In the Beginning…

When LISA was first founded in 1990 as the INK Roundtable, coming up with an appropriate name was almost more difficult than laying down the structure of the Association. In fact, it took two years for the founding members to agree on “LISA”, while the initial objective of the Association was simply to facilitate quarterly meetings of the (then) 20 or so key localization industry executives. These meetings were designed to enable them to openly discuss the challenges facing their companies as they evolved the business from its “cottage roots” toward a professional IT industry segment. These challenges included a lack of standards, a lack of recognition and a dearth of understanding about the required investment and the indisputable future of the business.

Once everyone agreed on the challenges—and that one of the solutions was to meet them head-on, both internally and externally—the decision was made to form a legal entity to address these issues collectively. LISA was born.

In Switzerland, non-profit association boards are not held financially liable, as they are in most countries. So, at the founders’ request, there was no need to make “fiscal responsibility issues” a focal point. Establishing and registering a foundation or non-profit association is a straightforward process under the Swiss Civil Code. LISA was organized under Article 60 in June of 1992 as a “societié sans but lucrative” with Michael Anobile as the sole registered Director by mandate, but without a formal contract.

The original six-member Executive Committee was elected, with four representatives from the hardware and software (i.e., the demand) side of the business, and two representatives from the service sector. This demand-weighted imbalance reflected the then state of the localization business, in which the clients controlled the pricing models and, as an end result, the revenues of the supply side.

The Director was responsible for carrying out the day-to-day management of the Association in line with the established statutes. He interfaced with the Executive Committee, whose role was to represent the rest of the General Assembly (no more than 20 members by invitation only) and to provide advice and guidance to the Director. The Executive Committee was and is not a legally responsible entity.

The First Restructuring

The word on the street was positive about this LISA group and a second, associate tier of membership was created to provide the growing number of localization industry participants with the ability to attend one meeting per year and become involved in shaping the new industry, although they could not vote on LISA issues. A balance of 50% demand and 50% supply side membership was agreed.

By 1993, the original full members (never more than 20) and the associate members (approximately 40) had come together in a structure governed by the Executive Committee and run by the Director. Quarterly meetings now consisted of 100 or more people and Special Interest Groups (SIGs) were formed to begin to put guidelines and standards in place. The localization process had proven that it could deliver a return on investment, because getting software to the market on time meant making more money—as long as the quality was assured! The requirement for ongoing and frequent client-vendor dialog was confirmed and thus the need for LISA and its forums, newsletter and industry information was established.

The expanding state of the industry lead to a restructuring of the Association, permitting a more open interface and only one tier of membership (i.e., one company—one vote!). The growth of LISA reflected the recognition and evolution of the localization industry as a significant force in international IT market penetration.

However, this first restructuring did not occur without significant struggle, as it meant that the financially stronger client side of the business, and the initial “private club” would lose control the Association as a more democratic set of statutes was written. Political battles were fought, won and lost—LISA emerged in 1994 as the ultimate victor with a new 80-member strong Association and a clear mandate to facilitate forums and promote industry guidelines and best practices.

Special Interest Groups initiated during this timeframe resulted in the LISA Quality Assurance Model, and the Outsourcing Bidding Platform. Forums were held in Singapore with a focus on Asian IT developments and in Prague addressing the opportunities and problems of localization for emerging markets. The Association became truly global by 1995.

Microsoft and other large clients were now reporting that over 50% of their annual revenue was being generated by sales in countries other than the US. The localization industry had proven its value—now was the time for focus and growth.

Revolution

In 1994, the trick at LISA forums was to maintain the “50% rule” which governed the Association. The balance between supply and demand had to be maintained at all costs, so membership and attendance were restricted. The resulting “push and pull” caused many eruptions, as not all members felt that they were being treated fairly. It was obvious that the Executive Committee Structure was no longer representative of the membership, where more and more service vendors were on a waiting list to join the “club” and tool suppliers were beginning to emerge as a growing force.

Behind the scenes, Association life was fairly prickly in 1995-1996, since the need to grow, advertise, market, develop a Website, register the LISA trademark and attract new members was not matched by income levels capable of supporting those efforts. The most reliable source of revenue was forum income – so a real focus, also driven by the Director’s compensation program, was placed on increasing attendance by expanding the format with workshops and workgroups to meet the needs of a more diversified audience. Four forums were run each year in Europe, Asia and the US, with an additional event focused on an emerging market. Attendance figures and revenue began to climb.

In 1996, and again in 1997 at the first Executive Roundtable, a membership survey showed that the constituency wanted to change the statutes to more clearly reflect the balance of the membership in the way that the Association was managed. Since there seemed no hope in driving significant revenues within the Association model, the first restructuring proposal was put forward. This recommended a spin-off marketing company and a 50/50 board representation with three demand and three supply representatives, to facilitate marketing programs in line with member interests. LISA was striving for the football club model—most clubs are non-profit entities with a marketing arm to sell caps and T-shirts.

The first restructuring of the Executive Committee was finally achieved in 1998. Membership fees were raised in an attempt to increase revenues in order to fund marketing, research and educational programs. The raised fee structure permitted LISA to increase its back office staff to three full-time employees, but not to fund any of the other more costly programs which were ultimately in the best interests of the Association to sponsor.

The LISA 2000 funding drive, designed to provide a one-time injection of capital into the Association for the development of these programs (since LISA never had a capital budget) and as an approved alternative to the spin-off model, fell flat on its face. Few funds were raised and the only element of the three-part funding program that succeeded was LEIT (the LISA Educational Initiative Taskforce), which cataloged relevant localization courseware worldwide. The global survey to size the industry and the advertising/marketing campaign were not realized.

According to the US-based National Center for Nonprofit Boards, a trade industry’s responsibility is to represent its constituency. However, the mandates of any association cannot be given full exposure and the opportunity for realization without both financial and leadership support from members. This was the situation in which LISA found itself in 1998.

In spite of being undercapitalized, the LISA Administration had formed a team of dedicated individuals who used the industry growth curve to benefit the publicity objectives of their companies and those of the Association. Without any financial backing, other than LISA forum host fees, an industry publicity campaign was launched and media advisory events became a recognized part of the conference program format.

The localization industry became a press item in Beijing, Tokyo, Madrid, Shanghai, Budapest, Boston, Washington D.C., Yokohama, San Jose, and Amsterdam. Television exposure through the World Business Review and China’s CNN has given LISA a stock of material to use in developing future programs and contacts.

Beginning in 1999, content partnership programs resulting in additional exposure through the ATA, SIIA, DOC, ITC, AIIM, CEA, EAMT and DMA have been successfully completed or are currently in process, resulting in more LISA members and vertical market awareness.

Focused press and investment panels at LISA forums have raised the awareness of both the industry press (e.g., the Standard.com, Red Herring, the Wall Street Journal, Business 2.0, Global Business Magazine, Software Business) and the international investment community (3i, First Tuesday, iCap Global, VC International, BancBoston, Arthur Anderson, Price Waterhouse, etc.) to the point that industry investors and watchers come to LISA for advice on everything from due diligence to industry interviews.

LISA—as an Association representative of the industry and its participants—has come of age!

Circle the wagons…

For several years it had been clear that LISA needed a serious restructuring if it was going to be able to survive in an increasingly competitive environment where young, “fresh-faced” Globalization Conferences were beginning to erode its conference revenue base. Members were using their marketing dollars more strategically and the perception was that LISA membership wasn’t buying what it used to. In an Association where 50% of the annual revenue stream was generated by membership fees and 50% of the annual revenue by fees from conference attendance (albeit with 50% of that attendance revenue subsidized by membership fees), competition was a serious threat to the financial wherewithal of the Association.

This meant that it was time to circle the wagons and give members real reasons to buy in to the Association and its future. For those not familiar with this typically American terminology, I ask that you think back to the first time that you viewed an American Western film, when the Indians were about to attack the westward bound pioneers. The head of the wagon train gave the order to put the wagons in a circle to protect the participants and fend off the Indians.

We are asking LISA members to circle the wagons now, and the restructuring vote was the first step in this process.

What led to this decision? In the summer of 1999, just before the elections for a new Executive Committee, the Administration made it clear that the Association had to shift its focus, revamp its management and come up with a better business model if it was going to compete with other conferences and maintain its leadership position.

To use the words of Tony O’Dowd, then Chairman of the 1999 Executive Committee, “This year’s Executive Committee is doing a root and branch review of the Association,” with the objective of putting forth a restructuring proposal to take LISA into the 21st century.

The key aspect of this restructuring proposal was to review the Executive Committee and its functional role in the management and direction of the Association, while finally putting a contract in place for the Director. A result of the proposal was also an outsourcing model, designed to make the Association more portable and to provide a means to generate significantly more revenue.

LISA was now moving ahead on a path to increase marketing and public relations programs in order to maximize international exposure, broaden the Association’s strategic goals and widen the scope of its membership while reducing operating costs and increasing revenue. Pretty heady stuff!!!

Sadly, when their focus and attention was most needed, Excom members had less time to spend on LISA issues since, of necessity, their daily jobs took precedence. This is correct and understandable behavior in the real world. However, it did nothing but underscore the necessity to change the model to one driven by members who could take the time to promote SIGs and provide industry and Association leadership. This was to be coupled with a three-person supervisory board capable of maintaining contact with each other, and the Director, in order to oversee the financial and strategic issues facing the Association. The result would be a streamlined decision-making process.

LISA—ten years after

Beginning with the Excom Election Procedure in August of 2000, announcements were made for the unveiling of the new Association structure and programs to support the “revolution.” Long-standing Excom and founding General Assembly members were contacted to confirm that the direction and scope were correct, with the response that all systems were go!

That was with the exception of total buy-in and commitment by the reigning Excom, the majority of whom never commented on the proposals or became involved in the process. By August, two Excom members had already resigned for either professional or personal reasons, and it was agreed that, with the restructuring in process, it did not make sense to replace them. At the end of the day, democracy ruled and the issues were put to vote by the Director in an Extraordinary LISA General Assembly meeting. Fortunately, the electronic process was easier to manage than the West Palm Beach ballot.

Over 50% of the current LISA membership voted to restructure (figure 1), and members wishing to participate in taking LISA into the 21st century have presented platforms and nominated themselves or colleagues for the new Advisory Executive Committee Role. The Supervisory Committee has been streamlined down to three members whose participants can take decisions and hear recommendations from the Advisory Board, who in turn take their direction from the General Assembly members.

LISA has finally been reorganized to meet the challenges of the globalization industry in 2001 and beyond.

With an outsourcing model in place that is not solely dependent on the resources of LISA members, many of the marketing programs in development can finally be taking forward to fruition. LISA is free to develop, through its members, projects and programs similar to OSCAR/TMX without being constrained by the previous, self- imposed trade association restrictions.

Content partner relationships with other vertical market and industry groups can do nothing but enhance the preeminent position of LISA as the single authorized and supported industry information resource. Dilution of this effort through financial support of other conferences, trade groups or associations will dissipate the achievements and LISA’s hard-won market position, which is only now beginning to reap the returns on its substantial investment in terms of time and money. Copy-cat globalization conferences and/or local associations confirm that LISA is on the right track, so let’s keep it that way!

If members take a proactive role and drive the Association forward on a collective basis, it is a win-win situation for all concerned. If, however, some members chose to dilute the industry-wide efforts initiated over the past ten years for personal or individual company gain, they are shortsighted and will ultimately weaken what LISA members have been seeking to achieve.

Therefore, please take the time to become involved and drive LISA in the direction that is right for your company and the industry at large.

Any industry trade group must be independent of company or country bias and fairly represent its constituency members regardless of their size, political clout, financial capability and market position. As the industry shifts and legal issues develop as a result of the translation of b2b documents, contracts and shipping materials, only a united, global trade association will have the political clout to speak on behalf of the industry and all of its players. A diluted and fragmented base will not be able to support the same consensus of opinion or have the firm legal framework and industry perception on which to build.

Please, look ahead and do three things:

1. Support the Localisation Industry Standards Association through your votes and involvement in the SIG process.
2. Drive LISA to work for you through content partnering with other associations and conferences. Your suggestions for such liaisons are welcome. We look forward to concrete recommendations for partnerships, standards bodies and other vertical business groups that will complement the Association’s activities.
3. Spend your marketing dollars wisely and participate in LISA collective public relations programs, as well as industry and trade publication supplements designed to drive globalization awareness in other business sectors.

Thank you all for your support in making it happen during the past ten years—now let’s build on what we have achieved and make the next ten years better!