in: Cristina; Cristina > 2009-06-26;
| # Posted 2009-06-27 17:56:49 | |
| Sandy: | This was one of Randy Hall's big issues - is there a way for USOF to enforce any kind of quality control at A events.
Did the organizers give any explanation as to why they ended up short? |
| Advertisement | |
| # Posted 2009-06-27 18:11:45 | |
| feet: | It is still a big issue in the back of my mind...
Currently quality control is implemented essentially by reputational punishment. In my personal opinion, the maps CTOC used in their 2003 A meet were dreadful. They therefore got low attendance this time around, even though apparently the maps were (very?) good. Next time people will show up again. A 'rate your A meet' website would seem to be the obvious possibility, but because organizers are amateurs, I can see big problems with that. The other thing is a 'best-practice' website, and a 'worst-practice' website list (suitably anonymized in the case of the latter). I don't know if anything can be done - short of removing the A-meet sanctioning - when things go badly on the day; it's a bit late by then. |
| # Posted 2009-06-27 19:19:11 | |
| jjcote: | It's also misleading to associate organizational quality with a "club". Though with a small club, the same people are likely to be involved in consecutive mets, and in some clubs, there is enough guidance from the club leadership that one might expect consistency, this is not always the case. I remember well, in the early 1990s, when a well-known club put on one of the most dreadful A-meets in USOF history, echoes of which are occasionally heard to this day. The next A-meet from that club, eight months later, was organized by different people from the club, and was so outstanding that it has influenced championship level races ever since. |
| # Posted 2009-06-28 10:16:06 | |
| j-man: | feet--I don't think your conclusion(s) follows deductively. |
| # Posted 2009-06-28 19:48:03 | |
| chitownclark: | ....a 'worst-practice' website list (suitably anonymized...
I tried a version of this idea for our local club meets many years ago. The only result was it turned off some of our best people so much they stopped setting courses for us, and eventually left the club. And the quality of our courses didn't improve either. It became a "lose/lose" situation. As an A-meet Director, I'm always amazed at how little feedback we get after a meet, either pro or con. While a formalized "bitch" website might do more harm than good, a simple, honest, objective comment or critique from interested participants would be very welcome in my book. But keep in mind that there are many elements of a meet (like the weather or sudden "greenness") over which the MD cannot be expected to have any control. And is it really a competitive disadvantage to run on a slightly wrinkled map used by someone else? Map reproduction costs can be a significant part of our meager budget...we've unfortunately paid upwards of $8-$10/copy for some meets. Some 3-event meets might have over 20 individual maps. And well-meaning volunteers are often overly-liberal taking maps from a stack that seems inexhaustible. However I have no defense for a shortage of control descriptions. |
| # Posted 2009-06-29 07:53:40 | |
| kupackman: | I'm always amazed at how little feedback we get after a meet, either pro or con. While a formalized "bitch" website might do more harm than good, a simple, honest, objective comment or critique from interested participants would be very welcome in my book.
Attackpoint seems to be a good forum for this, even if it means that I have to troll around all of the logs of attendees. Critiques taken. I'm on the board of the club that put this event, and I'm taking notes. |
| # Posted 2009-06-29 09:40:18 | |
| Cristina: | I've been thinking a lot about this kind of stuff this weekend and have an idea that I think is worth pursuing. Rather than USOF just collecting feedback from individuals I think it would be a very useful exercise to see an after action report from the club itself (yeah, some of this military stuff is rubbing off on me). You guys can collect feedback from participants, but you also have a pretty good idea of what went well and what didn't without anyone telling you. So, write it down, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Have some 'lessons learned' and recommendations to yourself on what you'd do differently next time. And pat yourself on the back for the stuff that was good. Pass the report up to the me and we'll post it online for everyone to learn from.
What do you say, Patrick? Worth a try? You guys could be the first trial. |
| # Posted 2009-06-29 17:33:19 | |
| feet: | @chitownclark: I have no idea how you paid $10 per map in these days of low-quality laser-printed maps... |
| # Posted 2009-06-29 20:04:14 | |
| kupackman: | Actually, we were already planning on doing that, starting with a post-event meeting next month with anyone who helped out, to share all of those lessons learned. (I think our juniors did the same thing after their experience running the show at last year's Northwest Forest Frenzy).
I'll keep you posted... |
| # Posted 2009-06-29 20:16:30 | |
| LKohn: | As much as post-meet eval is important and useful, wouldn't pre-meet action be more effective? I hesitate to bring up the "event controller"/"course controller" topics but most of what goes wrong at meets could be avoided by some experienced oversight prior to the meet. Unfortunately, post-eval tends to have a relatively short memory whereas the pre-meet guidelines are well established....do meet directors bother to read these??? |
| # Posted 2009-06-29 20:23:24 | |
| Cristina: | Yeah, that's exactly why I want to push for a real event controller program. It's easy enough to read the guidelines and sort of brush things off or assume you've got it covered. It's a lot harder to look someone in the eye and lie about it. ;-) |
| # Posted 2009-07-01 22:26:14 | |
| coach: | Agree with Linda and Christina. Post meet stuff is just that, I think it's pretty obvious to the club workers what went wrong, the problem is how to get that info to the next A meet organizers, and how to continue having that happen for years to come. |
| # Posted 2009-07-01 23:16:07 | |
| AZ: | For my MSC thesis I did a study on how people learn to use software. I suspect some of the same principles apply to learning to organize orienteering events. Most notably that the manuals are pretty useless (stuff is hard to find, and nobody reads them anyway). By far the most common way of learning software (back then) was learning from other people - either watching others use software, or by having others watch you. If these principles apply to learning to host an orienteering event then I think this points very much to an event Controller. |
| # Posted 2009-07-01 23:22:32 | |
| AZ: | I would also dare to suggest that some problems were not obvious. Sure, running out of maps is obvious. But what about the lack of a good arena - this is perhaps less obvious, but events are generally more fun with a well designed arena that includes the finish chute (and perhaps spectator legs), download, results, refreshments, shade and provides a good place for people to hang out and watch the action while waiting for their run and after their run. This is an example of a less obvious issue - perhaps not exactly a "problem" but something that could improve the overall event.
Once again, I think this points to the benefits of having an experienced outsider as an event Controller. Such a person should be able to encourage organizers to take these less obvious considerations into account when planning their events. |
| # Posted 2009-07-01 23:33:53 | |
| chitownclark: | ...I have no idea how you paid $10 per map in these days of low-quality laser-printed maps...
Oh no. This was none of yer stinkin' laser printing; these were high-class offset printed maps, at around $400 per map. Naturally each course required a separately-printed map...and we usually had no more than 40 runners on each course...so $10/copy. I was our club Treasurer at the time, and had to review and pay these bills. I'm no longer Treasurer, so I'm not privy to such financial details...I don't know what our maps now cost us. But I know our mapping director changed to another printing technology since then. BTW, how does a club with modest mapping needs justify the high first-cost of a laser printer? |
| # Posted 2009-07-01 23:50:45 | |
| jjcote: | 1) You offset printed courses? That was rarely a good idea. There were plenty of other ways to get the course onto the map.
2) High first-cost of a laser printer? Huh? I send the files via the web in the evening, and they're ready to be picked up at a convenient retail outlet in the morning. |
| # Posted 2009-07-02 00:31:57 | |
| j-man: | DVOA offset prints every map. They cost well less than $1 per copy. Well less enough that there is room to accommodate the smaller club argument. |
| # Posted 2009-07-02 00:38:09 | |
| AZ: | Is DVOA offset printing maps with courses? Or overprinting the courses onto offest-printed-maps.
If there is some way to offset print maps with courses for less than $1 I could save a lot of hassles trying to get good color matches ;-) |
| # Posted 2009-07-02 01:25:38 | |
| j-man: | We just buy a lot of copies and then overprint with inkjets. |
| # Posted 2009-07-02 10:36:47 | |
| jjcote: | Even when you do offset-print courses, it shouldn't be a whole print run for each course. You do all of the maps in five colors, then an additional purple pass for each course. Unless you're using process color instead of spot color, but that's just not a great idea at all in my opinion. It is expensive to offset-print courses, but not $10/map. If that's what you guys paid, then it's a magnificent example of how people need to have a way of getting "best practices" information, because you wasted a lot of money. |
| # Posted 2009-07-02 17:36:29 | |
| chitownclark: | ...it's a magnificent example of how people need to have a way of getting "best practices" information...
I agreed wholeheartedly. As a matter of fact, I suggested to the Search Committee last year when I sent in my donation that part of the new Executive Director's responsibility should be to do this "cross-pollination." After watching O clubs wax and wane over the past 20 years, I think all-volunteer clubs go through cycles...(1) strong, enthusiastic, competent, (2) burn-out, (3) weak, disinterested, undermanned, (4) rebuilding. A bit of oversight and guidance from USOF might damp down this cycle by ensuring basic club management principles were followed....such as recruiting new people during Phase 1, so that the fall during Phase 3 wouldn't be so dramatic. |
You must be logged in to add a message