USFA Election 2008 Debate Question #4: Role of Technology and Implementation

[dberke]

It's a shame that some folk haven't spent as much time demanding details (say a timeline perhaps?) from the NC slate as they have spent flogging the dead horse that is the FFC proposal.

I believe that if you actually read the NC slate's technology proposal, you will see some time estimates in there.

Is a 21-page document not detailed enough for you?

Dan

[keith]

I believe that if you actually read the NC slate's technology proposal, you will see some time estimates in there.

Is a 21-page document not detailed enough for you?

Dan

Seriously? I've read it, it is very nice. My problem is exactly how is it not any more fanciful than the FFC proposal?

After all the USFA appears unable to pay it's referees or coaches promptly so it is unlikely to be able to pay anyone to overhaul it's database and IT system. So those 21 pages are useless, unless and until someone for the NC sate explains exactly how they are going to pay for it.

Edit: and for those who don't want to read the whole 21 pages the following details;

for phases 1-4

Phase 1.
This first phase should take approximately two or three months to complete, depending on the availability of the persons involved. The cost for this phase should include any communication costs (conference calls, etc.) and potential travel needed for meetings with each other and representatives of each user group.

Phase 2.
This phase will take approximately three months to complete. The costs associated with it include the price of the server hosting, communication costs (conference calls between the design team), and possible travel for the design team to meet in person. Another cost will be the rate charged by the individual or company that actually implements the new database and writes the tools needed to aid in the transfer of data.

Phase 3.
The costs for this phase of implementation would primarily be payments to the individual or company that implements the website. The software needed for the website will either be provided by the USOC or as part of the package provided by the service hosting the USFA’s servers. This phase should take approximately two months to implement.

Phase 4.
Creation of a new service that includes tournament registration and results would take approximately six months. Costs would primarily be the fees charged by the person or company hired to implement the service.


So for those playing along at home the NC slate will have completely implemented their proposal within a year and a half of their election.

To think people where giving T grief over the FFC timelines

[dberke]

Seriously? I've read it, it is very nice. My problem is exactly how is it not any more fanciful than the FFC proposal?

After all the USFA appears unable to pay it's referees or coaches promptly so it is unlikely to be able to pay anyone to overhaul it's database and IT system. So those 21 pages are useless, unless and until someone for the NC slate explains exactly how they are going to pay for it.

Your original post asked for a timeline, not details on how things will be paid for.

Before asking how they intend on paying for a new system, it's necessary to lay out the requirements. Basically, the process is like this:

1. What do we want?
2. What can we afford?
3. If we can't afford it all, what subset of our needs can we afford now?

Then you build that subset of features with an eye towards expanding it into the full system. You don't build a throw-away system as an interim solution - that's just a waste of money (as as many have pointed out, tends to be something we get locked into whether we like it or not.)

Making promises now of how to pay for things is, in my opinion, irresponsible and impossible to promise. Until a new budget is formed given the current financial situation, it's impossible to know how much money will be available.

Plus, the priority of a project like this is still unknown. If the USFA starts saving money by making changes discussed elsewhere, do they use that cash to build an online registration system, or do they first use that money to pay debts owed to referees, coaches, lawsuits, etc.? That is a good question to ask the candidates...

Dan

[keith]

Your original post asked for a timeline, not details on how things will be paid for.

Well as I outlined in my edit above - even if you want to just go with the timeline presented there be problems.

Before asking how they intend on paying for a new system, it's necessary to lay out the requirements.

But, but, there is this shiny 21 page proposal which promises the world in 18 months.

Basically, the process is like this:

You should perhaps send this to the NC slate

[dberke]

So for those playing along at home the NC slate will have completely implemented their proposal within a year and a half of their election.

To think people where giving T grief over the FFC timelines

You mean a year and a half after the Board of Directors approves the execution of the proposed plan.

I don't understand your second comment - do you think this timeline is unreasonable? Too long? Keep in mind, it's proposing the replacement of the entire USFA membership database with all of its dependent processes, in addition to the new online features.

I think that's a lot more realistic than the FFC timeline of "by the fall".

Dan

[tchwojko]

But, but, there is this shiny 21 page proposal which promises the world in 18 months.

No, it says there's 18 months worth of work to be done.

[keith]

You mean a year and a half after the Board of Directors approves the execution of the proposed plan.

Fair enough, but I would like to hear someone for the NC slate come in and say this will be done in year and half starting on .........

I don't understand your second comment - do you think this timeline is unreasonable? Too long? Keep in mind, it's proposing the replacement of the entire USFA membership database with all of its dependent processes, in addition to the new online features.

Well with the qualifier "upon approval" it is not unreasonable. Of course that approval is unlikely to be given in the absence of the appropriate funds. So here we have one of those slippery political moments. Of course 18 months is reasonable, but those 18 months aren't in the near future. Or are they? Again this is one for the NC candidates.

I think that's a lot more realistic than the FFC timeline of "by the fall".

you say more realistic I say equally unrealistic until I get some actual detail of from the NC on how the costs (and they are not insignificant) get covered given the USFA's current 'predicament'.

[tchwojko]

Fair enough, but I would like to hear someone for the NC slate come in and say this will be done in year and half starting on .........

I wouldn't like that, as it would be irresponsible without fitting it appropriately into the financial situation.

you say more realistic I say equally unrealistic until I get some actual detail of from the NC on how the costs (and they are not insignificant) get covered given the USFA's current 'predicament'.

One solution requires a Magic Technology Fairy, the other requires funding. Want to bet which one shows up first?

[keith]

No, it says there's 18 months worth of work to be done.

So no one else is curious as to when that 18 months might begin?

Really?

Sheesh, I give in.

Hey guys doesn't Active just suck, especially compared to Fred. Yeah.

[keith]

One solution requires a Magic Technology Fairy, the other requires funding. Want to bet which one shows up first?

I heard that after hours the Magic Technology Fairy works for cash, but that's probably just a nasty rumour.

[Wafath]

One solution requires a Magic Technology Fairy, the other requires funding. Want to bet which one shows up first?

The MTF worked for USACFC, why wouldn't it work for USFA?

W

[tchwojko]

So no one else is curious as to when that 18 months might begin?

It's not necessarily 18 contiguous months.
Each phase is a separate task.
Some phases may or may not be in parallel.
Each phase requires money.
The financial situation is not fully known to either slate.

Ergo: Anyone who claims to know when the project will be done is a fool or a liar.

It would, however, be VERY useful information if a candidate promised a solution by a specific date.

[dberke]

Fair enough, but I would like to hear someone for the NC slate come in and say this will be done in year and half starting on .........

Given that the first BoD meeting of the new quad is in September, I would expect it be no earlier than that. And that assumes any motion to start on this gets moved to an urgent status and doesn't have to go through the usual first- and second-hearing process.

Well with the qualifier "upon approval" it is not unreasonable. Of course that approval is unlikely to be given in the absence of the appropriate funds. So here we have one of those slippery political moments. Of course 18 months is reasonable, but those 18 months aren't in the near future. Or are they? Again this is one for the NC candidates.

I think both slates of candidates should answer this question regarding the funding, as well as BoD approval, of their respective plans.

you say more realistic I say equally unrealistic until I get some actual detail of from the NC on how the costs (and they are not insignificant) get covered given the USFA's current 'predicament'.

I commend you for recognizing the reality of the situation. Too many people get starry-eyed over the prospect of online registration, but they forget that the USFA has much bigger problems to solve that are probably a lot more important.

Dan

[telkanuru]

The MTF worked for USACFC, why wouldn't it work for USFA?

W

I thought you *were* the MTF....

[Wafath]

I thought you *were* the MTF....

I'm not sure I am comfortable being called a fairy.

I know I am not comfortable being called "magical" by you...


W

[KD5MDK]

Don't we need to bring up the definition of "worked" too?

[Wafath]

Don't we need to bring up the definition of "worked" too?

Hence the "" in the original post. but if you wish to elaborate, feel free.

W

[telkanuru]

Hence the "" in the original post. but if you wish to elaborate, feel free.

W

I think he was implying that it didn't.

[dcmdale]

I am finding myself siding with Keith here...

In an election between "insiders for change" vs. "outsiders for change," I completely buy the argument that insiders are capable of producing far more actual change than the outsiders can. Outsiders constantly run into the reality of why things aren't already fixed. Insiders know the rationale and have the contacts and relationships to make the changes that need to be made. I think T's proposal is a good example of outsider's attempts to change things.

On the other hand, insiders tend not to attempt as much. A committee-drafted set of requirements with heavy integration requirements and a lengthy project timeline under a methodology that lends itself to death-march projects smells strongly of a very expensive failure.

The arguments for deep integration bother me. A event registration service should not need to know the structure of a membership database. It only needs to be able to query to find out whether a particular person is a member, whether they are eligible to fencing in a particular event, and what there rating/points are. Maybe a couple of other things that I am not thinking of immediately, but certainly ascertainable. The logical interface is not that hard. Deep integration means that if you change the membership database 5 years from now, you will be rewriting the events registration too. That's not a good design. Keith mentioned "Copeland." That is probably lost on people who weren't at Apple during a particular period, but I absolutely agree with the parallel.

[peet]

The arguments for deep integration bother me. A event registration service should not need to know the structure of a membership database. It only needs to be able to query to find out whether a particular person is a member, whether they are eligible to fencing in a particular event, and what there rating/points are. Maybe a couple of other things that I am not thinking of immediately, but certainly ascertainable. The logical interface is not that hard. Deep integration means that if you change the membership database 5 years from now, you will be rewriting the events registration too. That's not a good design. Keith mentioned "Copeland." That is probably lost on people who weren't at Apple during a particular period, but I absolutely agree with the parallel.

Nobody's arguing for a registration system that breaks when you change the membership database structure.

We're arguing for a registration system that has a concept of fencing ratings, age eligibility, membership status, etc, just like you've suggested. The "non-integrated" interim solution proposed has no concept of these things and no capability to query another system about them.

And that's not to mention that the current USFA database has no "ports" ("services", or whatever) to provide answers to those questions. It's not even clear if the structure and content of the current USFA member db would support such services, particularly WRT national points standings.

Hence the posts above and elsewhere about how step one is to revamp the DB.

Don't worry, no one's arguing for monolithic, brittle systems.

-p