities of providers are formally specified, for instance in a Service Level Agreement. Potential savings through economies of scale. Greater bargaining power with suppliers when buying in bulk. Leaner workforce. Staff who used to multitask on areas where they felt they lacked suitable skills can concentrate on more specialist work. More productive use of management time. The Disadvantages Time and resources can be drained from existing work, particularly when setting up then running a new organisation. Possible redundancies when staff are no longer needed. Smaller partner organisations may fear that priority will be given to larger clients. Fear of losing out in this way may be particularly common where support services are provided by staff who are already working for a larger client. Change can be worrying for staff and volunteers, particularly when it involves a loss of control. Call us today to find out how we can help you 03707 369369

The rapid growth of professional associations and societies has dramatically increased the need for effective, professional management. However, the traditional solution to professional management – a large investment in full-time staff, office space and equipment or operating with volunteers who often lack the time and expertise in managing an association – result in high overhead and problems because association goals frequently get lost in day-to-day details. The concept of association management has existed for more than 100 years and remains an alternative to this situation, one that offers advantages that associations and societies are rapidly discovering – the association management company. An association management company is a firm of skilled professionals whose goal is to provide management expertise and specialised administrative services to charities, associations and other not-for-profit organisations in an efficient, cost-effective manner. If you need help in selecting an Association Management Company read some guidelines here Call us today to find out how we can help you or email us here.

The World Coal Association (WCA) – a global industry association formed of major international coal producers and stakeholders – has unsurprisingly welcomed the publication last Tuesday (15th November) of the Global Status of CCS: 2016 report: calling on world leaders to increase support for CCS projects in order to meet the Paris Agreement targets. The report, published by the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute (GCCSI), highlights a number of significant operational milestones reached in 2016 and key projects that have either entered, or are close to, operation in 2016. The Global Status of CCS: 2016 is comprised of five unique publications including a Summary Report available to the public and a series of reports developed exclusively for Institute Members. http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/global-status-ccs-2016-summary-report The WCA, which works to demonstrate and gain acceptance for the fundamental role coal plays in achieving a sustainable and lower emissions energy future, believes that the Paris Agreement* lays a foundation on which the world can build on its climate actions: • It is clear that that to limit temperatures to ‘well below’ 2°C, let alone 1.5°C all low emissions technologies including CCS need to be deployed. • Carbon capture, and storage (CCS) is essential to global efforts to reduce CO2 emissions – it can reduce emissions from coal by 90%. • 38 large-scale CCS projects have been identified around the world, of which 21 are due to be operational by the end of 2017. Together these 21 projects will be able to capture about 40 million tonnes of CO2 per annum. • The amount invested in other clean energy technologies has been 120 times greater than that for CCS. Worldwide, around US$2.5 trillion has been invested in clean energy technologies in the last 10 years, of which US$1.8 trillion has been on wind and solar technologies. In comparison, investment in CCS during the same period has been around US$20 billion. • The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that to meet the Paris Agreement goals, we need to capture and store almost 4,000Mt of carbon per annum by 2040. And to meet this expectation, we need to invest heavily in CCS technology. *The Paris Agreement entered into force on 4 November 2016, thirty days after the date on which at least 55 Parties to the Convention accounting in total for at least an estimated 55 % of the total global greenhouse gas emissions have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession with the Depositary.

Research just released by money collection platform Leetchi, sheds light on Millennials’ attitudes towards charity fundraising and their increasing mistrust in charity organisations. The research, conducted by YouGov, surveyed 2,500 people and reveals that Millennials are nearly twice as likely to donate to charity than those aged 55+ (79% compared to 42%), proving that Millennials have been unfairly labeled and are in fact the ‘giving generation’. There are currently 13.8million people in the UK aged between 18 – 35, and as the UKs number one source of charitable donations, this generation is firmly in the driving seat when it comes to reshaping the third-sector. Half (50%) of those aged 18 – 24 and 40% of those aged 25 – 34 and would prefer to use a crowdfunding platform to donate money directly to individual than donate via an established charity organisation. When questioned on why they would not donate directly to charity organisations, more than a third (38%) of 18 – 35 year olds believed that only a small amount of their donation would go towards supporting the actual cause. A further 37% of 18 – 34 year olds stated that they don’t trust the source or organisation collecting it. Millennials (people aged 18 – 34) ranked ‘health’ as a top donation priority at 29%, closely followed by ‘wildlife preservation / animals’ and ‘community projects’ (27% and 24%). Then, Personal stroke of fate (for example illness, being homeless) (23%); Humanitarian projects (22%); Advocacy groups projects (human rights, women’s rights) (18%); and Youth and education (17%). Culture (13%), Sports organisations (13%), and Technological development (10%) were place at the bottom of their concerns. Only 19% stated that they would not donate to any of these causes compared to 58% of 55+ year olds, 40% of 45 – 55 years olds and 25% of those aged 35 – 45. Céline Lazorthes, CEO and founder of the Leetchi Group, comments on the findings; “Charity organisations need to encourage transparency in how their funds are spent, particularly as today we have the ability to donate to specific causes in a matter of minutes from our phones. This hyperconnectivity opens channels for scrutiny and we need to determine how we can fundraise for a good cause and instill confidence in Millennials.” “With the trust in UK charities at a record low, people are relying on donation-based crowdfunding to help fulfill fundraising targets and remove charities from the equation all together. Millennials are an extremely generous generation, however, they are also very money-savvy and aware that direct donations to individuals are the best way to ensure their money is being donated to the cause that they want it to.”

IPSE, the Association of Independent Professionals and the Self Employed – which represents freelancers, contractors, consultants and independent professionals – has responded to last Wednesday’s (16th November) ONS employment figures, which show the number of self-employed individuals in the UK increased 213,000 to 4.79 million in the three months to October 2016. Lorence Nye, IPSE Economic Adviser, commented: “As more and more people recognise the benefits of becoming your own boss, self-employment is becoming a key driver in the UK economy. “Research has consistently shown the majority of the self-employed work this way out of choice, not necessity. They value the flexibility and work-life balance it brings them above all else. However, there are clearly some ‘gig economy’ workers for whom the system is not working properly, and we look forward to playing a full part in the Prime Minister’s review into employment practices. “We have seen a fundamental change in the structure of the labour market over the past few years. The self-employed now make up more than 15 per cent of all people in work. Now is the time for Government to address this change. These 4.79 million individuals will be looking to the Autumn Statement for new policies that help them run their businesses and prepare for the future.” The IPSE Confidence Index Q3 notes that last quarter’s freelancer business confidence Index plummeted to record low levels predicting a drop in freelance business performance. The results in Q3 indicate that this forecast has been proved accurate. Freelancers’ confidence in the UK economy for Q2 fell by even more than the business confidence index score – with both indices deep into negative values. However, the current results show that business confidence has recovered somewhat, but the index score is still marginally negative for the outlook over the next 12 months, indicating that most freelancers expect business performance to deteriorate. Read more: https://www.ipse.co.uk/research/freelancer-confidence-index

January 2017 will see ALL LIA Members commit to participate in an industry-wide market surveillance initiative in an attempt to prove the quality of their products. The LIA’s ongoing market surveillance initiative will randomly select LIA member products throughout the year. Qualified laboratory engineers will put these products through their paces at the LIA’s UKAS accredited laboratory: resulting in the compilation of an annual ‘State of the Industry’ report. From January 2017, Member participation in the initiative will become a mandatory condition of LIA membership. The results, it is hoped, will help bring clarity to the industry. Giving the supply chain confidence that buying from LIA Members mean they are safe and compliant.

Association News has a new group on LinkedIn. Our purpose is to stimulate, inform, and elucidate with ideas, concepts, best-practice and news gleaned from the panoply of membership organisations across the UK… Join in the discussion on LinkedIn or follow it on Twitter twitter.com/AssocNewsUK

Before the headline-grabbing taxi App misappropriated the word for its own purposes, über – the German prefix – had become a term to denote something outstanding or supreme! Its current connotations are more with disruptive technology. But, in either context, it’s a useful word against which to measure membership organisations. Technology that upsets the status-quo isn’t new. It’s been around since before the industrial revolution. Jethro Tull’s horse drawn seed drills and hoes put the cat amongst the eighteenth century’s agricultural pigeons. While in the nineteenth, spinning frames and power looms inadvertently gave us ‘Luddites’, the derogatory term for opponents of labour-economising technologies. But things have moved on apace with the advent of digital technology, and it’s surprising quite how many of our transactional relationships have been affected by new digital platforms: the so-called disruptive technologies. A disruptive innovation is one that creates a new market and value network and eventually disrupts existing ones, displacing established market leaders and alliances. But the interesting thing about the current crop is that they achieve this without being subject to any of the traditional infrastructure costs. So, Uber is the world’s largest taxi company but owns no cabs. One of the largest accommodation providers – Airbnb – doesn’t have a hotel room to call its own. Whilst SKYPE and WECHAT have no wires or exchanges, and ALIBABA, the world’s most valuable retailer, has no inventory. The list goes on! In fact, they have become so disruptive that government inquiries into online platforms have been asking, why are collaborative economy platforms growing so quickly; what are their implications for employment law and health and safety regulation; and how does consumer protection law apply? Who is regulating them? Is it the EU, the Member State or even the local authority? Those are all good questions for associations to ponder too! But don’t let’s be fooled into thinking that disruptive technology is only about market dominance via digital platforms. Genomics, 3D printing, advanced materials, advanced oil and gas exploration and recovery, and renewable electricity are also on the top twelve list of developments poised to dislocate us. So what, if the world’s most popular media owner – Facebook – not only creates no content, but also brings special interest groups together in a way associations previously regarded as their forte? That LinkedIn has already knocked the dynamics of recruitment off kilter, and Amazon has dealt an almost mortal blow to traditional booksellers? Clearly there is no going back, and hankering after the past is no help. Industry sectors atomized by disruptive technologies will adapt, but they will require a very different set of benefits from their associations. And they in turn will require different skills, finance, and governance to match their members’ needs. Are associations up to the task? Or even thinking that far ahead? What do you think? What are the challenges, and how should associations meet them? Michael Hoare Editor, Association News

The Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association (PLSA) has published a report 2016 focussing on the issue of executive pay. The report reveals that 87 per cent of pension funds surveyed say executive pay is too high. Of that 87 per cent, almost two-thirds (63 per cent) believe executive pay is generally too high, while 37 per cent say it’s too high in cases of poor performance. Pension funds also have serious concerns about the pay gap between executives and their workforce with 85 per cent of respondents highlighting it as a problem. The PLSA member survey also highlights concerns from pension funds over the capacity of asset managers to fulfil their stewardship responsibilities with 35 per cent of respondents stating dissatisfaction. There is also a strong sense that high levels of pay in the asset management industry are preventing asset managers from properly holding companies to account over pay practices, 60 per cent stating this as a problem. The report’s analysis of remuneration-related shareholder votes at company AGMs found that overall levels of dissent did not change dramatically in 2016. However, the number of FTSE 100 companies experiencing dissent levels of 40 per cent or higher increased from two in 2015 to seven in 2016. In the FTSE 350, nine companies that experienced significant shareholder dissent levels of over 20 per cent in 2015, also received dissent of over 15 per cent in 2016. The report also reveals that of the five FTSE 100 companies with the highest level of shareholder dissent: BP (61 per cent), Smith & Nephew (57 per cent), Shire (51 per cent), Babcock (48 per cent), and Anglo-American (48 per cent), none were prepared to acknowledge they had their approach to remuneration wrong in their subsequent statements to the vote. Luke Hildyard, Policy Lead for Stewardship and Corporate Governance, PLSA, said: “There has been a lot of public debate about executive pay recently and our members have clearly expressed their concern. It’s time companies got the message and started to reduce the size of the pay packages awarded to their top executives.