End of controllers

[King Penguin]

Let's not get into PRINCE2 - we'd need far more roles and individuals and everyone would have to consult everyone else so much on everything that nothing would ever actually get done !

[Marco Polo]

Its nice to see an interesting and constructive debate on the site. Geomorph kinds of hints at my concern but the business model proposed assumes that the key players are experts at their roles. How do we support people like myself who as an inexperienced planner very much rely on a good controller. I've never organised an event - I just dont think i would have the time to do it justice.

I can see that there are serious concerns and I've not been close enough to level 1 events to know all of the problems.

However. to be fair the BOF minutes acknowledge the mentoring role of a controller- so some support should come that way. In addition , my own observations are that novice planners and organisers start on small level 3 events with experience as a competitor and move onto level 2 when they have the relevant experience from level3. Even where a level 3 event has no controller formally appointed, most clubs will be providing informal support of that type to novice planners and organisers?

[madmike]

my own observations are that novice planners and organisers start on small level 3 events with experience as a competitor and move onto level 2 when they have the relevant experience from level3. Even where a level 3 event has no controller formally appointed, most clubs will be providing informal support of that type to novice planners and organisers?

Not the case in my experience - the first event I ever planned was a Badge Event (now Level 2) and having never organised anything bigger than a CATI or Service league event I organised a Level 1.

I am probably not the only sucker who got thrown in at the deep end cos no one else was willing. Fortunately my Badge event was controlled by a meticulous IOF Grade 1 controller who provided tactful mentoring and helpful suggestions to counteract my inepitude.

Agree with you that progression from CATI through to Level 1 would be ideal but it remains difficult, occassionally gusting impossible, to get suitably experienced organisers for L1/2 events.

[SeanC]

In a way it's not surprising that it's harder to get organisers as membership has declined. But these are interesting questions worth discussing on forums. Is it harder to get organisers for big events, and if so why? Those who have organised big events, what was good and bad, and what can be done to encourage more to organise?

Going on what Mrs. H said, perhaps our marketing should target bossy people

On a positive note 62 events were organised in Kent in 2008, compared with 27 in 2006 (though most/all of the extra events were local events).

[RanaldMacdonald]

After the last Events Committee I prepared a report for Senior Competitions Group which I 'chair' which contained the following:

"4. Role of controllers was how this item started out but soon moved into insurance issues and the fact that Controllers are the only trained and accredited officials at an event and s/he only has an advisory role. The Organiser is responsible for putting on the event on behalf of the Club and has responsibility for ensuring the overall risk assessment is carried out. The planner is responsible for safety on the courses. Personally, I feel the controller should have more authority but some felt that would mean many would not want to control. I was thinking less of the risk/health and safety issues and more about the standards and quality of events where a planner can ignore the advice of a controller, potentially worsening the experience of participants. At lower level events this is often less of an issue where controllers are effectively mentoring less experienced planners. One would hope to build a good relationship between officials but the situation is, to me at least, still not clear, even though the rules and guidelines make it so. In my own club and region we are beginning to look more at volunteer development and discuss what 'accreditation' means in the context of planners and organisers as we don't want to frighten volunteers off."

On reflection I might have worded it differently to reflect the fact that the Controller may advise the Club and/or Region that an event does not meet the required standards of quality and safety and expect them to take appropriate action. This may vary from downgrading to cancellation but one would hope it would result in a negotiated resolution as we are all concerned to put on the best events. Sometimes egos or past history get in the way of this.

[graeme]

It is clearly NOT the controller's job to mentor. If it were, then we'd deploy our "best" controllers at the event where mentoring officials is most needed (Level 3).
But we don't. Our "best" controllers are used at events where getting the technical standards right is paramount (Level 1).
That doesn't mean controllers don't mentor when some poor sod who's the only volunteer is struggling, but it's not the main role.

SeanC asked about good and bad. To me, the problem with organising is that it's too damn similar to much of what I do at work, and I go orienteering precisely to do something different. (I've planned and organised at L1, controlled at WRE.)

[roadrunner]

I think it might be better if it was the organising club (or association, etc.) that took ultimate responsibility rather than the organiser him/herself; that's effectively what happens anyway, as others have said, and it might make people more willing (or less unwilling ) to organise events.

Another thing that might help (and I suspect some clubs are already doing) is to split the role of organiser. It seems a lot for one person to do (speaking as one who never has), and that might be a factor in getting volunteers. For comparison, my running club had a committee of 8 to organise a road race, individual responsibilities (as I remember them) being entries/results, sponsorship, the course, marshalls, health and safety, and of course the Race Director (= Organiser) (I forget the others). For orienteering, for "the course" read "planning" and for "marshalls" read "on the day helpers", the rest carry across (although we don't often get sponsorship).

[mharky]

There is maybe a problem with the wording of what has been released by British Orienteering. There has also been some slight jumping to conclusions by you lot (excluding Spookster).

It does not say that the planner has to personally check the standard of the courses, go out and pre-run them, or check the controls on the day of the event. That has all been inferred (But not by Spookster).

The Organiser who has overall responsibility for the event; delivering an event that meets the technical standards required and that risks and safety are managed

the organiser will ensure the Planner has consider the technical standards of the courses and the risk management and safety on the courses.

At no point has it said anything like what has been suggested on here. It just says that the organiser is responsible for the quality and standard or the event, the controller is there as a mentor and adviser. The organiser can make sure the courses are up to standard without doing it themselves. How about getting the controller to do it?

OK, so it is ambiguous, but it is not how some of you have been saying. It no more says that organisers have to personally check the courses than it does say they have to personally empty the portaloos. Although, at the end of the day, they are both the organisers responsibilty, it doesn't mean it has to be done first hand.

This whole topic has started up because of a couple of people's (not Spookster's) dodgy personal interpretations of what was published. Read what has been published. Read what you have all (except Spookster) been saying.

You have all (except Spookster) created this problem in your own heads. Or maybe just by reading what the first few posts said without actually reading the document yourselves (not Spookster) and formulating an interpretation of your own (as Spookster has done).

I totally agree with what the new proposal says. Why should the controller, someone from outwith your club, have final responsibility for your event? They should, and will, prompt you when you are going wrong, but it's your event so you make it good. That doesn't mean the organiser who might be a very new volunteer do every single last thing. Delegate.

and don't get me started on that business bullshit someone posted

[Kitch]

It would be a very positive activity to conduct a gap analysis with the recommended PM methods of say PRINCE2 and what we do to see if there are any glaring anomalies, especially in the organisation applied to level 1 events.

That is perhaps the saddest most misguided thing I have read on here in ages.
You want to turn this into your workplace - you are on your own

[Spookster]

Read what you have all been saying.

You have all created this problem in your own heads. Or maybe just by reading what the first few posts said without actually reading the document yourselves and formulating an interpretation of your own.

Read the thread properly yourself. Some of us certainly don't agree with the interpretation reached by the first few posters.

[mharky]

Post 15, I know. A thousand apologies for not name-checking you. I've corrected my post, I think it's far more readable now.

[EddieH]

I accept the assurances that the spirit of what is meant is not a major change. However my interpretation of

"The Organiser who has overall responsibility for the event; delivering an event that meets the technical standards required"

and

"the organiser will ensure the Planner has consider the technical standards of the courses and the risk management and safety on the courses."

do constitute a major increased burden on a role that is extremely difficult to fill and is often done by inexperienced people that, were they to read these lines, would probably decide to bale out.

[greywolf]

...gap analysis ... PRINCE2.... etc

That is perhaps the saddest most misguided thing I have read on here in ages...

I assumed it was biting satire and i just wasn't clever enough to understand...

[Gross]

The role of the controller is confusing in many cases. Graeme states he has controlled (or is controlling) a WRE - that is a meaningless statement as the responsibility for the WRE courses is not his, it is the responsibility of the planner & the IOF Advisor. The National controller jumps in on all other courses except M/W 21E.

Now that BEOC is going open & likely to gain WRE status in some years as well as being held alongside BOC then we will have the following involved in controlling technical quality:

1. National Controller (all courses)
2. National Elite Advisor (elite courses)
3. IOF Elite Advisor (M/W 21 elite courses)

So.... who assumes responsibility for what? (I believe this is a topic for discussion at the Major Events Conference)

[Big Jon]

Seems a bit strange. I have always believed that the person who should be responsible for the smooth running of all aspects of an event should be the controller - they are the only person at an event who has had any official training and assessment (however sketchy this may be). Otherwise you are asking the organiser who is often, at small events anyway, a first time organiser with very limited experience of any aspect of orienteering to take responsibility for many aspects that they have not the slightest clue about. It is interesting to speculate how a court would view such a set-up if an incident reached litigation, at the very least lawyers would have a field day!

How about changing the rules to make the controller responsible?