USFA & Organizational Tech Upgrades

[Wafath]

Various discussion threads in the election forums have made it clear that no matter who gets elected, fencer & tournament management technology upgrades are likely. The path we get there may differ, but everyone appears to want change.

The most popular scenario is to deploy slightly modified versions of AskFRED(TM) and Fencing Time for NACs & USFA membership databases. Other approaches have been mentioned, but clearly nothing else comes close to the presence both of these products have in the US.

I have been wondering about a few things with regards to this:

- Is anyone worried about supplier lock-in? Clearly Fencing Time is not as complicated as a half million lines of Fortran that only builds on a proprietary compiler, but the USFA could find itself in a situation where it needs an improvement or a fix to either of the products.

I am not so worried about either of the owners/developers using their position for unreasonable personal gain. More, what if the USFA needs a change to AskFRED(TM), but Peet was hit by a bus the week before? Are we in a situation where we must re-invent the wheel from scratch?

Has anyone approached Dan & Peet about placing their source in escrow, and how much the USFA would have to pay them in order to do that?

- Who maintains XSeed? I have heard that it is too encumbered to modernize it & make it friendlier. Is this true? Has anyone given this a fair stab, or is the hope that it will die a quiet death?

- Has anyone seriously thought through exactly what they want the systems to do? Has anyone written a specs or a requirements document on this?

W

[ivlobane]

Originally Posted by Wafath

- Has anyone seriously thought through exactly what they want the systems to do? Has anyone written a specs or a requirements document on this?

W

As much as I disagree with the timeline and Analysis Paralysis tendencies of the NomCom slate, they wrote a great requirements paper. This however, seems that it would require an expensive IT contract.

The USFFC put up something that can get a start as an immediate and less expensive solution through an existing service. Another alternative is to put up a simple forms solution to eliminate faxes and paper processing. This can be used while the fully integrated service is being developed.

[Wafath]

Originally Posted by ivlobane

As much as I disagree with the timeline and Analysis Paralysis tendencies of the NomCom slate, they wrote a great requirements paper. This however, seems that it would require an expensive IT contract.

This doesn't look so much like a plan as it is a meta-plan (A plan to make a plan.)

W

[ivlobane]

Originally Posted by Wafath

This doesn't look so much like a plan as it is a meta-plan (A plan to make a plan.)

W

Lol, that's why I am not voting for them, but it's hard to deny that the specs for the system are bad.

[ivlobane]

Originally Posted by Wafath

I am not so worried about either of the owners/developers using their position for unreasonable personal gain. More, what if the USFA needs a change to AskFRED(TM), but Peet was hit by a bus the week before? Are we in a situation where we must re-invent the wheel from scratch?

W

I sacrifice three chickens a week in prayer to ensure Peet's safety. I access askFRED from a blessed PC only.
But seriously, one can be trained on basic administrative functions. FRED already has different account levels. There are other database designer/admins available. If Peet applies the same grace to FRED's internal mechanisms as he does to it's front-end (and his art), a good databassist will be able to pick it up should there be need for a hand-off.

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by ivlobane

As much as I disagree with the timeline and Analysis Paralysis tendencies of the NomCom slate, they wrote a great requirements paper. This however, seems that it would require an expensive IT contract.

Do you know something or are you making information up? Does it require an expensive IT contract? How expensive? What are the costs? Who's doing the implementation? Does it have to be all done at once?

The USFFC put up something that can get a start as an immediate and less expensive solution through an existing service.

I find it hard to believe it would be less expensive or more immediate than integrating AskFred sensibly. But again, if you know something, please do tell.

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by ivlobane

I If Peet applies the same grace to FRED's internal mechanisms as he does to it's front-end (and his art), a good databassist will be able to pick it up should there be need for a hand-off.

As long as you have access to the data and hardware. Source (or an equivalent) escrow is exactly how you accomplish the hand-off.

[ivlobane]

I heard some quotes, but nothing official. Peet said he will be posting some details soon. I was on the NetOps team that did hardware purchasing and setup at the NIH for a similar database. I have some familiarity with the pricing an complexity of doing everything in-house compared to using an existing service. The difference is tens of thousands.

[oso97]

Originally Posted by ivlobane

I heard some quotes, but nothing official. Peet said he will be posting some details soon. I was on the NetOps team that did hardware purchasing and setup at the NIH for a similar database. I have some familiarity with the pricing an complexity of doing everything in-house compared to using an existing service. The difference is tens of thousands.

Depends upon how "in-house" you go. I don't think anyone is considering that the USFA should run their own server hardware for the registration database - THAT could easily reside on a leased external server.

FRED does not live at Peet's house...

[ivlobane]

Originally Posted by oso97

Depends upon how "in-house" you go. I don't think anyone is considering that the USFA should run their own server hardware for the registration database - THAT could easily reside on a leased external server.

FRED does not live at Peet's house...

Oi, I know, the spec paper even says they will use a server farm, but the product itself sounds like it will need to be developed.

[TBean]

While there very well may be short-term or intermediate solutions to faxing registrations into the national office, the long-term must be some sort of intergrated system that meets multiple needs across the office. From a management stand-point to anything else makes no sense. You are merely switching how the data arrives to the office - not saving anyone, except the members, any time.

Some of those needs have been identified, but really to develop a requirements document someone needs to spend time with the office staff and determine what thier needs are, not dictate to them what others feel are best. Someone also has addressed needs that the current staff is not dealing with such as what would a fundrasier want from a database in terms of tracking, data collected and data retrevial. Very different from what is currently being captured.

I don't disagree to a short-term solution, but a more substancial answer should not be decided upon in a rush and that the staff have the opportunity to have imput. After all, they are the ones living with it.

[oso97]

Originally Posted by TBean

While there very well may be short-term or intermediate solutions to faxing registrations into the national office, the long-term must be some sort of intergrated system that meets multiple needs across the office. From a management stand-point to anything else makes no sense. You are merely switching how the data arrives to the office - not saving anyone, except the members, any time.

Some of those needs have been identified, but really to develop a requirements document someone needs to spend time with the office staff and determine what thier needs are, not dictate to them what others feel are best. Someone also has addressed needs that the current staff is not dealing with such as what would a fundrasier want from a database in terms of tracking, data collected and data retrevial. Very different from what is currently being captured.

I don't disagree to a short-term solution, but a more substancial answer should not be decided upon in a rush and that the staff have the opportunity to have imput. After all, they are the ones living with it.

This not Soviet Way! This not way to do things! We tell you what need, and you like it!

No like Soviet Way? Go home. No place for you here.

[ivlobane]

Originally Posted by TBean

While there very well may be short-term or intermediate solutions to faxing registrations into the national office, the long-term must be some sort of intergrated system that meets multiple needs across the office. From a management stand-point to anything else makes no sense. You are merely switching how the data arrives to the office - not saving anyone, except the members, any time.

Some of those needs have been identified, but really to develop a requirements document someone needs to spend time with the office staff and determine what thier needs are, not dictate to them what others feel are best. Someone also has addressed needs that the current staff is not dealing with such as what would a fundrasier want from a database in terms of tracking, data collected and data retrevial. Very different from what is currently being captured.

I don't disagree to a short-term solution, but a more substancial answer should not be decided upon in a rush and that the staff have the opportunity to have imput. After all, they are the ones living with it.

You're absolutely right, but given that we fax in forms, even if they arrive in a scanned format, the office staff has to type them in. Just a simple copy/paste from an online form is already faster, and the interim solution in both ActiveNet and WuFoo can produce a importable CSV file that can be parced into Excel or whatever with minimal programming.
The faxing in of the forms also leads me to deduce that the payment processing is manual. I'm not sure how ActiveNet does this exactly, but WuFoo has a partnership with some CreditCard company that can link to any modern bank account.
If one does the man-hour arithmetic, even a simple online form can save a lot of time and error-checking in the USFA office.

[keith]

Originally Posted by oso97

This not Soviet Way! This not way to do things! We tell you what need, and you like it!

No like Soviet Way? Go home. No place for you here.

So which of the candidates have any experience in the type of of re-organisation TBean proposes? Since I assume, like me, you regard the points raised as relevant.

[ivlobane]

Originally Posted by oso97

This not Soviet Way! This not way to do things! We tell you what need, and you like it!

No like Soviet Way? Go home. No place for you here.

Mmhmm... In Soviet Russia, the form fills out YOU!

[ivlobane]

Oh, and this:

Originally Posted by ivlobane

WuFoo has a partnership with some CreditCard company that can link to any modern bank account.

can be set up as a mechanism to sign a release form...

[Wafath]

Originally Posted by ivlobane

I heard some quotes, but nothing official. Peet said he will be posting some details soon. I was on the NetOps team that did hardware purchasing and setup at the NIH for a similar database. I have some familiarity with the pricing an complexity of doing everything in-house compared to using an existing service. The difference is tens of thousands.

I am not sure AskFRED and Fencing Time should be considered "in house". Clearly they have been developed by fencers, and are services being offered less than a reasonable cost of production. However, they are both set up as independent businesses.

I thought one of the advantages with going with each of them is that they are decidedly NOT in house, and therefore allowed to make design decisions quickly that would take significant time to move through the USFA political process. The USFA would be an important and key customer, but not the only one.

But this does bring up a good question: To what extent would the USFA be willing to use FT & AF as COTS products?

W

[ivlobane]

Originally Posted by Wafath

I thought one of the advantages with going with each of them is that they are decidedly NOT in house, and therefore allowed to make design decisions quickly that would take significant time to move through the USFA political process. The USFA would be an important and key customer, but not the only one.

But this does bring up a good question: To what extent would the USFA be willing to use FT & AF as COTS products?

W

Well, the NomCom spec paper had requirements that neither FT or FRED have currently. They could be implemented, I'm certain, but it would require some development and I can't assume it's going to be done on the current billing model. The paper had no concrete details as to whom/how they would contract this out to. Going by what I see at the NIH (lowest bidder, lol...) the development cost alone, even if there is a model to start from is in the tens of thousands.

That's a great question though.

[oso97]

Originally Posted by keith