Discussion: Revised Strategic Plan

A new version of the Strategic plan is available and has been sent out on clubnet. It is also available here with the link at the bottom of this post. Realize that it is not a completed document, it is still in draft form and the intent is to let people look at it and comment on it so we can revise it to get it right.
Because of my confusion, the timeline and metrics for the Athlete Development were not edited properly. These will be corrected so the are in agreement with what Alex Jospe and others suggested they should be. Basically, there are good ideas there but they need to be edited. My fault but this is a work that is still in progress so there is time to get it right.
http://orienteeringusa.org/sites/default/files/fil...

Comments about this are encouraged and some have come in already. At the convention, there will be more discussion. Hopefully, we can have a working document well before the October Board Meeting so that the financial priorities can be aligned with the strategic plan. Your help in getting this document right is encouraged. You can email your suggestions to me at pgwolfe66 at gmail dot com. I am chair of the committee made up of Glen Schorr, Gavin Wyatt-Meyer, Greg Lennon and Alex Jospe.

I had a quick read of the proposal. My first cursory suggestion is to delete the first 4 pages and start at page 5. Everything on those pages is repeated from page 5 on, with the addition of 2 columns of additional info. I was confused at first because it looked like there were two different "Vision" and "Mission" statements in the document, but they were just a a repeat of page 1 on page 5.

As I understand, there haven't been many (any?) comments about this on clubnet either. If people care about this they should speak up now. It appears that a small committee will ramrod this through as-is unless membership speaks up about it. Will there be any time at the AGM dedicated to this? Given the importance it seems like a significant fraction of this year's AGM should be dedicated to this issue.

Frankly I hate to make any comments regarding the actual content of this proposal, because I think the whole process is flawed. There was no general review of the success/failure of the previous "5-year" plan. Yes, the committee here got together and had a look, but that doesn't really cut it, does it? This is a big deal, regarding the future direction of a major portion of this federation's resources and effort. To me it feels like we are just going through the motions here. "5 years is up, so lets make a new plan. A few of us got together and came up with this proposal. Send us your comments before the next board meeting." But at this point I'm basically past the point of caring.

I agree with Eddie that there seems to be no assessment of how we're doing. The plan seems to be a list of goals without any discussion or detail regarding the status quo, what works or doesn't work about the status quo, and how the status quo could be improved upon or replaced.

Taking the first item as an example, what are the existing training programs for coaches that need to be incorporated into a cohesive framework? How does the committee envision that this would work? Are we talking about Bob Turbyfill's coaching certification? Wasn't that developed as a cohesive program to begin with? I'm not saying it's not a valid objective, just that the document doesn't contain enough detail to really know what to make of it.

Also, where are the metrics? The first page suggests metrics will be fleshed out later on in the document, but I don't see them.

...I agree with Eddie that there seems to be no assessment of how we're doing...

And I agree too, which seems to run counter to the Plan objective "Increase donor support...Work with present and former donors to help them see how their donations provide value..."

I used to be an OUSA donor, back when the Executive Director (ED) was first hired. But I stopped donating, because the money seemed to be disappearing into a big hole, with nothing coming back. Any improving metrics didn't seem to be a result of the ED or larger budgets. But rather the increased efforts of volunteers in various places...as it always has. More money didn't seem to be helping.

I'd love to see the tangible evidence eddie asks for, to prove my assessment is wrong.

The strategic plan is not designed to review what we did or didn't do although the plan should definitely try to make sure that things are done rather than left undone. Assessments of how we are doing are found in the board reports that are put on the web before all board meetings. While some of the things the previous plan wanted to do have not gotten done, this plan is trying to be more realistic.
I also suggest that if you think things should be added or removed from the plan that you make those suggestions. A blanket statement that the plan is not good doesn't help make it better. A suggestion to make it easier to read is helpful (see below).
A number of people are suggesting that the present "form" needs to be revised in that the initial four pages that outline the plan with those same ideas put with the metrics below them doesn't make it easier to read. While this form is noted in bold type, it is confusing to first time readers. This can easily be fixed (and would make revisions easier because you don't have to change things in two places).

Oh, I also agree with Eddie in that if people want to have things changed, they have to speak up. There were quite a few good comments that came in after the "first release" of the plan and the plan was revised based on those comments.

Back in April, Mary Jones reviewed the current strategic plan and presented a progress report, which is posted in the Board Documents section of the OUSA site. I'm not going to go looking but I'm sure the posting of that report was announced on Clubnet if not here.

Direct link (PDF)

Janet, thanks for the link. I guess I was hoping for a bit of prose.

Just went through the board reports for April. I suppose I'll continue perusing board reports from the past 3 years, but the strategic plan would really be an appropriate place to present an organized, thoughtful summary of progress, along with the corresponding forward looking vision, point by point. Redirecting the membership to an agglomeration of board reports misses the point.

Exactly. As stated in the earlier thread on this subject, Mary's report would make a great starting point for a thorough review of the previous Strategic Plan. Comments from Mary at this link as well.

Its not efficient to point everyone individually at all 5 year's worth of quarterly reports in the Board meeting minutes (as Brendan is doing now). As you can see, its hard enough to get people to even look at the 4-page .pdf proposal posted here. We'd like to see a coherent, point-by-point summary that we can talk about and take some lessons from before setting out a proposal for a new SP. There should be an entire board meeting dedicated to this subject alone, or something at the AGM.

I'd argue that people just don't care about the SP anymore. There's been so little coverage of it (you have to dig through attachments to board meeting minutes just to get the status reports). I think there was the occasional article in ONA. However, there have been very few requests from the board for help or membership input into any of the previous plan's working points over the years, and nothing seems to have changed much in the federation since 2009 when we started this endeavor. Its basically been invisible to the general membership. And now, a proposal for a brand new plan. Why should I show any more interest in this one than the last one? Maybe I have this all wrong and its just me, but without an honest, full assessment of the previous plan it makes no sense to propose a new one.

The .pdf at the top of this thread feels like a 4-slide Powerpoint "executive summary" of a Strategic Plan, and I'm expecting there to be a 30-page, single-spaced doc that this summary is drawn from. But somehow I get the feeling that we have an executive summary without an actual plan behind it. There are a few specifics in this doc, but they need to be elaborated upon outside the 2x4" boxes. This was one of the main problems with the old SP. It was a (too long) list of ideas with only a fuzzy suggestion of how we might go about it. Fuzzy suggestions led to fuzzy outcomes. And as Brendan mentioned, there are no metrics in this proposal. A targeted end date and projected dollars to be spent are *not* metrics you can use to measure a task's success. You can spend the money and the time and still not get anything done. I've read it twice and still I can't see any metrics that Mary could put into her chart with red or green backgrounds. They'd all be grey. I think the Junior Team has a more fleshed-out plan than this.

I'll recommend once again that this proposal be shelved until a thorough review of of the past plan is undertaken and some sort of report drawn up with conclusions. Let everyone have a chance to read through that, then use it as the starting point to propose a new plan (assuming the federation even cares whether it has a new SP or not). You can pull bits from this shelved doc at that point if you want.

A thorough review of the past plan would show that it was pretty much a waste of time.

Look at Mary's summary (and I am not arguing with it at all). Where are the green areas (indicating progress)?

-- Local meet starts, said to be trending up based on two year's data, but no indication that this is either a trend, or resulting from specific actions based on the plan.

-- OUSA membership, again based on just two year's data. The plan was in force for 4 years. Are we cherry picking the data?

-- Non-starts revenue. A little more analysis would show that this increase was not the result of any action by OUSA.

-- Alliances. OK, for what they are worth.

-- Teams. The two positives are team goals published (whoopee!) and junior coach hired. The latter not as a result of any action by OUSA.

So there we are. You can moan all you want about this, and rightly so, but that doesn't get you anyplace.

Or you can move on and try again, plan version 2, somehow hoping that a process that didn't work the first time will produce results this time. Definition of insanity?

But I actually feel that is more productive, at least possibly more productive, that it's better than refusing to look forward until we have fully documented that the past was a failure.

I was talking to a friend with some knowledge of the real world, and also of OUSA.

How much does your Executive Director bring in in the way of new revenue per year, he asked.

Maybe 25-30K, I guessed.

How much do you pay him?

Counting benefits and expenses, maybe 90K.

Fire him.

--------

The comments that I sent in regarding the current plan are pretty caustic, because I think they need a reality check. I would rather that they pick 2 or 3 or 4 things that they think are important, and actually get them done, than pick the long laundry list of stuff like they did in the first plan and get virtually nothing done. We shall see what path they choose, and whose feet they hold to the fire.

I'm less concerned about the lack of assessment looking back than about the lack of substance going forward. I can certainly get behind a new plan that scraps the old plan, but it's hard to get behind a plan that includes very little detail and is essentially a list of outcome goals without much in the way of process goals.

Maybe 25-30K, I guessed.

How much do you pay him?

Counting benefits and expenses, maybe 90K.


Looks like Clark's black hole to me. Of course, this has been obvious for a very long time (and I've suffered the vilification for this opinion since day one). Nice that we agree on something, Clark. (Now, if you could only see that politicized and fudged climate science is indistinguishable from religious dogma, and not label skeptical economists such as myself with pejoratives such as "climate science deniers", and look at the actual science instead, we could make some real progress :)).

Anyway, lets go thru the exercise of another vacuous 5 year SP. The last one at least had metrics, not that anyone has been held accountable for failing to meet most of them. The answer: exclude metrics from this one.

Want failure: Then don't hold anyone accountable for outcomes. This plan will fail as well. My advice, just don't bother. Sounds harsh, but also realistic.

I will suggest that the purpose of an executive director is not entirely raising money. The board and the executive committee have looked at this and the issue is what sources of money do we have as a niche sport. There is more money coming in each year but it still doesn't pay the salary. However, the executive director does a lot of other things so his money raising is not the only metric that should be thought about.

But it -- money raising -- should not be ignored either. Are you really happy with performance to date?

Before I (possibly) wade into this discussion fully regarding the usefulness of looking backwards/forwards and possible dependence of the success of the one on the other, could we at least have a Strategic Plan Scorecard that reflects the fact that things that occurred in 2013 are countable? Contra JanetT, Mary's spreadsheet was first mentioned here on Attackpoint in mid-March and was presumably produced sometime in January or February so it's understandable that official numbers weren't included for 2013 but it's now four months later and as far as I can tell official numbers for 2013 local meet starts, OUSA members and club members haven't seen the light of day anywhere. I've personally failed to date to elicit them from four different board members, gradually escalating from broad hints that I was interested in the numbers to a direct verbal question posed face-to-face. Somehow I don't think those numbers qualify as stuff man was not meant to know but it's a bit ridiculous to try to involve the membership generally in formulating a new strategic plan while keeping the metrics for the last strategic plan a(n inadvertently?) closely held secret.

Cutting to the chase:

How much does your Executive Director bring in in the way of new revenue per year

Are you sure you answered the question that was asked? The question asked is not sufficiently well defined. (a) New revenue: revenue from new contracts and sponsorships signed during the year; or (b) net new revenue: (a) minus whatever expired and no longer brings revenue; or (c) simply net revenue?

If the number is for (c), then sure, fire him. If for (b), you are firing a golden goose; the goose should be just about done paying for himself at the end of 6 years at that 3:1 ratio, and will henceforth be making pure gold.

If the number is for (a), as stated, then there isn't sufficient information for your counterpart to base her guess upon. The answer depends on how slowly the revenue stream expires. Maybe in industries she's familiar with, in which new revenue has a predictable half-life, the conclusion would be justified.

OUSA's problem is the incredible lack of paid positions. How the heck can anyone justify complaining about performance of the last strategic plan when there was mainly volunteers to implement it? Before you cast stones, assess what you did to support it.

Frankly I'd like to see OUSA move forward by completely disregarding what the volunteers might accomplish. Instead work on projects that require paid employees and that if successful will improve the metrics OUSA has identified.

I'd love to see a full-time crew capable of putting on (and broadly advertising!) A-meets multiple times per year working in Southern California. The clubs here can put on A-meets, but it depletes the small volunteer pool. LAOC has maps that could be used for 3 or 4 A-meets a year, and likewise SDO has some fabulous maps. Just working on A-meets won't create decent salaries though. During the week teaching orienteering to homeschoolers and retirees, having after school programs, and running training sessions can all pad out a living. Doing corporate events can be lucrative too. Over time, develop more A-meet maps. Having a professional event crew must surely improve the chances of some meets becoming WREs too.

The clubs would still have roles in putting on local events, creating friendships, and doing the odd fun event that people talk about for years.

There needs to be more acceptance that progress will only be made through dedicated, paid people working on the issues. Being a dedicated volunteer often works for a short time, but criticism is poison in that relationship.

progress will only be made

Or one can shame, posture, boycott, guard territory, or spread hypocrisy. The choice, as they say, is yours; just do it, as others say.

And what should be added or deleted from the present draft form of the strategic plan?

Peter, from what I read above, there are two issues going on:

1. Little or no evaluation of the successes and failures of the previous 5 year plan. As Brendan put neatly, it is important to address the status quo and evaluation what works and does work about it, and how do we improve upon it? It could be argued that this is the realm of the board and board discussions rather than the role of the strategic plan committee, but the lack of evaluation is still glaring.

2. The proposed plan is too vacuous, with no hard metrics against which successes and failures can be measured. I have heard the argument that we can't put all the metrics into the new plan, because that would make it too long and nobody read the old plan because it was too long, but without the specific metrics the new plan means nothing.

As for suggestions, from this thread alone I see the following suggestions:
- No need for an executive summary when all it is summarizing is fluff with no details.
- Include metrics in the plan against which successes and failures can be measured (implicit is that we ought to measure successes and failures at some time step)
- Somebody needs to be held accountable for the outcomes in this plan.
- There ought to be a more general discussion than simply a committee ramming the new plan down the throats of OUSA.
- We need to update Mary Jones' evaluation to include numbers from 2013
- Suggestion to include more paid positions that actually DO something, e.g. hire someone to run national events and pad the position running orienteering clinics and trainings and corporate events.

...what should be added or deleted from the present draft form of the strategic plan?

Added:
Metrics
Specific people who are in charge of the suggested programs

Deleted:
Over reliance on volunteers to achieve vague goals

I would suggest there isn't a shortage of national events. If the US were the size of Ireland, okay. Create some more orienteers first. Help people work locally.

Unfortunately, success on the local stage isn't seen nationally, so perhaps garners less enthusiasm from afar.

I agree with Alex's points with the most important one being discussion by more than a small group. The last draft had lots of comments from a few people that helped with this new draft. Now, we should try to get lots of people making at least a few comments about what should be in and what should be out.

How about just copying DontGetLost?

As PGoodwin implies, the purpose of an Executive Director is to help grow the sport.

If the ED spends most of their time chasing $ just to pay themselves, how does that help do that? It doesn't, and that's why other nonprofits don't make it a top priority either. It's also well known in the nonprofit world that donors have little interest in giving "just" to support the named individual holding a salaried position. It's far more effective to say "donate to this cause/project/fund/etc" than to say "help pay for Jane's salary". Jane's salary should be a given, funded by the organization.

If OUSA's #1 priority was to (just) raise $, then sure, consider hiring a full-time professional fundraiser (i.e. Director of Development) and judging that person solely on how much more they can bring in for OUSA above their salary and benefits. How many of you would like to donate time and money to the "Let's Hire a Development Director" Fund? Or even better, perhaps we should see how this would fare as a Kickstarter campaign? You might want to read articles about the role of a nonprofit Development Director first though, like this one.

If I was in OUSA I'd suggest not totally dismissing j-man's suggestion above.

They produce an excellent type of race, easily as enjoyable (to me) as any traditional orienteering race. The races appeal to juniors, masters, and folks in between. They produce it thoughtfully and market it well. And their financial status makes a substantial economic argument in favor of their system.

My $0.02.

What I'd like to see from a strategic plan: a focus on a few, highly related things that all move towards one overarching goal. OUSA should pick something that helps everyone (major youth initiative? bringing in adults from other sports?) and find a few ways to work on this that appeal to/use the strengths of each of the different areas (the teams, mappers, club development, social media, etc.)

I don't know if this is how strategic plans work, but it seems to me that all the different areas of the plan are so separate that it doesn't feel like a plan for an organization, it feels like lots of little plans for parts of an organization. Get people excited about a single, major idea that can be worked on at both the local and national level and go for it.

Also we should def talk to DontGetLost. And adopt Eventor as our event management system.

j-man.. not sure how serious you were..hadn't really looked into that site before...it's pretty awesome, and might be part of my strategic plan..

And if it's part of your strategic plan, it is part of mine.

Come to TNT, young padawan, where great plans are formulated and dreams may be realized.

Get people excited about a single, major idea

I was excited about the idea of increasing starts. Given how feebly that was pursued, I'm personally not going to be excited about some of the "more realistic" goals.

Expectations of some to the contrary, EDs don't have to be fundraising mavens. Ours came to OUSA with a record of success in marketing, branding, and growing participants at another sporting governing body.

I, for one, am still excited about the idea of increasing starts. With significantly more starts, lots of the other things we want become possible - there's more money for new mapping and equipment, there's more money to support teams, there's a larger pool of people interested in navigation races adhering more or less closely to orienteering standards for third party operators to maybe make a living off of, there are more potential volunteers for the existing clubs, etc. If we want a single overarching near to medium term goal (and I think we should want one), I can't imagine what else is a plausible alternative candidate. Let's come up with a better plan to achieve that goal than we did ~five years ago - as Neil says above, "Create some more orienteers first. Help people work locally.".

As to emulating Don'tGetLost, that would be great but I think that's an initiative for one or more clubs that think they can make a go of it to try, not something the national federation can or should try to make happen itself.

BTW, while someone is hopefully extending Mary's chart forward to 2013, could we not also extend at least the start and membership numbers back to 2009, if not somewhat further? I remember there was some confusion over the baseline local meet starts number in the initial plan being incorrectly ~7000 starts too low (and I believe that was fixed in the versions currently online). That has me wondering whether there really were 8000 club members in 2009 but only 5487 in 2011 and 5694 in 2012. I feel like I would have noticed if almost a third of the country's active orienteers had dropped out of club membership over a two year period but it's not like I have proof it didn't happen ready to hand. Regarding the "somewhat further", it would be nice to know how 2009 compared to what went before - were there any long term trends up or down when we began with the current strategic plan? Stability or slow growth during the run of the strategic plan would look better compared to a preceding long term decline; worse compared to preexisting slow growth or stability. My impression is the first is closer to the truth but hard numbers are nice to have, particularly when they should be easy to come by.

Can't we just hold a contest?

Have people design strategic plans and submit them, and then have a committee to choose which one they want. /sarcasm

Sue and Alex already succinctly stated how I feel, so I don't need to elaborate there.

If we want improvements in specific areas nationally, then I think it makes sense to see where those improvements are happening locally. For example, if we want more local starts, then I think we should look at what QuanticoOC is doing, since I seem to remember their local starts showing a lot of growth over the last 5 years. If we want to improve marketing to the mainstream and decreasing volunteer burnout, then we should look at what DGL is doing. Etc.

I think there are a lot of small pockets of great things happening out there.

I would suggest starting with all the clubs and seeing what they are doing, what resources they have, and what their plans are moving forward. In my travels around the US looking at Junior potential many clubs have a lot of potential, they just need a nudge in the right direction and the willingness to try something new. The current strategic plan has all the elements that OUSA should consider and work towards in the next 15-20 years. Right now their is neither the manpower or the resources to efficiently accomplish many of the goals on the current plan.

For example its great to have goals for teams, what happens if they don't meet them? Five years down the road you could still be in the same place regardless of weather you have a plan or not. Currently on the senior level their is little to no support for a professional athlete and its nearly impossible to compete with other people who get to orienteer as their full time job. The issue goes well beyond having team goals. Many of the points on the strategic plan do not focus on the real problems. For example how can the organization provide the support and resources it would take to help an athlete to the top level. Working backwards, how can the organization get the resources to provide the support etc etc.

If you start at the periphery meaning the clubs and individuals and build a new plan based on what's already there, and what potential there is in local areas you may come up with the same plan except this time you have the whole community bought in and the organization can focus its limited resources on supporting the club and individual efforts much more effectively.

For example two cases come to mind in the development of the junior program. One is at the Riverstone school in Boise Idaho. They had started going to City of Tree's O meets and making a map of their school. They saw the possibility of applying for a grant from the junior program. They applied and received one for $500. More importantly than the money was me taking a trip out their for 2 days, giving them ideas for weekly training, ideas for how they could use their resources effectively in steps to make their program sustainable. Regardless of my ideas the visit sparked something and now the Riverstaone school had their first spring season of orienteering. In this case the school is an international school and the community is used to having foreigners stay with families. They also have a very outdoor oriented school and only 1-2 competeing sports. So their is room to grow. In this case 6-10 new orienteers meets goals on the current strategic plan to get more people involved and also keeps the door open for more growth to happen. The fact that lesson plans need to be made for these sessions creates resources that can be shared and put into a database on OUSA website for anyone to access.

Another example. I wrote an articular in ONA that sparked an individuals attention. We set up a conversation and exchanged ideas. The individual ran with what came out of that conversation and through research put together a great program for homeschool kids. After the first unit the person looked over what was done well and what could be improved and had more conversations with me and other people to continue to grow. Again this is an example where OUSA goals are being met however the credit goes to the people doing the work, I was able to support with some ideas and we have another program starting to move forward and creating resources that we can all learn from.

My point is the SP ideas are good. Based on the resources and time available to the small group of people carrying the organization, the approach to developing the plan could be better. For example when someone say's follow this plan I ask why? If there is no good reason for me to follow the plan I wont. However if the plan is partially of my making and my ideas are incorporated into the plan and I understand how my work will help the whole organization grow then I feel much more enthusiastic about following the plan and doing the work.

I personally think the plan is being developed to fast. I'm not sure there is a need to relive the past but if the last plan did not work well maybe a lot more time should be taken in developing something that will really be a beacon for the community. That means actively (pulling hair and teeth) getting feedback from the community at large to guide the developing plan. Even leaving the plan open ended enough so that there is room for real growth. Currently I don't think we have all the right answers and staying open to different approaches that may work is huge. The nice side to this approach is different clubs and individuals can go about development from different angles, and with the right people weaving the threads together many goals can be met.

I think a good plan comes together from asking the right questions. For example the questions I often ask in the junior program, are:
1. What people, resources, and Ideas are working in a given area.
2. What undeveloped potential is there in this area?
3. what would be the ideal for this place and what are the baby steps to get from the current place closer to the ideal?
4. Where are the potential hitches?
5. How will the development maintain a positive direction and stay sustainable?
6. What are the limits of this area?

In question 5 if the approach cannot become sustainable or will likely hit a wall the approach needs to be rethought out before any progress can be made. Based on question 6 if a certain area has limits you have to find creative ways to work with those limits, and if done really well may become advantages. I think many of the clubs already are starting to do this and need some support and direction from OUSA. Some ideas for this discussion.

Since the DGL model was mentioned above I feel I should add my $0.02. Our model has worked really well in southern Ontario where competition for the sport and recreational dollar is fierce. By developing programs like Adventure Running Kids we can now support two full time salaries and likely three by 2015. With that in mind there are different approaches clubs can take depending on the local pressures and opps. One size doesn't fit all (as schirminator eludes to above). Thats why I think schirminator's post above is excellent and is a good example of the strong return on investment one gets by funding 'program-based' positions like his (and that doesn't include the incredible job he is doing at the jr. elite level). It would be an interesting experiment to swap the budgets (salary, travel, etc) of the ED and Erin and see how much $$ Erin could bring in by getting club's to develop new programs and grow participation (and revenues) compared to the ED's national-level sponsorships.

Finally, my experience here in southern Ontario is that there are huge opportunities at the grass roots and local level to grow our sport through local programs and community supporting a cause (see Greg L's post above about salaried ED positions for not-for-profits). Once OUSA has those larger community numbers national-level sponsorship should be both easier and bigger dollars.

Thanks Shirminator for a great post! You reinspired me.

To me, the current proposal is more like a list of action items than a strategic plan. It doesn't really articulate of why certain action items are being focused on while and others are not. It also feels weighted toward new actions, while neglecting to discuss ongoing activities. A strategy discussion ought to consider which current OUSA activities are of primary importance going forward and which aren't.

Before Erin wrote, I would have said that we don't need more community feedback. Simply because I don't think an internet-forum or board meeting is a very efficient place to build coherent strategy.

I would really like to see the committee (esp. Pres, VP, and ED) articulate their coherent vision for OUSA. I hope they aren't afraid to insert their own opinions about things! I really liked the way Greg L candidly stood up to express his idea about what the ED role ought to be and how it ought to be evaluated. I'd like to see the strategy committee be just as clear in expressing what they think the general role of OUSA ought to be! Then, we can maybe offer more useful feedback.

But then I read Erin's comment. He really breaks down the type of constructive, locally-based communication that needs to happen. I LOVE the idea of having more people like Erin out there talking with clubs - finding out what they need - hooking them up with resources - sharing ideas - pointing them in productive directions - facilitating collaborations, etc...

Whatever gets written down as the theoretical strategy, I hope that more of Erin's style of constructive communication gets built into the defacto strategy, going forward!

+1 blegg

I was talking to a friend with some knowledge of the real world, and also of OUSA.

How much do your teams bring in in the way of new revenue per year, she asked.

Nothing, I guessed.

How much do you pay them?

$30,000, I guessed

Do they provide any other benefits to OUSA?

Not any that they can articulate.

Are they any good?

For the most part, no at the intl level

Fire them!

Looks like Clark's black hole to me. Of course, this has been obvious for a very long time (and I've suffered the vilification for this opinion since day one).

It's funny--I had always thought that sammy was a dogged advocate of financial probity. A slayer of sacred cows. And an unrepentant enemy of US elite orienteers.

Until now. I realize that whatever sammy may also be, s/he is a bit of a sophist (not such a terrible thing), but more importantly--a great friend to the the US team. I now can see that s/he styles these absurd arguments as strawmen, counterfactuals even, so we can all see how absurd the alternative is.

Clearly when sammy's friends don their economist caps, the above argument could be explored to its logical conclusions, or a few variations could be offered.

The princely sum of "$30,000" "paid" to the over 2 dozen athletes on the US Teams by the sport's governing body... When phrased this way, the sorry state of elite orienteering (and the support it receives from one entity that might be thought to do much more) becomes starkly obvious.

Fire them. Of course. The implication (I hope) would be that they (and anyone of their ilk) are not needed. The orienteering bureaucracy alone is sacrosanct; the raison d'etre of the organization. Otherwise I can't wait to see who sammy/OUSA would replace these crazy athletes with, if the notion is that it is time to upgrade the talent.

sammy is subtle, and ever clever. S/he had me fooled.

Anyway, the vilification thing? How could an anonymous troll possibly be vilified in an online forum where practically everyone else knows everyone else, often quite well? That is some precious skin, so thin and dear.

Essentially, Schirminator says you feel your way and do more of what seems to be working. Similar to what the late British coaching guru Peter Palmer said once. There are no magic answers, specially not the business-inspired mantras and fads of SP. There are just (a very few) magic people who have a combination of (unwritten) vision, persistence and hard work.

The princely sum

Fun thing is, as recently as about 15 years ago we had a USOF President who was of that exact opinion. He's dead, so sammy can't be him.

I’m so misunderstood, at least I think I am but I didn’t really follow all of j-man’s latest comments. By changing a few words, I was simply trying to use Swiftian satire to illustrate the constipated thinking of some on this thread.

For example, the original post on Jul 16, 2014 8:36 PM
“I was talking to a friend with some knowledge of the real world, and also of OUSA.

How much does your Executive Director bring in in the way of new revenue per year, he asked.

Maybe 25-30K, I guessed.

How much do you pay him?

Counting benefits and expenses, maybe 90K.

Fire him.”

And on Jul 16, 2014 9:16 PM
“Maybe 25-30K, I guessed.

How much do you pay him?

Counting benefits and expenses, maybe 90K.


Looks like Clark's black hole to me. Of course, this has been obvious for a very long time (and I've suffered the vilification for this opinion since day one). “

If cash in > cash out is the sole or primary measure of success, then a logically following can be that it should be applied to all major outlays including the teams (which is the second largest OUSA expense.)

Beyond that though is the fact that for all of us orienteering is a hobby, something to do as an adjunct to our real lives- jobs, raising family, etc. For the ED, however, it is his livelihood, how he pays the bills, feeds his family, etc. I think we need to show a little more class and tact than to throw bombs online calling for his firing.

If you’re unhappy with his performance, let the people who oversee him know that in a discreet way. If you’re unhappy with how the people you elected to supervise him are doing, work to replace them or step up and take their place (I don’t think any would protest.)

This is all coming from someone who was opposed to the hiring of an ED in the first place (too high expectations, too low probability of success) but we did get him into this train wreck and no one should have to work in such a hostile environment (except perhaps politicians who know what they’re getting into when they sign up)

Sammy
If you are writing seriously, and want to be taken seriously, it would help a great deal if you seriously identified yourself.
Masks are not an aid to communication.

Which of Sammy's points are more or less valid if s/he is Person A or Person B?

I will respond, though I probably should keep my keyboard still.....
This whole thread has put forth very little in the way of positive suggestions as to what should or should not be in the plan. The comments seem to be on how bad the previous plan was and how making a strategic plan is stupid. Should we not have any planning as to what we should be doing? If we don't have a strategic plan, then the board can do anything that they want and there is no accounting for what is good bad or indifferent.
There is still time to make positive input. What would you like to add, what would you like to remove? If you want to actively help move OUSA forward, volunteer for a committee or run for a board position. The Strategic Plan as presently formulated has a number of committees that are "supposed" to be formed. Come join one. If you think that forming a particular committee is a waste of time, speak up and explain why.
We should be developing a plan that helps us move forward and if you believe that there are parts that won't do that, speak up. If you think we are missing something. Speak up. The plan, in its present form, has timelines and there is a volunteer who will keep track of whether the timeline is upheld so we can then make corrections. It won't be perfect but when you work with as many volunteers as help orienteering in America, it is hard to keep things moving perfectly.

Yes. I have one. Three words: Stop. Being. Cheap. There, I said it.

If people sent more money we could be extravagant. We could send all OUSA members to orienteer in Tahiti.
Oh, where should we spend more money? "Stop being cheap" doesn't help in determining what should be in and what should not be in the Strategic Plan.

I don't think that's what he means. My sense is that it's closer to "Stop Being Inexpensive". (Correct me if I'm wrong, Vlad.)

Yes. If you spend a few percent of your waking hours on a hobby/second occupation/devotion/whatever, accept that it should be funded at more than sub-one-percent fraction of your total expenses. Stop expecting, or worse yet, shaming people into creating recreation for you for free. And stop harassing and ridiculing people who try to figure out how to make this thing not die in 20 years. This isn't directed at the top/executive level of Orienteering USA, it's for the membership.

Vlad: What should be the model moving forward? Anyone who flies to an A-meet, rents a car and stays in a motel spends a lot of money so the entry fee, although it is one expense, is not the biggest expense by far. At the same time, $25 might seem to be a lot for a person who has never paid it and wanders by the start area of a local meet. There are also quite a few people who go to local meets but when there is a national event in their area, they don't go because of the entry fee. At the same time, people pay big bucks to run a 5 Km. What model should we use?

Don't listen to the squeaky wheel. You've done it for 40+ years. The squeaky wheel is also the cheap one. Have foresight.

(1) Charge clubs enough in per-start fees to maintain a solid national program. The clubs are already getting an unbelievably great deal on insurance. The Junior Program is a national undertaking and clubs will be prime beneficiaries of it when juniors grow up. There should be at least enough income from per-start fees to pay for the insurance program, the Junior Coach, and the ED.

(2) Invest in Adventure Running Kids, but all funding must come from the local club. We (the national organization) give you the coach and the expertise, you (the club) pay for it, minimum commitment two years.

(3) Sunset the copyright on maps after a specific period of time, less if maps were paid for by the Map Grant/Loan Fund. If a club sits on maps, don't renew its charter.

Which one doesn't belong?

Item 3 sure is interesting... T/D Property Rights 101.

According to the 2013 budget (published October 2012), the line item for club dues is already $70k. On the other hand, the line item for insurance premiums is $15k (=21% of $70k). The total expenses ascribed to the ED are $94k, and the line item for the junior coach is $30k, although unclear to me where junior coach travel is accounted for, or junior coach benefits, if any.

In any case, taking those numbers, club dues would need to double, to a level of 10x insurance premiums, in order to cover the current expenses that T/D wants them to cover. No doubt the current arrangement of OUSA worrying about all of the insurance details is a good deal for the clubs, and probably raising the per start fee (currently $1?) can be absorbed by the clubs to some degree.

However, those fees need to produce something meaningful. Otherwise, you are just taking away money from local programs. Money that could pay for creating or maintaining the maps you'd like to seize, for instance. Or for funding the local junior programs that you'd like clubs to subscribe to.

I think the willingness to "not be cheap" exists nationally (though not at the level of wanton excess you are apparently used to in Silicon Valley). But, getting back to the point of the thread, there needs to be a credible vision. People are discerning in how they spend their money, and they would like to know they are actually receiving something in return.

Yes indeed, property rights. As a capitalist, do you really believe that the clubs "built that"? Using thousands of hours of donated labor? the public donated much/most of the labor, in large part believing the fruits of the labor would be put to good use. They aren't. Hundreds of maps all over North America, idle because the club is geriatric and it's too much of a bother for the old bones to go put on an event.

Make the maps work. Our maps are the best-kept secret and they will remain a secret, and a dead/outdated secret very shortly. It is in the public interest to sunset the copyright.

OK, so outside Get Lost!!, how many intrepid, guerrilla event organizers in North America are being stymied because they are too cheap to make their own maps?

I just want to understand the scope of the problem you are solving.

wanton excess

Just do the simple math. See what percent of your waking hours you spend on orienteering. Then see what percent of your expenses is directly related to orienteering. Not to traveling across the country; that's gasoline and jet fuel, Exxon and Rosneft. Faceless, nameless multinationals. But to people whom you know and whose labor you hopefully value. It's an insult to me that most in this community value the labor of their friends so lowly, and expect them to donate entertainment.

they are too cheap

We aren't too cheap, at least not in that way; 9 new areas over 4 years. There's not a club in North America with this kind of productivity. Use data.

No one forces me to donate the hours and hours I give to orienteering. And I don't resent it for a minute.

I guess orienteering is a job for some, and a passion for others. That's fine. Just don't speak for all of us who are generous with their time (and money.)

No one forces me to donate

That's all perfectly awesome, but does not a sustainable environment make. I'm sure some people are happy feeding others, and have independent wealth to afford the ingredients and the labor. Yet the restaurant industry exists; certainly not a perfect comparison.

At this point—actually probably for a decade already—we're at the end of the benevolent volunteer spirit. It guides us, but bearers are few and getting long in the tooth. The problem isn't that there aren't people willing to take over, but the forest of regulations that the volunteer spirit has put around to protect its exclusive right to serve free dinners while offering fewer and fewer of such by the day.

The strategic direction is one in which there would be a sustainable model. It already exists; just look north.

We aren't too cheap; 9 new areas over 4 years.

Great! Keep up the good work! See, you don't need to appropriate others' assets, young capitalist, you are self sufficient. The market has validated your model.

But, please answer my question... "how many intrepid, guerrilla event organizers in North America are being stymied because they are too cheap to make their own maps?" I count 1. In California.

And, I stand corrected. They aren't too cheap. Just can't sell enough product and/or are being kept down by the man.

My club's largest expense is mapping. We put on events so that we have events to go to and so that we can raise some money to make more maps. We don't put on events for the glory of OUSA. If OUSA charged us more to put on events, it would mean that less of our money would be going to making maps and sustaining the sport in this area. If OUSA demanded that we hand over the maps that we spent money and time making, that would certainly be the end of my relationship with OUSA. Elon Musk is welcome to do as he pleases with his patents, but it doesn't obligate me or anyone else to make maps free for you to use. They cost money and time to make, and frankly it's insulting that you value that money and time so poorly that you think you should be granted free access.

The wanton excess in Silicon Valley is well documented. That's why your trail runs cost you 10x what they do over on this side of the country. Your environment is different. That doesn't make the rest of us somehow wrong. Please stop telling us we are wrong all the time.

your trail runs cost you 10x
stop telling us we are wrong

We put on events so that we have events to go to and so that we can raise some money to make more maps

Nothing to add here; exactly the bankrupt approach that needs to change. Maps for the sake of maps, oh wonderful maps. In my folder, in my drawer. Maps for places you can't even get access to anymore; events for me and my friends. And nobody else.

Plenty of clubs put on events for themselves. And it shows.

If the national organization has foresight, it will do what it needs to break the we-for-us model. If not, keep making them maps. They'll make a nice museum exhibit one day.

Remember when I said that an online-forum is a bad place to build strategy? Well... I'm rather surprised it took this long to demonstrate why.

PGoodwin - I know you posted your request with the best of intentions, just fishing for good ideas and creating some community buy-in. But if the responses seemed quiet - it's partly because we all knew exactly where this expedition was headed. I believe you unwittingly engaged in the type of fishing known as "trolling."

Um. Ok. I guess nobody should bother making maps then. That way we will all have access to zero maps?

I'm not saying we should make and hoard maps, I'm saying that making the maps wasn't free, and it's pretty disrespectful of you to expect that whoever put the money and work into making the map should just hand it over to you for free. Just like you think it's disrespectful for these people you keep talking about to not be willing to pay you what you think it's worth for you to put on events. If you think people should pay premium rates for your events, you have to be willing to give the rest of the goods-producing world the same respect. And if a club bankrolls a map, that means they own the map. Because otherwise there would be no map.

And you will also note that I never claimed events should be free or even cheap. You are putting those words in my mouth. I specifically said people are willing to pay if there is a credible vision. What I object to is the notion that clubs should be viewed as a limitless resource to pay for relatively unclear benefits.

I think we'd all love to have more and better events and more and better maps, and to varying degrees we'd all be happy to pay more for those events and maps. (Especially if those events have functional timing, the controls are all in the correct place, and so forth). I'd be willing to pay more for that. But, simply charging more to the clubs doesn't automatically make that happen. So as a club member, I would rather take my money and invest it in local programs and capital.

I love AR and all, but:

Promote Orienteering USA resources
Fund the placement of information about orienteering events in other map
and running sports' publications and forums, such as Runner’s World,
Adventure Racing World Series, USARA.com, etc.

ARWS has something like 6-7 races per year, only one of which is in the US, and there are something like ~160 competitors at the local ARWS event.

OUSA has twice as many facebook likes as USARA; maybe they should consider paying OUSA for promotion instead of the other way around.

Gettting back on track.

For us to have growth, OUSA and clubs need to engage kids and the young twenty somethings.

Engaging kids means actively talking to the schools and the school boards in the clubs area.
1. Have OUSA research what it takes to add orienteering to PA programs.
2. Have 1-2 people from a club work on talking with individual schools and teaching classes there. (maybe OUSA pays 5 - 10 hours /week for those individuals)
3. Have clubs massage their schedules and line up 3-4 events in the fall to count as school championships. (obviously after 1 and 2 above have some uptake) (Seattle and Cincinnati style)

Engaging young adults.
1. Beer (OUSA needs liquor licence)
2. Music at local events (usually there are audio enthusiasts that could volunteer time if the club has equipment) Clubs or OUSA pays for the equipment


I understand those things might not work, but those are things that have had succes in Europe. All I know is, if we don't change anything in our approach, nothing will change in our lives. bshields and T/D will have the same argument 20 years from now, there will be the random euro transplant here and there, the random high school kid that sticks with orienteering after college, and the handful offspring of the orienteering families.

I love AR and all

Well yeah, people tend to inhabit older versions of reality, the older the people the older the versions.

Um. Ok. I guess

Just, like, read what I wrote. Sunset the copyright after x years, not give maps away. There are 20+ maps around where I am that are older than 15 years (going back to the principal mapping project, not just-before-the-event corrections). Almost all are unused. I hear there are plenty in say Hudson River Valley that are like that.

If giving up copyright outright is too much of a shock, do something gradual, like add one copyright-free event per year for each year after some y. You'll still have all of your now-brand-new maps for y years with full copyright. Maybe even with access.

The point is, if someone creates something, it's their prerogative to hold the copyright on it or not. Why don't you think you should have to pay for the right to use these maps you speak of?

I still don't get how giving up clubs intellectual property will spurt orienteering growth?

For any map a club owns a potential event organizer should be able to negotiate a $1 - $3 /start, or some per event fee from the clubs. Clubs would be happy to get some extra income that way.

Now how is this $1 - $3 per start changing the business environment for event organizers so much so as to warrant property confiscation laws. (those things that you and I ran away from and our parents were subjected to)?

T/D, since I'm assuming you're talking about BAOC maps, I'd like to know which ones aren't being used that you want access to. Most of the maps that we don't use are in areas that we can no longer hold meets in.

If one club has a map, what is to prevent a flush, for-profit event organizer from making a different map? Get your own LIDAR/base materials and go make it.

This is a sincere question--I always thought the copyright applied to the finished map, not the Platonic form of the terrain. Am I wrong?

should be able to negotiate

Not the case in practice. I'd be very happy with requiring pay-to-use instead of completely sunsetting the copyright; just some kind of access to the IP instead of none. In reality, most clubs (Nikolay's is one of the few exceptions) take the position that only they can use the map to hold navigation-based activities. Public domain would be best since the entire public, not just a who-you-know connected person, would be able to get the IP for whatever purpose, not just to put on events; free promotion; but pay-for-use is a reasonable compromise.

what is to prevent

Where the existing map is pretty good: Sanity. Where it's oudtated: Nothing, we actually did this for one of the areas and gave the copyright back to the club.

you're talking about BAOC

No, BAOC is just part of the overall pattern. Specific other example: WOC 1993 maps.

The dashboard for the current strategic plan has been updated with data through year -end 2013. You can find the dashboard here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4r_VBg_qODCYUlhc...

Ok, so your problem isn't that you want free access, it's just that you disagree with the club's choice of how to exercise it's rights. So your solution is to strongarm the club into giving up those rights? Is that how you cultivate a relationship? Call them cheap and then try to get the national organization to tell them to be nice to you?

My experience has been that the clubs I've worked with have been very willing to share their maps, the few exceptions being in heavily used areas.

I disagree with the aging and impending death of the sport.

For reference with all the question marks, here's how to not make friends among intelligent people. I'm outta here, I made my point beyond any reasonable standard of proof.

For what little it's worth, our club (ROC) was approached a couple of years ago by a running store which wanted to hold an adventure-type winter race using one of our (very actively used) O maps (Mendon, for those who are familiar with it). We very readily agreed, with quite minimal payment (something like $1 per projected participant, plus a plug for our club, I recall). This helped the store while not hurting our club one bit. Not that it demonstrates anything one way or the other, of course, but just an example that one of the things like T/D promotes do happen.

Specific other example: WOC 1993 maps.

I would have to check to make sure I don't have any details wrong, but I believe that the status of the WOC93 maps is (and has been for many years) that any USOF club can use them for any sort of training or competition that they like, with a per-map royalty payment remitted to the national team fund.

Right. I guess if they were completely free, Harriman would be a hotbed of events and activity, put forth by a panoply of volunteer and for profit organizers, but an hour outside of one of the world's great cities? Isn't that the argument?

(Sorry for all the ???s--shame on me.)

Map rights are not the problem in Harriman, park access is.

DGL has an arrangement with a race director to use our maps for an annual race. We charge > $10/person. Total win win. We make a few $K and only supply the .ocd file and SI and other equipment.