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

[ivlobane]

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.

Why is everyone ignoring what Tracy is saying: there will be an RFP, available to everyone. Tracy repeatedly praised the NC spec paper, and it looks like that's what the RFP will be based on. There are immediate steps that can be taken in the right direction, Peet agrees with this.

Ultimately, I would much rather see FRED as the final solution. I also see the RFP as an incentive for askFRED and FT to become competitive in their proposals.
The way I understand things are right now, is that there has only been informal conversations and work in regards to the whole tech issue. An establishment of a formal RFP process, which is one of the USFFC goals, will incite competition between vendors and instill transparency.
Being it that askFRED and FT are clearly great products, I do not see a problem with them winning the bid...

...unless another vendor can trump all their merits. Tracy is not an idiot, she knows what vaporware looks like. She's done more than one RFP, and she will not be the only one reviewing the bids.

The difference between the USFFC and the NomComs is that USFFC is prepared to move forward with the RFP immediately after the election. I do not see such strong language from the NomComs...

[T]

Originally Posted by dberke

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?

You are absolutely correct. Either (or any) company will have the same issues if the USFA membership data are used. These types of issues can be worked out as many companies have done this before. Security of our data and privacy are important and regardless of which direction we take, we will need to cross that bridge. But that bridge needs to be crossed and it can be done in a reasonable timeframe.

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.

Again, you are correct; I can't create the info for an RFP. But I can find the people who have this info so that it can be created. I'm glad you know who they are and I'm sure you will share that info with whoever will go forward with a technology solution for the USFA.

Believe me. I am not attacking you or anyone else. I have some experience with technology as I was a Manager of Research & Technology for a local branch of a national nonprofit organization that went through a major implementation and conversion of a customer and client database. The point is that we can have an interim solution relatively quickly. Even Peet admits this. It may require verifying entries as to ratings, etc. but that does not require handling all that paperwork and consuming all of those resources. Validating ratings, etc. for entries can be done in the shortrun which is still a shorter and more efficient process than handling paper.

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.

I apologize if I implied that there was financial gain. Certainly, there is no monetary gain to be had from anyone involved in this process. But the possible bias concerning your position on the Nom Com is important and your link to that slate is relevant to your opinion.

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.

While there may be some dissatisfied customers of the Active product, I have seen a demo and it appears to be fairly straightforward. Active also use to have a free-version that was generic and was offered up until 6 or so months ago. That may be the version that people are dissatisfied with because they did push magazines subscriptions, etc. to offset the price of the service. Other NGBs and sports organizations are using the version that I previewed a demo of which does not do that.

I don't think it is necessarily an ill-advised plan and as I said elsewhere, I have not committed to that product --

I have only committted to the achievement of the goal that this product or a similar product such as askFRED can provide.

I am not associated with Active nor do I necessarily think that it is the ultimate solution that will be selected. But the goal of getting an online NAC registration up and running should be a top priority. Financially, an interim solution is not cost prohibitive and as long as the interim solution takes a forward look, then it should be evaluated and implemented.

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 technology 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.

I have said nothing to suggest that there won't be a well thought-out plan for the long-term technology solution. I even call for a phased-in process and mention a few of the items that this process should and could include.

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."

If we just refer to askFRED, at the BoD meeting in Feb, the proposal for the USFA to share data with askFRED was presented so Peet must have a pretty good idea of what this will entail. Do we need more details? Sure, no question. But we can also assume that it is a database that can be exported into common format. Absolutely.

Again, I am not saying that there aren't challenges and I will agree that whatever is adopted needs to keep in mind the expansion of technology and be responsive to member and tournament services. But frankly, the 'system' will never be able to support it if we don't start moving the 'system' in that direction.

Do we need to plan? Yes, no doubt about it. However, we shouldn't paralyze ourselves with the plan because we are so busy worrying about every little contingency and trying to get everything perfect before we do something that meets the needs of the members and reduces the inefficiencies of the front office? The costs of the Active plan or from what I have received from Peet about askFRED are not cost prohibitive as an interim solution. In fact, they are quite reasonably priced.

My main argument is that an interim solution to this problem is better than the status quo.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by T

Other NGBs and sports organizations are using the version that I previewed a demo of which does not do that.

Other NGB's such as... Tennis. And how do their members feel about Active?

Originally Posted by oso97

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.

Granted this is only one datapoint, but it does illustrate that other NGB's using it isn't necessarily an argument in favor of it.

It seems to me that you were convinced by what I'm sure was a pretty good vendor presentation and you're now not willing to reconsider your opinion on Active even when confronted with first hand use accounts running pretty much 100% negative.

That shows a lack of flexibility that will not serve you (or us) well as President.

-m

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by ivlobane

Why is everyone ignoring what Tracy is saying: there will be an RFP, available to everyone. Tracy repeatedly praised the NC spec paper, and it looks like that's what the RFP will be based on. There are immediate steps that can be taken in the right direction, Peet agrees with this.

Then why are people claiming Active should be the stop gap (in campaign emails and on here) when FRED is capable of providing the exact same stop-gap services as well?

The difference between the USFFC and the NomComs is that USFFC is prepared to move forward with the RFP immediately after the election. I do not see such strong language from the NomComs...

Whereas from the Nominated Candidates, I hear reasoned, well thought out proposals to do things right, on an acceptable schedule, and from you* I see random, shoot from the hip, change for the sake of change cheerleading while displaying a staggering ignorance of how to handle a proper IT Services deal.
Why should we pay attention to you when everybody with professional IT experience in this thread appears to be unanimious in saying you've got no idea what you're talking about here?



* Note I'm not talking about Tracy here

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by T

You are absolutely correct. Either (or any) company will have the same issues if the USFA membership data are used. These types of issues can be worked out as many companies have done this before. Security of our data and privacy are important and regardless of which direction we take, we will need to cross that bridge. But that bridge needs to be crossed and it can be done in a reasonable timeframe.

But you've already stated your definition of "reasonable timeframe", and others have disputed that.

Believe me. I am not attacking you or anyone else.

You directly stated that Dan is biased, and you started drawing lines between money and political motivations. None of those statements had anything to do with the technological issues.

I have some experience with technology as I was a Manager of Research & Technology for a local branch of a national nonprofit organization that went through a major implementation and conversion of a customer and client database.

Have you looked at the credentials of everyone who has just thrown up red flags about going down the Active path, and the other issues?

The point is that we can have an interim solution relatively quickly. Even Peet admits this. It may require verifying entries as to ratings, etc. but that does not require handling all that paperwork and consuming all of those resources. Validating ratings, etc. for entries can be done in the shortrun which is still a shorter and more efficient process than handling paper.

That is still assuming that the choice is between a short term hack and a long term good solution, and that they don't overlap at all.

While there may be some dissatisfied customers of the Active product, I have seen a demo and it appears to be fairly straightforward.

Demos are nearly meaningless compared to actual implementations.

Active also use to have a free-version that was generic and was offered up until 6 or so months ago. That may be the version that people are dissatisfied with because they did push magazines subscriptions, etc. to offset the price of the service. Other NGBs and sports organizations are using the version that I previewed a demo of which does not do that.

And have you spoken to those customers? How much did they pay? How satisfied were they?

[KD5MDK]

Usually companies provide references who are clients willing to describe how their experience has been. Are there any references on the scale of the USFA for Active and how do they describe their experience?

[keith]

so lets see, we have;

A viable cludge that will satisfy an ongoing whine of various forumites.

Much criticism of said cludge on the obvious, and apparently accepted, basis that it is simply a term fix to satisfy a demand.

A discussion paper that promises a system nearly as wonderful as Copland.


Talk about a pointless debate

[KD5MDK]

Point for the Copland reference, but I have much greater faith in the Nominees management skills than I do in Gil Amelio or Michael Spindler.

[ivlobane]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Then why are people claiming Active should be the stop gap (in campaign emails and on here) when FRED is capable of providing the exact same stop-gap services as well?

...you've got no idea what you're talking about here?

Wow, talk about smoke in the eyes and bias... No one ever said the RFP is exclusive at all! ...and this is the first such accusation I see. I'm not a software engineer, but a network admin that has to work with and for the software engineers and web designers.
Why are the anti-USFFC people sounding so scared? What do you have to loose if there is a clear RFP process established?

[keith]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Point for the Copland reference, but I have much greater faith in the Nominees management skills than I do in Gil Amelio or Michael Spindler.

.... and I am sure that Dan and Peet have the skill required to deliver what is promised. Of course exactly when this system will arrive is going to be dependent on a whole bunch of things - and the NC haven't really been open to discussing them in public (no responses to Wafath's thread for example).

Thing is, at the moment, the choice is either - Active or snail mail*. Comparing Active to something that doesn't exist is, well for want of a better phrase, dumber than a sack of sabreurs.




*or Noodle's mystery system.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by ivlobane

Wow, talk about smoke in the eyes and bias... No one ever said the RFP is exclusive at all! ...and this is the first such accusation I see. I'm not a software engineer, but a network admin that has to work with and for the software engineers and web designers.
Why are the anti-USFFC people sounding so scared? What do you have to loose if there is a clear RFP process established?

Re-read the post you're responding to. he's not talking about the RFP for a longer term solution (which Peet is free to respond to), but rather about the short-term stop-gap that is proposed using Active.

-m

[ivlobane]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

Re-read the post you're responding to. he's not talking about the RFP for a longer term solution (which Peet is free to respond to), but rather about the short-term stop-gap that is proposed using Active.

-m

???! The way I understand some previous posts is that Peet can provide that as well and Tracy and him are discussing this as well...!

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally Posted by T

I don't think it is necessarily an ill-advised plan and as I said elsewhere, I have not committed to that product --

USFA Members: Are you Ready for Online NAC Registration THIS Season?

May 17, 2008
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

I'm confused...someone help.

[keith]

Originally Posted by KShan5[PrFC]

I'm confused...someone help.

You really do need help.


You need to take lessons from Mr Epee. Really.


Here's a hint; the two quotes are not contradictory.

D- try harder

[tchwojko]

One of the large problems with software is that short-term stop-gap solutions turn into long-term money-pit crapware.

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by ivlobane

Wow, talk about smoke in the eyes and bias... No one ever said the RFP is exclusive at all!

T making allusions to Dan being biased (instead of discussing technical merit) makes one wonder about the fairness of a possible RFP.

The questions raised were not about having an RFP, but the promises made, and the way the proposals would be evaluated.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by tchwojko

One of the large problems with software is that short-term stop-gap solutions turn into long-term money-pit crapware.

Quoted for truth.