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

[dberke]

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.

Well, according to your email, that would have to be done by the October NAC. You then revised it here to the December NAC (yet your website still references October.) Either way, that's not a reasonable timeframe for all the reasons I listed in my original post.

Originally Posted by T

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.

The problem is, you should have done that before making promises to the electorate. I don't know if you skipped that step because you hadn't considered what knowledge is necessary to create a sufficient RFP, or if you did so for calculated political reasons, neither is very appealing.

Originally Posted by T

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.

Can you elaborate on exactly how you were involved? What was the scope of the project, and what was your role? What was the timeframe in which it was done? How much did it cost?

Originally Posted by T

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.

Again, you are making huge assumptions here. How do you know that validating ratings for entries is a shorter and more efficient process than handling paper?

Let me be clear - I am actually in favor of using AskFRED for NACs as a short-term solution. At the very least, it will provide the membership with a simpler sign-up and payment process. However, it will not necessarily save the national office a lot of work in the short term because even that solution will introduce new problems as I mentioned above (i.e. verifying the data.)

The proper way to phase something like this in would be to offer it as an option for a future NAC, but still allow people to use the familiar paper process. Then, see how easy it is to consume the data collected by AskFRED and compare it to the old process. THEN, after you actually have some REAL data on process efficiency, only then can you begin making accurate projections on the costs and benefits of completely switching to a new system.

Originally Posted by T

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.

My work on the Nominating Committee was done long before this became a topic of discussion here. And regardless, any statements I make now are as an individual USFA member and have no relation to my work on the committee.

Originally Posted by T

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.

Did you speak directly with the other NGBs and their members about their experience with Active.com, or are you just taking Active's sales presentation at face value?

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 --

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 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.

I just re-read your original email and there is absolutely no mention of considering AskFRED as a possibility. The entire email is nothing but a sales pitch for Active.com's "Thriva" product. Nowhere do you indicate that any other options are even being considered. On your website, you added the bit about considering AskFRED only after realizing you had stepped into a minefield.

Plus, your proposal calls for far more than just online NAC registration to be implemented "within a couple of months". From your website:

Originally Posted by USFFC website

For approximately $100/month and no initial setup fee, the USFA, its clubs, divisions, and sections can use the Thriva software suite which includes USFA-branded online membership enrollment & renewal, NAC and other 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. The timeframe 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!

So what you're saying here doesn't exactly mesh with what your published platform states. The part I bolded about a database will have a direct impact on the long-term solution, which is why its inclusion in your proposal is so distressing.

Originally Posted by T

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, what in the world are you basing this on? Have you seen the structure of the database? I wouldn't even use the phrase "absolutely" and I know far more about how that data is structured than you do.

Originally Posted by T

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.

And my argument is that movement for the sake "change" isn't good if we wind up screwing ourselves in the process. Intelligent steps that tie into the larger plan do make sense. For example, the suggestion I made above about using AskFRED to accept NAC registrations on a trial basis is an example. By running it simply as a trial basis, we'll learn a heck of a lot about how easy or hard it will be to do on a larger scale. In the business, we call this a "prototype"...

Your proposal, by comparison, takes too big a step too soon. I think I've explained why that is enough already in my prior posts.

Dan

[peet]

Originally Posted by keith

Thing is, at the moment, the choice is either - Active or snail mail*.

No, it isn't. It's a choice between (so far):

Snail Mail
Faxes
Active.com
askFRED.net
wufoo.com
Forms and payments plugins for the current USFA website (mambo)

Some of those make a good interim solution, some make a good long term solution, and at least one could be both. (I'll bet you can guess which one I mean )


And for completeness, we're really talking about three scenarios here, one near term interim solution, one medium term system, and one long term grand plan.

1. Near Term:
A forms-only, non-integrated solution that has only one-way interaction with the USFA systems. That is to say, forms online that take information and provide it to the national office in general purpose reports and Excel files.

2. Medium term:
An integrated system with two-way interaction with the USFA database, which integrates with XSeed and/or Fencing Time, publishes uploaded tournament results, verifies membership and ratings before accepting a preregistration, etc.... Basically all the cool things that we'd love our tournament management systems to do.

3. Long term:
A full spectrum set of systems: tournament registration, membership application/renewal, membership management tools for the national office, onsite "tournament day" systems (fencer checkin, running the tournament, etc), points lists calculations, referee service tracking, fencer rating management, qualifier calculations, etc, etc. Basically everything the USFA does with data, all composed of various systems that work together and feed to/from the central database. This is essentially the NomCom tech proposal. This is a scenario that may involve multiple vendors, each agreeing to produce systems that work with the others.

I'd say FRED could do 1 and 2, and would be an excellent component of 3. The question is: Do we use a system that has potential to serve both long term and short term goals, or do we settle for just short term?

An analogy:

You're trying to get from the New York to LA. There are two roads leaving NY with signs that say "Going West!". Both seem like good roads, so you take the one that looks the best from where you're standing. They may take different routes, and at times one road may seem smoother, while at other times the other road does. Partway through the trip though, you find that the road you're on stops in Denver. You can't get where you want to go by that road.

Maybe you should have looked at a map to see which road gets where you want to go?

-p

[peet]

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.

I think the email that Tracy sent to the general membership makes it sound to a lot of folks as if the active.com thing is a done deal. It certainly makes no mention of FRED or any other alternative, nor of any RFP process.

-p

[dberke]

Originally Posted by keith

Agreed, but the knuckle head who really deserves the smack in the head is who ever put Dan on the nominating committee.

Care to elaborate on this slight? Are you implying that I'm not able to make objective decisions?

Dan

[ivlobane]

Ok, Dan then can you answer these questions please?

1: Do you agree that an RFP process is the way to go for the final solution?
2: Can you and Peet work work together on the final solution?
3: What is the reason not to use a short term, COTS solution if the benefits it provided in terms of office efficency alone result in 10x* savings, where x is the amount it costs per month?

Peet, would you be willing to put an interim version of FRED under a monthly fee for the USFA while the RFP is processed and the long term solution is developed?
No matter how much Active is embellishing their sales pitch, they cannot ouright lie and I fail to see how even a CSV generated by a simple form is worse than the paper shuffling, mailing and printing that goes on now...

*Please do not bite my head off, this is goign on that there is an ~$100/Month interim solution and approximate arithmetic.

[ivlobane]

Originally Posted by peet

I think the email that Tracy sent to the general membership makes it sound to a lot of folks as if the active.com thing is a done deal. It certainly makes no mention of FRED or any other alternative, nor of any RFP process.

-p

Yeah, I was surprised to see it put like that too, but as soon as I went to their site, there was the bit in red about askFRED as well...

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by ivlobane

No matter how much Active is embellishing their sales pitch, they cannot ouright lie

It doesn't take false statements to make a persuasive (and successful) sales pitch. That doesn't mean that you'll like what you get. (That's not a comment about Active. It's a comment about software sales in general.)

and I fail to see how even a CSV generated by a simple form is worse than the paper shuffling, mailing and printing that goes on now...

I've seen many situations where a correct paper+human process could easily have blown away the efficiency of an awkward electronic solution.

[dberke]

Originally Posted by ivlobane

Ok, Dan then can you answer these questions please?

1: Do you agree that an RFP process is the way to go for the final solution?

Sure, an RFP process is fine.

Originally Posted by ivlobane

2: Can you and Peet work work together on the final solution?

Peet and I actually have little overlap in the areas that we'd be working on. I only focus on the at-the-tournament software, while his expertise is in the the online and database arena.

I actually am more interested in having input into creating the RFP in terms definining the requirements of the system, and helping evaluate the submitted bids.

Originally Posted by ivlobane

3: What is the reason not to use a short term, COTS solution if the benefits it provided in terms of office efficency alone result in 10x* savings, where x is the amount it costs per month?

Because:
A. Just because the USFFC website says something will be a "10x savings" doesn't make it true.
B. Because it could lock us into a technology that is not easily adaptable to our future needs.
C. Read my prior posts for more details on why a "quick-fix" solution may do more harm than good.

Originally Posted by ivlobane

No matter how much Active is embellishing their sales pitch, they cannot ouright lie and I fail to see how even a CSV generated by a simple form is worse than the paper shuffling, mailing and printing that goes on now...

I wouldn't call it lying, but a sales pitch is created with a specific intent - to sell a product by maximizing the strengths and downplaying the weaknesses.

Generating a CSV file is easy. But what do you do with it? There's no simple way to import that data into the existing system.

Dan

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally Posted by keith

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

Okay....maybe I misread them? It seemed like in the email T committed to Active, then said she didn't. Apparently I misread it....care to clarify how?

[ivlobane]

Originally Posted by dberke

Generating a CSV file is easy. But what do you do with it? There's no simple way to import that data into the existing system.

Dan

Uh, this?

From http://www.fencingtime.com/features.php

Import fencer data from CSV files, including the membership list available on the USFA website

...or something like it...

[mgriff]

Originally Posted by ivlobane

Uh, this?



...or something like it...

Assuming the fields matched up, which they wouldn't.

FT is for the info needed to run the tournament. The national office database also has to deal with credit card info, whether the proper waivers have been provided, whether the competitor in question has qualified for the events entered, etc., etc.

And that assumes that FT is the software used, which is not (yet) the case.

As Dan and Peet keep saying, it's not as simple as it seems.

Mary

[dberke]

Originally Posted by ivlobane

Uh, this?

From http://www.fencingtime.com/features.php

Import fencer data from CSV files, including the membership list available on the USFA website

...or something like it...

We're talking about totally different things. The data collected by the online registration webpage has to be reconciled with the data in their current membership database. What you're referring to is the local database that Fencing Time uses when it runs, which are two entirely different things.

The structure of the current USFA database, because of its poor design, is very complex. As a result, converting the data from a CSV into a format that can be imported into that database will be VERY time consuming - perhaps prohibitavely so.

This actually proves my point beautifully. Because the existing membership database was not designed in a flexible way with the future needs in mind (such as online capabilities), it is very hard if not impossible to make it work with a new system (whether it's Active or AskFRED or something else.) That is why we need to be VERY careful about how we design the new database, so that we don't just create the same set of problems all over again.

The USFFC proposal, as I cited earlier, includes creating the new database by the first NAC of the new season. That is not nearly enough time to properly design a new database that will be flexible and support all of our needs.

Thank you for making my point for me!
Dan

[ivlobane]

Originally Posted by dberke

A. Just because the USFFC website says something will be a "10x savings" doesn't make it true.
B. Because it could lock us into a technology that is not easily adaptable to our future needs.
C. Read my prior posts for more details on why a "quick-fix" solution may do more harm than good.

Dan

A:

(from USFFC site)
For instance, the cost for postage jumped nearly 300% with a net increase from 2005 to 2006 of over $115,000. The cost for printing jumped 83% with a net increase of nearly $40,000.

These number make sense to me... Please site examples to dispute..

B:
1.We're locked right now into mailing or faxing. Does the USFA office have minimal computer training? Then even the CSV is more useful than a box of papers.
2.There is no need to be locked with a monthly simple forms plan, all of them, WuFoo, Active, and hopefully Peet too do not make you sign up for a contract. Active has variations on that, but I would have to play with it more to say for sure.

C...Your posts I would actually take the time and search through, so give me second...

[keith]

Originally Posted by peet

No, it isn't. It's a choice between (so far):

Snail Mail
Faxes
Active.com
askFRED.net
wufoo.com
Forms and payments plugins for the current USFA website (mambo)

Apologies I was under the impression that askFRED was not an immediately available solution.

Originally Posted by peet

Some of those make a good interim solution, some make a good long term solution, and at least one could be both. (I'll bet you can guess which one I mean )

Tricky but I can probably work it out. Of course in the short term, no solution would probably be my choice as the best solution.

Originally Posted by peet

And for completeness, we're really talking about three scenarios here, one near term interim solution, one medium term system, and one long term grand plan.

1. Near Term:
2. Medium term:
3. Long term:

Assuming that USFA are going to be relying on volunteer pay rates (don't spend all that goodwill at once!) going to somewhere around 2 would seem the obvious goal. With anything under 1 only implemented if it actually saved time at the national office and allowed reassignments. Something that none of the short term fixes suggested seem able to guarantee.

Originally Posted by peet

I'd say FRED could do 1 and 2, and would be an excellent component of 3. The question is: Do we use a system that has potential to serve both long term and short term goals, or do we settle for just short term?

The question here is more probably phrased as; are you willing to put in the work to both bring in an early fix and develop the long term solution?

You and Dan are a resource to the USFA - as such, if they are going to use your experience to bring in good solutions at below commercial cost, they really should be balancing keeping the membership happy with keeping you guys happy.

Originally Posted by peet

An analogy:

I'll match your analogy with a parable.

One day a kindly man was driving home on a rainy night and saw a rather bedraggled hitch hiker by the side of the road. In defiance of all caution he stops and offers the young man a lift. Now this young lad turns out to be a cheerful and polite soul who is very grateful of the old mans help. In the course of their travels from A to B the hitchhiker mentions that he knows of a little side road that offers a beautiful view of the setting sun. So they take the detour, with the young man saying that of course he will express his gratitude at the end of the trip. Back on the main road again the young man suggests a side trip up into the mountains to see the stars now that the skies have cleared. Once more he expresses his intent to show his gratitude at his final destination. After many side trips and jaunts the pair finally reach the fork in the road the hitchhiker has been waiting for. He wanders a few steps from the car before exclaiming, how rude I'm terrible sorry, he returns extends his hand to the old man and says thank you.