BOF Vision for orienteering

[tendon]

As regards inclusivity, there's a difference between excluding people and them deciding that them don't want to orienteer.

I think thats what I was trying (badly) to say - its how do we make a broader section of the population want to orienteer - broader than the current profile of middle aged, middle class, middle income, middle management ... and their student progeny (and wait for explosion )

The Chief Executive is NOT an orienteer - that says it all

actually, I think that is good - fresh blood, experience from other sports, no baggage etc - seldom seen a good vision (company, regeneration, masterplan etc,) written from within

[johnloguk]

The thing is, orienteering in 10 years time will be wherever a whole bunch of different clubs, planners, organisers, competitors want to take it.

BOF might decide that their vision is to provide the most accessible sport for all. Club X might decide that it wants to concentrate on organising a night league. - incompatible?

Basically, what I am saying is that BOF should concentrate its vision on the areas where it really has an absolute mandate, which to my mind means doing a first rate admin job and enabling clubs to get on with putting on the events they want to, organising our international representation and doing some national level marketing of the sport.

I'm sorry Jon but I think you've just described a lot of the reasons we find ourselves having a debate about how to arrest declining numbers and attract newcomers (especially young people) into this wonderful sport.

I think that for too long some clubs, or more accurately their committees, have been more interested in organising a night league, and basically looking after the existing addicts, rather than thinking longer term about the future health of orienteering.

I've even heard it suggested that some clubs don't see the point in attracting juniors/families, and that they think a constant diet of the same old events is OK by them so why change anything. That can't be acceptable?

I would go so far as to say that not only do we need a national vision that is achievable and that we can all sign up to, but maybe we should think about what to do about the people who simply ignore it or even work against it.

Surely it would be wrong if some clubs/committees/individuals didn't promote orienteering in a positive way, work towards increased participation and all the other shared goals that most of us accept?

Why should residents of Xtown not have the chance to discover the greatest sport on the planet, just because the local club committee thinks it's time is best spent organising a night league for a small number of addicts?

By all means organise a night league, but only after you've got a few more important bases covered.

[Oldman]

Wonderful stuff, Johnloguk!!

It's not just night leagues that are the fixation though!

[tendon]

I can see it now:

"orienteering, the pinacle of sporting bureaucracy"

[awk]

Having sat through endless discussions of visions, mission statements etc etc over the past few years (and I'm not referring just to BOF!), Tim Sleepless's comments about the example vision strike a real chord: they are all too often far too woolly and generic, and smack of anything but a 'vision', more a nebulous fuzz.

To my mind, the heart of any vision has to be participation/membership numbers. Everything else is subsidiary to that, including international success. The one thing that I would add to the vision is that whatever level we envisage, it is sustainable.

That is not to say that all these other things aren't highly important they are. Indeed, participation levels are unlikely to do anything but fall if they aren't on the programme. However, the reason for doing them should be because they contribute to the drive on participation (they might also be longer term result), be they international success, respect, recognition, inclusivity, varieties of orienteering or whatever.

Any broader, and you start fudging issues: "what we did might not contribute to increasing numbers, but hey, we got respect". I'll bet mammoths and sabre toothed tigers got a lot of respect too!

[Jess]

they are all too often far too woolly and generic, and smack of anything but a 'vision', more a nebulous fuzz.
To my mind, the heart of any vision has to be participation/membership numbers. Everything else is subsidiary to that, including international success.

Indeed, participation levels are unlikely to do anything but fall if they aren't on the programme. However, the reason for doing them should be because they contribute to the drive on participation (they might also be longer term result), be they international success, respect, recognition, inclusivity, varieties of orienteering or whatever.

surely if the vision shouldn't be 'too woolly and generic' then it shouldn't just be 'increase participation/membership numbers'. As you say, international success (amongst other things) drive on participation, so to make the vision less woolly, then this needs to be a specific point. Afterall international success brings the sport to the public eye and i reckon it portrays an exciting sport which people would want to get involved in and therefore increased international success should lead to increased participation and membership numbers. I agree there's more to it than just international success, but i believe this should made a clear point.
(i hope i've put across what i was trying to say!)

[RJ]

Agree with you awk..... it is all about membership numbers. I have consistently said that if only we could double our membership and participation.....

If each club set its objective for the next five years to double membership and looked at ways and means of achieving it... then the sport would create its own future.

You have to make the sport ethically sensitive, protective of juniors/children, open to all.... etc etc.... if you are going to have any chance of achieving that membership target. We will be the sport that Sport England wants us to be if we manage to attract those people, but as a result of the effort, and not because we tick a series of boxes.

Cart before the horse!!??

[tendon]

Jess

Possibly following on from Tim Sleepless, the strategy will end up with a structure something like:

The Vision

Strategic goals underpinning the vision (say 5)

Themes to achieve the goals (say 5)

Development priorities within the themes ... as many as necessary

For example, international success is important, but as a development priority within the theme of "Higher Profile" where higher profile contributes to goals of increased membership, changed perception, better funding, ..... or whatever the consultation brings out as key issues

[AndyO]

tendon, orienteering is nowhere near reaching the pinnacle of sporting beaurocracy - just look at football with it's rules to prevent criticism of referees, while preventing referees from explaining decisions; charging people with "bringing the game into disrepute" while failing to deal with on-field cheating and off-field "bungs".

Every good organisation should have a "vision" as a guide for what the organisation is about, and around which its policies can be formulated. tim sleepless referenced an article in Harvard Business Review. You have to subscribe to get the article, but the gist should be got at http://www.jimcollins.com/lab/buildingVision/p2.html

To follow Collins' theory, the "vision" comprises two components: a core ideology (what we stand for and why we exist) and an envisioned future (what we aspire to become).

The core ideology might be "to be a healthy, competitive sport for athletes of all ages and abilities"

The envisioned future could then be "to become the premier adventure sport in the UK by 2020"

... how we define "premier" can be explored through setting targets for membership, participation, "public recognition", etc

[tendon]

tendon, orienteering is nowhere near reaching the pinnacle of sporting beaurocracy

Sorry, should have added a

It was a reaction to Jon Brooke's comment about focusing on the admin side only

[AndyO]

Yeah, I know, but when we are discussing matters like this, we should remind ourselves from time to time that we are healthy as a sport in the sense that we are constantly looking for ways to make the sport better. It could be a lot worse

[rocky]

to everyone who sees International Success as a tool to boost participation or enhance the image of the sport, you've totally missed the point of orienteering. It's not a excersise in administration, it's a sport, where everyone goes out, and tries their best. For some that means turning up on a sunday and fighting not to be last, for others it means treating the sport as a profession.

The fact that there is a World Championships is what defines this. The desire to be better orienteers should be what drives the sport forwards at all levels, but primarily towards international success.

So my vision for British Orienteering:

"Producing the best orienteers in the World, at all levels."

A BO which succeeds with this vision will have the necessary support mechanisims in place to enhance recruitment and give everyone who participates a taste of good competition, and the opportunity to maximise their own potential. To me this is a vision of a healthy sport.

All, of course, IMHO.

[Adventure Racer]

Spot on Rocky - the only issue being that a lot of people wouldn't understand what you mean just looking at that phrase in isolation (though I haven't immediately got a better suggestion which makes it any clearer).

[Gnitworp]

Maybe BOF should concentrate on developing a vision for BOF.

The thing is, orienteering in 10 years time will be wherever a whole bunch of different clubs, planners, organisers, competitors want to take it.

BOF might decide that their vision is to provide the most accessible sport for all. Club X might decide that it wants to concentrate on organising a night league. - incompatible?

Basically, what I am saying is that BOF should concentrate its vision on the areas where it really has an absolute mandate, which to my mind means doing a first rate admin job and enabling clubs to get on with putting on the events they want to, organising our international representation and doing some national level marketing of the sport.

I agree. Don't clubs have the nous to have their own local 'visions', and isn't it slightly patronising of BOF to suppose otherwise?

Souldn't BOF be a facilitator rather than a dictator?

We all know the sport will decline or even disappear if we don't do something about declining membership, especially in the younger age classes. BOF should simply encourage and facilitate whatever ideas clubs may have to remedy this.

Clubs will learn from other clubs that set an example. This, in itself, is sufficient.

[Jess]

to everyone who sees International Success as a tool to boost participation or enhance the image of the sport, you've totally missed the point of orienteering.

i don't totally agree with you on this one. I do understand that people don't want to gain international success just to use as a tool to boost participation-that's certainly not what i meant! It's more from the desire to become the best you possibly can. But i do believe that the higher the profile of the sport (eg from more international success) the more participants it could attract. So it's not neccessarily a 'tool' as such but just the way it is.