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

[Peach]

Lord, I hate Active.

[ivlobane]

Love Active, or hate it, no matter what initial interim solution is implemented, it will dramatically reduce manhours and mailing cost at the front office, even if they copy/paste from one form into another. At the same time, we will no longer have to fax!
Personally, I would much rather see FRED as USFA registration system, but that does not sound like it is guaranteed to be implemented within fall'08. Possibly a simple forms portion, but same goes for Active or WuFoo.

First, to everyone that is hating on Active:

• Which module are you referring to and when was the last time it was used?
• Can you site examples of why it's so horrible and did you try and work with the vendor to resolve them?

Second, to everyone else:
Tracy has repeatedly posted that she has an open mind to different solutions, but not an open deadline. Therefore using the latest letter as an excuse to attack her character are nothing but attempts to sow more fear, uncertainty and doubt.

[ivlobane]

There are two options:
- T has forgotten what she read in this thread, otherwise she wouldn't promise what she's promising.
- T is cynical, and knows that by making these promises to her mailing list, she will get votes. (She'll lose anybody who ever used Active to register for Pomme de Terre, but Karl Rove informed her that the Northeast crowd wasn't breaking her direction anyway.)


darius

A false dillema?

Could it be that:

3: She gave USFFC a deadline, but cannot commit to askFRED, therefore has to commit to at least one immediate and possible solution?

[tchwojko]

Second, to everyone else:
Tracy has repeatedly posted that she has an open mind to different solutions, but not an open deadline.

Why is there a deadline forcing an inferior solution? I'd rather wait a few months and have something that is a pleasure to use, and a better long term solution.

[Peach]

First, to everyone that is hating on Active:

• Which module are you referring to and when was the last time it was used?
• Can you site examples of why it's so horrible and did you try and work with the vendor to resolve them?

1. I don't know which module. I'm a fencer, not a software designer, club owner, or tournament organizer. I have attempted to use it to register for certain tournaments this past year, the year before, and the year before, and never liked it, and I have given up trying to use it. I mail my entry in instead.
2. I'll cite examples: It has tried to sell me other things. It is anonymous and generic. It has a clunky interface. FRED by contrast is a dream to use and I can't figure out why anyone would use anything else. Active doesn't make sense to me. I did not try to work with the vendor to resolve any of these problems because (a) I don't have to (b) it's easier just to mail the entry in (c) most of the tournaments I enter use FRED, so it's not important to me.

[Inquartata]

I'll go farther and say that I don't see why online registration has been made into such a high-priority campaign issue, such that I get emails about it...

I mean, it's nice and all, but even when tournaments use AskFred I prefer to mail in my payment when it's required before registration can be completed. I don't entirely trust the web when it comes to personal information and especially things like credit card data.

Why is a luxury---even a luxury that a lot of fencers want---being made into a deal-breaker?

[peet]

3: She gave USFFC a deadline, but cannot commit to askFRED

If that's the case, I'd like to know why Tracy feels like the USFA "cannot commit to askFRED". I would appreciate the opportunity to answer any concerns that there might be about using FRED for online registration. Detailed discussions are probably not appropriate for an online forum, but if the USFA decides to use another system without even having a serious conversation with me, I'll be really disappointed.

-p

[peet]

Personally, I would much rather see FRED as USFA registration system, but that does not sound like it is guaranteed to be implemented within fall'08. Possibly a simple forms portion, but same goes for Active or WuFoo.

How can you say it's not guaranteed to be implemented within fall'08, when no one has asked? Given a clear "we would like X, Y, and Z, and we would like it by <date>, can you provide that?" we might know if it can be done. But I've been given no such opportunity to consider. I made a rough proposal earlier in the thread, but it's just a rough proposal. It sure would be nice to have a real conversation about these things.

-p

[ivlobane]

If that's the case, I'd like to know why Tracy feels like the USFA "cannot commit to askFRED". I would appreciate the opportunity to answer any concerns that there might be about using FRED for online registration. Detailed discussions are probably not appropriate for an online forum, but if the USFA decides to use another system without even having a serious conversation with me, I'll be really disappointed.

-p

1. Tracy is not the USFA. Not yet that is, and hopefully never exclusively so.
2. I've never seen any absolute dis-ownment of askFRED by Tracy, only adherence to the idea that some form of online registration will manifest on a deadline. One or another.
3. If askFRED were to be offered to the next administration as a defined packadge, they could simply campaign on a "Yes!", "No.." or "Maybe... we'll look at it... some more..."

Which one of these a slate would choose affects my vote.

If askFRED is waiting to see who wins this election, and modify the offer according to whomever wins, then... Peet, your hero status shall come under review.

If any of the slates are simply having logistics/communication/ID10T issues with askFRED, then I'll vote for USFFC because they are at least capable of making a choice and moving forward.

[ivlobane]

but if the USFA decides to use another system without even having a serious conversation with me, I'll be really disappointed.

-p

Me too! But I'd rather be disappointed and registering online via a system barely half as good as FRED, than hear about more comittee meetings and hearings in places and times I cannot attend.

[ivlobane]

I'll go farther and say that I don't see why online registration has been made into such a high-priority campaign issue, such that I get emails about it...

I mean, it's nice and all, but even when tournaments use AskFred I prefer to mail in my payment when it's required before registration can be completed. I don't entirely trust the web when it comes to personal information and especially things like credit card data.

Why is a luxury---even a luxury that a lot of fencers want---being made into a deal-breaker?

And when the Gutenberg Bible came out, would you also say: "Oh, I dont know why this is such a big deal, I'd rather keep listening to my priest..!"

[T]

Why is a luxury---even a luxury that a lot of fencers want---being made into a deal-breaker?

It may be a luxury for you but it is a major time/resource consuming function at the USFA office. Most people will enter NACs online if that is a secured-option. Some may continue to send it by mail but we could cut the line to the fax machine for that purpose (eliminating the cost of the paper, telephone calls for fax-back confirmations, ink, etc.) and free up the USFA office staff to do things more productive.

How can you say it's not guaranteed to be implemented within fall'08, when no one has asked? Given a clear "we would like X, Y, and Z, and we would like it by <date>, can you provide that?" we might know if it can be done. But I've been given no such opportunity to consider. I made a rough proposal earlier in the thread, but it's just a rough proposal. It sure would be nice to have a real conversation about these things.

-p

For everyone interested, Peet will be given the opportunity to respond to a RFP for this service. I have already been in contact with him and have offered to meet with him at the summer nationals, if I am elected, to see where askFRED stands and how it can be modified to meet our needs and what it will take to get it online for the USFA.

I have made not committment to ActiveNet although I think they are a viable option. Most of the negative comments that I have heard were from people who have used the 'free' version (free on the administrative end) that was not branded nor customized for fencing.

Regardless of whether the chosen product is askFRED or Active or some other vendor (who will all need to submit proposals to a RFP process), if we are elected, we will have online NAC registration this next season (although, realistically, we won't likely have it ready by the Oct NAC, but hopefully for the Dec NAC.

[Inquartata]

we could cut the line to the fax machine for that purpose (eliminating the cost of the paper, telephone calls for fax-back confirmations, ink, etc.) and free up the USFA office staff to do things more productive.

Or maybe you could just discontinue the fax option and make people mail in their entries...

It would probably make for less procrastination, and very likely reduce entries to NACs, specifically by those who wait until 11 p.m. on the day of the deadline to send in their paperwork. And isn't fewer people in NACs something the USFA wants?

[tchwojko]

...if we are elected, we will have online NAC registration this next season (although, realistically, we won't likely have it ready by the Oct NAC, but hopefully for the Dec NAC.

Why choose those dates? (Especially before talking to anyone that might be involved in an RFP?)

[dberke]

I recently read the email sent out by the USFFC slate that lays out their plan to have online registration for NACs ready by early next season. On the surface that sounds reasonable, but when you look at the details of the proposal and their implications, an entirely different picture emerges.

The proposal spelled out in the USFFC's email encompasses far more than just online NAC registration. It is, at its core, a new membership database that will drive all future online capabilities. It is true that the membership database needs to be replaced, but attempting to do so as quickly as they propose is ill-conceived, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the organizational and technical issues involved. It offers a quick feel-good, unqualified solution in an effort to engender support in advance of an upcoming election.

What qualifies me to make this assessment? Over the past six months, I have extensively researched how the USFA currently uses (and does not use) technology. During that time, I have spoken with numerous people who are intimately involved with the existing technology, including the people who process membership and NAC entry forms, and the people who get the data from the database to the software used to run the NACs (XSeed). These are people who know how things are currently done and how they could be done better.

In addition, I worked on the computer side of the bout committee at three NACs this season and learned how the current process works. I have spent hours of my time adding code to Fencing Time to make it understand the data files exported by the USFA's current database, and in the process I learned a great deal about how the current data is set up. I have first-hand knowledge of how the data is used in both XSeed and Fencing Time, and as a result, I have clear ideas on how the data in a future system should be organized so that it can support all of the features that we want and need.

My conclusion is that the core problem is the lack of integration between the membership database and the other systems (such as the website and the current online membership system.) If we are going to move to a new system, extra care needs to be taken to make sure it is designed properly so that it reflects the data we need and will interface cleanly with other systems. If we fail to do this, we will just be repeating the same mistakes of the past.

To properly design a system for the USFA, one must understand of how it will be used. The design has to handle things like multiple club memberships, a myriad of points lists, and fencer ratings. And, this all has to be done in such a way that it is easy to change if the USFA eventually moves to a new system of ratings.

Are the people at Active.com going to spend the time to analyze the requirements of the USFA in order to create a database that is flexible enough to support all of our needs? If they do, I guarantee that the system they propose will be expensive - it will require a good amount of work to customize it to our needs.

Ask Peet how long it took for him to get the data model for fencers, ratings, points lists, tournaments, registrations, and results designed to work on AskFRED as well as they do today. Then quadruple that estimate because nobody at Active.com has ANY knowledge of fencing and our specific needs, both short and long-term.

I don't understand why the USFFC slate is proposing this new Active.com system when we already have in AskFRED a reliable proven system that meets most of our requirements because it was custom-designed for the needs of fencing by a fencer. It handles credit cards, tournament registrations, points lists, results, etc.

I am unaware of any research done by the USFFC into the USFA's current technology that gives them any basis for making evaluations of what system is better. If they send out an RFP after they are elected, shouldn't they rely on a committee of technical experts to make that decision? Rather, it seems like they have made their choice because it is easy to make campaign promises under the slogan of "Change!"

I'll address the specifics of their email in the next post...

Dan Berke
Creator of Fencing Time

[dberke]

As promised, here are my thoughts on the specific details of the USFFC's email proposal:

We Really CAN afford it NOW!
For approximately $100/month and no initial setup fee, the USFA, its member clubs, divisions, and sections can use the Thriva software suite from ActiveNet which includes USFA-branded online membership enrollment & renewal, NAC and local tournament registration, credit card processing, mass email capabilities, report generator, and a complete database management system within a couple of months. This monthly fee also includes customer support and training.

Again, all of these features (and far more) are already available from AskFRED. Why pay Active.com a single cent when we have such a superior system already built, tested, and widely in use? Also, given how wildly unpopular Active.com is among those who have used it, why would anyone at the divisional/sectional level switch to it from AskFRED?

The time frame for implementation would be based on importing our current membership information and the development of forms. It could be up and running before the first NAC of the season!

Here is where I really take issue with the USFFC's claims. Initially, they said we could have this new system up and running before the first NAC of the season. A couple days later, they realized the utter absurdity of this promise and now are saying that it can be done in time for the December NAC. Even this revised date is ridiculous when you do the math.

The new administration will have 3.5 months from the day they take office (Aug 25, the day after the Olympics) until the December NAC on Dec 12. In that time, they claim that they will be able to:

• Negotiate a contract with Active.com for the service
• Create specifications for the new system
• Implement the new system, including the new database and web pages
• Fully test the system
• Take the system live and start accepting registrations. This would need to happen somewhere between four and six weeks prior to the event.
• Close registration four weeks prior to the NAC. This is done so that they can set the daily event start times based on the final number of registrants.

Based on the above, I estimate that the system would have to be fully up and running no later than Oct 13. Even if you assume they can create the specs and negotiate the contract prior to taking office, I doubt Active.com would be willing to start implementation until a contract is signed, and the USFFC candidates won't have the power to enter the USFA into contracts until they take office on Aug 25. That also assumes they can just go ahead and implement this plan without consultation with the Board of Directors or EC, which is unlikely.

That gives them SEVEN WEEKS (Aug 25 to Oct 13) to completely build and test the system. Does anyone really think that's possible? Especially when the work is being done by a company that has no knowledge of fencing to start with?

We Really CAN'T afford to WAIT!

Not only will this type of system make the NAC registration process easier for USFA members but it will also increase the efficiency of the USFA office AND substantially reduce expenses. Can you imagine how many pieces of paper and faxes that the USFA handles for a NAC not to mention the manpower required to process the credit card transactions and to fax back your confirmation? A typical NAC often has 1000 entries; most entries are faxed; each entry contains 4 pages (including the fax-back cover sheet); that TOTALS 4000 pieces of paper (not to mention gallons of ink)! And if you count the pieces of paper on BOTH sides of the fax machine -- that is 8000 pieces of paper it takes to process NAC entries; AND someone has to handle all of this paperwork!

Let's take a big step to bring expenses under control WHILE at the same time giving our office staff more time to take care of the 'business' of USFencing.

Nobody will disagree that current paper-based system is inefficient. However, to eliminate this waste, the replacement system must be implemented in its entirety before benefits are seen. If the system that does the online registration does not interface with the membership database or the software that runs at the NACs, the paper-pushing process will just be replaced by an equally large effort to copy data from one system to another.

How does it Work?
The Thriva system revolves around the integration of a central database into modules and can be phased in as-needed. They work with many NGBs and other sports organizations already and have applications that can be customized. As part of their pricing structure ($100/month), their software developers will 'brand' our software interface (with USFA logo or any other branding information that we want) and design online forms that mirror our current paper forms at no additional charge. Their software solutions are modules that can be chosen to create a custom package so we only pay for what we need. The price structure includes a multitude of services including credit card processing -- which we can also provide to our clubs, divisions, and sections at no additional charge to the USFA. By allowing clubs, divisions, sections, and other tournament organizers limited administrative privileges, they can independently manage their own tournament registrations, etc.

Again, this is all just a reinvention of the wheel - virtually everything described above already exists in AskFRED. Does anyone really believe that the system that Active.com creates will be better? I sure don't.

A Phased-In Approach
As our needs expand and as our budget permits, a full-range of the ActiveNet software can be phased in (or we can phase-in a different solution with similar capabilities).

I hope everyone realizes that what this is saying is that the first implementation will be relatively simple, and all of the nice features that we expect (and already get with AskFRED) will come at a later date, if at all, and for additional cost.

Our ability to do this will be possible because of the flexible database that drives the software functions.

This claim is laughable, especially coming from a group of people with no training or professional experience in the software engineering field. What qualifications do they have to judge whether the database is flexible, or what the "software functions" are? In my experience, databases created in rushed implementations are nothing close to flexible.

In addition to all of the Thriva suite functions, the ActiveNet suite includes:
Collaboration with our tournament management software (such as Xseed, FencingTime, or Engarde)

This is complete fantasy. I know what it takes to interface with these programs (since I've actually written code to do it.) Trust me, it's not as simple as saving the data to a CSV file.

***Both Thriva and ActiveNet are 100% web based programs and require no investment in hardware or software. All data are stored in a secure location using a secured-server interface and the system can be updated or managed from any computer with an internet connection.

This marketing pitch sounds great but is fails to acknowledge the fact that to develop a system that meets the needs of the USFA will require a significant investment in software.

Everything I have read about Active.com leads me to believe that it will become the "THS of tournament registration" - with the added drawback that you'll HAVE to use it, while at least with THS you can ignore them and book your own hotels.

The entire USFFC proposal is rooted in a fantasy that we can have everything quickly, at a low cost, and it will turn out great. Let me once again mention the "pick two: fast, cheap, and good" axiom. Their proposal focuses on "fast" and "cheap", and because they lack the qualifications to evaluate what a "good' system looks like, they don't realize that what they propose is actually very bad.

A truly visionary slate would not resort to making empty promises that sound good and appeal to the masses, especially when the implementation of those plans would hinder the long-term technological health of the Association. Rather, people with vision would realize that the correct way to solve this problem is by following a well thought-out plan that might take a little longer to implement, but will build a foundation for us that will serve the needs of the USFA for many years. Let's take the time to do it RIGHT the first time... now that would be "change!".

Dan Berke
Creator of Fencing Time

[oso97]

Everything I have read about Active.com leads me to believe that it will become the "THS of tournament registration" - with the added drawback that you'll HAVE to use it, while at least with THS you can ignore them and book your own hotels.

Yep, that about covers it...

[epeemike81]

too much to QFT, but I agree with EVERYTHING DBerke said in the above two posts.

-m

[T]

Again, all of these features (and far more) are already available from AskFRED. Why pay Active.com a single cent when we have such a superior system already built, tested, and widely in use? Also, given how wildly unpopular Active.com is among those who have used it, why would anyone at the divisional/sectional level switch to it from AskFRED?

The Active proposal in the short-run would be a customized form-fed online registration system and will likely not be integrated into the membership rolls at first. However, this would be the intermediate-term goal by the end of this first season (if not sooner). It would however, eliminate a lot of paperwork right now and increase the efficiency -- even if modifications and upgrades will be required.

With that said, let me also include part of our website that Dan failed to post in his analysis.

What about askFRED? We are currently talking with Peet Sasaki from askFRED about the possibility of expanding the functions of askFRED to include items other than NAC registration. Currently, that is the only function that askFRED can perform. The USFA needs to look forward to a more comprehensive technology model to provide more functions to the front office and the tournament management process. All vendors will be required to submit a proposal via a RFP process and certainly askFRED will be included in that discussion. Regardless of which vendor is selected, the goal remains the same -- that is, affordable online NAC registration this next season!

Dan has contributed a lot to the development of his FencingTime software for tournament management and deserves recognition for that effort. However, it is also a biased opinion because he has a product to sell and product sales are dependent on doing this the way he says it should be done so that Fencing Time is the tournament management software selected to run NACs and endorsed by the USFA. To further bias his opinion, it is also important to note that he was also on the Nominating Committee and he has admitted that he is working with Kalle on the adoption of his software for the NACs.

I was one of the first to say that the long-term technology plan proposed by the Nom Com slate was great and it is. However, the USFA needs to be responsive to its members - not only through services such as online NAC registration but also through the efficient management (with both human and financial resources) of the front office. Again, online registration this season is possible and to argue the contrary is more of the same 'we can't do it now because...' philosophy. The ultimate solution may involve askFRED or it may involve Active or it may involve some other software/platform but it can be done and it can be done this season -- at a reasonable cost -- in such a way that it looks toward expansion of services into the tournament management function.

[peet]

I was one of the first to say that the long-term technology plan proposed by the Nom Com slate was great and it is. However, the USFA needs to be responsive to its members - not only through services such as online NAC registration but also through the efficient management (with both human and financial resources) of the front office. Again, online registration this season is possible and to argue the contrary is more of the same 'we can't do it now because...' philosophy. The ultimate solution may involve askFRED or it may involve Active or it may involve some other software/platform but it can be done and it can be done this season -- at a reasonable cost -- in such a way that it looks toward expansion of services into the tournament management function.

Just to clarify:

This paragraph seems to imply that we have to choose between using FRED and having online registration this season. It echoes similar implications made by ivlobane earlier in the thread. This would be a false dichotomy (thanks Inq! ). Use of FRED as a near-term solution could be implemented pretty quickly, since it is already a purpose-built, fencing specific application.

Note also that dberke's post doesn't say "we can't do it now". On the topic of timeframes, he seems to be saying that if we want online registration sooner rather than later, a solution that is largely already in place, built by someone with good knowledge of fencing is a better bet.

-p