In the grand traditions of ACM, there are always people
who think we can do a better job.

ming Pearls,”(1983), which proved to be the CACM’s most popular column of all time. After five years, Jon retired from the job, saying he was burned out from the schedule. “Literate Programming” in 1988 (Chris van Wyck), “Legally Speaking” in 1990 (Pamela Samuelson), “Inside Risks” in 1990 (Peter Neumann), and “Viewpoint” in 1983. Reader surveys told us this was the most popular feature in CACM; the majority of readers turned first to the columns section.

Design. The redesign was a complete overhaul: new typography, stylistic opening pages to articles, illustrations, and professionally designed covers. Our Fifth Generation Computing Systems cover won an award (Sept. 1983). In 1990, we moved all graphic design and layout in-house.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

We launched in 1983 with the mission given us by the ACM Council: Transform CACM to a magazine style, embodying the JAM concepts that would be interesting and useful to members every month.

We conducted regular reader surveys and focus groups to help us assess how well we were doing; and we made many adjustments. We continued to be very creative because the budget was not there

to hire the personnel needed to fully realize the mission.

A number of our issues and covers received industry awards.

A recent survey of scientific journals confirmed that CACM is now highly ranked. It has the third-highest citation count across four key computing categories: Software Engineering, Information Systems, Hardware and Architecture, and Theory and Methods. As a result of this increased reputation, the submission rate for good articles has been rising.

We believe we achieved our mission and helped CACM achieve a high stature in the community.

I stepped down in 1992 to chair the Publications Board and lead the Digital Library Project.

WISDOM OF THE AGES

In the grand traditions of ACM, there are always people who think we can do a better job. When David Patterson was president of ACM, many researchers told him they thought CACM had never regained its vaunted glory of the 1970s. Patterson set up a committee to review the current model and propose ways to recharge its content and scope.

When I first talked with the committee, they were not aware that the reason many research departments had left CACM was

the Publications Plan approved by Council in 1978. It was not the work of capricious editors, but of top ACM and SIG leadership.

Moshe Vardi was tapped to spirit this revitalization effort. He spent months gathering feedback from focus groups, studying reader surveys, talking with many individuals, and reviewing every aspect of CACM from bottom to top. A new CACM plan was proposed (see page 44).

It’s the same plan we submitted in 1982! Right down to the models envisioned for each section. We thought our plan then—developed through a consensus process—was sound and I am delighted the consensus today is much the same.

There is one major difference. The current ACM leadership has agreed to fully fund the plan. They will be able to hire all the editors they need. No cutting corners. CACM can now become truly great. ^c

PETER J. DENNING ( [e-mail]) is the director of the Cebrowski Institute for Innovation and Information Superiority in the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA.