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

[TBean]

Are we not, potentially, speaking of two different things here? One a interim solution that solves some issues versus a long-term fix to a significant technology probelm within the USFA office. The interim solution, while not perfect, will cut down on some man-hour issues within the office and provide the membership with a convenience.

The second issue of an intregrated system, while it seems some have spent some time already, still needs to be fleshed out to ensure that all bases are being covered and all needs across the office are being met - including addressing information not be currently captured. The organization/leadership should invest time asking the people who will use the systems what features will make thier jobs faster and easier, as we should assume they would know that and we can only make best guesses. To not include those folks in the process is grossly arrogant on anyone's part. This process is not going to be quick, but it certainly can have a reasonable deadline for completion and will save you money in the long run. It will also take some time to secure the funds for this portion of the upgrades either by budgeting for it or trying to raise capacity grants.

Truthfully having gone through an integrated solution with another organization, you don't want to be in the middle of the project and realize you misunderstood or forgot to ask for something. That is expensive.

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by T

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.

I bet if you poll anyone involved in software, you'd find that most of his posts would be considered accurate, well reasoned and unbiased.

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.

Are you biased against Dan's software because he was on the nominating committee and worked with Kalle on valuable software?

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.

On one hand you say that Dan has monetary interest in Fencing Time, and on the other you say that he just doesn't want to do it now? I don't understand the reasoning behind this post.

I would rather you explained how you would solve the timeline dilemma that Dan pointed out.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by tchwojko

I bet if you poll anyone involved in software, you'd find that most of his posts would be considered accurate, well reasoned and unbiased.

Speaking as just such an expert, I would in fact consider his posts accurate, well reasoned, and unbiased, especially regarding the inflexibility and lack of interoperability of hastily designed databases (my greatest expertise being in the field of databases and interoperability).

-m

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by TBean

Are we not, potentially, speaking of two different things here? One a interim solution that solves some issues versus a long-term fix to a significant technology probelm within the USFA office. The interim solution, while not perfect, will cut down on some man-hour issues within the office and provide the membership with a convenience.

It's a little premature to talk about 'long-term' vs. 'short-term' when we haven't even heard how long the 'long-term' (i.e. decent, reasonable, mostly functional and expandable) solution would take, or how much it would cost. If the difference is a few months between hacking around with a crappy result and a decent well-flushed out solution, why do it twice?

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally Posted by tchwojko

It's a little premature to talk about 'long-term' vs. 'short-term' when we haven't even heard how long the 'long-term' (i.e. decent, reasonable, mostly functional and expandable) solution would take, or how much it would cost. If the difference is a few months between hacking around with a crappy result and a decent well-flushed out solution, why do it twice?

Because then you can set artificial deadlines and make absurd campaign promises to garner votes?

[DJ Apostrophe]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

Speaking as just such an expert, I would in fact consider his posts accurate, well reasoned, and unbiased, especially regarding the inflexibility and lack of interoperability of hastily designed databases (my greatest expertise being in the field of databases and interoperability).

-m

+1

My background: Systems integration, software development (including database work), All around IT geek (both inside and out of fencing).

-w

[TBean]

I would tend to agree with many of the above posts Dr. Hurley that your timeline, not your goals, have some serious flaws. Very few of us, including yourself, have a great knowledge of the actual state of technology in the office. Compatability could be the fly in your ointment - you don't have all the variables to make your presumptions.

Is an interim fix a possibility on your timeline - some kind of simple on-line form - sure. Is a significant shift in how the front office collects and manages its data doable on that timeline - outside possibility, but probably not. To do it right and find the money to do it right will simply take longer.

Everyone is right here - good, fast or cheap - pick two.

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by KShan5[PrFC]

Because then you can set artificial deadlines and make absurd campaign promises to garner votes?

I started to write a response about a half dozen times, but I haven't written any water cooler posts, and I don't intend to start now.

[darius]

Cynically, I'd also say that the email with the promises has already gone out, even if she wanted to redact the promises here. Unless everybody on T's mailing list also reads f.net, it's already had the intended effect.

Everyone is right here - good, fast or cheap - pick two. What one of those are you really forfeiting in your plan on the current timeline.

From my experience with Active, I'd say "Good." And again, who knows what they do with your data?

Also, my background is in software development. Dan's right on the money.

darius

[mdstasinos]

Tracy,

I still think doing the job once would be more efficient and cost effective then adopting a system that will not work with the data base, and having to redo it again in the future.
Next, Regardless if Dan had been on the NC or not, he has a knowledge that far surpasses yours in this field in development, testing and implementation. Because he has been in communication with Kalle dealing with this subject and need, you accuse him of being guilty by association to the USFA Nominated Slate and not for his expertise on the subject. This is disturbing, especially when in some of the threads you claim that you will be able to work with whoever is elected. It sounds to me that you are making a lot of promises and decisions without truly knowing where the funding will come from to implement the changes, as well as not bringing together the individuals that truly have a background and extensive knowledge on the subject. Dan, if he is guilty by association to one slate it then shows how narrow minded you truly are and how judgmental you are for the fact that you do not have all the facts in wanting to implement long term improvements for the benefit of the membership. We all know this is the direction we need to go but I believe whoever is elected will need to work with the rest of the EC as well as the BOD to be able to go forward. This is where those who have served this Association understand the procedures and systems for getting the job done. If you look at the political aspect alone, permitting the change is on the agenda for the July or September BOD meeting it would be a first hearing item. It could be moved to urgent but a complete package would have to be assembled for the BOD to review and if that was the case the majority of that would have been done by Tracy without the body of the EC in place (for July) or with a full working 5 weeks (for September) which is hardly time to research, look at proposals, develop a true planned timeline, budget, work with the BOD to weigh their concerns and possible views on the subject that we may have overlooked and implement. I do think it is time to stop playing the political "I promise I can do it by..." and be honest with our membership in the facts that these improvements will be done but it will be done with extensive research, consultation and with an eye on the budget and an elected EC all working on the issue.
Mark Stasinos
http://www.usfanominees.com

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by darius

Cynically, I'd also say that the email with the promises has already gone out, even if she wanted to redact the promises here. Unless everybody on T's mailing list also reads f.net, it's already had the intended effect.

I consider this tech problem just one issue in the platform, but one I have a reasonable understanding of. What currently has me concerned is the fact that T responded to a well-reasoned set of objections by a bunch of people that know a few things about software with defensiveness, waving hands at the problem and claims of bias.

I see that tendency in the other threads as well. At first I hoped it was just a byproduct of the brouhaha of getting the election going at all, and that we'd see some real debate. Now I'm wondering.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally Posted by tchwojko

I started to write a response about a half dozen times, but I haven't written any water cooler posts, and I don't intend to start now.

Congrats...way to stick to your guns.

[dberke]

Originally Posted by T

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.

You THINK it would increase the efficiency, yet offer no proof that you have done any research into how just eliminating paper would do that. Can you give us a detailed description of the steps necessary to take the data collected by Active and convert it into the format required by XSeed for use at the events? That would include steps to verify memberships, ratings, etc... all time-consuming things still necessary because, as you just said, "will likely not be integrated into the membership rolls at first."

I contend that you have replaced the "type info from paper into computer" step with "type info from Active.com report file into computer." It's not going to be a simple cut-and-paste process.

If all you want is an interim solution, why don't you just propose that the events will be created on AskFRED and accept registrations and payments there? There's nothing stopping from Christine from getting an account and setting up any NAC with all of the events on AskFRED. That could be done today for little-to-no cost (certainly when compared with Active's $100/month.)

And before you say that AskFRED has issues with security/privacy/etc that prevents it from being used, what makes you think that the system Active.com builds won't have those exact same issues?

Originally Posted by T

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

I was quoting your email, not your website.

While it's great that you're talking to Peet, I don't see how you could give him, or anyone else for that matter, enough information on what the specifications of the system need to be for them to respond to an RFP. That is best left to the technical people who understand the current system. Can you even name who those people are? I can!

Originally Posted by T

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.

Ah, I was waiting for this. Is my opinion biased? Perhaps, but I think my bias is built far more on a technical understanding of the issues rather than any benefit to me for Fencing Time. It's not like my work on FT is making me a lot of money, certainly compared with how much time and effort I've invested in it. You're welcome to question my motives, but I think everyone who knows me understands that I'm not doing this for personal gain.

Originally Posted by T

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.

I am disappointed that after reading the NC tech proposal, as well as my comments, and the comments of the many people posting here about Active.com, you still want to charge forward on this ill-advised plan simply because you think it is so urgent and sounds good politically. I would have been really impressed if you had said something like: "After learning more about the scope of what needs to be done, and the long term effects that our decisions on techology will have, I feel that it is in the everyone's best interest that we tackle this problem in a well planned-out and gradual method. While online registration is important, the deeper technical issues must be addressed first, with the online component being implemented only when the system can support it."

Oh well.

Dan

[mdstasinos]

Originally Posted by mdstasinos

Tracy,

I still think doing the job once would be more efficient and cost effective then adopting a system that will not work with the data base, and having to redo it again in the future.
Next, Regardless if Dan had been on the NC or not, he has a knowledge that far surpasses yours in this field in development, testing and implementation. Because he has been in communication with Kalle dealing with this subject and need, you accuse him of being guilty by association to the USFA Nominated Slate and not for his expertise on the subject. This is disturbing, especially when in some of the threads you claim that you will be able to work with whoever is elected. It sounds to me that you are making a lot of promises and decisions without truly knowing where the funding will come from to implement the changes, as well as not bringing together the individuals that truly have a background and extensive knowledge on the subject. Dan, if he is guilty by association to one slate it then shows how narrow minded you truly are and how judgmental you are for the fact that you do not have all the facts in wanting to implement long term improvements for the benefit of the membership. We all know this is the direction we need to go but I believe whoever is elected will need to work with the rest of the EC as well as the BOD to be able to go forward. This is where those who have served this Association understand the procedures and systems for getting the job done. If you look at the political aspect alone, permitting the change is on the agenda for the July or September BOD meeting it would be a first hearing item. It could be moved to urgent but a complete package would have to be assembled for the BOD to review and if that was the case the majority of that would have been done by Tracy without the body of the EC in place (for July) or with a full working 5 weeks (for September) which is hardly time to research, look at proposals, develop a true planned timeline, budget, work with the BOD to weigh their concerns and possible views on the subject that we may have overlooked and implement. I do think it is time to stop playing the political "I promise I can do it by..." and be honest with our membership in the facts that these improvements will be done but it will be done with extensive research, consultation and with an eye on the budget and an elected EC all working on the issue.
Mark Stasinos
http://www.usfanominees.com

I still agree with Dan and stand by what I have said.
Mark Stasinos

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by KShan5[PrFC]

Congrats...way to stick to your guns.

You're not going to bait me with arms control legislation either.

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by ivlobane

[*]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..."[/list]

So your proposal is that a contractor should on spec develop a complete software package without specifications, a contract, details of what is being requested or how big of a scope the project is intended to cover?

If that's how the IT contracts at NIH were handled, I can tell you immediately why they went overtime and over budget. It's an extremely frequent occurance in the contracting world and the vast majority of contract failures come from the client not knowing what they want and changing their mind midprocess.

[mdstasinos]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

So your proposal is that a contractor should on spec develop a complete software package without specifications, a contract, details of what is being requested or how big of a scope the project is intended to cover?

If that's how the IT contracts at NIH were handled, I can tell you immediately why they went overtime and over budget. It's an extremely frequent occurance in the contracting world and the vast majority of contract failures come from the client not knowing what they want and changing their mind midprocess.

Exactly!!! Why is this so hard to comprehend?
M.Stasinos

[Goldgar]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

Speaking as just such an expert, I would in fact consider his posts accurate, well reasoned, and unbiased, especially regarding the inflexibility and lack of interoperability of hastily designed databases (my greatest expertise being in the field of databases and interoperability).

+2, or is it +3 or +4 by now? As another who builds database applications for a living, and who has been in the position of having to take a badly designed web-registration application and make it work, I could not agree more with what Dan and Peet have written.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Not that I'm a fan boy, but it seems to me that if the winning Presidential candidate doesn't show up at Peet's and Dan's doorstep on their knees with a bunch of flowers and a heartfelt plea to rescue the USFA from itself...then a recall is in order.

And you know how I felt about the LAST recall effort...

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

So your proposal is that a contractor should on spec develop a complete software package without specifications, a contract, details of what is being requested or how big of a scope the project is intended to cover?

If that's how the IT contracts at NIH were handled, I can tell you immediately why they went overtime and over budget. It's an extremely frequent occurance in the contracting world and the vast majority of contract failures come from the client not knowing what they want and changing their mind midprocess.

anybody else reminded of this:


-m