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

[ivlobane]

If it can work for tennis, it can work for us.

The tennis website is a little too busy for my taste though...

[ivlobane]

...personally, I would rather see FRED get integrated though. But will take any discussed online option over more faxing and deliberations.

[oso97]

Originally Posted by ivlobane

???

Privacy Policy and Internet Safeguards Will Keep your Registrants Safe
Active adheres to one of the most stringent privacy policies and will not share participant data or account information with third parties.

Read the fine print and the opt-in/opt-out clauses...

[tchwojko]

Forcing a customer to choose an "opt-out" to avoid getting junk mail/spam/etc. is not putting the customer first. I'm going by what I read here, hence the preface "sounds like".

Active is also notorious for selling their email lists. The minor issues with active were product issues, but the major issues have to do with how they view their "customers." They are not a good data steward. I do not (and will not) trust them with my info.

As a fencer, the interface was horribly awkward, and they are constantly pushing magazine subscriptions.

AskFred is all about making everything easier for the customers: tournament organizers, officials, participants. It's hard to beat that. I doubt Peet will be selling magazines any time soon.

Woofu looks like it's trying to do one simple thing and do it well. That's also a good thing, and probably easier to do gradual implementations.

[keith]

Originally Posted by oso97

Read the fine print and the opt-in/opt-out clauses...

Couple of vague observations that kinda pertain to the discussion;

It is hard not to appreciate FRED given peet's willingness to give his own time develop a fencing specific application. Of course much of what is nice, no email list selling for example, is also a function of the interesting revenue model that peet uses to fund FRED.

The point at which either the USFA buys/licenses FRED or pays the going rate for peet's efforts some of the irritations people have with active may migrate.


As to active vs FRED and the Pomme. Currently NEUSFA is asking me to pay a 99c fee for their convenience*. The one occasion I attended the Pomme and used active I had no problem with it, or navigating their opt-out clauses - so I guess the doctorate wasn't a wasted effort .


*I have no objection to peet making a living but I do, out of principle, dislike any organisation be it a bank, utility or fencing division which charges me to make their life easier. If you want people to register online charge the premium for the piece of paper.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by keith

Couple of vague observations that kinda pertain to the discussion;

It is hard not to appreciate FRED given peet's willingness to give his own time develop a fencing specific application. Of course much of what is nice, no email list selling for example, is also a function of the interesting revenue model that peet uses to fund FRED.

The point at which either the USFA buys/licenses FRED or pays the going rate for peet's efforts some of the irritations people have with active may migrate.


As to active vs FRED and the Pomme. Currently NEUSFA is asking me to pay a 99c fee for their convenience*. The one occasion I attended the Pomme and used active I had no problem with it, or navigating their opt-out clauses - so I guess the doctorate wasn't a wasted effort .


*I have no objection to peet making a living but I do, out of principle, dislike any organisation be it a bank, utility or fencing division which charges me to make their life easier. If you want people to register online charge the premium for the piece of paper.

uh, active had a much higher user fee ($4-5, IIRC). in fact, one of the battles we had to fight in division to get them to switch to AskFRED was that much of the (significantly lower) service fee in AskFRED is paid by the organizer, while the fee on Active is entirely placed on the user. We argued that this was only right as it saved the divisional officers processing the forms time to have good, usable online reg.

-m

[tchwojko]

Never mind, misread the post.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by tchwojko

Uh, you'd rather people charge for making your life harder?

The benefit you receive is not only the cost of the paper, unless you place no value on your time and effort. Value-added?

Keith is, in fact, correct that it is of FAR more benefit to the organizer than the customer. Where he's wrong is thinking that Active was better on this front. Active (the free, generic, non-customized version) had no charge to the organizer and levied a hefty fee on the user. Peet puts most of the cost on the organizer (which STILL isn't much) and very little on the user.

-m

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

Keith is, in fact, correct

Yes, I agree. Sorry about that Keith, I misread your post.

[keith]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

uh, active had a much higher user fee ($4-5, IIRC).

I can't recall, and my pointless moans aside, exactly how the costs break out (between organiser and fencer) should not really matter if the organisers structure the entry fees appropriately.

Of course the total cost does matter.

Originally Posted by epeemike81

.......... was that much of the (significantly lower) service fee in AskFRED......

Which is part of my concern of holding a comparison between a commercial product and FRED. FRED is not, I suspect, a commercial product which covers its running and development costs.

The USFA NC slate plan looks like an attempt to design, build and sustain a system below cost based on the good will of some of the USFAs members. That's a perfectly good model, but it does have issues.

[oso97]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

Keith is, in fact, correct that it is of FAR more benefit to the organizer than the customer. Where he's wrong is thinking that Active was better on this front. Active (the free, generic, non-customized version) had no charge to the organizer and levied a hefty fee on the user. Peet puts most of the cost on the organizer (which STILL isn't much) and very little on the user.

-m

And regarding those fees, well, to be honest, they have to be paid for by SOMEONE. When I run a tournament, I build them into my general registration fee - its all one price, with no markups. The last SSCC event I ran, I charged somewhere in the neighborhood of a $20-$25 registration fee, and an event fee. Built into that registration fee were the askfred fees, and the head tax that the SSCC charges. Still though, to the end user it SEEMS like a good deal, because they're not seeing it. All in the marketing and presentation...

[peet]

Hi everybody-

I just wanted to say that I'm not ignoring this thread today, but I am at work (darn day job), so I'll have to write a more informative response to the above questions later. There are a bunch of good questions up there, and I'd like to give them the best answer I can.

cheers!

-P

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by ivlobane

If it can work for tennis, it can work for us.

It would be useful to see what tennis tournament officials and participants say about the system before claiming "it works." Also, how much did they invest in the system?

[oso97]

Originally Posted by tchwojko

It would be useful to see what tennis tournament officials and participants say about the system before claiming "it works." Also, how much did they invest in the system?

Interesting you should ask...

The place I teach at has a tennis center associated with it, and I've talked to some of the pro staff there a couple of times, about general organization issues - tennis vs fencing, coaching of young kids, various different things. And they HATE Active.... with a burning, horrific passion.

[peet]

Originally Posted by T

So, this question is for PEET...
What do you need to make askFRED available for NAC registration now? and has anyone ever asked you? I know you gave a proposal a few years ago which included a much more comprehensive system (which you never received a response about) but what about this one component for NAC registration alone?

Use of FRED as a near term non-integrated NAC registration solution:

With very little modification, FRED could provide a minimum level of service just for NAC registration, which would be much the same as using a generic online forms solution, except that (1) the forms and controls are already fencing-specific, and (2) it would already have information about a lot of the fencers. In particular, this would not provide any verification of the information that fencers enter (ratings and the like). Just like any other non-integrated solution (e.g. wufoo, active, mambo), the national office staff would have to verify everything against their records, just as they do today.

I would suggest the following modifications:

• Require that fencers log in with username and password to preregister or cancel a preregistration (for security, privacy)
• Require pre-payment
• Determine and implement a liability waiver solution (electronic signatures?) in consultation with USFA legal counsel
• Tweak the preregistration downloads for the benefit of the national office staff
• Tweak results displays with advice from USFA legal counsel

There may be other needed modifications that I'm forgetting (it's early here, and I'm not a morning person!).

So to implement this, I'd make an appointment with key USFA people at the San Jose nationals (one national office staff, one bout committee person, plus USFA legal counsel, etc) and give them a tour of FRED so that they can:

• Provide legal direction
• See if there are any "show-stoppers" that must be addressed
• Start a "wish list" of useful enhancements

I'd also want to visit Colorado to see their systems and to make sure that this non-integrated solution would work with their process at least as well as the current process does. Basically, we'd want to give it a trial run, and make sure nothing breaks. At the same time, I'd train them to be the main support avenue for users.

Barring unforeseen problems, I'd think I could have it ready to go by next season.

The first question you all are likely wondering about is "How much would this cost?". The honest answer is: I'm not sure. I'd want to continue to collect a small "convenience fee" just like FRED does now. Beyond that, I'd be interested to discuss options with the USFA. I'd want to have a modest monthly fee to cover things like end user support and data maintenance. I might be willing to waive an up-front license fee in favor of an agreement to contract with me for the integrated solution that the USFA really needs.

Basically, I've given the USFA a lot of free work, and while I'm happy to continue to do so, I'd be happier about it if I had some assurance that there will be some non-free work as well.

More later in other posts...

-p

[gorgie101]

WOW. I like Thanks for the info Peet. Keep up the great work!

[T]

Originally Posted by peet

Use of FRED as a near term non-integrated NAC registration solution:

With very little modification, FRED could provide a minimum level of service just for NAC registration, which would be much the same as using a generic online forms solution, except that (1) the forms and controls are already fencing-specific, and (2) it would already have information about a lot of the fencers. In particular, this would not provide any verification of the information that fencers enter (ratings and the like). Just like any other non-integrated solution (e.g. wufoo, active, mambo), the national office staff would have to verify everything against their records, just as they do today.

So, this does not include integrating the existing USFA membership/rating database, correct?

Assuming that the security stuff (and whatever laundry list of concerns the legal entities have and can come up with) can be worked out, I assume that this can be done too so that the front office doesn't have to 'verify everything against their records'?

I understand there is a cost and I firmly believe that professionals deserve a fair compensation for their services....Based on what you know, can the USFA database info be shared with askFRED (similar to what was proposed at the last Board Meeting) without incurring HUGE upfront expenses (I know HUGE is a relative term but you get the idea)? So, I guess this would be an integrated solution but the only system that would need integration at this point is the membership database and askFRED (other components would be integrated in the future). Is that a correct assessment?

The first question you all are likely wondering about is "How much would this cost?". The honest answer is: I'm not sure. I'd want to continue to collect a small "convenience fee" just like FRED does now. Beyond that, I'd be interested to discuss options with the USFA. I'd want to have a modest monthly fee to cover things like end user support and data maintenance.

This is a hypothetical question that you do not need to answer in a public forum but for you and others to ponder....

Such as a slightly larger than "modest" monthly fee and a larger than "small" convenience fee instead of an upfront fee to integrate the existing database? The reason I mention this is that right now, the USFA can afford monthly payments more than an upfront fee.

Basically, I've given the USFA a lot of free work
-p

And we all thank you!

[peet]

Originally Posted by T