BOF Annual Reports

[greywolf]

Funny how the 2010 and 2012 reports blame the fall in participation on not having a Scottish 6 Days, whereas the 2013 report passes off the >4,000 drop as "slight", even though this was despite the uplift of a very well attended S6D...
And since when was "gateway" a verb, ffs

I'd heard that the conditions of BOF "partnership" agreements can be quite onerous for clubs but I hadn't realised they involved ornamental fireplace shelves and/or writers of historical fiction... </pedantic edit>

[bewildered]

It would be interesting know what the "non-club" activities were, and how these are recorded.

On another matter there is a comment:

There have been many changes in the talent and performance programmes during the last few years and in 2013 a clear challenge has been thrown at the programme staff to increase the number of hours of nationally planned contact time with the athletes in the programmes. With the resources available this will be particularly challenging to address during 2014 but does need resolving if the programmes are going to deliver success in a sustainable way.

There are lots of regular JROS activities going on, supporting many athletes. If the Talent department engaged with these then they may well be able to indicate what is needed for the "nationally planned contact time." There are already a number of volunteers that help with the delivery of Talent weekends, and I think (was going to say know) that with decent communication the JROS coaches might well be persuaded to join a national programme.

[MIE]

And since when was "gateway" a verb, ffs

It's written in "administrator-eze", you can mangle the
English language all you want when using that particular
"dialect". Don't you recall "run that idea up the flagpole...",
it has the same root.

[graeme]

Perfectly good managementspeak verb.

gateway vb. To be forcibly rebranded in an attempt to avoid bankruptcy after losing touch with a target market. (After Gateway supermarkets, rebranded as Somerfield)

Why does it appear on BOF's annual report?

[MIE]

Perfectly good managementspeak verb.

gateway vb. To be forcibly rebranded in an attempt to avoid bankruptcy after losing touch with a target market. (After Gateway supermarkets, rebranded as Somerfield)

Why does it appear on BOF's annual report?

Somehow I don't think that:

In 2014 we will work with these external partners to enhance
their orienteering offering and gateway their participants towards traditional
orienteering events and clubs

is the same context that the dictionary thought it would be used, but you
never know

[bewildered]

In 2014 we will work with these external partners to enhance
their orienteering offering and to avoid bankrupting their participants

[buzz]

On another matter there is a comment:

There have been many changes in the talent and performance programmes during the last few years and in 2013 a clear challenge has been thrown at the programme staff to increase the number of hours of nationally planned contact time with the athletes in the programmes. With the resources available this will be particularly challenging to address during 2014 but does need resolving if the programmes are going to deliver success in a sustainable way.

The idea that contact time by programme staff is used as a measure of success is one of the fundamental problems with how the programme is framed. The quality of any 'contact' just doesn't seem to be considered important. Its all about numbers.

I understand that one of the other requirements is to grow the membership of the squad (with I believe a target of 70 members). I doubt the programme has funds to increase the number of 'staff' so the already paper thin assistance offered to athletes is further watered down.

If we have to use numbers then perhaps map or terrain time would be a better measure.

In my opinion a much better use of BO and Sport England resources would be to set up a network of coaching and training resources including regional centres of excellence, personal coaches, and a pool of suitably qualified national coaches, as well fostering closer links with regional squads, clubs and university groups.

The actual 'contact time' could be delivered by the wealth of volunteer coaching and admin talent that we already have and the programme staff would operate as coordinators and enablers ensuring that each athlete has access to the resources and advice appropriate to them.

I know that much of this happens anyway but this in spite of, rather than as part of, the current 'programme'.

A less exclusive more inclusive programme would, I'm sure, benefit both the athletes and the sport as whole and perhaps be something worthwhile for the staff to deliver rather than just chasing numbers all the time.

[SeanC]

Going back to Greywolf's original observations, personally I don't mind the fact that (deliberately or accidentally) the report 'looks for the positive'. I guess it's read by the funding bodies so becomes PR to some extent.

The problem I have is that lots of people need a better, more detailed (more direct) analysis than in the annual report. And this isn't readily available. What are the trends? Is the sport still ageing? What's happening with juniors? What sort of events are more/less popular? Are there any regional variations? What are the demographics of new members? What's the membership churn like? Dave Nevell's analysis of females in orienteering in the latest CompassSport is a good example of what could be done.

This kind of information could be very useful at club/regional level when clubs and regions are thinking about their strategy. Anyone coming up with new ideas needs to understand what our market currently is rather than what they think it is.

I think BOF should employ a volunteer statistician. Possibly the reports available to the BOF office are quite limited, so this volunteer might need to be able to write SQL queries to analyse the data in the BOF database, and therefore be given remote access to the database. If the database is copied once a year for reporting, sensitive information can be removed from this reporting database (or this may not be a problem if the statistician is considered staff?). The statistician could then circulate the more detailed and interesting (to some) report to BOF staff, regions and clubs.

One thing orienteering isn't short of is clever bods who enjoy poring over this kind of detail so I think there should be no problem finding a volunteer.

[PhilJ]

Agree with what SeanC says I think the old (current?) mantra, participation for all needs to change as the sport is trying to be something for everyone, with limited funding and volunteer effort.

Compare ourselves with other sport/activities:
Golf - mostly popular with 40+
Triathlons - mostly popular with 18 - 30
Fell races - mostly popular with 40+
Track athletics - mostly popular 18 - 30
Adventure races - mostly popular 18 - 30
Park run - all ages
Cycling - mostly 30+ mamils

So where do we fit in ?

I'd say the mostly 40+ category (just look at entry numbers per class M50/55 as it is always the largest)

I am no statistician and these are what I just "see" when watching/competing in these sport/activities.

So would we better targeting our known market, the over 40s, rather than ticking boxes for xplorer etc that have no impact on a club membership increase? I agree that xplorer might give people a watered down version of 'O just like doing 'O on an activity weekend or school trip...and the point of it is what?

[Gross]

and the point of it is what?

Keeps the powers that be in work

[SeanC]

PhilJ - Xplorer is targeting families with younger children, definately one half of the core market, and probably one reason why its been more successful than RunChallenge which targeted the difficult to reach 18-30 group. I think Xplorer is something clubs could look at. My 7 year old son finds the standard courses at colour coded events far to hard, and this will probably be the case until he's 9 or 10, but Xplorer with its simpler maps and safe park type areas could be just the thing. Under 10's love orienteering and many other sports have a simpler version for this age group. Get them young etc.

If we were funding our own development project, I'm sure it would be a no brainer to go for the easier to reach adult groups. I would say this is 30+ rather than 40+, but some analysis of new member demographic would help.

[graeme]

I'd say the mostly 40+ category (just look at entry numbers per class M50/55 as it is always the largest)
So would we better targeting our known market, the over 40s,

Lies, damn lies and...
The demographics are rather simple and have been for years. Bimodal distribution (two peaks), one for young juniors (up to about 16), one for the group described above, getting older at approximately 1 year per year.
Our known market isn't over 40s, it's people who took up the sport in the 80's and 90's following the running boom. To target them you don't need a statistician, you need a time machine. We need to gateway the sport

[SeanC]

but running has been booming this century. Up by a third since 2005.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25263401

The question to answer, why hasn't orienteering?

[PhilJ]

i have no knowledge of xplorer here in sunny wales as it is a sport england initiative (getting ready to be shot down ), there will be an explorer thingy at the jk totally separate from the main event (we wanted it that way!).

So a simple question to the english clubs, what percentage of new members have joined your club coming via an explorer experience? We always ask any new member where did you here about us etc that way we can gauge a little of what publicity has worked and what hasn't. So has membership at a junior level increased as a direct result of xplorer or is it not supposed to? If it is not then what's the point of it, or has graeme and others already answered that, bums on seats in HQ?

[SeanC]

Xplorer and RunChallenge were launched in parts of the north of England only. Nothing down south.