4 Levels

[Scott]

Why is it that so few orienteers seem to understand what is going on?

That, I think, is one of the key questions. Can anybody remember whether there were attachments in Focus detailing the contents of the Event Structure Review? Because I can't find any details in the main body of the magazine before winter 2008, which is rather too late. Much of this article is given over to explaining the Matrix, which seems already to have become defunct. And - pretty key - it doesn't really explain why the changes are being made, which is hardly going to convince any sceptics that they are a Good Thing.

There was a review document for comment, and a public meeting (the minutes of which were on the website, but which have now vanished) in Oct 2007, half of which was given over to discussing the ESRG's proposals. There are brief mentions of the public meeting in the Focus issues before and after it took place, but these are pretty meagre. In autumn 2008 we were told that the Event Guidelines were being updated to reflect the changes in the structure, but not told what those changes were - it just seems to be assumed that everyone knows what is going on.

So, one area where communication could easily be improved? (I'll leave aside my personal feelings on the general utility of Focus for communicating with the membership.)

[Snail]

SJC wrote:

This looks a familiar approach to things. Merge all the grade 2 and grade 3 controllers into a single grade, and then split them into two. Those that are experienced and suitable for higher level 2 events, and those that aren't. That way we can pretend there is only one grade when it is blatantly obvious there are two.

That's not quite what I said.

I said that clubs could - if they want to - choose more experienced controllers for their "upper level 2" events.

IMHO knowledge of which events someone has controlled, combined with anecdotal knowledge of whether those events have been good / not-so-good, is potentially a better guide to competence than whether they are currently grade 2 or grade 3.

There are some relatively new grade 3 controllers who I would be quite happy to have control a high quality event. Equally there are a few grade 2 controllers I would be wary of!

[Mr Chips]

Scott, thanks for those pointers. My search failed to turn up the review document and I can't see how I could have found it by navigating the site. I did track down the official origins of the review to the Feb07 Events Committee minutes, points 31 and 32 - but they give the impression that the committee were considering a documentary submission that is not linked to.
This Review Document and the linked Consultation Document (and others) seem to contain a lot of good ideas, many of which don't have anything to do with the number of event levels. However, I find it hard to follow the group's reasoning from

There is a need for high quality events held on good terrain with demanding courses that provide serious competition for all ages and that effectively showcase our sport. At the other end of the scale, there is a need to strengthen local events that can be promoted to newcomers. There needs to be a structure of events in between that provides competition for existing orienteers but also enables progression of beginners particularly young adults to mainstream orienteering.

to

Recommendation 1: The structure should be reduced to 3 levels of event

In what sense is a single level (i.e. L2) a "structure"? Answers on a postcard ...

[Scott]

To be fair a lot of the consultation documents were linked from the Downloads>About British Orienteering page at the time. I don't think it's too unreasonable for them to have taken those links down now (minimizing clutter etc).

I was interested to see that Mike Hamilton referred to the review as a "competitions review" when introducing it - isn't that what we're having now? And, more to the point, should the competitions have been reviewed first and the event structure fitted to them, rather than vice versa? Again, to be fair, I think there has now been some acknowledgement of this dilemma from within the governance structure.

[Mr Chips]

- it just seems to be assumed that everyone knows what is going on.

A not unfamiliar feeling!

So, one area where communication could easily be improved? (I'll leave aside my personal feelings on the general utility of Focus for communicating with the membership.)

Well clearly BOF news page and public meetings don't do the business either. How about an online survey designed to determine what orienteers perceive to be the most important problems with the sport, and what developments they think would help?

PS I take you point about document storage, but I feel it is reasonable to keep accessible (and findable) documents relating to an ongoing issue.

[Becks]

I was swiped at the last time I said this, but I'm going to say it again:

"Can't we just go orienteering?"

There are up to 20 people arguing on this thread, which forms a tiny proportion of the orienteers in the UK. The majority of whom will look at the fixtures, go "Is it close, what's the area like (and in my case, is it a score event, because then I definitely won't go.), and is there a course available for me? Maybe some will take ranking into account, but looking at the thread on rankings it's about the same twenty people plus a few extra.

Orienteering is a wonderful sport and we are all slightly bonkers enthusiasts. But the majority of the people in the field have no interest in the rules behind it. Constant changing of them, and overenforcement, however, makes it more difficult for volunteers to help out, and makes them less likely to organise more events. We have a system. Apparently it works in YHOA, but in the last month it hasn't affected my participation in orienteering at all. Informal events (thanks Seabird!), whatever colour codeds are called now at Esholt and Treeton, have all have been high quality events, and more importantly, a lot of fun. This is what the average orienteer notices.

Make whatever the system is work for you. Jump through hoops that absolutely have to be jumped through. But the most important thing is just putting on events that you believe are good enough for people to go to. What level these are really has no bearing on the average orienteer out in the forest. Yes, we need standards for our flagship events. But outside that who cares? Because we just want to go orienteering. Occasionally you'll get a less than perfect map, a new planner who's not quite got it yet, but generally, standards are good enough that you can get a decent day despite these factors.

Let's go orienteering!

[Scott]

We are getting an online survey for the competitions review - and before much actual reviewing has taken place - so that seems to be one lesson learnt. In my experience clubs have been pretty good at alerting their members to the survey, so hopefully people should feel a bit more as if they have been included in the decision making process from the start this time. There was even some talk of going out to a random selection of events to survey people whom the online survey might have missed. So that's one big improvement that's been made.

I think that engaging people (and clubs) in the later stages of the review process will probably be more challenging, and communicating the eventual decisions and the reasoning behind them to all concerned will be harder still. There certainly have been real issues with the new structure, but there are also a significant number of people whose gripes boil down to "A lot of stuff that I was perfectly happy with has been changed, and nobody has asked my opinion or explained why it's happening", and that maybe could have been avoided.

[Mr Chips]

I was swiped at the last time I said this, but I'm going to say it again:

"Can't we just go orienteering?"

Becks you are absolutely right and I'm sorry if I've bored you. I'm temporarily (I hope) off games for chondromalacial reasons and clearly have too much time on my hands. To be honest, the number of levels doesn't have huge consequence for most of us most of the time. Event quality is largely in the hands of clubs and individuals, and some are better than others whatever BOF and its committees say. My main reason for pursuing this essentially dead issue is a hope that we, as a sport, learn a few lessons from this experience about how to manage change in the future.

[Mr Chips]

Scott, I was aware of that survey, but I took it to be a retrospective survey about the event structure reorganisation (hence my ironic reference to it); I was not aware that another review was in the offing. By the way, am I alone in feeling that the distinction between "events" and "competitions" is pretty blurred? (Don't all shout at one.)

[distracted]

...is a hope that we, as a sport, learn a few lessons from this experience about how to manage change in the future.

And I think this has become blatantly obvious to the Board that it all went horribly wrong last time! The introduction to the current competition review on the front page of the British Orienteering website, before the link to the survey, actually outlines why the survey is being done and what will be the end result. What's not overly clear is exactly what happens after this initial survey and who is responsible for the implementation of any changes that are suggested.

By the way, am I alone in feeling that the distinction between "events" and "competitions" is pretty blurred? (Don't all shout at one.)

No, it's clear that the majority of people don't understand the distinction between the two. Most probably because events were previously 'defined' by the competitions that they ran - colour-coded, badge etc., and so people see them as one and the same. I don't think that this distinction is going to be suddenly obvious to everyone either, and this is ultimately why we've ended up in this thread.


For an organisation effectively run by volunteers in their spare time, I don't necessarily expect the national federation to have procedures in place for every eventuality, as a company would be expected to. But, as this 'debacle' has shown - and hindsight is a wonderful thing - we seemed to be missing procedures at the 'upper level' for relatively basic elements that any organisation will encounter, like project management. Even though this is an essential part of the events that we organise week in, week out! At least this oversight has now been identified, and setting out the what, where, when, why, how and who for every step at the beginning of a project shouldn't be an alien concept any longer. Publicising this to the general membership so that they will take notice of it, however, seems to be an ongoing problem that no-one's come up with a good solution for yet...

[Mr Chips]

By the way, am I alone in feeling that the distinction between "events" and "competitions" is pretty blurred? (Don't all shout at one.)

No, it's clear that the majority of people don't understand the distinction between the two.

I'm glad it's not just me. Thanks.

I've just had another look at the survey referred to above - it seems to me to be largely about events and why we choose to go (or not go) to them.


PS - specially for Becks: http://xkcd.com/386/

[Scott]

PS - specially for Becks: http://xkcd.com/386/

I have a signed print of that on my wall. The Missus did suggest that I cross out "the internet" and write "Nopesport".

[seabird]

Given that the NW groups proposals have been sent to all Club newsletters, for those who disagree with them, it is probably a good idea to ensure the same issue of the newsletter has a response.

Even for those who agree with the NW proposals. in the interest of balance and fairness, it is best for all newsletters to carry both views.

There is a danger that the NW people may otherwise have achieved an unchallenged publicity coup.

NeilM40 seems to have made the most cogent explanation of the counter view in this debate. I know he is not objecting to me plagiarising his comments here for our club magazine. I imagine the same would be true if anyone else wants to use them.

Sorry to add this to a debate which seemed at last to be running out of steam.

[SJC]

Given that the NW groups proposals have been sent to all Club newsletters, for those who disagree with them, it is probably a good idea to ensure the same issue of the newsletter has a response.

In the same way that Focus has allowed the NW to put their point of view in front of the general membership ?

[RJ]

A good point SJC, and after 16 pages of debate I am fairly confident that all opinion has been aired on this subject. Great! Such a pity that the forum has been used to greater effect previously. A lot of folk read it.... and perhaps they get bored after a while.... but the topics get an airing..... there isn't any BOF governance over the debate, but does that matter. The AGM will decide this particular matter.... that is, if the resolution gets that far. Did I hear some compromise being mentioned a few pages back?????

I don't think you need to worry, seabird, most editors will have something to say as well and a balanced view may appear anyway. If it gets the general membership talking and involved in a proxy vote then we really have scored points! There are lessons to be learnt from this debate..... it might appear to be anarchy having the discussion on Nopesport, but we are the implementers of the policy when it is adopted.