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

[oso97]

Observation: The USFA has fallen seriously behind the times in implementation of technology solutions to operational problems. Our current software for running national tournaments struggles to keep up with demands, and lacks many tournament participant-requested features, as well as features that would improve tournament management. Our central membership database is outmoded, ill-constructed, and unable to interface with modern technology. Additionally, burdens are placed upon local tournaments and qualifiers for documentation and procedures that currently adopted technology hinders, and could be streamlined with new solutions. In short, we need a ground-up solution.

A proposal for a technology solution has been posted on the website of the slate nominated by the Nominating Committee that outlines a possible multi-part solution to the technological problems of our organization.

Question to the candidates: How will you ensure that the reforms are actually carried out by the committees and staff that they are assigned to, given the personnel problems that have hampered technology modernization and adoption in the past?

[Greg_D]

Question to the candidates: How will you ensure that the reforms are actually carried out by the committees and staff that they are assigned to, given the personnel problems that have hampered technology modernization and adoption in the past?

This is addressed in the write-up on the reorganization of the National Office and Financial Responsibility. To paraphrase... you make it a key objective of the STAFF person who is in charge of that area. You make sure that there are specific people in charge of those areas. Then you monitor them to make sure it gets done.

Here's a link to that write-up:

http://usfanominees.com/proposals/national-office/

Greg

[seven6ty]

This is addressed in the write-up on the reorganization of the National Office and Financial Responsibility. To paraphrase... you make it a key objective of the STAFF person who is in charge of that area. You make sure that there are specific people in charge of those areas. Then you monitor them to make sure it gets done.

Here's a link to that write-up:

http://usfanominees.com/proposals/national-office/

Greg

That's not really addressing the problems. That's just trying to pawn them off on someone else, and just hoping that they'll fix or address the problems for you. Sounds kind of the same as how the USFA has always been run.

[gorgie101]

That's not really addressing the problems. That's just trying to pawn them off on someone else, and just hoping that they'll fix or address the problems for you. Sounds kind of the same as how the USFA has always been run.

1) Are you simply responding to Greg's post or to the actuall proposal he linked to?

After reading the proposal it seems to be set up the way most business are. Delegating responsibility is the way stuff gets done in ANY organization. You are given a job by your boss and that is the job you do. If you fail to do your job you get fired.

From what I can tell the problem is not delegating the responsibility but removing those people that are NOT doing their job and keeping the people who are.

[seven6ty]

Yes, but your boss doesn't just tell you, go, take care of technology... Does he? If you want someone to do a good job for you, you have to specifically spell out what their goals are, what they should be working on, and how to go about fixing those things... And of course, give them a timeline for the items/actions that you want accomplished.

And yes, I was responding to Greg's post.

[Mr Epee]

Question to the candidates: How will you ensure that the reforms are actually carried out by the committees and staff that they are assigned to, given the personnel problems that have hampered technology modernization and adoption in the past?

Sometimes you've got to use low-tech to get hi-tech.

Given this approach, who would be a better motivator?

Kalle or Tracy?

[keith]

From what I can tell the problem is not delegating the responsibility but removing those people that are NOT doing their job and keeping the people who are.

Trouble is a lot of this depends on a pool of competent volunteers to get things done. Now if you want to do more you can probably get other volunteers but the results may not go as expected....

Both slates, but more so the NC (IMHO), seem to be proposing many interesting ideas - but given the, claimed, state of the USFA cutting right back and sorting out the core responsibilities would seem to the place to start. It would also allow the best people to get the most done.

[DJ Apostrophe]

Yes, but your boss doesn't just tell you, go, take care of technology... Does he? If you want someone to do a good job for you, you have to specifically spell out what their goals are, what they should be working on, and how to go about fixing those things... And of course, give them a timeline for the items/actions that you want accomplished.

And yes, I was responding to Greg's post.

This is stuff that goes in a job description. The position isn't being advertised, just their envisioning of the position. I'm confident that if the NomCom slate gets elected and the position is advertised, the objectives of the position will be more clearly spelled out, and it would be on the hiring manager (either the ED, the director of operations or the director of Development & Membership Services) who would spell out what the requirements are and create a plan to use this person to accomplish the goals. From reading the NomCom slate's proposals, I do not believe that they are out to micro manage their National Office Staff's workload, with strong upper management in place, goals can be accomplished. Much like in the corporate world where senior management is guided by the board of directors' wishes as well as the guiding principals of the company (mission statements, core values, etc.).

These contested positions are not direct management positions, nor should they be. Let the direct managers control their charges. Things will be MUCH more effective.

Developing a responsible plan to set goals, guide your staff and providing the resources to get the job done should be the goal of the officers of our organization.

-w

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Sometimes you've got to use low-tech to get hi-tech.

Given this approach, who would be a better motivator?

Kalle or Tracy?

I move that a collection be taken up and one of these fine motivational devices be procured for the use of the President during each committee/officer/board evaluation session.

Nothing like seeing a couple of slackers doing the "Funky Chicken" on the BoD floor to get the slackers back to work.

[noodle]

Yes, but your boss doesn't just tell you, go, take care of technology... Does he? If you want someone to do a good job for you, you have to specifically spell out what their goals are, what they should be working on, and how to go about fixing those things... And of course, give them a timeline for the items/actions that you want accomplished.

And yes, I was responding to Greg's post.

it depends on your job description. but that is, in fact, quite close to what i've been doing for the last 6 months for my company.

if you pick the right person, in my opinion, they would be able to analyze the situation in the USFA office, take a look at the business processes and requirements, and be able to build a full-featured, efficient piece of software that will make the back office better and allow for integration/access with outside applications (i.e. fred, FT, etc.).

this would save money via efficiency, infrastructure and revenue model improvements.

[T]

The organization structure for both slates appears to contain equivalent number of positions. All of the earlier complaints about expense is not relevant as both sides propose the same number of director/managers which will have an approximate equivalent salary demand.

Here are the managers/directors/officers called for in the usanominees re-organization plan

usanominees
ED - budget, office management
Director of HP -elite athletes
Director of Operations - tournaments
Manager of Volunteers
Youth Manager
Director of Development & Membership services

6 director/managers

USfencersforchange
ED
CFO
Director of HP
Tournament Officer
Marketing Officer
Membership and Customer Service Officer

6 directors/managers

Our restructuring proposal calls for no more personnel than the usanominees proposal. The emphasis, however, is somewhat different.


The USFencersforchange's vision of the organization has 6 director/manager positions. Here are the major differences:

Responsibilities:

ED - usanominees - in charge of running the office and budget management

ED - USfencersforchange - in charge of fundraising, external relations with sponsors, sports foundations, USOC, sponsors. Since 20% of the USFA budget comes from the USOC, the ED would need to have the skills to 'negotiate' with the USOC and to push our agenda with marketing, sponsors, and other external interest groups.
---------------------
Chief Financial Officer - usanominees - none

Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operatin Officer - USfencersforchange - in charge of running the office, budget management, technology implementation, and financial oversight.
--------------------
Director of Operations - usanominees - in charge of logistics of people and equipment for national tournaments

Tournament Officer - USfencersforchange - same job responsibilities
-------------------
Director of High Performance - usanominees - in charge of elite athletes and USOC monies

Director of High Performance - USfencersforchange - in charge of elite athletes and developmental programs. The primary reason for this is so that there is a coordinated effort between building that bridge between the youth/cadet/junior fencers and the Div 1 fencers (ie, the pipeline program). One person/one office needs to direct both the developmental and elite athletes otherwise there will be no accountability from one level to the other (but a lot of finger pointing). This person is not responsible for negotiating with the USOC, but instead is responsible for program and monitoring his/her budget to ensure it stays within target.
---------------------
Manager of Volunteers - usanominees - managing volunteers

Manager of Volunteers - USfencersforchange - none, this job will be incorporated into Membership & Customer Services
----------------------
Marketing and Promotions Officer - usanominees - none

Marketing and Promotions officer - USfencersforchange - responsible for developing a brand awareness and marketing program for the sport. Much of the emphasis will also be responsible for coordinating with clubs and developing marketing and business information that will service the clubs and promote the sport at the local level and in NAC cities.
----------------------
Director of Development and Member Services - according to the description, this position is responsible for fund raising and developing a comprehensive resource development plan.

Director of Membership and Customer Services - responsible for providing services to fencers, clubs, coaches, and all members and customers, maintaining volunteer and membership database.
----------------------
Youth Manager - usanominees - in charge of developing the youth program

Youth Manager - USfencersforchange - none. This job is the responsibility of the HP Director due to the need to coordinate development with elite performance programs.

[noodle]

under the USFFC or the NomCom slate, how would technology uplift be handled, then? project-length contract? fixed-length contract? full- or part-time employee? done by organization of volunteers? etc.?

edited to add:

i'm not concerned about the "what". in general, we all know about the "what". the devil is in the proverbial details with this one. if the newly elected officers wait too long, we'll have another season go by on the current system (for example, whats the point in having online registration if it gets launched a month before the 09 summer nats?).

as someone who works in the tech field, i'd like to know about execution plans. is there one? if so, what is it? if not, will you be working toward one, or will it be a "we'll get this taken care of once we're in power" type of thing?

[T]

Under our proposal, the CFO/COO is responsible for technology implementation. I don't think anyone will argue that the technology proposal by the usfanominees is a bold and ambitous plan that will solve a lot of the problems.

In the usfanominees restructuring plan, they call for someone to be in charge of the membership database (Director of Development & Membership Services) but no one is in charge of developing the software that the plan calls for or managing the implementation of the technology plan. It appears they will contract this out. In the USfencersforchange structure, the CFO/COO has the responsibility of implementing the technology plan at a high staff level. The work will primarily be contracted out but a top staff person will be directly in charge of its implementation and monitoring.

I agree, the technology plan needs to be implemented and contracted out in phases. There are services already out there that do a great deal of what we need so a lot of this plan can be implemented as soon as we have the $$ available for it. They can wrap their services around any custom services we need (such as FencingTime or AskFred)http://www.activesportstechnologies.com/products.htm
Their systems revolve around the integration of a central database into modules. They work with many NGBs already and have applications that can be somewhat customized for minor charges. Their items are modules that can be picked from to make a custom package so you only pay for what you need. It includes processing credit card payments, etc.

Unfortunately, I am waiting for a quote for them and I don't have it yet. As soon as I receive it, I will post info about it but I have been told that it is 'reasonable'. Hopefully I will receive it by Monday.

[noodle]

Under our proposal, the CFO/COO is responsible for technology implementation. I don't think anyone will argue that the technology proposal by the usfanominees is a bold and ambitous plan that will solve a lot of the problems.

In the usfanominees restructuring plan, they call for someone to be in charge of the membership database (Director of Development & Membership Services) but no one is in charge of developing the software that the plan calls for or managing the implementation of the technology plan. It appears they will contract this out. In the USfencersforchange structure, the CFO/COO has the responsibility of implementing the technology plan at a high staff level. The work will primarily be contracted out but a top staff person will be directly in charge of its implementation and monitoring.

I agree, the technology plan needs to be implemented and contracted out in phases. There are services already out there that do a great deal of what we need so a lot of this plan can be implemented as soon as we have the $$ available for it. They can wrap their services around any custom services we need (such as FencingTime or AskFred)http://www.activesportstechnologies.com/products.htm
Their systems revolve around the integration of a central database into modules. They work with many NGBs already and have applications that can be somewhat customized for minor charges. Their items are modules that can be picked from to make a custom package so you only pay for what you need. It includes processing credit card payments, etc.

Unfortunately, I am waiting for a quote for them and I don't have it yet. As soon as I receive it, I will post info about it but I have been told that it is 'reasonable'. Hopefully I will receive it by Monday.

based on what i've seen of their fees, i would charge less for a comperable custom solution. but it wouldn't be a turnkey, ready-to-deploy-right-now solution. but its not unreasonable.

i appreciate the response.

[tdwg83]

Personally I haven't liked my experience with Active. My cities parks and rec dpt uses it to sign up for things. I was extremely dissatisfied with them trying to continually sell my the advantage account that is "discounts" at big box retailers.

[oso97]

Unfortunately, I am waiting for a quote for them and I don't have it yet. As soon as I receive it, I will post info about it but I have been told that it is 'reasonable'. Hopefully I will receive it by Monday.

I have disbelief that this quote will include all the services we need. We need a complete database overhaul that interfaces with and includes registration for memberships and events, in addition to many other capabilities.

Just doing "online registration" is easy. Any half-competent individual with computer can set up a web portal to take event info. But that info then has to be cross referenced with membership status, event eligibility, points status, and a number of other things before it is given to the Bout Committee to run the event. Without a complete solution, we still end up with the people in the national office sorting through reams of paperwork to determine all of these things - by hand. In short, nothing has changed, except for the nature of the interface. And yes, it is important to update the nature of that interface, but its just as important, in fact, even MORE so, to fix the "back end" procedures so that our national office staff doesn't spend 1/2 their time processing tournament entries. So much of your platform for financial reworking depends upon "eliminating waste." It sounds like you don't have a very good understanding of where the waste actually is.

[T]

I have disbelief that this quote will include all the services we need. We need a complete database overhaul that interfaces with and includes registration for memberships and events, in addition to many other capabilities.

Like these? Here is the information I promised a couple of days ago.

[peet]

Like these? Here is the information I promised a couple of days ago.

[disclaimer]
Being the developer/operator of askFRED.net, I am prejudiced as to what kind of solutions the USFA uses for online competition management
[/disclaimer]

Any vendor that promises integration with systems that they are not familiar with is promising vaporware. I doubt that Active.com has communicated with Dan of Fencing Time, so they would have no knowledge of whether they could deliver on promises of integration with that software. Even more puzzling is how they can promise integration with the USFA database whose structure I doubt they have seen, and which will be changing dramatically soon.

As an example, I doubt active.com is prepared to enforce eligibility rules that are specific to US Fencing, very data dependent, and which change (almost) every year.

And then there's the fact that current USFA policy forbids sharing data with them.

Any integration promises that active.com made sound to me like a vendor just saying anything to get the customer's business.

That said:

The USFA may very well want to implement a non-integrated solution (which is what an active.com solution will be, no matter what they promise) until such time as an integrated solution can be developed. If so, I would suggest a very low cost, simple, online forms solution, such as wufoo or suchlike. That way, there is no major investment lost when a purpose-built solution can be put in place.

-p

[edit]
I should be clear: As the operator of askFRED.net, I think it's important that I don't endorse any particular candidates in the USFA elections. I have lots of opinions about the technology issues, but please don't construe any of them as an endorsement of any candidate.
[/edit]

[T]

The USFA may very well want to implement a non-integrated solution (which is what an active.com solution will be, no matter what they promise) until such time as an integrated solution can be developed. If so, I would suggest a very low cost, simple, online forms solution, such as wufoo or suchlike. That way, there is no major investment lost when a purpose-built solution can be put in place.

-p

I agree 100% Peet. ActiveNet one possible solution but not necessarily the only solution. Wufoo might work fine but it costs $200/mo (twice the price that ActiveNet costs). I don't really think that $100/mo is a major investment - even if it is a solution that may be incorporated into another permanent solution later as the budget permits.

[KatyFencing]

Peet,
I have worked in the software and transaction implementation area, and your solution is very reasonable. Integrating transactions upfront requires a tremendous resource and development structure, (I helped do this for the Kansas DMV in registering a person's automobile and checking insurance).

It was better and easier to use two separate systems in some cases and utilize an integration utility.

I do love askfred. That does not mean I would blindly implement it. It would be more important to see exactly what is used in the USFA office. Everything I see is simple Excel spreadsheets. We used Excel to break into Michael Bloomberg's system (legally) in 1993-94 for the Home Loan banks. The pivot tables are very powerful, but report writers can be used to set parameters and reports versus one or several databases.