Dear
ARMO
- ARMI
I’m confused.
OK, so that can happen easily but I find myself in a dilemma watching recent
events in our industry unfold. I work in the rotomolding industry worldwide, I
work with almost all the major organizations in some way and I support the same
goals that they do. My role allows me to visit molders on all six continents and
affords me the opportunity to see how the industry is developing globally. A key
element that I observe is that the success of rotational molding is aided by the
growth and success of molder associations. The recent debate on cooperation
among groups worldwide sadly looks as though it may be declining into a
stalemate. But does anyone really know what is going on behind the scenes at the
two superpowers of rotomolding? Why do we have two organizations that ostensibly
want to achieve the same goals appearing at odds with each other? The answer:
poor communication, misinterpreted messages or actions and strong personalities
– a classic management challenge.
On the one hand we have ARM International
based in Chicago, the long standing representative for the rotomolding industry.
ARM has always been open to international membership but is, and always will be,
primarily a US
organization. The recent change in name to ‘International’ did nothing to
change the fact that the original ARM has a primary constituency of American
molders.
On the other hand we have the Alliance of Rotational Moulding Organizations, a new group aligning
the higher level interests of the Central European, Australian, Italian, French,
Irish, British and South African associations. These groups wish to work
together globally to serve their local members and cooperate on industry-wide
matters such as information exchange between associations, coordination of
research work and the development of local associations in new regions.
Discussions on cooperation between various molding groups
have been going on at some level for almost as long as I can remember but the
most recent round of discussions began back in 2000. Periodically the leaders of
the various groups met to discuss potential ways of working together. An
‘umbrella group’ was proposed several meetings ago in which each
organization would have a representative to discuss matters that would help the
groups work together worldwide – coordinating meeting dates, cooperating on
meetings (PEC for example) and potential research programs. Each association
would remain independent and meetings of this group would be held periodically
as international events allowed. The last meeting to discuss this was held in
March in
Rome
at the 3.PEC event and by all accounts was an acrimonious affair. ARMI’s
follow-up response was interpreted as dismissive of the ARMO group and
eventually the ARMO group held a meeting in Frankfurt
and made the mistake of not inviting ARMI to attend. Relations have declined
since then with remote exchanges of position between ARMO and ARMI taking place,
unfortunately now in public and sometimes in a misleading fashion.
It is time for those involved to stop and think.
Despite the fact that most molders are probably not aware
of (or even care about) what has been happening, the rotomolding industry is too
small for this type of bickering. In recent conversations with many of the
leaders of the associations, it was clear that they all agreed (both within ARMI
and ARMO) on some key points:
1. Everyone
wants to promote the rotomolding industry
2. Exchange
of information between associations is a good idea
3.
Coordination of potentially beneficial research programs would prevent
duplication of efforts
4.
Coordinating international meetings will prevent overlap of dates and reduce
stress on suppliers in the expense of attending
During the course of these conversations, it was repeated a number of times that
ARMO members want to have ARMI involved in the global group and ARMI board
members would like to work with the other groups. However, strain between the
two groups appears to be caused more by ‘territorial’ claims and perhaps
financial concerns than anything else.
ARM’s step of renaming itself to ARM International was
seen as preempting the discussions held at that time about a global
organization. ARMI’s move into
India
and discussions in
China
are seen as ‘imperialism’ by the other groups and are seen as stepping on
the toes of ARM
Australasia
who consider that
Asia
is part of their ‘territory’. It is also viewed as a desperate attempt by
ARMI to boost headline membership numbers without necessarily addressing the
fundamental needs of current members. ARMI does not like the proposal by ARMO
that associations should stick to their own territory for recruitment –
rightly so, as they have always been open to international membership. But
perhaps both groups are overstepping their bounds in terms of what local groups
in other countries really need? Having the assistance of an existing association
to set up a local organization is undoubtedly beneficial, but do they really
want to be sub-offices of another country or would they rather look after their
own affairs?
Despite the events and recent exchanges there remain clear
opportunities for all the groups to work together and I hope that the more
contentious experiences of the past can be set aside – these are just some thoughts on
possible steps forward:
