Discussion: Orienteering USA Strategic Plan

The Strategic Planning Committee has published a draft proposal to guide the way that Orienteering USA should move forward in the next few years. This is NOT set in stone and other voices will be appreciated in the discussion leading to the Orienteering USA Board adopting the plan in the Fall. The idea is to have the plan in place by the Fall so that the Orienteering USA budget can be aligned with the plan. The committee that has worked on this draft plan is made up of Gavin Wyatt-Maier, Alex Jospe, Glen Schorr, Lisa Carr, Greg Lennon and Peter Goodwin (chair).
Input from the community is encouraged although comments on this website will not always be incorporated into the plan. If you have ideas that you want to be included in the discussion and formulated in policy, send the input to pgwolfe66 at gmail dot com. This will ensure that your comments are seen by the committee and the board.
The plan is not perfect as it has been written. How can it be made better? The plan can be found at:
http://orienteeringusa.org/documents/board-related...

Peter Goodwin President Orienteering USA

As we plunge forward on a new strategic plan, can we please pause to assess the realization of the last one? Are we declaring victory or admitting defeat? Or just moving on?

Work has been done to analyze what was in the last strategic plan and what was accomplished. Some things seemed to go well , others, not so much. We wanted to grow the sport and we have had more starts at local meets and at A-meets but nothing very dramatic. The changes may not be the result of the strategic plan, just the way clubs do business. The plan also wanted to increase membership and this has occurred at the national level and some at the local level. We have also increased our “non-starts” revenue (sponsorships and such) by over 50%. One, a direct benefit to members, is the affiliation with Choice Hotels. It helps members keep down costs and provides some income for OUSA.
On the other side of the coin is the fact that we were supposed to significantly increase our mapped areas, especially parks and areas easily accessed by large populations and little has been done. New maps are being created, especially for A-meets but there isn’t data to show that the annual number of new maps has been increased. We also wanted to “increase” the number of volunteers but there is no data here and the general consensus is that we are still using the same ones we were 10 years ago and some are burning out or they are 10 years older. (Hard to set courses when you are using a cane although at least one person seems to do it.) We were also supposed to get our “brand” out there through various media and this has occurred to some extent but we are not there yet. We have not improved our methods of persuading landowners to let us use their land (or in some cases from stopping our use of their land) and we have not put out a lot of “best practices” for clubs to use. A stated goal was to improve the financial status of OUSA and, from the financials posted on the OUSA website, it can be seen that we are OK but not improving.
One area where we have done well is to get the Teams under one roof and communicating with each other and the Junior Program is involving more juniors and promoting more international competition. Some of this has occurred because of a wonderful donation to fund the Junior Team initiatives and some has just been from the hard work of the volunteers.
In short, we have looked at what we said we would do and what we did. Some was good, some wasn’t. One of the intents of the next strategic plan is to have it readable rather than a huge document that no one reads. This is a goal and the committee and board will have to work to accomplish it.

The quick answer to j-man's question is appreciated but I'd like to see a written report on how we did making progress towards the goals, what seemed to work, what didn't and, uncertain though anything we can say about it may be, why things are thought to have worked or not. (Edit: of course, I don't expect to see this report on the 2010-2014 plan until ~ 1 year from now. Though a strategic plan to date report covering through the end of 2013 would be nice if anyone has the time to write it. At the moment, I believe people would basically have to read all the BOD reports produced over the last four years to try to piece together how we're doing and that really does seem like too much reading. )

Regarding the draft proposal, on first skim it appears to be devoid of explicit, measurable goals so I assume the intent is to add some, despite the presumably unavoidable result that people will seize on whichever goals we may in future not be on track to meet as ammunition to rubbish the whole project.

One of the intents of the next strategic plan is to have it readable rather than a huge document that no one reads.

If that is intended to imply that the last strategic plan was a case of TL:DR then I think someone is imagining a problem that didn't exist.

Quick answer to Jon: The analysis of the strategic plan was done by Mary Jones and was a chart of what was done, partially done or not done. This report did not have a long written piece but was one of the things that was desired and was produced by a volunteer and available to the committee as we started working on the new one. The draft proposal does need to have measurable goals added to it, it will, but because some of these "ideas" might be dropped altogether from the plan before it is finalized, these were not seen as "required" in this draft of the plan. It may also be that others will help to define how to measure whether the goals have been met. Goals will be there before it is finalized. And yes, the last strategic plan in its original form was dozens of pages long. Because the information was diffuse, most people didn't even know what was in it. I may be wrong about that but I will say that it was not something that people talked about much. The plan is "in the community" for in put. If you have ideas, send them to me. The committee knows that they don't have all the answers.

Peter, where is Mary's report posted?

I could be wrong, but I believe Mary's report is one person's opinion (her own), so it's understandable that others would have produced different charts had they been asked. As Peter implied, there was value in a quick, visual representation looking backwards over the last few years as the process started up for the next few.

I put together a chart of the strategic goals and the annual data for each goal, as available. I wouldn't call it a report. It was very high level. The data were provided by various board members; it was not based on my opinions. I volunteered to collate the data so that the committee could have the information on the previous strategic plan before they started working on the new plan. I suggested that the chart be shared with the OUSA membership.

Chart has now been sent out on the clubnet. Also has the strategic plan in the old Word "doc" form because some people couldn't open the "docx" version.

It seemed to me that the existing strategic plan was way too long and way too complicated, and probably as a result way too much ignored. Ignored as a basis for Board decisions, ignored as a basis for budgeting of both money and personnel resources. There was a review of progress towards the goals of the plan in only a few limited areas. I sat in on a few Board meetings and it was almost never mentioned.

I hope this one will fare (a lot) better.

One suggestion for this time to set priorities. List the various things that you feel should be accomplished, but then as part of the process of developing the plan, pick out a small number of them that you think are most important and concentrate on them.

And then focus the management of the federation and the allocation of resources on actually getting those few things done. I think that would give a better chance of some success.

That is the plan and input from the entire orienteering community will be key to the success of the new plan.

I understood that the last strategic plan was about increasing starts. It didn't seem that complicated. Did I miss the trees for the forest?

For anyone not on clubnet, here is the message and a link to Mary's report (pdf):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [usof-bod] FW: OUSA Strategic Goals progress chart
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 21:43:55 -0400
From: Peter Goodwin
Reply-To: usof-bod@yahoogroups.com
To:

Hello:

There have been questions asked about the past strategic plan. This is the
analysis by Mary Jones about the past strategic plan. This is just and FYI.

Peter



From: Mary Jones [mailto:maprunner@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 9:30 AM
To: Peter Goodwin; Glen Schorr
Subject: OUSA Strategic Goals progress chart


Hi Peter,

Here is the Strategic Goals progress chart, through January 2014. I'll be
happy to update it in March, after Robin has gathered the annual reports
from each club.

I hope this high-level review will be helpful to you and your team as you
start to write the next strategic goal document.I also encourage you to
share this document with OUSA membership.

Please let me know if you have any questions

Regards, Mary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I understood that the last strategic plan was about increasing starts. It didn't seem that complicated.

That was one of the stated goals, but a plan to reach that goal was not part of the document. Perhaps there was an expectation or assumption that such a plan would materialize over the lifespan of the document.

This go-round, it might be wise to state that explicitly, or better yet, include a more detailed operational plan to reach that goal right up front.

I get that "strategic" and "operational" are different levels of thinking, and the scope of this discussion is the strategic level. However, everyone knows that increasing starts has been a strategic goal for a very long time (and presumably, continues to be so), so why not just get down to the developing a detailed operational plan to do so, instead of this exercise?

Since I've been around, at least 2 five year strategic plans have come and gone. IMHO, unless a more operational approach is taken, and, as PG suggests, a more prioritized approach is taken, this proposed plan will meet the exact same fate, and we can mark this date on our calendars 5 years on for the same discussion.

The idea is to have appropriate input as to what is realistic, from the community, and then have the community help move the plan forward. Without help from the community, the plan will not be realistic and it will also not be moved forward. The plan needs ways to achieve the goals, ways to measure if they have been achieved and then work from the community to help make the goals a reality.

I once thought strategic planning was a great way to focus effort and tell whether you're getting anywhere. I've changed my mind. In fact I often go back in my thoughts to advice I sought when I was starting a coaching role, from the late Peter Palmer, UK's coaching director at the time. He said among other things, it pays to have a number of projects going, they won't all succeed but some of them will. And there was something about coach development, don't just measure participation, sometimes a small number will produce the biggest effect. Like him, I've found that a lot of the things put in orienteering SP's are out of our control, yet by standing back we CAN see a lots of things to be pleased about.

below is comparison of starts and membership numbers. i think it gives a better idea of how successful the strategic plan has been the past 4 years. the 2009 numbers are from the original strategic plan or donna's 2012 board report. the 2013 numbers are from mary jones report. the memberships are not the number of members, but the number of memberships.

local memberships: 5,626 in 2009 5,694 in 2013
usof memberships: 1,286 in 2009 1,450 in 2013
A-meet starts: 8,000 in 2009 7,318 in 2013
local starts: 42,500 in 2009 47,867 in 2013

From that comparison it seems there should be more incentives to become/stay a member (both of local and national O groups).

My comment is made irrelevant based on a later data update.

The only one that works round here is an event discount. Our discount applies to all clubs in the world, I hope its reciprocal:-))

If bgr's numbers are correct, I would be quite concerned re: direction that OUSA is headed as it was my understanding that usof membership has been generally flat. (flat is not great but much better than a 25% decline)

There may be some confusion regarding members vs. membership. One individual membership = 1 member but one family membership=2 or more members. I think the numbers shown for usof MEMBERS in 2009 (2000) may be compared to usof MEMBERSHIPS (1450) in 2013. so apples to oranges, really. Might be similar for local memberships.

Perhaps someone with knowledge could confirm this as I couldn't find info on website

bgr seems to have (quietly) amended his 2009 numbers in a way that suggests you may have been on to something in your second paragraph, sammy.

So the people have spoken with feet/moneys: people like coming to events, and they don't particularly care about being members. (I wouldn't conclude that people don't like coming to A events; an obvious consideration would be that those who organize them have a high threshold that only keeps getting higher.)

Yes, bgr's updated numbers make more sense to me. Almost missed the revision, though- some badgers can be rather stealthy.

yes, i updated the stats. the strategic plan calls for increasing membership by +40%. however, it then uses the members figure in the report, not membership figures. it was my mistake for assuming the report would use figures related to the stated goal. how silly of me!

So the people have spoken with feet/moneys

Right -- de minimis positive growth in local starts over the measurement period suggests the above (forgetting the material membership miss, of course).

I wouldn't conclude that people don't like coming to A events

Right -- de minimis negative growth in A meet starts over the measurement period suggests nothing.

ROTFL. Are you kidding me?

When I was a kid (I think I was 13 at the time), the story of the Kool-Aid drinking cult in northern South America broke, and I remember thinking, how could so many people be so stupid? After so many years of watching so many domains, I now know. Tribalism at its finest.

And, BTW, unlike me, bgr is a whip smart, first class guy who knows what's going on. Listen to him. He gets it.

I just read an article in Golf Digest about how there are some golf courses that are trying to tap into soccer players. They have made a large hole (able to hold a soccer ball) near their greens. Kids or others can kick soccer balls down the fairways and get the ball in the hole as the golfer in the family or group hits a much smaller ball to the green and gets it in a much smaller hole. The idea is to involve a family or expand the number of people on the course. Those making comments about losing people from the sport might try to find a parallel way to involve others in the sport of orienteering. Unfortunately, I don't think there are parallels.

Sometimes accompanying family members participate by going on map walks

Could those people who like strategic planning tell me what you do when:

You set a target for something eg 10% p.a. increase over a 4yr period. So it was 100 before we started, looking for 110 after 1yr, 121 after 2 years, 133 after 3 Years, 146 after 4 years. After the buzz of excitement in the first year you get 107 and think, well, these things are approximate, we're on target here. Does the target for the next year become 121 (a 13% increase to get to what we envisaged) or is it 118 (10% on what we achieved)? Then after two years and the novelty factor has worn off we get say 111. Would a reasonable target for the end of the next two years be (a) 126 as it looks like we're actually getting growth of 6% (b) 134 using the 10% on the new base or (c) the original target 146 which would require a 16% growth. Then say this number was for something like coaches, and you review the list and some have died, moved away or clearly lost interest. You took 20 off the list and added 5, so the number after 3 years is 96. What do you do with the numbers now? The proponents of SP never explain this. They merely repeat the mantra "those who fail to plan, plan to fail".

Perhaps its easier not to do any counting until the 4 years is up:-))

I think it's worth pointing out that the numbers bgr gave for 2009 actually are for the 2009 calendar year but the numbers he gave for 2013 are the 2012 calendar year figures that were reported in 2013 when clubs renewed their charters - we're still waiting for official 2013 numbers. At least for 2013 membership numbers - for start numbers, the BOD reports can be consulted to get a sense of what's going on. According to the January 2014 reports, A meet starts were up slightly to 7,531 in 2013 (higher than in any of 2010-2013, lower than 2009, and I don't know how 2009 compared to preceding years). According to that report and the three quarterly reports on starts that preceded it, local starts were up in all quarters compared to the average for 2010-2012 by amounts ranging from 9.0% to 29.2% and up in all quarters compared to 2012 by amounts ranging from 2.8% to 12.6% (Note: this is based on tracking the start numbers for a sample of 15 clubs that typically account for ~90% of local starts nationwide). There are some inconsistencies in how the numbers are presented and some things I think must be typos (hopefully only in the words surrounding the numbers, not the numbers themselves) so I'd like to see official numbers based on the latest rechartering but the picture I see over the life of the current strategic plan to date is one of more or less stable A meet participation and steady growth in local starts at a slower rate than contemplated in the strategic plan. Not a smashing success but not a complete failure either, no matter how determined some people may be to be all doom and gloom about it.

So, A-meet particiaption (which I consider a long-term lagging indicator for vitality of the o-community) was flat. What I'd like to know is, exactly what succesful actions did O-USA take over the last 4 years.

And also, I'd really like to know what attempted actions fizzled due to a lack of money/interest/volunteers.

For an aribtrary example, OUSA decided it wanted to increase membership. But what attempts were made to change membership rates? How much extra time and money was devoted to membership cultivation? What was changed from previous membership approaches? (Online memberhip renewal, right? Anything else?)