Work Reduction

Pete,

The workload has been greatly reduced. Scanning now takes place with most of the Certifier's in the East and some in the West. The rest of the scanning takes place with the VC's. Our check and balance is still maintained by the VC's and Course registrar.

As for courses expiring after 10 years, it is a simple process now that USATF web person has set an easy way to remove them with one click.

Note we defined replace to be used only if a course is no longer usable. Hence, this has happened maybe 10 times this year and made that part of the job easier.

As for removing the status code, does this mean all courses are Active? This shouldn't happen as it will be in direct conflict of a course expiring.

quote:

Originally posted by Gene Newman:
Pete,

The workload has been greatly reduced. Scanning now takes place with most of the Certifier's in the East and some in the West. The rest of the scanning takes place with the VC's. Our check and balance is still maintained by the VC's and Course registrar.

As for courses expiring after 10 years, it is a simple process now that USATF web person has set an easy way to remove them with one click.

Note we defined replace to be used only if a course is no longer usable. Hence, this has happened maybe 10 times this year and made that part of the job easier.

As for removing the status code, does this mean all courses are Active? This shouldn't happen as it will be in direct conflict of a course expiring.

Thanks for pointing out how this job is time consuming. I appreciate your comment.

I don't think the workload of Course Registrar can be explained. The time commitment is huge.
Any reduction in work is a bonus.
Having the maps scanned and sent electronically must be a major relief.
Having had the position, I applaud both Pete for maintaining the original Lotus 123 and hard copy files as well as Gene for maintaining the current electronic online course list.

On 26 October 2013 Gene Newman wrote:

“As for removing the status code, does this mean all courses are Active? This shouldn't happen as it will be in direct conflict of a course expiring.” it will be in direct conflict of a course expiring.”

We say that a course expires because its route description is no longer accurate, and we arbitrarily chose ten years as a reasonable time period for a course to remain “active.” In reality, most courses will become inactive in less than ten years, mainly because the originally certified course was no longer run, and the race made changes in the route.

At the time we did this the course list existed as an annually-published book, and its size needed to be controlled. This is no longer the case.

Conversely, there are races that appear to be immortal. In 1983 I measured the UACA 5 Mile Run in my town of Upper Arlington, Ohio. The certificate was countersigned by Ted Corbitt and numbered “OH 8411 PR.” At the time I was a runner and wanted this yearly-run course to be certified. The route uses long-established suburban streets, is run every year, and has not changed a whit in the thirty years since I measured it. I believe Jim Gerweck has some similar experience with long-lived courses.

On the other hand, I measured the Columbus Marathon route from 1985 through 2012, and during that time the course underwent 17 changes – a change about every other year.
The course list shows a number of entries regarding the status of the course. It’s been replaced, expired and passed a validation in its various configurations.

The “active” status, in short, is no better than a guess, based on not much information.
The only course of interest to most people is the latest version of the course. This is easily identifiable by its course number. Records-keepers might wish to find a past version of the course, and they can already do so. The course “status” does not help them, as a now-expired race may not have been expired when the record was set.

The course map is where the rubber hits the road. It’s the definition of the course, not a word in a column in the course list.

In answer to Gene’s query above, removing the status code will NOT mean that all courses are active. It means that an individual course was certified, and may or may not be active depending on whether the measured route is current.

The status code adds work and contributes little to nothing of value. It is time to dump it.

I thought the active/inactive status was done automatically based on the year of certification?
Which is why adjustments must be given a certification year 10 years earlier than the year they expire.

Just another angle on this discussion, and not to change the subject: have we considered setting up an office to handle some of the work of registering? It does sound to me like at least some of the work involved does not necessarily need to be done by a measurer or measurement-savvy person. Is there enough work to keep one person busy x number of days per week or perhaps full time? Would this mean we would need to increase the course registration fee so much that we would discourage course certification?

I don't think Gene is complaining but I do wonder if we would need to consider something like this if the numbers keep growing.

In response to Bob's comment - instead of adding an office position, we should automate the process of submitting certs and getting them into the db.

If certifiers submit online, VCs then review, then "Okay" it, so Registrar will then review. When Registrar approves the course, it would then be written into the USATF db, without any typing by the Registrar.

That is what should be done, not add an office position. If we are thinking about spending money (I know, this is just a discussion) on an office position, I think it would be better to spend it on Web development.

As an observer of the development of computer systems over a lifetime my experience has been that computerized tasks inevitably involve more people and time to get the same work done.

Keep things basic and simple. Jobs in RRTC change from time to time, and it should be possible for the new guy to do the job without special computer training.

Remember - not all measurers are computer-literate to the same degree that some of us are.

Bob - there is no need for a separate office. My feelings are you need a person that has the knowledge about measurement data doing this job. Duane's idea is interesting, but in my view, someone still enters data! This data must still be checked.

How many times have I found mistakes on your certificates Bob? Also, even though I check things at least two times others have found my mistakes.

All, I'm retired and have the time to do this job.

Gene and Pete, that is the beauty of having an online submission site. Initially, VCs would enter the data from the certs we receive. I already enter much of it into my own db. Then, the Registrar would review it. If there was an error, he could correct it. BUT, part of the entry process is having programmed calculations. We enter elevations, and Drop is calculated. No error, unless we fat-finger the entry. Same with Separation - it is calculated by the Web page.

Once that is proven to be smooth, then Certifiers would enter the information. Once entered, the VC would review, and "release" to the Registrar. Again, all calculations are automatic. Checking that cert numbers match on map and form is done by VC (and, ultimately, the Registrar), as is Effective Date, etc. VCs can change any errors.

Once that is working smoothly, then Measurers would enter their Measurement Data Sheets, and the Application Form in a Web page. Drop-downs, limited choices, etc. When they enter the measurement data, the Interval is calculated, which is a double-check to make sure they didn't mis-enter clicks. Automation and control of input.

All would not be implemented at once. It would be a staggered rollout, so it can be evaluated at each level. But, each phase would ultimately save time, and reduce errors. Even when the Registrar enters data now, there are errors. This would reduce the errors that make it online.

Something to think about.

Duane, sounds like the workload is passed onto someone else. I have seen over and over again wrong drops/separations done by Certifiers, who claim to have a spreadsheet that does it. Our system is working fine and the workload shouldn't be passed on to others as suggested in my view.

Daune, again here are my comments on all your parts to the process.

Your 1st idea!
Initially, VCs would enter the data from the certs we receive. I already enter much of it into my own db. Then, the Registrar would review it. If there was an error, he could correct it. BUT, part of the entry process is having programmed calculations. We enter elevations, and Drop is calculated. No error, unless we fat-finger the entry. Same with Separation - it is calculated by the Web page.

The above comment is interesting, but how difficult is to calculate the drop/sep?

Your 2nd idea!
Once that is proven to be smooth, then Certifiers would enter the information. Once entered, the VC would review, and "release" to the Registrar. Again, all calculations are automatic. Checking that cert numbers match on map and form is done by VC (and, ultimately, the Registrar), as is Effective Date, etc. VCs can change any errors.

The above comment is interesting, but having a certifier do this is unrealistic. Certifier’s have enough to do. How many certifiers have computers? What do we do with the ones that don't have a computer or don't want to do it!

Your 3rd idea!
Once that is working smoothly, then Measurers would enter their Measurement Data Sheets, and the Application Form in a Web page. Drop-downs, limited choices, etc. When they enter the measurement data, the Interval is calculated, which is a double-check to make sure they didn't mis-enter clicks. Automation and control of input.

Having a measurer do this is really unrealistic. You’re assuming they all use a computer.

All would not be implemented at once. It would be a staggered rollout, so it can be evaluated at each level. But, each phase would ultimately save time, and reduce errors. Even when the Registrar enters data now, there are errors. This would reduce the errors that make it online.

Nice idea, but very unrealistic in the real world.

Gene,

Yes, the work would be spread out, instead of concentrated on the Registrar. Just as certs are written by State Certifiers, instead of the Vice-chairs (spread the work out, so no one person is overwhelmed), if measurers entered their data online, certs would be self-populating, but only available to the Certifer, until "released".

True, not all certifiers use computers, but those that don't could still submit via mail. Not a requirement that everyone submit online. Same with measurers. If they don't use computers, they can still mail everything to the certifier. The biggest hurdle would be the scanning of the map. I still have to noodle that in more depth.

Measurers already complete data sheets and applications, so having them do it online instead of onto paper (assuming they use a computer, and have Internet access), is simply a different medium. It doesn't add work (except for those of us who enter our calibration numbers into Excel, and have it populate our measurement data sheet) for the measurer, nor anywhere else in the pipeline.

It certainly is not ready for programming now, but I think a discussion could be beneficial. Just bringing it up for discussion.

You can bring it up anytime. However, I don;t see this as less work for the Certifiers, VC's or Registrar. Yes, maybe they would have less typing data, but to trust a measurer to do it?