Review of Opportunities to Strengthen the Delivery of Sailing in Australia
Download 2.74 Mb.
|
|
The indicative pathway could also be described using a matrix which delineates by customer type (by age of entry) and offer. Table 4: Indicative Pathway for Sailing Participants
Participant Definitions7 ‘Junior’: is defined by the class rules of the following junior classes: International Cadet, International Optimist, Sabot, Minnow, Flying Ant, Manly Junior, Flying 11 and Laser 4.7. The recommended junior age is generally recognised as less than 16 years. ‘Youth’ in loose terms is any participant under the age of 25. For the purposes of Youth-only events ‘Youth’ is based on ISAF Regulation 17.4.3, i.e. a Participant shall not have achieved their 19th Birthday by 31st December of the year of participation. At present this is the maximum age. The exception to this statement is in the case of Youth Match Racing where the regatta age limit is generally determined by the regatta organiser. The absence of a national pathway and consistent entry-level programs and opportunities has created an inefficient and an inferior market approach to participation development in sailing throughout Australia, resulting in ineffective collaboration between the YA, MYA and club partner network. In addition to the evidence provided in the overall declining membership numbers for sailing, there are numerous examples where nationally driven sport development initiatives have consistently failed to generate the support required from the MYA and club partner network. The failure of YA, MYAs and clubs to work together effectively on interdependent initiatives in its current federal structure is covered in more specific detail in Section 2.5 of this document. Unfortunately, there appears to be an endemic dysfunction in successfully implementing initiatives within the sport which are aimed at participation recruitment and retention, volunteers (coaches and officials) and overall club development. Several examples follow which illustrate the problematic nature of executing sport development initiatives within the sailing community. These examples include the Onboard and Youth Sailboard initiatives. Case Study One: Onboard – National ‘Welcome to Sailing’ Initiative The Onboard Program was part of the ASC’s Targeted Sports Participation Growth Program (TSPGP) and originally set out to provide sailing clubs, who signed up to the program, with access to interested potential participants. As an Onboard partner, a club could search a YA database for registered participants who live in the area near the club, and from there contact them with invitations to come to the club and participate in a club event, and hopefully they are interested in becoming active members of the club. For prospective participants, Onboard provides the capability to use specific criteria to list preferences or interests in categories such as dinghies, crewing opportunities and opportunities for people with a disability. The registration system for Onboard was trialled by the reviewer and works very efficiently. A welcome message was immediately delivered from the YA CEO upon registration, and within two hours a personal invitation to visit the club and a club event was received from the Rear Commodore of the club matched to the inquiry. The lack of understanding and agreement related to the ASC-funded Onboard targeted growth program highlighted flaws in the YA and MYA relationship and impeded the possibility of successful delivery. The ASC observed the inability of YA to work with the states effectively in delivering a national sport development initiative. Some MYAs and clubs share a view that participation development and programs is the domain of clubs and that there is not a meaningful role for YA. As a result, the strategy was not well supported, despite YA initially securing more than $700,000 from the ASC to fund its development and delivery. It must be said though that many of the Targeted Sport Growth Programs saw NSOs being driven by ‘getting the numbers’ within the life of the program funding, often at the detriment of sustainability. These programs may well have benefited from the work that has been done in the meantime on junior sport ethos and club development. A majority of the targeted growth programs, including Onboard, suffered particularly from lack of buy-in and resistance from the stakeholders. The low levels of commitment from stakeholders may have been overcome had there been an adequate opportunity to thoroughly research the needs of the clubs and design a solution which provided them with the practical assistance required to execute the awareness and welcoming initiative. Many sailing clubs do run successful open days with come-and-try events to encourage new members into their clubs. YA could build on these principles and those of the original Onboard program to provide a structured national welcoming program that provides clubs with the tools and promotional resources to welcome new participants. The Onboard web-based technology is still very relevant to the new recruitment value chain, however it is the vital elements of creating awareness to use Onboard and the subsequent level of readiness of clubs to be willing and able to accept new members into a nationally branded welcoming/participation scheme which remain under-developed. Case Study Two: Youth Sailboard Initiative This initiative was intended to build depth for the high-performance board class and was initiated by the YA high-performance unit and developed by the YA sport services unit. Significant resources of the sport services unit were invested in the development of the initiative, despite concerns that there were limited resources available by YA and MYAs to implement effectively and clubs had shown little interest in the initiative. Unfortunately, the initiative has failed to gain traction. The MYAs did not ask for it (no demand), and only a handful of clubs (two or three) showed any interest in activating the initiative. While the premise of the high-performance unit of building the depth and capability of the class is logical, development of the initiative ultimately diverted scarce resources in the sport services unit to activities which did not reflect the needs or priorities of YA’s customers. While both the Onboard and Youth Sailboard initiatives had sound premise, it would have been instructive to design and evaluate both initiatives using a decision support tool such as program logic methodology (results-based measurement). The principal aim of the program logic model is that it requires users to specify what they hope will happen (in the form of a sequenced chain), and then test each of the links in the chain to identify what actually happened. Below is a simple yet effective illustration of its application to a participation development initiative such as Onboard.
The inputs are money ($700,000), human resources (YA and MYA), intellectual property (YA and MYA), and facilities, training and equipment (383 clubs) required to deliver the program. The activity (this converts inputs to outputs) is promoting the Onboard program – via websites, clubs, schools, boat shows, radio, etc. (Program awareness). The output (what was produced) is that some people hear and learn about the Onboard offering (via the YA website or direct enquiry to clubs). The outcome is that some of the people act on what they have heard and join the program (Conversion of interest). The impact is that sampling/membership of the Onboard program and participation in sailing is increased. The step-by-step testing of the chain is the power of the program logic model – if the program did not work as intended, the model provides the ability to identify the weak links in the chain. In the context of the Onboard initiative, this approach could have served as a useful diagnostic tool in helping to identify the underlying cause of poor performance so that remediation could be targeted at fixing the problem rather than simply addressing the symptoms. Application of this tool would have been especially useful at the pilot program stage. Naturally, the roll-out of the pilot stage of a new sport development initiative and its subsequent evaluation should only happen following appropriate research to determine the needs of the targeted audience. National Leadership on Participation and Club Development Pathway clarity and consistency is an important component to all organised sports for a variety of reasons. Not only is it critical to be able to articulate in a narrative or diagrammatically the pathway options which exist for participants, a consistent and cohesive approach provides far stronger efficiencies in the execution of professional promotional awareness strategies and production of technical and marketing resources. Sailing has an attractive product; unfortunately, a highly fragmented approach means it is currently not possible to describe and communicate this offering consistently to the marketplace. The current approach of participation development for entry-level sailing in Australia largely being devolved to the clubs is not working, as is evidenced by the decline in overall sailing membership. Development of the pathway and programs for entry-level participants should not be left in the hands of the clubs and is clearly an area where both YA and MYAs need to demonstrate stronger leadership if participation in the sport is to prosper. It is the reviewer’s opinion that the priorities for YA leadership in nationally driven participation development programs are in the following areas: Learn to Sail program (LTS) – introductory, learn basics, fun, Auskick-style program to introduce primary and high school aged children 5 to 12 years to small dinghies (preferably delivered through a YA licensing model and delivered by clubs or private providers to ensure a consistent national product offering). Learn to Sail and Race – introductory, learn basics, then learn to race (i.e. program may culminate with intra or inter school teams racing regatta). This program would target high school participants aged 12 to 17 years and would also potentially be delivered through a YA licensing model by clubs or private providers. The existing online IT platform provided through Onboard and developed through the ASC TSPGP could be readily integrated into both programs. Schools programs provide very good opportunities for recruitment into the sport through teams racing, however this segment remains underdeveloped. YA are currently exploring partnerships with potential providers (possibly via a licensing model) who would provide transportable equipment and programs to groups on a fee-for-service arrangement. This would address the significant downtime at sailing clubs during the middle part of the day from Monday to Friday, and presents a strong opportunity to build sailing into the school curriculum, while strengthening club viability. As indicated in other sections of this report, the majority of the MYAs are supportive of YA and have stated that they are looking for leadership, guidance, support and tools to improve the delivery of the sport to their members. The YA website (www.yachting.org.au) in fact provides a comprehensive range of sport and club development information for clubs and members. Given the perception of many stakeholders consulted throughout the review that these resources do not exist, YA may need to be more proactive and promote these resources to their MYAs and members. YA have created an initial working relationship with the Boating Industry Association (BIA) to explore mutually beneficial initiatives. The boating industry members through the BIA (which encompass the interests of manufacturers of sailing vessels) have a vested interest in seeing yachting and boating participation grow as they stand to benefit directly from equipment and boat purchases. Together with the BIA there is potential to create a strong alliance for advocacy purposes but also to advance YA’s current Junior Sailing Plan and improve support for the recently adopted Youth Development strategy. YA have also attained Gold Level of Project Connect for disability sailing. An example of implementation of such programs is Sailability, a non-profit organisation dedicated to increasing sailing opportunities, regardless of age or disability. Internationally, various initiatives are being developed as part of the ISAF Connect to Sailing Project. Training YA are recognised as a Registered Training Organisation (RTO) by NSW VETAB to deliver training, conduct assessments and issue qualifications in four units of competency from the TAA40104 Training Package. As part of the Training program, YA currently maintain and operate a series of National Training Schemes which are delivered via nearly 350 Recognised Centres around Australia. MYAs are closely involved with the delivery model and provide on-site auditing of recognised centres to ensure compliance is maintained. Training is offered for both sail and power craft, and is designed to impart the basic knowledge and skills necessary to allow the student to get afloat in safety. An estimated 80,000 to 100,000 members of the community undertake training at commercial and club operated Yachting Australia recognised centres each year, although not all of these result in a Yachting Australia qualification. Many of the participants are either not assessed or don’t want the qualification – thus making it very difficult to provide an accurate assessment of the number of people going through the scheme. YA is in the process of revamping the business structure and resources of its training operations to re-energise its National Training Scheme, with a view to seeing its training activities generating a profit. Whilst progress to rebuild the schemes and the brand has been made, it may be some time before training generates a positive financial return. A review of training in 2004 found that there is general frustration in the delivery and performance of the YA National Training Scheme. The scheme is not being taken up consistently, and some clubs are using their own adaptations of the resources and courses and thus creating concerns about quality control. It was also noted that many clubs were underselling the training product and attempting to keep costs down utilising a volunteer delivery model. While the consumer does seek good value for money, the lack of professionalism typically delivered through the volunteer-dependent model is clearly not working and not what the majority of the public want or demand. Consumers are seeking a professional experience and are prepared to pay for it. Utilising a delivery model which is more reflective of the ‘golf pro-shop’ will be the more effective direction to grow the profitability of clubs, commercial operators, MYAs and YA.
However, YA are now addressing this and will adopt the Royal Yachting Association (RYA) cruising scheme as the national scheme for Australia. In July 2006 Yachting Australia and the RYA signed a Heads of Agreement regarding various training initiatives. YA and the RYA then committed to collaborate and jointly manage the operation of the Yacht Cruising Scheme. RYA has recently invited Yachting Australia to enter into a licence agreement for the future delivery of the scheme. The program will provide a clear pathway and recognition for students nationally and internationally. All materials produced for the scheme, including certificates, will be co-branded by YA and RYA. YA will be the sole RYA provider in Australia and the program will be managed and administered nationally. The agreement will be for a five-year term commencing 1 January 2008 and renewable every five years. YA will pay the RYA an annual audit fee and royalties on recognition fees and exams from year 2 onwards. The existing Yacht Cruising Scheme would be phased out by 31 December 2010. Under the agreement Yachting Australia will manage, administer and promote all aspects of the scheme, including: handling all financial transactions from January 2008 and being the first point of contact for the Scheme; contracting the services of the current RYA Australia Coordinator from November 2008 to oversee the Scheme as Chief Instructor and handle all inspections, etc. thereafter; being a non-exclusive distributor of non-restricted publications and the exclusive distributor of restricted publications; and seeking recognition of the scheme by Australian regulatory authorities. The RYA will provide an Australian Co-ordinator for the first 12 to 15 months and will be responsible for: handling all technical and instruction matters and assisting Yachting Australia with all transitional arrangements; training Yachting Australia personnel to handle all administrative arrangements; leading the delivery of training for examiners and instructors; inspecting all schools seeking to deliver the scheme; auditing the management and delivery of the scheme; and maintaining the MCA recognition for the scheme. YA have recently developed and advertised a new position to employ a National Participation and Training Manager. The new role will be responsible for leading and managing the provision of boating training in Australia and managing Yachting Australia’s Training and RTO operations. The position will also lead the development and management of the necessary infrastructure and program arrangements to attract new participants to the sport and ensure they receive quality experiences. The Participation and Training Manager will work closely with MYA representatives to ensure the National Training Schemes and other agreed national initiatives are successfully delivered by appropriately contracted Yachting Australia Training Centres (YATCs) or licensed operators and manage the development and maintenance of agreed publications and other materials to support the schemes and other programs. Bringing together the activities of both training and participation development is a logical and beneficial direction for the sport to adopt. This indicated direction should provide a more streamlined and consistent approach to participation recruitment and retention activities. Sport Development Links to High Performance The YA 2006–09 National Youth Development Plan identifies its preferred international classes as suitable for youth participation as the International 420, International 29er, International Laser, International Laser Radial, Sailboard Neil Pryde RSX 8.5, and International Hobie 16 with spinnaker. The preferred Junior classes are the International Cadet, International Optimist and Laser 4.7, and junior feeder classes allow for various Australian classes including but not limited to Sabot, Minnow, Flying Ant, Manly Junior and Flying 11. The diagram below represents the preferred Youth Development pathway to the Olympic Classes. Beyond the elite level coaches and SIS/SAS programs, there appears to be limited knowledge within the broader sailing community of this preferred pathway and boat classes for youth development leading into the Olympic Classes. Figure 2: Youth Development Pathway into Olympic Classes 
Simplification, clarification and standardisation of preferred and appropriate classes for entry-level competitive and recreational sailors is required to improve consistency of program delivery nationally. As an example, YA have designated the Pacer Dinghy as the preferred equipment for Team Racing activities and have also provided details of manufacturers throughout Australia who supply the Pacer, which is the primary format for competitive sailing development within the high school system. A plan to standardise the classes of boats provided and subsidised by clubs that are most appropriate for client development would assist in removing a lot of confusion generated by having more than 100 classes in the sport, and would encourage stronger development of classes which underpin the 11 Olympic classes and Teams Racing. A nationally consistent fleet promoted to clubs and private training providers would enable a move towards a more cost-effective fleet procurement model. The opportunity could exist to create preferred fleet manufacturing partners, which may result in a fleet rebate or licensing fee which could be redirected and invested into YA development activities nationally. Membership Model and Services YA has recently developed a ‘Yachting Demographic’ to classify yacht clubs into seven bands, taking into account factors such as membership numbers, history, facilities, competitive programs, staff and turnover. This determines what levies will be applied to clubs. This membership scheme has been adopted by the FA and fees are collected by MYAs through their member clubs. The contribution from members through this scheme is currently around $560,000 per annum ($13.72 per adult; $3.43 for those under 18). Part of the fee is retained by the respective MYA, with the balance passed on to YA. Fees from members are spent exclusively on activities related to developing and providing services and programs delivered by the MYAs. Feedback from several of the capital city consultations was that YA should establish a national membership contribution target and set a fixed fee to collect from each MYA proportionate to relative membership share, allowing the MYAs flexibility to develop their own arrangements for membership systems for clubs, and let clubs define their own membership models. In this model, clubs would be given an unlimited supply of Silver Cards to provide to their sailing and recreational boating members as required. In all of this it is important that YA can view and have access to the total membership. YA have indicated that the most recent iteration of the proposed National Membership Scheme fees presented to the FA in October 2007 is broadly reflective of the proposed model described above, although MYAs and clubs would not be provided with an unlimited supply of Silver Cards. In the proposed model, MYAs have total discretion to choose their own methodology for the collection of the YA subscription and may choose to apply the national banding model or their own system entirely. The fees to be paid by each MYA under the new banding system will be phased in over three years so that by the 2010–11 year the fees paid by the MYAs will be made on an agreed basis. The proposed fee schedule for the next three years (without CPI increase) for the new National Membership Scheme to be introduced from the 2008–09 is as follows: Table 5: Proposed MYA Fee Schedule (2008/09-2010/11)
The funds derived from member contributions are not insignificant; however YA should be aspiring to ultimately reduce its dependency on these fees over a seven- to ten-year period and aim to replace this income with increasingly self-generated revenues. A nationally consistent suite of sport and club development assets whose value could be aggregated and delivered nationally throughout the club network would create an attractive selection of sponsorship properties which would go some way towards replacing the current reliance on income derived from the membership levy. Community (Club) Coaching Yachting Australia has made a distinction between Instructors and Coaches based on the activities they undertake with their participants. Instructors introduce and teach new skills and knowledge, as set out in the National Training Scheme syllabus, to course participants. Coaches refine and develop skills and knowledge. Coaches do not deliver to a syllabus, rather to the individual needs of those being coached. The following definitions and delineations apply to the roles: Instructor An Instructor teaches introductory sailing/powerboating skills to all participant age groups. The training scheme sets out course syllabus for delivery and accreditation is through Yachting Australia and delivered through a recognised YATC. Pre-requisite: Instructors must be over 18 years of age, posses a current senior first aid and CPR certificate, powerboat handling, scheme certificate of level that they want to deliver. Club Coaches Delivers introductory racing skills and assists athletes to develop to club representative level. Works with athlete on an informal (may be regular) basis. Could be through the club environment or post-training scheme coaching. Athletes of any age, but are likely to be youth. Assisting the athlete by interpreting information for them (i.e. weather). Probably operates in local area – limited travel with athletes. Pre-requisite: Club coaches must be over 18 years of age, possess Instructor qualification, senior first aid and CPR certificate (re-validated), and safety-boat handling certificate. Club coaching varies from state to state, with coaches engaged by clubs often for specific programs or employed directly by individual crews. While there is a documented NCAS structure which outlines the national coaching pathway, it is not necessarily observed. Following the development of the NCAS Sailing Club Coach Course by YA in partnership with the ASC, YA reports that uptake of the course by clubs has been disappointing – possibly due to apathy or lack of understanding by the clubs and YA of what was actually wanted. While there should ideally be a seamless pathway for coaches to be developed at all levels of the pathway (from entry, through feeder and sub-elite levels to the elite level), YA support for non-Olympic coach development should have a major role to play in junior coach development, while maintaining close collaboration with the AST (Olympic Program) on pathways planning and delivery to ensure optimal coach development at all levels. Table 6: Distribution of Accredited Coaches and Instructors (2007)
2.2.6 Officiating YA have recently undertaken an initial review of its National Officiating Program (NOP). The review aimed to make recommendations for improvements to the current structure, delivery processes and resources of the YA NOP. The review recommended YA takes a leadership role in the development of national standards, the syllabus and program management. Purpose of the NOP The NOP aims to: Support MYAs in the development of volunteer management tools. Improve YA and MYA communication with existing and prospective NOP members. Develop a strong club education training structure. Review national and state accreditation qualification requirements. Conduct regular education seminars in all disciplines. Develop an internationally recognised sail measurers accreditation. Review all NOP training materials and processes. Update and support course and accreditation feedback processes. Publish clear development procedures including accreditation requirements and standards. Support the national database for accreditation and logbook use. Establish a development fund to assist officials achieve higher accreditation. Develop a recognition program for members. Review and update the structure of officiating management committees. Develop self management policies. Allocate the necessary resources within YA to support the delivery of the NOP. The review is intended to provide each MYA with a clear set of policies, guides and appropriate resources so that the sport can develop Measurers, Judges, Umpires and Race Officers in a consistent manner and standard of quality. The sport will need to invest in the production of printed and electronic resources, and support these materials with a national communication/education strategy and practical roll-out to clubs in order to implement these outcomes and enhance the position of officiating nationally. Table 7: Trends in Accredited National Officials: 2002/03 -2007/08
N.B. 2007-08 year is incomplete Club Events/Regattas YA provide a national competition template, including conditions of conduct that details the structure of each event so as to ensure they are conducted in the same manner from year to year. The conditions also detail the process and guidelines for clubs to apply, through their MYA, to host national events. Yachting Australia may also appoint an Event Technical Delegate to a Yachting Australia Championship. The role of the Technical Delegate is to act as Yachting Australia’s representative for the overall management, conduct and authority of the event. It is also important to note however that many events are controlled by the Classes and not the MYAs or YA. There is also a change in the number and nature of events, with more social events, more one-off events and shorter races. YA (in partnership with MYAs and clubs) may wish to explore the opportunity to develop boutique events that engage a broader range of sailors and members of the general non-sailing public as well as target corporate and regional commercial opportunities. The development of spectator-friendly events would provide an attractive showcase for the sport to promote sailing to the mainstream public while at the same time engaging a broader range of sailing competitors. State, metropolitan and regional event corporations should be targeted to explore the development of new events or to align existing events with YA as part of building the profile and desired brand image and footprint of the sport during the summer period. It is interesting to note that Rowing Australia is currently undertaking an audit of all its national events to review their purpose, format, timing and potential commercial benefits. The process also aims to identify additional events which may serve particular purposes, including promotion and marketing of the sport to the public, sponsors and potential participants. There are a myriad of events at the levels below international and national regattas, which are managed by the clubs and MYAs. The National Events Schedule is managed by YA and consists of annual championships which are conducted on a rotational basis throughout the states and territories. The national events include: Australian Youth Championship (AYC) Australian Schools Team Racing Championship (ASTRC) Australian Team Racing Championship (ATRC) Australian Youth Match Racing Championship (AYMRC) Australian Women's Match Racing Championship (AWMRC) Australian Match Racing Championship (AMRC) CONCLUSION National leadership supported by effective and unambiguous collaboration with the MYAs and clubs is the key to fostering the growth in sailing’s membership and participation - and ultimately the delivery of better outcomes for clubs and the sailing community. Sailing will simply not compete with the better funded organised sports if it continues with its highly fragmented and inconsistent delivery model at the grass roots level. Sailing does not have the resources to sustain the inefficiencies of the current approach. Sailing is an attractive product, which has adventure appeal and the flexibility to be delivered through the traditional club system and on a pay-as-you-go basis – these are points of difference and strong competitive advantages for the sport if correctly harnessed. Naturally, the overwhelming contribution to the sport comes from the grass roots through volunteering services and the investment in developing local markets by the clubs themselves. If YA is to act in a more direct manner to lead the development of community sailing and contribute to the building of better clubs, then the bolstering of the YA commercial program becomes an increasingly critical factor in providing tangible support in sailing’s sport and club development outcomes especially through national program initiatives. DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS: SPORT DEVELOPMENT (COMMUNITY SAILING) In developing these recommendations, the reviewer acknowledges that YA is currently developing and/or beginning to undertake many of the initiatives outlined below. We do however believe that with the adoption of the major strategy, governance and management related recommendations, YA will be able to deliver stronger stakeholder alignment, commitment and accountability at all levels of the sport that will lead to a higher implementation success rate for national sport development strategies and programs – and ultimately better outcomes for clubs and the sailing community. National Participation Pathways and Programs To improve the participation development activities which attract and retain new members (through programs and experiences) and contribute towards the growth of sailing in Australia, it is recommended that:
To promote best practice and to minimise the waste of resources and risk to YA, MYAs and clubs associated with the development of new participation and club development initiatives it is recommended that:
Resource Awareness and Development To improve the promotion and application of existing and future resources designed to improve the delivery of sailing at clubs it is recommended that:
Training YA has now adopted the Royal Yachting Association (RYA) cruising scheme as the national scheme for Australia and in early 2008 will appoint a National Participation and Training Manager to drive the adoption and growth of the RYA products. To optimise the uptake of the RYA/YA scheme and the professionalisation of training, it is recommended that:
Membership Model The new YA membership model scheme is designed to simplify the national scheme for MYAs and clubs without compromising the ability of YA to have oversight of the national membership. YA oversight and connection to clubs and individual customers is required to make strategic decisions on future advancements in the sport as well as promote opportunities and benefits to members. It is recommended that:
Officiating Following the completion of the YA review of its National Officiating Program, it is recommended that:
2.3 HIGH PERFORMANCE KEY PERFORMANCE DRIVERS High-performance planning and implementation, in particular the sport’s objectives and priorities for high-performance success; Talent identification and development; High-performance management; and Coaching and athlete support services. Overview of Olympic Sailing Program History and Results – Olympic Games Sailing has been a mainstay sport in the modern Olympic era with regattas conducted at all games with the exception of 1896 (cancelled due to rough weather conditions) and the 1904 Games in the inland city of St. Louis USA. The USA and Norway have each won 16 Gold medals, followed by Great Britain with 14, France with 12, Denmark with 10 and Sweden and Spain with 9 each. Australia’s Olympic sailing results include a strong record of 5 Gold, 3 Silver and 8 Bronze medals. While Australia has an enviable Olympic record, in the more recent era Great Britain and Spain have emerged as the leading contenders at Olympic regattas. Great Britain’s elite sailing program has benefited significantly from increased Government investment (approximately double the amount of Australian funding) and was GBR’s most successful Olympic sport in 2004. F   igure 3: Comparison of Olympic Results – Australia, Great Britain and Spain (1948-2004)
The 2004 Olympic Campaign After sustained improvement at and between the 1992 and 1996 Olympics, Australian sailing delivered its best ever results at Sydney 2000, and medal expectations and sailor world rankings were high leading into Athens 2004. However, the campaign faltered due to a variety of factors, which emerged from the post-Athens high-performance review and subsequently during the development of Yachting Australia’s Gold Medal Plan (see section 2.3.2). The Gold Medal Plan identified a number of key contributing factors which led to Australia’s underperformance in Athens, many of which were analysed in comparison to the approach of the GBR Olympic Sailing program. Factors identified in the review and plan relating to the 2004 campaign included: Insufficient understanding and/or poor handling of conditions vs. competitors: Other countries led by Great Britain were better prepared for local conditions. Poor lead-in preparation to the campaign: Characterised by a late start; limited local competition/team; poor fitness levels and illness within the team. Psychological preparation: Performances leading into the Games presented high expectations, however winning mentality issues were not adequately addressed which delivered inconsistent racing risk management under pressure. The psychological issues were twofold: 1) Positive results in the lead-in events distorted perception of the competitiveness of the playing field – i.e. some competitors were trialling new innovations or developing more adaptable race tactics in test events and therefore results were not reflective of real competition; 2) Some of the Australian sailors lacked confidence and self-belief in their own abilities and were beaten mentally at the starting line. A team approach, focused on winning Gold Medals: This is at the core of GBR’s comprehensive Olympic program. This is of particular importance on a crew boat – a hierarchal element between the skipper and the crew had developed in several of the Australian classes which have since been abolished to breed a truly unified team approach. Coaching gaps: Insufficient level of resources and focus; problematic relationships; limited use of SSSM and technology-based innovation; and Insufficient funding: Led by GBR and a number of the other top countries, competitive Olympic sailing programs were generously funded and more professional relative to Australia’s program and preparation. High-Performance Plan for Sailing In 2003, YA and the ASC/AIS conducted a review of sailing’s high-performance program and appointed a high-performance advisory panel. According to the AIS, very few of the recommendations of this review were successfully implemented prior to 2006. During the 2003–05 period, it was considered that personnel within the YA High Performance Unit (HPU) struggled with formal planning processes and the structured operational delivery of the review recommendations and strategic initiatives. Australian Sailing Team (Olympic Program) – The Gold Medal Plan In 2005, YA commissioned external consultant Peter Conde to conduct a comprehensive review of the 2004 Olympic campaign and to develop a strategic level framework aimed at delivering success at the 2008 Olympics and beyond. The process gathered and synthesised insights from a range of leading Australian athletes, coaches and subject experts from within and outside of the sport of sailing. The review also involved a comprehensive analysis of competitive intelligence – in particular the ingredients of success modelled by the GBR Olympic Sailing Program. The resultant Gold Medal Plan (GMP) produced five key themes to prioritise the success of Australia’s campaign for 2008 and beyond. They were to:
The GMP is positive in that the objectives and priorities of the plan are very focused and clear and their development has been evidence-based. As a planning instrument for high-performance sport, the GMP is considered by both the AIS and the reviewer as a leading best practice example. More importantly, the plan is delivering its promise in the majority of the priority areas and associated initiatives. Upon review of the YA 2006/07 Operations Plan 3rd Quarter Report – 100% of the nineteen strategic initiatives and outputs are on track for both the Olympic and Paralympic Key Result Areas. This is indicative of the changed culture and behaviour which now exists within the Olympic Program delivery model. Olympic and Paralympic Program Unit Following the delivery of the GMP, the Olympic and Paralympic Program Unit was substantially restructured. It is working considerably better under the new structure and leadership of the Olympic Program Director and Olympic Sailing Program Manager. The YA Olympic and Paralympic Unit now has six full-time staff and employs eight coaches. In addition to the restructure of the high-performance delivery model and personnel within the unit, the establishment of the Australian Sailing Team (AST) brand for this department has delivered an overarching sense of alignment of mission and purpose for sailing at the peak level. The AST is the official national representative sailing team and comprises the best sailors in their class in Australia. Selected annually, athletes qualify for inclusion in the team by finishing in the top ten at a World Championship in their class, or are identified as having the potential to do so within a two-year period. The AST is strongly modelled on the successful GBR Sailing Team and the Australian Swimming Team. While still embedded within the YA structure, the AST has developed into an agile, stand-alone arm of the sport and business. The approach has activated a significant and positive cultural shift in professionalism and performance of sailing’s high-performance program. The approach has also greatly assisted YA’s ability to attract and build an impressive portfolio of commercial partners and sailing benefactors on the basis of their alignment with a premium YA asset, the AST brand. Talent Identification and Development The AIS does not currently support the talent identification and development program for sailing. Unlike most other sports, there are no specific physical or psychological profile to identify talent. Therefore, the identification and development of emerging sailing talent relies on the collaborative efforts of YA, MYAs and clubs to fulfil this need and is supported by Youth Development and High Performance Programs in most states. The New South Wales Institute of Sport (NSWIS) program is the dominant state program for the sport, providing 16 of the 18 members of the 2004 Australian Olympic sailing team. In 2007, 13 of the 21 members of the Australian Sailing Team were NSWIS scholarship holders. The view of AST management is that there has historically been significant duplication of roles within the MYAs which has led to a cumbersome delivery model for talent identification and development. Each state has varied systems of managing the High Performance Coach and programs – some with the support of state-based academy/institute programs and others without. Prior to 2007, the pathway for emerging athletes was considered to be very unclear, however this is now improving. The AST have indicated that State High Performance Programs should focus on developing the sub-elite with the aim of delivering these athletes to the AST (see Figure 4 below). Entry into the AST typically requires the athletes to be ranked in the world Top 10 in their respective class, and once they are a member of the AST they become an AST responsibility. This approach has brought about some resistance from the state programs, as typically the states held the view that AST members would come back to their own programs. However, this role is now developmental and it is strictly focused on youth and development squad scholarship holders. Members of the AST will return to cross pollinate and share knowledge and culture with the state high-performance programs when they are available. This model gives the AST the agility it needs and removes the politics, which is advantageous. Figure 4: Olympic Athlete Pathway
Clubs and classes are largely driving early talent identification, but in a very informal way. State programs are considered to be underperforming and under-resourced. It remains very difficult to retain the best coaches within the Australian system due to limited opportunities that exist to support professional coaches and lucrative offshore coaching opportunities. Athlete Pathway Obstacles Australian youth sailors have been highly successful at Youth Worlds; however the talent has not been retained and transitioned into the Australian Olympic ranks effectively. Retention of talented younger sailors is a challenge, largely due to financial obstacles. There is a significant step up in investment to facilitate the movement of talented sailors from state sailing squads to the next level of national and international competition. As an indicator, out-of-pocket expenses will typically range from $200,000 to $1m per annum for AST members and athletes pursuing the Olympic circuit. The total cost of professional campaigning is a debilitating and discouraging scenario for all but a few of the elite athletes. There is a harsh reality that progression along the Olympic sailing pathway ultimately hinges on having talent, money, and a good boat – more talented but less financial sailors will struggle to be retained by the sport. Additionally, the financial obstacles limit the provision of sufficient support in areas including coaching, SSSM, and international competition. Certainly, the links between participation development and high performance are critical, and the diminishing base of competitive participants compromises the talent pool available to sailing in future. While AST management are hopeful that participants in the 2008 campaign will make themselves available for 2012, the depth of talent post-Beijing is considered to be limited and ultimately needs to be underpinned in the longer term by healthy participation levels in the sport and higher levels of investment to progress talented Youth sailors to the senior international level. There is not a direct recommendation to solve the challenges of the financial and talent depth obstacles which hamper the elite athlete pathway. Rather, they are addressed through a number of linked recommendations emerging from the commercial development, sport development and high performance sections. It would be convenient to suggest that government should assist in funding these shortfalls, however YA is pragmatic on this challenge and recognise that much of the funding gap will need to be addressed through self-generated revenue activities by YA/AST. It should however be noted that the funding provided to the GBR/RYA for junior and youth development programs is substantially higher than the Australian investment. Another key barrier in talent development at the sub-elite level is the lack of international-level competition within the Olympic classes in Australia as the Olympic circuit competition is predominantly conducted in Europe. Consideration to support the establishment of a stronger domestic Olympic circuit may be beneficial in bridging the gap between the top overseas-based sailors and the emerging or less financially self-sufficient sailing talent.
Paralympic Sailing Team The Australian Paralympic sailing program exists under an agreement with the Australian Paralympic Committee and Yachting Australia. Under the Yachting Australia/APC agreement, each party acknowledges and agrees that the objectives of this agreement are to: Be successful at the 2008 Paralympic Games; Increase the depth and reach of the Yachting High Performance Plan Athletes with a Disability (AWD) base; Aim to finish in the top three positions in open competitions at targeted international events at the Paralympic Games; Successfully recruit and retain the best people to deliver the Yachting High Performance Plan; Develop and maintain a sport data system in respect of Yachting; Maintain compliance with Australian Sports Drug Agency (ASDA) and Australian Sports Commission (ASC) standards and international standards for anti-doping and anti-doping education; and Acknowledge the intellectual property rights of the APC and APC acknowledge reciprocal rights of YA. The services provided under the agreement include coaching services, administrator services and financial assistance through limited funding from the APC and YA. The delivery partners of the program include YA, APC, SIS (WAIS, VIS, NSWIS), and SAS (QAS). The Australian Paralympic Sailing Team (APST) joint management committee meets quarterly and consists of YA and APC nominees. The staffing arrangements for the delivery of the program consist of a part-time head coach and management/administration support from YA. Participation pathways and programs to assist persons with a disability to participate in sailing are currently run through Sailabilty Australia, and these activities fall outside the scope of the Paralympic program. Overall, the arrangements within sailing to promote inclusiveness within the mainstream athlete community are improving and are gaining gradual acceptance. The key challenge for the APST program is gaining full integration and acceptance as an important partner of the AST. Full integration would provide for ongoing focus through a four-year cycle and enable stronger continuity of the coach and management team. This is difficult to achieve in practical terms as the regattas for the AST and APST are not aligned, and much of the activity for Paralympic regattas occurs in the last 12 months prior to the Games, as opposed to the four-year program of the AST. Therefore, the emphasis on AST assistance to APST really only occurs in the last 12 months prior to the Paralympics. Effort has been made by the AST to share knowledge and resources with the APST where possible and when applicable. Assistance is provided in the form of: Provision of Operations Centre Container – fitted out shipping container providing on-site workshop and offices for use at regattas; Provision of all weather and tidal information; Information sharing of applicable technical innovations; Combine shipping costs of Olympic and Paralympic athlete equipment; and State High Performance Programs provide coaching assistance. The establishment of a development squad in 2007 has been a positive step in bridging the pathway gap in the entry level to sub-elite level competition for athletes with a disability. However, current talent identification and development programs have limited impact on the APST program and pathways are disjointed and considered to lack the necessary funding. Funding needs to be improved to a level that will enable full-time employment to people in the program, provide funding for athletes to assist in attending overseas competition, and the provision of equipment funded and owned by the program and stored overseas. The main priorities of the APST over the next 12 to 48 months are as follows:
Internally, the Paralympic Sailing Head Coach proposed the following priority changes to further strengthen the performance of the Paralympic Sailing Program: Increase the depth of the APST and the Paralympic Sailing Development Squad – the establishment of a sub-elite squad below these levels would also augment the strength of the national program; Increase the number of regattas (IFDS Grade 1 or otherwise) within the Australian program. Coaching Development and Pathway Coaching Culture, Roles and Responsibilities While the GMP was an instrumental starting point for the reform of sailing’s Olympic program, the biggest hindrance to the performance of the program (according to the athletes) was the need for better coaching. Coaching appointments to prior Olympic campaigns were largely historical and coaches were highly resistant to embrace change – particularly the application of SSSM. Team culture and professionalism was very poor, with class coaches acting independently. The coaching philosophy was all about boat speed, which was inhibiting racing skills in competition, resulting in poor tactical adaptation to certain conditions such as changing or different types of winds. The role of a Head Coach in sailing (be it national or state) is considered different to other sporting codes due to the volume of sailing disciplines, however the core skills are considered to be readily transferable across the various classes. A consistent viewpoint at national and state/territory levels is that the AST needs to drive the up-skilling of sub-elite coaches and transfer of coaching knowledge, as well as provide education on the benefits of integrating appropriate SSSM for competitive advantage. As with many sports there is a general tendency by coaches to resist sharing their knowledge; however it is considered that the coaching culture within sailing is changing and slowly getting better. An increased degree of comfort is being developed by reinforcing confidence and certainty around the elite coaching positions so that coaches don’t feel threatened. The roles and responsibilities of elite-level coaches in sailing were redefined in 2007 by the AST to provide clarity on a preferred model to best develop the elite coaching pathway and support AST and sub-elite developing athletes. The preferred interface between the AST and State High Performance Program coaches was clearly defined in 2007. AST athletes are coached by AST coaches overseas and in Australia State High performance coaches have two clear roles: Identify and develop sub-elite sailors and coaches in their state Cooperate and coordinate with AST coaches to provide a seamless national program of optimal training and an environment for development of AST as well as raise the talent of sub-elite sailors and coaches squads Development Squad and Youth Squads will join with AST in Australia to provide high level training and competition, skills transfer and development. The figure below has been developed by AST and summarises the overall coaching pathway and linkages from entry level (Learn to Sail Coach – Level 1) through to the pinnacle of Australian Olympic sailing (AST Coach – Level 3). 
A new breed of coaches and philosophy has been built from the ground up by the AST management. The refreshed approach features innovative, analytical coaches who are strong supporters of evidence-based approaches and integration of SSSM. The effective change of paradigm and culture within the AST can also be attributed to the restructure of the Olympic Unit and the resultant increase in management and sport credibility of the key personnel. It has taken time to fully develop, however the AST personnel have built a high degree of trust and respect with the coaches and the athletes. The roles and responsibilities of the current AST coaches are summarised as follows:
Elite Coaching Accreditation Following a review of the National Coaching Accreditation Scheme (NCAS) for sailing, a new structure and pathway has been established to provide clearer guidance on the qualifications which progress coaches from the club level (instructor, club coach) to the elite level. An overview of the elite-level guidelines8 for state and international level coaches is summarised below. State Coach: Working with specific athletes on a regular basis to prepare them for competition with an emphasis on technique analysis and individualising coaching. Athletes of any age and ability (youth – master) predominantly at state/national level competition. Assisting the athletes to interpret information for themselves (i.e. weather). May operate at different events around the country – travel with athlete, additional understanding of non-local systems may be required, i.e. tides, weather, procedures. Pre-requisite: Club Coach Qualification or equivalent, must have two or three years of experience as Club Coach, re-validate First Aid and CPR, safety-boat handling. International/Australian Coach: Prepare and accompany elite athletes at international competition. Program management skills. Develop holistic training programs, along with other specialists to prepare elite sailors. Pre-requisites: State Coach (experience two or three years as State Coach with state/national sailors), re-validates First Aid and CPR. Nominated by a mentor. Athletes Support and Development The ASC/AIS provides direct support and development to athletes through the purchase of capital equipment and grants to athletes to offset training and competition costs. Purchase of Capital Equipment for AST In 2007, the ASC/AIS made a significant investment in the AST with the purchase of eight boats across six classes in order to provide more flexibility to move athletes between classes, e.g. from Laser to Finn class. The purchase cost of the boats, trailers, outboard motors and associated training equipment between February 2007 to March 2008 was $481,375. Australian Government Sport Training Grant The schedule below represents total payments made to AST athletes under the Australian Government Sport Training Grant (AGSTG).
There will be a further and final payment for 2008/09. The AGSTG program will be terminated on 30 June 2009. Athlete Career Education Temporary and Permanent Recruitment Services and Career Counselling Services are provided through Adecco to Yachting Australia Athletes. Collaboration with AIS The Olympic Sailing program was described by several AIS personnel as being ‘reasonably dysfunctional’ as a high-performance program for the four years post-2000 Olympics. In 2005, sailing was considered to be thirty years behind in terms of Sport Science Sport Medicine (SSSM) knowledge and application. The use of technology for competitive advantage was highly undeveloped. However, for the past two years the AIS and AST have significantly improved their collaboration and SSSM integration and focused on a back-to-basics approach to improve athletes’ preparation and fitness. AST has built a far stronger alignment with the AIS since the Athens Olympics – which is convincing athletes and other partners of the benefits, i.e. solution development is more readily achieved with the collective expertise of the ‘team partners’. The injection of AIS SSSM services (supported by an AIS coordinator) over the past 24 months has had a positive impact on the AST environment and performance. The coordination of SSSM services to the different classes has presented challenges, however the appointment of the AIS SSSM Coordinator has allowed sailing to develop structure and priorities in the delivery of these services. The mix of YA/AST/AIS personnel is becoming highly complementary and the overall high-performance structure for sailing at the national level with better resources and better people is demonstrating rapid improvement in the program. The key to this improvement is that the AST management are consistently delivering what is planned and promised. The view from within the AST management is that the AIS support has demonstrated significant value, however the challenge is prioritising what’s going to add the most value and getting coaches to make the time to trial and integrate new methods. There are still non-believers within the sailing coaching and athlete fraternity who prefer a ‘seat of the pants’ approach, and acceptance of SSSM benefit and modifying behaviour has been difficult to change. Overall, the sport is in a period of transition with SSSM but gaining traction incrementally. Michael Blackburn (Laser Class World Champion) is suggested as an ideal case study of an athlete who has embraced the SSSM ethos and program supported by evidence-based results. There is evidence of innovation enhancement built around technology and SSSM optimisation, however careful balancing of innovation application and suitability for the team needs to be managed. Effective management of resources presents challenges, and a challenge that is not necessarily solved with more people – but with better systems. SSSM Comments related to YA/AST by ASC/AIS Management
The increased collaboration with the AIS further supports the AST objective to develop professional campaigns and to provide better support for athletes.
2.3.7 National Training Centre The current training arrangements for the AST are decentralised. Programs are delivered through a combination of tri-partite and quad-partite partnerships with YA, MYAs, SIS/SAS and clubs in NSW, VIC, QLD and WA. Thirteen of the twenty-one AST squad members are based in Sydney and all AST coaches are located in Sydney. The establishment of the National Training Centre (NTC) at Hamilton Island has also emerged as a positive element in the AST/AIS collaboration. The partnership at Hamilton Island emerged through a sponsorship agreement and provides free accommodation, food and access to gymnasium equipment. The local sailing conditions work to some degree in terms of replicating the conditions expected at 2008 Olympic sailing venue in Qingdao (high tide and low winds). The NTC has raised the standards of camps, fostered the team ethos, and made athletes feel like they are now genuinely part of an AIS program. The camps at Hamilton Island highlight the benefits of being together as a group to discuss and address difficult technical issues, and joint training and collaboration as a team has allowed the squad to develop competitive advantages as a collective. Twelve months ago the biggest challenge was the integration of 11 sailing disciplines into a true team environment and culture – the NTC and the Hamilton Island partnership has strongly assisted in facilitating the cohesion and culture of the team. However, the current location presents some logistical and cost disadvantages. The initial intention was to conduct up to four camps annually at Hamilton Island, however the costs involved and the time spent travelling and transporting equipment from Sydney to Hamilton Island has been prohibitive, and has resulted in scaling back the delivery of camps to twice a year. For example, a camp was planned for October 2007 but was cancelled due to the difficulty of logistics and squad member’s timetables. Only one class of boat is provided for on the island (470’s), which means the other 10 classes are required to bring in boats each via car and trailer, and then ferry the cars and boats across to the island at an average cost of $2,000 per car and trailer (approximately $40,000 per camp). The decentralised nature of sailing’s training programs and the Hamilton Island location also present compromises in the ability of the sport to work as closely as it would like with the AIS. Taking the AST squad members to the AIS in Canberra has significant benefits, however it is not the best option for athlete preparation – a centralised AST ‘centre of excellence’ where the AIS goes to the team and operates in situ is considered far more beneficial. National Sailing Centre – Conceptual Model The establishment of a National Sailing Centre which is geographically accessible and desirable for athletes, coaches, and AIS personnel is essential. According to AST management, Sydney Harbour presents the best overall mix of sailing conditions (flat water in the harbour, choppy water at Sydney Heads, and open water), athlete support services, proximity to the AIS, proximity to YA, and proximity to current and future corporate partners. All of the coaches and the majority of AST athletes are also in Sydney, and this concentration commenced prior to the Sydney Olympics. There are a number of Crown land options in Sydney Harbour, which may present possible locations to establish a permanent training centre for the AST, potentially under a peppercorn lease arrangement. While this would be a desirable scenario, concerns have been raised about the reality of securing Crown land at an affordable cost (i.e. peppercorn lease) due to the scarcity of premium land and water in Sydney Harbour. A more realistic alternative may be to work in partnership with one or several Sydney yacht clubs to establish a National Sailing Centre. The infrastructure requirements in the initial stages could be quite basic, but would deliver extensive benefits in comparison to the current NTC arrangements. Essential elements of the on-site infrastructure and services would include: permanent offices for AST management, complemented by open plan ‘hot desks’ for coaches, visitors (AIS, State High Performance Program Staff) and athletes; lecture facilities and meeting rooms for review of programs, video analysis, etc.; storage for coaches’ boats and class boats; launching ramp and crane; medical and allied training services facilities, including more formal arrangements and provision for AIS employees on-site (physiotherapists, nutritionists, psychologists, strength and conditioning). AST athletes currently have arrangements with the franchise fitness group ‘Fitness First’, which provides free access to their gymnasiums nationally. While the priorities of the National Sailing Centre would be firmly focused on high-performance outcomes, there would be significant commercial potential in establishing a home of sailing in Sydney Harbour. Potential opportunities include elite training services coaches and athletes, experiential sailing opportunities for corporate incentives and rewards or as part of the sponsor business-to-business leveraging program for YA and AST supporters (i.e. sail with an AST coach or athlete), and corporate professional development days. A feasibility study supported by a costed business case (with average and best case scenarios) will need to be conducted by YA to build the momentum of the National Sailing Centre concept. There are examples in other sports where local, state and federal government agencies have provided financial assistance in the development of training centre feasibility studies and have also invested in the establishment of the required infrastructure. As an initial step, YA should consider the development of a joint brief with the AIS, which outlines the current arrangements of the AST’s NTC and the desired conceptual elements of the National Sailing Centre. This brief could be used to develop support from appropriate government agencies to jointly fund the conduct of the feasibility study to assess and cost the infrastructure and training services requirements of the AST. 2.3.8 Towards Beijing In the first two months of 2008, members of the AST won three World Championships (Laser, Tornado and 49er), a silver (Yngling) and a bronze (Women’s 470). The recent results move the Australian team into the number one ISAF ranking in the world (March 2008).The AST has now qualified for 10 of the 11 events in Beijing, and expectations are high that the team will turnaround the disappointing performance in Athens, where the team failed to win a medal. Beijing is the short-term milestone and naturally is the dominant focus of the AST management. Expectations set by the team and management are to deliver no less than the best ever results for an Australian Olympic sailing campaign. Overall, the YA high-performance program is progressing well, and looking towards Beijing the team will be far better prepared than Athens – the holistic, team-based approach should be beneficial. Australia finished second overall behind Great Britain in the August 2007 Beijing Olympic test event, which has given the team and management additional confidence in combating the light wind conditions (typically 5 to 10 knots) that are indicative of the 2008 Olympic sailing venue in Qingdao. Longevity in Olympic campaigning and past success at Youth Worlds are key indicators of Olympic success, as evidenced in the Gold Medal Plan. A number of past campaigners are preparing for 2008, which should further strengthen the potential of the team to deliver at the Games. 2.3.9 Post Beijing – Building an Olympic Legacy There is a strong foundation for Olympic success in 2008 and the period beyond. Everyone within the AST is pedalling hard towards 2008; however the documentation and retention of systems, structure and campaign knowledge/intellectual property needs to improve. Previous Olympic campaigns have resulted in the legacy of experience and knowledge being lost – this cannot be permitted to occur in the subsequent campaigns beyond Beijing. There needs to be a change in behaviour to document and systematise the high-performance program so that knowledge can be retained. Technology is being better utilised to create training logs which document recovery, workloads, lack of strength, etc. Overall, the method of data gathering needs to be improved with better use of technology, however this has been attended to in recent months. Succession planning for coaches and AST Management will also be a critical element in strengthening the foundation of the AST in the period beyond 2008. Increased Collaboration with the AIS YA and the AST would like to develop a much closer relationship with the AIS to further the development of AST athletes and coaches. The enhanced collaboration would still be annexed from the AIS; however the aim would be to extract AIS personnel more regularly to implant into the AST program in order to achieve closer integration and better access to resources that is comparable to other Olympic programs such as swimming, rowing and cycling. Bolstering sailing’s collaboration with the AIS increases the professionalism of the athletes and coaches and strengthens team culture. This is best achieved via the establishment of a National Sailing Centre in Sydney. YA and the AST also have an interest in collaborating and sharing resources with other sports based in Europe to minimise waste in expenditure. For example, the AST would like to promote a closer working relationship with cycling at the AIS Europe base and tapping into the network of physiotherapists and physiologists utilised by the cycling program. Benchmarking and Innovation Much of the comparative benchmarking utilised in the post-Athens review focused on what the Great Britain sailing program had done to achieve its success in 2004. This has been beneficial as a guide to close the gap with GBR and other leading nations; however it is a risk to focus too closely on what one program is doing. YA and the AIS have collaborated more effectively during the past 24 months to further integrate SSSM. The ASC/AIS has also made significant additional investment in innovative technology such as the CSIRO/BOM project. According to the AIS SSSM Coordinator for the AST, the dramatic improvement of the AST’s world ranking ‘….can be attributed to a large degree on the focus on technological advances being used extensively by the team’. Beyond the Beijing campaign, the basics of the AST/AIS sailing program will be well developed which will provide a far stronger platform to introduce a managed innovation program, which should be a key pillar of AST strategic priorities leading into London 2012. Coaching Resources and Capability There have been strong gains made in the development, performance and accountability of the AST coaches between the years 2005 and 2007. The increased support to athletes during this period and the creation of performance-based contracts for coaches (which were enforced rigorously) provided strong accountability. Coaching is an area where significant competitive advantage can be delivered for the 2012 campaign if appropriate levels of investment are made. If the aim for athletes is to increasingly move them towards the expectations that come with being a professional athlete, then the same approach should apply to current and aspiring AST coaches. The AST aim should be to further develop and professionalise the environment for attracting and retaining the best of the best coaches to the program. The positive change at the elite and sub-elite levels of coaching should provide the impetus to strengthen the culture of coaching at the community level of sailing. CONCLUSION Over the past 24 months, YA has demonstrated its capacity to turn around the performance of its high-performance activities, and as a result Australian sailing is in a significantly strengthened position leading into Beijing. The critical success factors of improvement include: The conduct of an independent and expert review. A cathartic self-assessment which recommended the hard options. Development of a clear and focused gold medal strategy to target internal weaknesses, integrate success ingredients of competitors (and other successful sports), and bolster resources for athletes, coaches, management and training services. Rebuilding the high-performance delivery model through the appointment of key personnel to lead and deliver the GMP. The subsequent restructure of the unit has enabled focus and agility – and most importantly uncompromised execution of the strategy. The creation of a professional ethos embraced by the athletes and new team of AST coaches. Enhanced collaboration with the AIS. One of the key areas that contributed to the below par results of 2004 was the under-utilisation of technology. The value add to sailing has been derived through better understanding and application of SSSM. The AIS and NTC have also significantly contributed to fostering team culture. The ASC/AIS has also committed increased funding towards the 2008 campaign to provide athletes with a better preparation in local conditions and to integrate innovative technology such as the confidential CSIRO/BOM Project. Development and launch of the Australian Sailing Team. While embryonic, its creation has gained immediate traction with athletes and commercial partners (sponsors and supporters) and should continue to strengthen as the brand builds meaning and context. The blueprint for performance improvement is not complicated. The key to turning planning into results has ultimately been achieved by a significant cultural and behavioural shift within the unit, driven by the leadership team and a willingness by the ASC/AIS to support SSSM integration. The AST is performing well leading into the pre-Beijing period. However, both the AST management and AIS acknowledge the need to strive for continuous improvement in the culture of the program to achieve a competitive edge in Beijing and beyond. ASC (AIS) Value for Money If medals are the primary measure of success (as the GMP program objective clearly states), then sailing presents the potential for an attractive return of investment to the Federal Government. There are a sufficient number of Olympic medals that are realistically achievable for Australia to derive success from across the various sailing classes (Australia has qualified for 10 of the 11 classes in Beijing and in March 2008 were ranked by ISAF as the number one team). For the purposes of relative benchmarking (realistic medal yield), the sailing ROI opportunity is comparative to that of the perennial peak performing Australian Olympic sports such as swimming, cycling and rowing. Given the significant positive shift in the culture and professionalism of the YA Olympic Sailing Program between 2005 and 2007, and contingent on delivering best ever results in Beijing, sailing should be strongly positioned and considered as a top four Olympic program for the purposes of Federal Government funding allocation moving into the next quadrennial planning cycle. DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS: HIGH PERFORMANCE Due to the elapsed period of time to conduct the review, it is noted that several of the recommendations contained in this section have since commenced or have been included in the 2009-13 National Pathways Plan. In these instances, the reviewers have, to the best of their knowledge, noted the work-in-progress accordingly. Preserve the Legacy Over the past six months, the AST has commenced a more formal approach to the capture of campaign knowledge for use in future campaigns and to transfer to SHPP. To preserve the legacy of the AST and 2008 campaign, it is recommended that:
Commitment to the AST Pathway Model The AST has now provided very clear guidance on the preferred roles and responsibilities of the AST and the State High Performance Programs (SHPP) in the elite pathway model for sailing in Australia. This model requires the commitment of the State High Performance Programs to work within the pathway model at the sub-elite level (Youth Development and AST Development Squad) to develop future national team athletes and coaches before they progress to the AST environment (typically those ranked in the Top 10 athletes in the world for the Olympic Classes). Good progress has been made by the AST and SHPP over the past six months. To further optimise arrangements for sailing’s elite pathway, it is recommended that:
Talent Development of Coaches It is imperative that the depth and professional coaching ethic of Australian coaching talent continues to be developed and that appropriate opportunities are made accessible to emerging coaches to coach at the next level. As part of the succession planning and talent development model for AST coaches and managers, it is recommended that:
National Sailing Centre (NSC) and AIS Europe Sailing requires a National Sailing Centre which optimises the training preparations for Olympic, Paralympic and Worlds campaigns. The key elements required for the NSC include a location which is geographically desirable (for coaches, athletes, AIS), provides integrated and accessible training services on-site, and provides for a suitable variety of sailing conditions. It is recommended that:
Following the Beijing Olympics, the utilisation and sharing of resources with other sports at the AIS Europe base should be investigated. It is recommended that:
Benchmarking and Innovation Innovation and technology is a major contributing factor to performance in sailing and needs to be supported by a formalised and managed process. Other sports which have acknowledged technology as a contributing factor to program success (such as rowing has done with the AIS) have created innovation advisory panels consisting of representatives from within and outside of their own sports. In the instance of sailing, representatives may include athletes, coaches, manufacturers, AIS, university, business innovation specialists, etc. Therefore, it is recommended that:
*While it is desirable (and more feasible) for the ASC/AIS to commit funding towards the establishment and management of the Sailing Innovation panel, YA/AST should not defer the establishment of the panel should the ASC/AIS not be prepared to fund the initiative. During the course of the review, the ASC/AIS have indicated its support to collaborate with YA/AST to undertake a benchmarking review post-Beijing. It is recommended that:
2.4 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT KEY PERFORMANCE DRIVERS Brand development of sailing Marketing of sailing Revenue generation and business development activities Overview of Commercial Activities and Resources In financial terms, YA are a substantial recipient of ASC allocated grants ($5.236m in 2006–07), ranking seventh overall among the sixty-five ASC-assisted sports. The ASC funding accounted for approximately 68% of YA’s total turnover in the 2007 financial year. The remaining 32% of income can best be described as self-generated revenue (sponsorship, membership fees, training income, etc.). The current commercial development activities of YA can be broadly compartmentalised into four main functions: Sponsorship – Acquisition, servicing and leveraging of sponsors and suppliers. Media and PR – Responsibility for external communications, media liaison and internal communications to MYAs. Brand Development and Marketing: Brand development, protection and management. General marketing and promotion of the sport, events and YA products (including training) and marketing support across all YA business units. Licensing/Merchandising – This is a relatively new program for YA and is outsourced to Melbourne-based company IMS. YA have the responsibility for the approval of licensed categories, products and licensee applications. YA’s commercial resources are spread thinly across its revenue generation, marketing and communication activities. The Marketing Manager and Marketing Coordinator are broadly responsible for the functions of servicing YA sponsors, managing media, public relations, brand and marketing and overseeing the licensing activities. YA’s CEO and Olympic Program Director are largely responsible for the sponsor acquisition activities of YA; however this is very much a part-time and often reactive activity. Brand – Yachting Australia and Sailing Development and execution of an effective brand strategy is fundamental to the success of most businesses and is particularly salient in the context of sporting organisations as they seek recognition in an increasingly cluttered market. The brand of a sporting organisation is a multi-dimensional tool which in essence should be brought to life in all parts of corporate, commercial, participation and high-performance activities. In 2003 YA and all MYAs launched a refreshed corporate identity, which has been successfully adopted to deliver a consistent look and feel for the sport and communicate to stakeholders the common link of ‘yachting’ across the national and state/territory bodies. As a first stage component of the brand strategy, YA have been tremendously successful in gaining acceptance from all MYAs to implement the common corporate identity. Many larger and better resourced NSOs have aspired but failed to deliver a common identity for their respective sports. Tennis Australia, Cricket Australia, Swimming Australia and Softball Australia provide recent examples of NSOs which have been successful in transitioning to a common corporate identity nationally. While the corporate identity and common ‘look and feel’ of yachting is now well established and the benefits of achieving this consistency are accepted, the brand story and personality for yachting/sailing remains largely underdeveloped. The YA Visual Standards Guide delivered in 2005 is professionally produced and is an effective tool to manage and protect the integrity and consistency of the application of the YA and MYA corporate identities, and will in time improve the value of yachting’s brand assets. However, the guide itself does not provide discussion or instruction on what the ‘yachting’ brand means or the desired image and perceptions of the sport, which YA wants to develop through key strategies. As identified in the 2004 P4 Group Sponsorship and Marketing Plan, the next stage of the brand strategy evolution is to bring the essence and meaning of the brand to life for targeted audiences – including sponsors, the converted membership, and potential consumers/participants. The logical starting point to build the brand story is to start with the shopfront of the sport – its national teams and athletes. Whether driven by the imperatives of the high-performance/Olympic program or designed as part of an incremental brand strategy roll out by YA, the creation of the Australian Sailing Team brand and entity is gaining traction within the sailing and corporate community and in time will build the brand equity (the perceived quality and value of a brand amongst consumers and clients) and further the commercial potential of YA’s revenue generation activities. Naturally, Olympic success will further strengthen the value of the AST shopfront.
The key remaining element of the YA and ‘yachting’ brand strategy is the integration and implementation of the strategy with the national marketing and communication strategy (see Section 2.4.5), which brings the brand to life consistently with YA and MYA employees, volunteers and consumer segments and ultimately creates positive brand movement towards yachting’s desired image. If YA and MYA management teams can ‘live the brand’ in day-to-day activities, it will create a greater sense of unity and common purpose, which should contribute to belief and commitment in the brand promise and breed stronger motivation and commitment from employees. There has been some preliminary development of yachting’s market segments (see Section 2.1) which has been undertaken through the P4 report, SBP’s state workshop consultations, and also at the recent strategic planning forum in Melbourne with the Federal Assembly (September 2007). This has provided insight into possible market segments, a hierarchy of customer segments and positioning of brand and image. However, this now needs to be supported by a national marketing research project involving the yachting family and members of the public not actively involved in the sport or lifestyle of yachting. As discussed in Section 2.1 and Recommendation One of this report, the outcomes of the research project should deliver insight on yachting’s: Primary customer segments: typically, ‘rusted on’ active sailing and boating participants; Secondary segments: typically, the recreational or occasional participants; New segments: identification and prioritisation of non-sailing/boating consumers representing the richest vein of potential for new participants to the sport; and Current membership profile, their needs, purchasing behaviour and preferences.
Overall, YA management has a strong understanding of what needs to happen in the development of sailing’s brand strategy – unfortunately the lack of reliable market research makes it very difficult to develop the brand with a high degree of certainty or effectiveness. The inability to fully implement the strategy is compromising YA’s commercial development and overall brand image. Consumer research and a clear brand development strategy requires a significant upfront investment and there are resource constraints which have resulted in rolling the strategy out incrementally without the requisite market research. The investment into fully implementing the strategy should be considered a future revenue generation activity – it will, over time, provide a return on investment to YA and the sport more generally. Sponsorship In 2003–04, YA engaged the P4 Group to assist with the strategic development and direction of the YA sponsorship program. An overall value-chain was built for the YA sponsorship program to reflect three core streams of assets: National Events; Participation and Development Programs (capitalising on YA’s 45,000 membership base); and National Representative Teams. These core assets were packaged and valued and accompanied by a detailed policy and delivery strategy. At the time the Plan was completed in 2004, YA’s target for minimum net revenues from all sponsorship sources was $865,000 (consisting of a mix of 60% cash and 40% budget relieving VIK) and a maximum net revenues stretch target of $1,275,000. The net revenue outcomes are based on a servicing cost of 30%, which is in the upper scale of typical provisions for servicing. In the 2006–07 financial year YA’s gross sponsorship revenues were approximately $1,200,000 and net revenue of $840,000 (consisting of 40% cash and 60% budget relieving VIK). In comparison with similar-sized amateur Olympic NSOs, the YA result is comparatively strong for the marketplace. Approximately 90% of revenues from sponsors and supporters is generated and directed toward the AST and high-performance activities. The partnership agreements with key sponsors and suppliers are between two and three years. One weakness is perhaps that all three of the major sponsor category partner agreements expire within three months of each other in mid 2009. There is little direct flow-through benefit of sponsorship revenues to non-Olympic activities of YA. The OAMPS partnership as major sponsor of Youth Development (sub-elite) is a key exception. While there were strong views by a number of stakeholders that the corporate support of the AST should be filtering down to the MYAs and clubs, the arrangements are not unusual for national sporting bodies as the elite end of sport has typically been the most utilised component for corporate entities to leverage their association. However, the sponsorship environment is changing and there is a significant marketplace shift by sponsors towards properties which often provide a stronger association with community-based sport – although it could be argued most have not been particularly effective in understanding and leveraging associations with community sport to their fullest potential. In part, this difficulty is due to the challenges of sponsors and NSOs rolling out and managing deliverables at the community level. While it has been imperative for YA to focus on building the resources of the AST to enable a more competitive and uncompromised campaign for 2008, there are opportunities to develop highly valuable assets for sailing through a combination of corporate partnerships which provide overarching associations with the AST and community sailing assets. Swimming Australia provides an example of a strong model where typically its sponsorship assets are co-packaged with an element of rights for both the national teams programs and community swimming. Swimming, through its commercial agency, has also benefited through successfully moving several AOC sponsors into the SA portfolio which allows continuity of association during the Olympics. It should be noted that Swimming Australia and the AOC share the same commercial sports agency; Sydney based Sports Marketing and Management (SMAM). Sponsor Aggregation and Flow through Benefits to MYAs and Clubs MYAs are in almost all cases fully reliant on state government funding, government-sponsored awareness initiatives (e.g. SunSmart, Be Active), and membership fees to deliver their activities – there is limited access or use of corporate sponsorship. It is difficult in most instances for most state amateur sporting bodies to secure significant sponsorship for a variety of factors, however much of this is due to limited resources and a lack of commercial expertise to actively pursue major partners and sponsors’ concerns over the abilities of state bodies to deliver benefits and services. Yachting clubs are generally active in pursuing local partnerships, but typically these relationships are mostly in supplier/VIK categories or benefactors from within the sailing family. There are demonstrable opportunities to aggregate the most significant shared asset of the YA/MYA/Clubs by creating access to its membership. There are a number of ways in which this may be achieved – the key to any aggregation is in the simplicity of its delivery model. Obvious options are opportunities built around the approximate 46,000 affiliated members and the probable AB demographic – of which 16,000 are contactable by email. Privacy issues related to database access can be navigated safely and legally, as has been demonstrated by a number of national sporting bodies and professional sporting clubs. The 380 yacht club venues also provide a prominent physical infrastructure (i.e. external signage for brand building) and direct ‘connection channel’ (i.e. newsletters, noticeboards) to communicate prospective partners leveraging initiatives to YA’s core customer base. The clubs are essentially the ‘retail outlets’ for sailing. In many instances, yachting clubs could be utilised as business venues by organisations seeking to leverage their association as a supporter of sailing through a decentralised sales force (such as financial services) to conduct information sessions to club members and the local community. This latter approach has numerous benefits – it activates meaningful sponsor/club relationships at a local level, creates venue hire income, and provides an opportunity to showcase club facilities and services to non-club members from within the local community. Growth Strategy and Challenges Due to the limited media content which is currently available of YA controlled/owned sailing events, the approach to cultivating a sponsorship portfolio is quite different to those sports which are regularly televised such as the AFL, NRL and Cricket. YA has adopted a tailored approach to its sponsorship proposition which is focused on utilising an association with YA and sailing as a more direct business development instrument. In other words, YA is targeting brand owners (sponsors) that are more interested in targeting the demographic of the people participating or associated with the sport of sailing. This is a reasonable approach for YA, however there should be caution in designing the sponsorship proposition too strongly around the consumer. According to research undertaken in 2005 by the UK company SportBusiness Group9, a survey of major global sponsors of yachting indicated that brand owners are primarily targeting business audiences (business to business) and internal stakeholders ahead of consumer audiences. The study also reveals a hierarchy of business objectives sponsors are seeking to achieve through their association with yachting, which are as follows: Brand building; Corporate reputation and brand image; Relationship building and corporate hospitality; Internal relations; Team building and leadership; Sales and market development; Product development and showcasing; and Corporate citizenship and social responsibility. The key challenges to enable the next stage of YA’s sponsorship development and growth strategy will be dependent on: Bolstering internal and external expertise, capabilities and resources to drive revenue generation growth strategically – currently, acquisition activities are undertaken part-time by the CEO and Olympic Program Director and attention has and will taper further for the 12 months leading into the Olympics. While this approach has met with some success, it is difficult to deliver any significant growth and retain sponsors without further dedicated high-level resources. There are a number of options discussed in the recommendations section; Better understanding of the sailing membership profile – current propositions to prospective sponsors provide basic information on general interest and participation in sailing, however it is limited in its ability to effectively demonstrate consumer profile, attitudes, preferences and purchasing behaviour. Initial and ongoing investment in marketing research is required. The YA database is a powerful tool and possibly under-utilised as a research instrument and as a CRM device; To maximise flow-through sponsorship benefit to community sailing, auditing, aggregating and packaging of the key assets/properties of YA, MYAs and clubs needs to be undertaken and driven by YA with the support of the MYAs; Developing sailing content – television or new/digital (3G mobiles, webcast, pod-cast) media. This may not necessarily be in the form of pure sporting competition content – it may be content built around lifestyle and/or water-based sporting pursuits. Currently there are very few media exposure opportunities to offer prospective sponsors as part of their benefits package (this is discussed further in Section 2.4.5). YA should continue with its primary focus on generating funds for the AST until such time that its commercial development resources are increased and cooperative arrangements for aggregation of MYA sponsor properties are developed. In the interim, it would be beneficial for YA to examine with MYAs what opportunities there may be to broaden current partners’ interest into association with the community sailing properties. Commercial Events/Regattas YA have identified a suite of event offerings to present to potential corporate partners. These events consist of: Youth Sailing: State Youth Championships; OAMPS Australian Youth Championship. Match Racing: Australian Match Racing Championships; Australian Youth Match Racing Championships; and Australian Women’s Match Racing Championships. Team Racing: Australian Team Racing Championship; Australian Schools Team Racing Championships. Audi IRC Australian Championship: Incorporating Skandia Geelong Week, Sydney Harbour Regatta, Audi Sydney to Gold Coast Race, Hamilton Island Race Week. Official Functions: Australian Yachting Awards, Yachting Australia Hall of Fame. These events are critical elements of the high-performance platform of sailing in Australia and would not be possible without the primary delivery agents – the MYAs and yachting club network. Due to the disparate management and control of these events, there is little consistency in their packaging and no meaning or context to the majority of these events to the non-sailing public and media. This has contributed to the difficulty of attracting corporate support to the majority of the events, particularly those considered ‘YA owned’. Skandia Geelong Week and Sail Melbourne First held in 1844, Skandia Geelong Week is one of Australia’s major sailing events, and is hosted by the Royal Geelong YC and underwritten with the support of Skandia, City of Geelong and the State Government of Victoria. The attraction of the event to the general public is primarily around the precinct activity off the water, rather than on the water. Critical to the event’s success with the non-sailing public is the ability to create a hub of land-based events and activities, which provide a mix of general family engagement. The event has also provided the sailing family and participants with a balanced mix of highly competitive racing and after-racing ‘club house socialising’ and entertainment. In contrast, Sail Melbourne is an annual Group One ISAF event conducted in January by four or five yacht clubs in Port Phillip Bay. Despite the high quality of international competition, the event largely falls under the radar of the Melbourne public or media, and its only significant sponsor is the State Government of Victoria. While the Victorian Government’s primary success measures of Sail Melbourne relate to economic return (i.e. destination marketing to international audience), there is a desire by the Government to stimulate participation development in sailing and to create lasting infrastructure benefits for yachting clubs and communities. The challenges of delivering the Victorian Government’s desired performance measures and developing Sail Melbourne as both a commercial event and one which attracts the attention of the national and international media are predominantly due to the dislocated delivery of the event. The event is dispersed over several clubs, and as a result competition locations for events change day to day, making it difficult to deliver the ‘non-sailing’ entertainment and precinct which has been successful in Geelong. The competition also occurs in the middle of the bay which provides little attraction to spectators and sponsors. Sponsors also desire integrated event opportunities which happen in the same place, same time, etc. to enable a stronger leveraging of their association and as a more manageable means of delivering effective corporate hospitality. January also presents challenges for media attention due to competition from sports and events such as cricket and the Australian Open – as well as other ‘yachting’ events. The Victorian Government also indicated that it would prefer to work in closer partnership with YA to assist with developing the commercial elements of the Sail Melbourne event. The thinking behind closer collaboration is quite practical and seeks out the possibility of YA effectively partnering with the Government as a sponsorship agent and providing the ability for YA to aggregate its proposition to current or prospective YA sponsors to associate with the event. Indeed, YA should explore the opportunity as a matter of urgency to evaluate whether the opportunity exists to create a standalone sports marketing company which provides expert advice and services to sailing event hosts and owners to promote, manage and market events on their behalf. YA, Yachting Victoria and the Victorian Government are currently pursuing the opportunity to host a leg of the ISAF World Cup. This event would appear to have many of the attractive elements of Skandia Geelong Week in that it is intended to create a single hub of activity and village atmosphere in Catania Gardens adjacent to the St Kilda entertainment precinct. These types of events are likely to be attractive to other metropolitan and regional centres with the appropriate infrastructure to support a large volume of intrastate and international visitors. This is the preferred model of state major event corporations. The dilemma for the sport is effective balancing of the need to deliver a good technical sailing event with that of an entertainment product for mainstream audiences. Media/Communications/Marketing Strategy A common observation during the stakeholder workshops throughout the country was the inability of sailing to cut through to the popular media. The lack of media interest is a culmination of factors, including limited major events, very limited and irregular television coverage, comparatively weak participation pathways, limited meaning and context of sailing events by the general public, and the dominance of the major team sports including the football codes and cricket. YA have acknowledged the current lack of media and PR activity within the sport and both the Board and Management have identified the need to prioritise and increase these levels to build awareness of sailing. Not only will this help in providing additional ROI benefits to retain and attract YA sponsors, it will build a greater base of interest and awareness for sailing in general. At the time of conducting the review, the Board had instructed the YA Marketing Manager to redevelop the draft YA Communications and Marketing Strategy to provide a stronger focus on developing the profile of sailing through the popular media. This has resulted in the Marketing Manager role becoming increasingly focused on external communications. The draft communications and marketing strategy refers to similar themes and challenges identified throughout this report, namely the need to better understand YA’s customers and inconsistent unity of purpose between YA and MYAs. For an effective media/communications/marketing strategy to be developed, YA needs to: First establish and clearly articulate what YA and sailing wants to achieve through its communication and media strategy – these objectives should be aligned with the strategic plan, desired brand image, and values of yachting; Develop a story which informs, attracts and inspires the audiences YA wish to target. The ‘sailing story’ becomes the key communication and brand asset and its power relies on being clear, compelling, concise and easy to understand; Understand the audience YA intends to target (broadly sailors and people who are interested in sailing) and communicate the sailing story through reliable channels which connect to the target audience; and Develop a joint YA/MYA strategic and tactical media/communications plan to ensure a consistent and coherent execution of the strategy. Consistent with the restraints of YA’s sponsorship activities, the Marketing and Communications resources are spread thinly across many activities and it is doubtful that a media and communications strategy will gain much traction without the requisite tactical support and media relationships with key print, television and online partners. The sport also has limited and sporadic event content and these events are typically not media or spectator friendly. Instructing YA management to ‘raise the media profile’ of sailing will simply not happen until YA understands its targeted customers, how to reach them, and provides them with a compelling and consistent story – and skilled tactical resources to support strategy delivery. The sport also needs to examine how it presents its shop front (national teams, athletes and events) and be flexible where possible with the competition format to accommodate the preferences of media and corporate partners to enable a more accessible and entertaining spectator/television viewer proposition. The reviewer interviewed the external media consultants (The Content Group) of Rowing Australia and Australian Canoeing to conceptually discuss the approach to developing the media profile of sailing. Their advice was consistent with the approach described above and the scale and speed of building the profile is commensurate with the investment, although it is possible to make significant improvements with a relatively small investment so long as there is a clear and professional strategy and a compelling story to tell. The sailing story must be enduring and evolving and brought to life through the media, starting with home grown, local stories as the foundation of the sport’s profile, building a national profile realistically developed through a sustained strategy over a period of four to five years. Swimming Australia provides another example of a sport working with an external media consultant over a sustained period of time. In the instance of swimming, the service and support provided is comprehensive and includes media management/relations, public relations and promotion, media training (athletes, coaches, and staff) and crisis management. Swimming has made a significant and ongoing investment in its media and communications strategy with the strong belief that an effectively developed and managed approach to this component of the business becomes a revenue driver – not a cost centre. The benefits of integrating this strategy with swimming’s brand development, sponsors and broadcasters has been significant in the evolution of professionalisation and revenue growth of the organisation in the period between 2001 and 2007. Television and New Media Television is critical for sailing to gain any significant results in raising the media and public awareness of the sport, and more specifically the Olympic sailing classes which are the primary media asset that YA can control. Developing compelling content for television will be an incremental process and may need to initially be built around programming which incorporates racing highlights packages (featuring start–middle–finish–medal) rather than live coverage and potentially assembled as a sailing or boating lifestyle program. A lifestyle program may feature vignettes profiling AST athletes and coaches, information on learn to sail and YA national participation programs, and possibly showcasing technology and innovation through sponsored manufacturer segments. During the course of the review, the reviewer facilitated a meeting between YA’s CEO and a leading sport media production and distribution group (Sportsbrand Media Group) to further explore the options for packaging a summer sailing television series for Australian pay television. This dialogue is still developing, however it is thought that there is sufficient global sailing content to supplement domestic content to create a viable domestic weekly sailing lifestyle program throughout the Australian summer which would be attractive to pay television broadcasters and audiences. The media rights arrangements for ISAF events is somewhat grey, however the current position would appear that until such time that the ISAF-owned content (essentially the Olympic class events) increases in commercial value it would be in the interests of the sport’s global development to make this content available to broadcasters for minimal to no cost. The key to activating a pay television strategy in Australia for YA is to develop a compelling proposition to brand owners (sponsors) which convinces them to underwrite the production costs of a thirty-minute weekly program with a minimum run of 18 to 20 weeks annually. As an indicative example of the volume of Olympic class regattas operating in the summer period, there will be a total of seven Olympic Class, World and Asia Pacific Championships and four All Olympic Class events hosted in Australia and New Zealand between November 2007 and March 2008. Well-known sailing events such as the Sydney to Hobart and Melbourne to Hobart are also supported by a diverse and substantial number of small to medium sailing events conducted throughout Australia and internationally during the summer period. There is a critical volume and quality of sailing content that is available to construct a weekly sailing television magazine, however further work is required to cost and develop a realistic and viable production model that can be underwritten by current and prospective YA sponsors. Naturally, if television production of events such as Sail Melbourne can be underwritten by sponsors, then a concerted effort and strategy to release video news reels to target nightly news bulletins of free-to-air and pay television broadcasters would accompany the weekly series strategy. Interestingly, sailing was ranked as the fifth most popular Olympic sport on the new media platform during the 2004 Olympics and also proved a popular platform for the Americas Cup. One of the more popular websites broadcasting video content for sailing is the UK based ‘sail.tv’, which features free, on-demand content of ISAF Worlds, showcases a variety of boat trade shows and an online trade directory for the sailing sector. The Sail.tv model provides an example of how YA could and should directly or in partnership with another provider create meaningful, readily accessible and cost-effective content to showcase the AST and other YA events and initiatives to its sailing membership via the YA website. Cricket Australia’s ‘CATV’ also provides another example of using the internet as a platform for competition and behind-the-scenes vision. Licensing and Merchandising The YA licensing program was established in 2007 through a partnership between YA and licensing agency ISM. As has been demonstrated by the national licensing programs of Surf Life Saving Australia (SLSA) and Bowls Australia (BA), it is possible for the lower profile sporting bodies to generate a significant stream of revenue from licensing activities, however it is a medium to long-term strategy which may take five to seven years to demonstrate meaningful income. Nevertheless, it is another vital ingredient to position the sport for the future. There are lessons to glean from the respective SLSA and BA programs – both have relevance to the current and intended activities and considerations of YA’s licensing and merchandising strategies. The BA program is a mandatory program requiring competitive lawn bowlers to wear licensed BA apparel/club clothing when competing in pennant and other competitive leagues. The program is now 12 years old and generates in excess of $6.5m per annum in wholesale sales (and continues to grow), of which BA derives approximately 10% as a licensing royalty and returns 100% of profits (less staff and operational costs) back into the development of the sport. While the outcome of this program has provided a significant new stream of revenue to be invested in the sport, there is very little awareness by participants that the funds are reinvested back into the sport and in fact there is resentment towards the national body for perceived ‘skimming’ of its paid-up members (the reality is that the competition between licensees has in fact delivered a stronger price proposition for consumers). The SLSA program has a more diverse mix of licensed products for retail and club offerings including apparel, rescue equipment and training manuals and videos. There are similarities between several of the product category opportunities licensed by SLSA and being developed by YA – and in both instances the ability to achieve retail penetration is proving more problematic than anticipated. In both the SLSA and BA programs, the opportunity to source and develop their own branded products, thus creating the opportunity to collect the wholesale margin on sales of licensed product is underdeveloped. 2.4.7 Building Commercial Capacity of YA As highlighted in section 2.4.3, YA require improved capacity and expertise of its commercial activities to underpin and sustain growth of self-generated revenues for the sport of sailing. There are a number of options which YA could consider to bolster its commercial capacity and expertise, of which we have reviewed three: Option One – Internal Business Unit and Resourcing With this option, YA would create a standalone business unit for all commercial activities under the leadership of a General Manager of Commercial Operations. This unit and manager would be responsible for all revenue generation and marketing activities of the organisation including: Sponsorship; Business development; Government Grants; Marketing and Communications; and Licensing and Merchandising. This option has benefits in that it builds the internal capability of the organisation and minimises revenue leakage to third parties. However, it is a costly option to implement. The cost of employing a suitably skilled and strategic Sydney-based general manager to drive and develop YA’s commercial operations would be upward of $125,000 p.a. It would be likely that a period of 12 to 18 months would elapse before a tangible commercial return would be realised by the organisation. It is the reviewer’s opinion that at the present time this option is not the preferred way forward in the immediate 24 months. It may be the model YA aspires to once the commercial strategy is implemented and growing sufficiently to self-fund the establishment of this full-time position. Option Two – Non-Exclusive Outsourced Sponsor Acquisition Model In this option, YA would appoint an external agency to represent YA’s major sponsorship properties (i.e. those valued in excess of $100k p.a.) on a non-exclusive basis. YA would retain the right to directly sell major sponsorship properties; however YA’s primary focus would be on sponsorship servicing and sales of minor sponsorship properties (under $100k p.a.) and VIK budget relieving partnerships. This model has benefits in that it retains flexibility for YA to both sell and service the sponsorship function and build internal capabilities while at the same time bolstering its resources to target higher yield partners through a non-exclusive partnership with an appropriate sports sponsorship agency who are prepared to absorb some risk in return for a sales commission (variable from 15% to 25%) for the duration of the sponsorship. Naturally, the key to success of this model is finding the right fit with a focused and motivated partner and ensuring that appropriate partner activity and reporting is occurring and being tracked against agreed objectives on a monthly basis. It is particularly important with this option that contractual arrangements are sufficiently robust to ensure that a non-exclusive partner does not impede the ability of YA to pursue its own sponsorship opportunities or claim stake to conversion opportunities where the non-exclusive partner is loosely involved. The other significant downside is that most of the traditional external agencies within the sport business sector have focus and expertise in the area of sponsorship. Whereas YA ultimately requires expertise that can strengthen its commercial capability across a number of activities. Option Three – Shared Risk Model As noted within this report, there is a need to refresh the commercial strategy of YA and progressively build the internal capabilities and expertise of the organisation. A model which has demonstrated some success in similar sized NSOs combines a shared risk approach between the NSO and external provider in the development of commercial strategy and capability building (including staff mentoring and development). In return, the external provider receives exclusive rights to partner with the NSO to jointly build new revenue over a period of two to three years. An appropriate revenue share model is developed based upon the degree of upfront risk and support provided by the external partner in developing the commercial strategy and plan and support to YA staff. In this model, YA would be responsible for the servicing of sponsors to promote a direct relationship, however the external organisation would be included in joint YA/Sponsor quarterly reviews to monitor and improve partnership outcomes. The benefit of this model is that it accelerates the development of the commercial strategy and plan, builds organisational and people capability, keeps YA closely connected to the sponsor relationship, and carries with it a strong probability of bolstering revenue. The formative and development elements of this approach are consistent with the aims of the review and building towards self-sufficiency. The potential downside to this model is striking the appropriate level of upfront risk by YA to fund the internal strategy and capability building – there is no guarantee that the external organisation would deliver new sponsorship. CONCLUSION Commercial development of the YA business is showing evidence of improvement across two of the four core functions of the unit and a willingness to further develop self-generated new revenue streams through the recent introduction of new initiatives such as the licensing program. YA’s brand, communication, media and marketing activities have been slow to develop and investment is now required to progress previously developed strategies. If YA is to improve its self-generated revenue objectives to bolster preparations for London 2012 and significantly improve its leadership and support towards community sailing initiatives, a more focused, forceful and better resourced commercial division is imperative. The way forward does not require a complex strategy; it does however require investment today to reap reward in future years. YA must concentrate on getting the basics of its commercial activities operating soundly and resourced appropriately over the next 18 to 24 months, before pursuing more innovative new business development revenue streams which may be more realistic to develop and implement after 2009. DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT Develop the Brand, Communications, Marketing and Media Strategy for Yachting To enable the evolution of the next stage of sailing’s consumer brand, media, communications and marketing strategy, it is recommended that in accordance with Recommendation One of this report, YA commission a national market research project to develop an informed insight and understanding of sailing’s existing customers and its potential customers. The study would ideally identify customer segments for sailing and identify a strategy to attract targeted new participants to the sport and provide guidance to develop the ‘sailing story’ as the key brand and communication asset of YA. Following completion of the national market research study and strategic plan for yachting in Australia, it is recommended that:
The data emerging from this research will be of substantial and powerful benefit to YA’s: current and prospective sponsors; the design of external marketing and communication campaigns; and participation development initiatives. Grow the Profile of Sailing YA’s media, communications and marketing activities need to be considered as an investment in the future – in other words, consumption deferred while the commercial infrastructure is built. YA’s commercial and participation development strategies share a strong interdependence with the success of raising sailing’s media profile. To be effective, YA require the assistance of external media and communications expertise to assist in the development of a media/comms strategy and provide tactical support which will provide sailing with the best return of its investment based on its available budget. Following the completion of the strategic plan for yachting and national market research project, it is recommended that:
Subject to the available funding, it is also recommended that:
Collectively, YA management and the proposed YA commercial (see recommendation 26) and media consultants would collaborate to examine appropriate opportunities such as those described in Section 2.4.5 to build the television and online presence of the sport. YA Commercial Strategy The marketing and sponsorship plan developed by the consultancy P4 Group in 2004 provides a solid blueprint for the YA commercial strategy which can, with some modification, be used as the template to create a three-year integrated commercial operations plan. It is recommended that:
The plan should be a fluid document which is reviewed in 2009 upon completion of the national research project and the strategic plan for yachting in Australia. Building Commercial Capacity of YA It is the reviewer’s opinion that of the options detailed in Section 2.4.7, Option 3 presents the most appropriate option for YA at this stage of its organisational development; however Option 2 offers the lowest upfront investment and is a superior option to current arrangements. It is imperative that a decision is made to implement either of these options as soon as possible to enable an appropriate window of time to review current commercial arrangements prior to the expiration of the current major sponsorship agreements. It is recommended that:
YA Sponsorship Following on from the previous recommendation, once the delivery model, capabilities and resources of YA commercial operations are resolved, the approach to the YA sponsorship portfolio should be modified to strengthen the overall proposition to sponsors, MYAs and clubs. It is recommended that:
Sponsor investment and benefit to community sailing will only be possible through a collaborative approach between YA, MYAs and clubs. If this joint partnership model is not in place, sponsors will have no faith in the ability of the sport to deliver outcomes. It is recommended that:
The majority of current sponsorship agreements are linked to the Australian Sailing Team and the four-year Olympic campaign cycle. Therefore, it is not surprising that the major agreements all expire within three months of each other in the period immediately after the 2008 Olympics. As recommendation 27 indicates, a concerted effort to jointly package Australian Sailing Team properties with community sailing properties should see greater flow-through benefit of sponsorship funding to the grass roots of the sport, and over time provide a greater buffer to the cyclical, non-staggered terms of the current agreements and bridge the 12 to 18 month gap in funding which emerges in the post-Olympic period. While it is not easily managed, where possible YA should seek to develop a staggering of terms for the major sponsors (typically those associated with the AST) so that there is a more even spread of agreement expiration dates across the four-year Olympic cycle. 2.5 GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT KEY PERFORMANCE DRIVERS Governance and Constitution: Governance Model and Constitutional Arrangements (Legal Framework, Objects, Powers) Board (Independence, Alignment of Responsibility with Authority, Policies, Processes and Reporting, Financial Accountability, and Performance Review) Management: Accountability (Delegation and reporting across core business functions) Performance Management Systems (Planning, Execution, Relationships) Staff (excl. AST Coaches) Business Systems (Financial, HR/People Development, ICT, Membership) 2.5.1 Yachting Australia Governance Model and Constitutional Arrangements Yachting Australia is recognised as the National Sporting Organisation for sailing by the ASC, Australian Olympic Committee (AOC), Australian Paralympic Committee (APC) and the International Sailing Federation (ISAF). YA is a federation of eight independent state and territory MYAs, consisting of more than 383 affiliated clubs, over 100,000 individual club members, 45,000 YA cardholders and 280 state and national class associations. Constitutionally, YA is an incorporated association pursuant to the Associations Incorporation Act 1984 (NSW) with responsibility for promoting competitive and recreational sailing. The YA national office is located in Sydney and there are incorporated associations in all states with the exception of Queensland where the state body is a company limited by guarantee. The Federal Assembly comprises the President of the Federation and one delegate from each member association. The member associations are those bodies representing sailing in each state and territory. The annual meeting of the Federal Assembly is the AGM of the Federation. At meetings of the Federal Assembly, each delegate exercises one vote per person either in person or by proxy. The Constitution provides for the YA Board to comprise five directors elected by the Federal Assembly and up to three independent (co-opted) directors who may be appointed by the elected directors. As soon as practicable after each AGM, the five elected directors elect one of their number to be President for the ensuing year and the President normally presides as Chairman at each meeting of the Board. The term of appointment for an elected Board Member is normally two years. The term for appointed directors is for a period determined by the Board, but does not exceed two years. The reviewer considers the size of the Board as very workable in number. It is the skill sets of those on the Board which is of most importance. Figure 6: YA Federal Assembly Structure 
The Role of ISAF The sport’s international governing body, the International Sailing Federation (ISAF), has responsibility across all disciplines of the sport from dinghy sailing, windsurfing, round the world yacht racing to the America’s Cup. The principal remit of ISAF includes: The rules – controlling and publishing: The racing rules regulating all racing at all levels to ensure international consistency. The equipment rules, offshore special regulations and ISAF regulations. Competitions and events – including: The Olympic sailing competition, ISAF-owned events and ISAF graded events. Sanctioning and granting international and world-class or special category status to sailing and class events. World sailing rankings (Olympic classes) and match race rankings. Speed sailing records. Scheduling international events. Race officials: provision of education, training and certification of race officials, such as juries, umpires and on the water judges. Technical: all areas of the sport including technical specifications and development and supervising the rules of international class associations which prescribe measurement criteria to ensure specific types of boat are ‘in class’. Development: disabled sailing, training and development Olympic Solidarity, athlete participation programs. Coaches: introduction and management of registration systems. ISAF Sailor: sailor classification, registration and database of active international sailors. Promotion: dissemination of information primarily by the ISAF website (www.sailing.org) and marketing to publicise sport. ISAF governs the sport through its network of Member National Authorities (MNAs), which govern yachting and yacht clubs within each country and international class associations for each type of boat. The Objects of Yachting Australia The 2003 amended constitution states the objects (Rule 2) of the Federation shall be: To promote and administer the sport of yachting in all its branches. To serve as a national body for the advancement of yachting throughout the Commonwealth of Australia. To take such steps to affiliate with other International and National Associations as may be required. To recognise as national classes such class of yachts, which may from time to time comply with the requirements of the Federation. The Board Powers (YA Constitution Clause 11.1)
2000 Review of Governance Model and Constitution of the Federation10 In 2000, Yachting Australia engaged Terry Kilmister of Board Works International to provide advice on its governance structure and the roles and responsibilities of the board, board committees, the CEO, the Federal Assembly, State Associations and their CEOs. Kilmister's report tabled 26 recommendations, of which 20 have been successfully adopted and implemented. Of the remaining 6 recommendations, 4 have not been adopted and 2 have been adopted but have been either only partially successful or not fully implemented. These recommendations and outcomes are summarised below. Table 8: Kilmister Review of YA Governance Model (2000)
Federation Model versus Alternative Models During the Kilmister review process, debate was held on the pros and cons of the current federation model. The Kilmister review found that the current federation structure should be retained, at least in the immediate future; however the YA Board should instigate a thorough investigation into alternative organisational structures with a view to securing a strong future for YA in a rapidly changing sport and business marketplace. As noted in the previous table this investigation has not been undertaken although the pros and cons of the debate have continued throughout the current review. The rationale for Kilmister’s recommendation to maintain the existing arrangements of the YA federal structure included: Acknowledgment that the long history of voluntary contribution has created an army of ‘on-the-ground’ volunteer workers and has shaped a culture of ‘ownership’ of the Federation. It was expressed that a move towards a corporate holding company model may seriously threaten this culture; The potential for the federal model to deliver stronger overall participation by organisation members as a result of them feeling that they can influence and be heard; and The review discusses the potential to successfully address issues and deliver desired benefits within the sport via a successful federal structure, based on principles of good governance. As stated in Kilmister’s report: ‘At the core of the federalist concept is the necessity for the centre and the parts each to give up some of their power to the other…Federalism attempts to find a balance of power within an organisation. It is a mix of small and large, of centralism and decentralism.’ The Kilmister review acknowledges that, in practice, successful federalism is difficult to achieve and that it requires ‘…much negotiation, goodwill and agreement around mutually interdependent goals that will often be achieved through independent action…When the goals are agreed to with the participation of the parts and the centre working together, there is a much greater likelihood that co-operative and collaborative strategies will be developed and agreed, mutual accountabilities and obligations met.’
The role of the Federal Assembly is not well defined in the Constitution; however it should be contained to: Electing the member directors of the YA Board that will govern the sport on behalf of all members of the sport over the coming year; Making changes to the rules that govern the organisation as a whole at the AGM and SGM; Meeting annually to provide a strategic forum to contribute and influence the shape and overall strategic direction of the sport and to monitor the performance of the YA Board against the deliverables and success measures of the strategic plan; and Providing an effective two-way communication conduit between its members and the YA Board. While it would be premature to recommend that YA move away from its current federated structure, there is an urgent need to alleviate some of the inefficiencies and compromises this structure presents to the delivery of strategic goals – while retaining the beneficial elements. The federation and its member associations should be provided the opportunity over the next few years to demonstrate their ability and commitment to move towards a more effective federalist ideal where the sum of parts and the centre can indeed work together effectively. In Kilmister’s report it is suggested that this may best be achieved with the development of a documented memorandum of understanding or charter in which mutual obligations and reciprocal arrangements are enshrined. There have been recent attempts to develop a standardised service agreement between YA and MYAs, however this has been problematic as the ‘one-size fits all’ approach to documenting obligations and arrangements was not deemed possible by some MYAs due to the non-alignment of certain core areas of business. Notably the dilemma of business focus on sailing or boating remains an obstacle to the establishment of MoUs. A more practical and robust way forward may be achieved through the adoption of a Performance Management System (PMS), which provides for consistent performance measurement and reporting approach by YA and MYAs on highly specific and agreed initiatives which require interdependence to execute. The current and proposed PMS is further discussed in Section 2.5.3. In his report, Kilmister also suggests a thorough investigation should be undertaken to review alternative organisational structures which may be more appropriate to secure a strong future for YA and its members in a rapidly changing marketplace. While the reviewers agree with this recommendation, the determination of a whole of sport strategy, YA business focus and cost consequences of the adopted business model should be the first order of reform before any structural changes to the constitution or company structures are enacted. Notwithstanding the premise of strategy before structure, it would not be inappropriate for YA to immediately explore the advantages of moving away from an incorporated association to a company limited by guarantee. These benefits take into account the scale of trading activities (a company can do business anywhere in Australia without further registration), operational efficiency with clear and well-established obligations for an organisation’s decision-makers, regulatory efficiency and enhanced public perception and status. Other benefits of a company structure for the organisation would include: allow more room for the YA business to grow – a desired and stated intent of the current board; enable it to become more diversified and better able to adapt to an ever-changing community service environment; allow easy national and international access to business opportunities; make the organisation’s operations and decision-making processes more transparent due to the requirements for public disclosure of company finances, structure and decision-making processes; the requirement for the use of the word ‘limited’ may be removed (on application to ASIC) – i.e. this allows the use of a ‘trading name’ as in the case of the day-to-day use of ‘Yachting Australia’ (State legislation usually requires the use of the word ‘Incorporated’ or ‘Inc.’ on all letterhead correspondence etc. This informs the public in the same way as the use of ‘Limited’ or Pty Ltd” under the Corporations Act of 2001, that there is limited liability owed by the Association to the general public); require directors to operate within the regulatory framework of the Corporations Act including specific obligations placed on directors contained in that Act; attract high-quality candidates to the YA board; move YA to the preferred model of the ASC; and assist in the movement of YA further along the continuum towards a professional business The move to the company limited by guarantee structure would solve several of the current specific constitutional issues, redefine the role of the Federal Assembly and empower the Board. There are obvious added advantages in doing this at the same time as the development of a new strategic plan and YA business model, and any change would ideally be carried out at the end of the organisation’s financial year to avoid duplication of financial accounts. Reform for Structural Impediments – The Way Forward This report is based on the proposition recently advanced by the YA Board that it would like yachting to be delivered as a professional, commercially focused business in future years rather than delivered in a way more resembling that of a cottage industry – as has typically been the case throughout the history of the organisation. The following options and subsequent recommendation at the end of this section apply the structure follows strategy principle. Even though YA’s future business strategy is yet to be finalised, the following options are designed to facilitate flexible adaptation of the governance structure to align with the evolving business strategy and YA’s evolving organisational capability. All of the following options assume that the sport would operate a comprehensive, national PMS. Option 1: Unitary Model – State Advisory Boards Option 1 envisages the delivery of sailing through a single national structure and constitution with state managers being responsible to the national CEO. Affiliated clubs would be direct members of YA and would enjoy proportional voting rights (through club delegates) at General Meetings and would elect a majority of the YA Board. State advisory boards would provide strategic advice to state managers and to the YA Board and would be comprised of the chairs of state technical committees. The YA Board would also be advised by national technical committees. The audited net equity of the MYAs would be held in trust by YA for the benefit of members resident in the relevant states. A unitary structure would not affect funding to MYAs by state/territory governments provided that the MYAs have no objection to such a structure and subject to YA agreeing to a range of state government funding and asset accountability measures. For example, YA would need to provide guarantee that state/territory government funding would be spent in accordance with the conditions and for the benefit of local sport participants. Option 2: Unitary Model – Elected State Councils Option 2 also envisages the delivery of sailing through a single national structure and constitution with state managers being responsible to the national CEO. Affiliated clubs would be direct members of YA with one vote one value voting entitlements at General Meetings. State councils would be elected by affiliated clubs (one vote per member) and the state councils would elect a majority of the YA Board. The YA Board would also be advised by national technical committees. The audited net equity of the MYAs would be held in trust by YA for the benefit of members resident in the relevant states. Option 3: Hybrid Model – Direct NSO Membership and Retention of State Associations Option 3 retains the state associations but provides for direct membership by individuals and corporate entities (including MYAs) of the NSO on an equality of voting power basis for General Meetings and in the election of a majority of the YA Board. Agreed services would be contracted by YA and delivered by the state associations in return for receiving a proportion of membership fees, subject to achieving negotiated performance targets. Option 4: Federated Model – Separate Entity for Olympic High Performance Program Option 4 retains a federated structure incorporating the features outlined in Option 5 but with the additional feature of outsourcing the functions of the Olympic Sailing Program to a separate company limited by guarantee. The company would focus solely on high-performance outcomes and would be governed by a small board comprising no more than five non-executive directors (with a majority to be appointed by the YA Board) and possessing acknowledged expertise in delivering Olympic high-performance programs. Option 5: Federated Model – Indirect NSO Membership and Retention of State Associations Option 5 envisages the retention of a federated structure with affiliated clubs being direct members of MYAs and with MYAs being voting members of YA at General Meetings and in the election of a majority of the YA Board on a one vote one value basis. However, Option 5 also recognises the need to strengthen the federated arrangements considerably. This would be done primarily through clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of YA and the MYAs and through agreeing on an enforceable services contract specifying the respective obligations of the parties to the agreement. Under this arrangement, the YA Board would be responsible for national planning and for the execution of a range of national programs in collaboration with MYAs and other entities as the regional delivery agents. This approach is sometimes referred to as a federated structure but with many characteristics of unitary behaviour. Assessment of Options It is very important that structural change is implemented at a measured pace that leads, but does not get too far ahead of, the prevailing culture operating within the sport. At the same time, it is vital that a roadmap exists that plots out a preferred pathway for future structural development and to build a consensus that this roadmap is best able to support the sport’s evolving business model and organisational capability. The main issue, therefore, is to determine which options are the most appropriate over the next six or seven years to facilitate progress towards YA operating more like a professional business and to provide a roadmap that is sufficiently flexible to allow the structure to be modified in light of the sport’s evolving business model and organisational capability. As noted earlier, in the reviewer’s opinion the current federated structure is not working well and the present arrangements are compromising the ability of YA to deliver the sport nationally through the MYAs in a cost-effective manner. Notwithstanding these concerns, the reviewer believes that, for the time being at least, YA should retain a federated structure (but in a considerably strengthened form) on the basis that the sport should have the opportunity to demonstrate its assertion that it can make a federated structure work cost-effectively. If success is to be demonstrated in a credible way, however, it must be measured by setting and achieving targets linked to the key performance drivers and managed through a robust performance management system. If the sport as a whole can demonstrate its ability to enact necessary changes and meet agreed targets over the next six to seven years through the adoption of a strengthened federated structure, there would be no need to change that structure unless the adoption of a new business model suggests that the current structural arrangements would hinder its execution. YAs journey towards operating more like a professional business should be the subject of formal evaluation at key marker points set at approximately three-yearly intervals. There should be flexibility with these timelines for assessing progress against the three stages of the proposed structural reform roadmap. Should it emerge that there are compelling reasons to accelerate these timelines to accommodate the new business model or other unforeseen circumstances, the reviewer would caution that these changes be made at pace the sport can realistically accommodate as these activities will divert the attention and resources of YA and MYA core business. 2.5.2 YA Board Skills and Performance There is a perception by many of the sports stakeholders that further independent expertise is required for the YA Board in the areas of Commerce, Law, Consumer Marketing, and High Performance. Before such appointments can be considered, however they should reflect the strategic direction determined by the Board in consultation with members. The reviewers would suggest that the key skill gap of the current Board based on the current strategic plan is more correctly in the area of consumer marketing. The current Board possesses a reasonably broad and appropriate set of skills, including formal qualifications in accounting, finance, architecture, commerce, and law. The three appointed YA directors deliver different and value-adding professional skill sets to complement those of the elected directors. The appointed YA directors all have strong and credible sailing backgrounds. While it is not unusual for national sporting organisations to attract and appoint directors from within the ranks of their respective ‘sporting families’, it can be beneficial to appoint appropriately skilled and dispassionate directors to further balance and promote the independence (both real and perceived) of an NSO Board. YA should consider the advantages of recruiting a director from outside the sailing family once the direction and strategy of the organisation is determined. The basis for the YA Board to annually review and assess Board and director performance is contained within the Board’s Governance Process policies. However, performance assessments are not being undertaken in accordance with the Board’s policy which naturally makes it difficult for the Board to be fully transparent and accountable to the members. Annual formal reviews should be undertaken as a minimum to assess the performance of the Board, individual directors, and the Chairperson. Performance should focus on the role of the Board in setting YA’s strategic plan, including performance tracking against short, medium and longer term outputs. The reviews should also provide clear direction on how exceptions to the plan are being managed by the Board and the CEO and, where appropriate, remedies to correct skill deficiencies and/or under-performance of individual directors. The YA Board acknowledge that this process has lapsed and is not currently in accordance with YA Governance Process policies, and more broadly the failure to undertake annual performance reviews is inconsistent with best practice governance principles. The ASC has provided an offer to YA to utilise a proprietary review template developed for the ASC by an independent governance expert to conduct sport-specific performance assessment for NSO boards, directors and chairpersons. A key role of the Board is to use their respective skills and experience to contribute to the overall mentoring and development of the CEO. An environment should be cultivated between the Board and the CEO which provides reciprocal trust, confidence and respect in the Board setting the strategic plan and the CEO and management team effectively delivering the strategies and vision of the organisation. The YA Chairman and CEO have an effective strategic working relationship, however it would be beneficial to the ongoing professional development and effectiveness of the CEO to more regularly tap into the skill sets and experience of the directors to assist in value-adding and problem-solving to the strategic and management challenges often confronted in isolation by a CEO. The strong fiscal management of YA under the leadership of the current board should be acknowledged. Following the extensive drain on YA reserves as a result of legal expenses related to the tragic events of the 54th Sydney to Hobart yacht race in 1998, there has been a strong focus on rebuilding the reserves of YA. As of 30 June 2007, retained earnings were 11.3% of organisational turnover (optimal industry standards vary, however between 10-15% is considered desirable). Board Decision Support Systems The Board utilises a number of processes and reporting methods as part of its framework for tracking performance – however there are gaps in the processes for robust and accurate decision support systems. Current arrangements and proposed arrangements for the overall YA performance management system, of which decision support is a component, are described in more detail in Section 2.5.3. The primary decision support instruments utilised by the Board include: Quarterly reporting against the annual YA Operational Plan. This report template is organised to report progress against the seven Key Result Areas of the YA Strategic Plan and provides a description of targeted objectives, annual outputs and specific initiatives, performance targets (often difficult to measure with accuracy), timeframes, progress to date and status. The operational plans do not provide descriptors of inputs such as staff and financial resource allocation, however funding allocation by business unit is provided in the consolidated annual budget. Detailed financial reporting provided quarterly to the Board. These reports include whole-of-organisation annual budget summary, detailed business unit and Key Result Area budgets, and explanatory notes to accompany the various financial reports. YA management spends a lot of time consulting, planning and reporting, probably more so than most other NSOs at this level. While the premise of consensus-building to improve decision-making through broad consultation is sound in principle, the method of building consensus is flawed, lacks evidence to support decision-making, and has been dominated by behaviour which is more reflective of the argument of force (e.g. dominant outspoken personalities are the most influential but often offering unsubstantiated opinion) as opposed to the force of argument – the latter supported by strong evidence and substantiated rationale. The consequence of relying on talk and consideration of ‘issues’ without appropriate methods and evidence to assess and obtain quality decision-making against more robust criteria ultimately results in consequences which may have been avoided had a well-argued, democratic, inclusive and logical approach to consensus-building been adopted. The evidence from stakeholder consultations suggests that while YA is often highly consultative, it has at times been adversely influenced by the argument of force in its decision-making processes. As highlighted in Section 2.1 of this report, the availability and currency of reliable national data sets and the understanding of customer needs is very limited and impedes the accuracy and certainty of the Board and Management to make decisions which appropriately reflect the demands of YA’s customers. There are examples (such as those discussed in the Sport Development section) which suggest that there is an ad-hoc approach to decision-making and resource allocation within YA. There are also instances where detailed business case modelling has been developed, which considers the financial consequences and delivery implications of services/products offered by YA (e.g. the adoption of the RYA training scheme). In other circumstances there appears to be a more reactive approach which is supported by little more than anecdotal evidence to support the decisions and allocation of resources made by the organisation. 2.5.3 YA Management YA employ 15 FTE staff, of which six are dedicated to high-performance outcomes. A further eight coaches are employed on a contractual basis by YA. Collectively, the eight MYAs employ another 20 full- or part-time staff. The current organisational structure and personnel provided by YA to conduct these activities and deliver services to the MYAs, clubs and individual members is provided in Appendix 4. The table below (Table 9) provides a summary of YA core business functions and business units derived from a YA staff induction document. The efficiency and effectiveness of the YA management team is often compromised by reactive distractions generated by the non-alignment of purpose and priority by the FA and MYAs. In some instances, MYA management is not permitted to work towards a unity of purpose with YA management creating various adversarial forms of non-cooperation through open challenges to the YA Board and CEO or more passive forms of resistance and use of blocking tactics. The Board needs to empower the YA management team to remain focused on the delivery of the agreed strategic plan priorities and performance targets. The structure of YA Management needs to evolve to reflect the new strategic plan and be enabled to stay focused and accountable to the organisational priorities and deliverables of the plan as directed by the YA Board. Table 9: Current YA Business Unit and Functions
Performance Management System The current YA performance management framework purports to measure the achievement of objectives by individual staff, work groups and the organisation. The framework is underpinned by managers supporting and guiding staff to achieve specific goals and objectives. The current system involves establishing goals and objectives for Yachting Australia which cascade down the organisation and are reflected in each staff member’s job objectives and position descriptions. It can measure:
Performance results and feedback – the degree to which the employee’s objectives and planned outputs have been achieved. This aspect of the review evaluates performance against the employee’s position description and any pre-determined or agreed objectives. Development – the degree to which various key skills and competencies required to effectively carry out the employee’s job have been mastered and the identification of appropriate professional development opportunities. This aspect of the review is focused on the professional development requirements of the job not the person concerned. Summary – a summary of the actions agreed by both the employee and manager during the review process and a summary of overall comments by the manager on the work of the employee. A diagrammatic overview of the YA performance management cycle currently used by the organisation is provided in Appendix 3. The YA board use this performance management framework and progress against the YA strategic plan to annually assess satisfaction of the CEO’s performance. While the YA’s current approach to performance management is substantially stronger than many similar sized NSOs, there are gaps in the model which fall well short of a functional Performance Management System (PMS). A PMS should be developed around the framework of program logic principles (input-process-output-outcome) using key performance drivers of the sport and business to enable the detection of performance deficits and allowing for the diagnosis of the key components/elements to be fixed. If the deficiencies of the current performance management approach are addressed, then this should facilitate significant immediate and longer term improvements in the performance of the business and the reduction of dysfunctional behaviours impeding the delivery of a successful federated model for the sport. Currently, the results of YA’s key performance drivers show that while almost all of the High Performance targets are being achieved, a significant number of other indicators of YA’s performance are either well behind target or have been delayed. The latter are typically initiatives and goals which require interdependence and cooperation between YA, MYAs and Clubs. The current performance management approach also features a historical approach to reporting and does not focus the management or the board on future-orientated opportunities or challenges of the sport and business. This has further contributed to the development of a reactive organisational culture and behaviour within YA when presented with opportunities or threats. High performing businesses and people need to seek unique insights from within and outside of the organisation to fully understand the drivers which affect their business now and in the future. They see change coming before their competition and change their business models to create new markets as their competitive environment evolves. YA need to build its PMS to support, develop and reward its people for practising innovative behaviour. The underperformance of most companies can be pinpointed to a breakdown between strategy and operations. Kaplan and Norton11 describe the need to forge tight linkages between strategy and operations using a five-stage closed-loop management system (see Appendix 3). Their findings identified that there are two basic rules to successful strategy execution: understanding the management cycle that links strategy and operations, and knowing what tools to apply at each stage of the cycle. The following summary is somewhat repetitive with other sections contained earlier in this report, however it is instructive to show how the links between YA’s strategy and operations are meant to work and to understand the ‘tools’ (PMS) to use within each stage of the closed-loop management system. Summary of the Closed-Loop Management System Linking Strategy and Operations (Kaplan–Norton) Stage one begins with a company developing a strategy statement. Next, the strategy is translated into the specific objectives and initiatives of the strategic plan. Using the strategic plan as a guiding tool, the company maps out the operational plans and resources required to achieve its objectives. As managers execute the strategic and operational plans, they continually monitor and learn from internal results and external data on competitors and the broader business environment to see if the strategy is succeeding. Finally, they periodically assess the strategy, updating it if they learn the underlying assumptions are out of date or faulty – thus starting another loop around the system. The YA PMS should provide the toolkit to apply at each of the five stages of the closed-loop management cycle described above. The YA PMS should incorporate the following additional elements to strengthen the delivery of the sport in the future: An input – process – output – outcome conceptual framework using program logic methodology; A business model description which provides a plain English narrative of how the input – process – output – outcome execution and conversion process of the performance drivers of the YA business and how they work; Strategic and business planning which is supported by underpinning assumptions and evidence-based data to appropriately manage the exposure of the organisation to risk; Resource allocation which provides more detailed activity-based costing and fixed and variable costing; Consistent national performance data collection protocols to enable evidence-based reporting and more rapid problem diagnosis and remedy of key performance drivers; Currently, reporting is historically focused which impedes the ability of management and the board to be future-orientated and think more strategically and innovatively about the development of the sport and business; and Establishing a monitoring system which provides for a more regular precise evaluation of exceptions to strategy implementation and facilitates quick modification to these exceptions to deliver the desired change in short, medium and longer term outputs and outcomes. The benefits to be derived from the adoption of an enhanced PMS for YA will deliver both immediate and longer term results which will change the culture (over time) and behaviour of the organisation and accelerate the movement of YA along the professional business continuum more rapidly than any other intervention or recommendation described within this review. Should YA be able to successfully adopt and implement a superior PMS nationally, its capabilities and ability to execute key performance drivers of the business will shift quite dramatically. The reviewers suggest that the opportunity exists for the ASC to play a strong value-adding role in assisting YA to build capability in its PMS. Collaboration between YA and ASC in implementing an enhanced PMS incorporating Program Logic Modelling should be amongst the top reform priorities of this review. At the time of finalising this review, the ASC were in the final stages of preparing a PMS resource, and has indicated that it is willing to make it available to YA and to assist YA in its application. It would be highly beneficial once the PMS is implemented at YA to establish aligned systems and performance drivers at each of the MYAs, which is supported by the consistent collection of state and national data sets. A nationally consistent and aligned PMS would complement the use of well-designed service agreements between YA and the MYAs. The proposed PMS delivers a highly accountable and integrated environment which links the interdependence of partners in the delivery network. A PMS is a confronting proposition for some managers – good managers embrace PMS, bad managers detest PMS. The beauty of a PMS is that when correctly designed it promotes and rewards strong performance – but naturally it also exposes poor performance. It should be the objective of any organisation which aspires and is committed to the creation of a high-performance business to embrace a more robust process to drive change, outputs and outcomes. 2.5.4 Communication: Internal and External YA stakeholders have called for more communication and public articulation of what YA do to help promote the sport to the wider community. The recently developed brochure About Yachting Australia (described in Section 2.1.1) (released after the capital city consultation workshops were completed) is a positive start in communicating what YA do and how members are contributing and benefiting from these activities. It would be beneficial to track what impact this has had on the attitudes of members since its release in mid-2007. The YA website www.yachting.org.au provides a comprehensive range of information, calendars, services and resources for clubs and members. The state MYA websites have been provided by YA and reflect the information of the national website as well as additional relevant information for clubs and individual members. However, the reality – as with many other sports – is that just because information is provided on the YA and MYA websites doesn’t necessarily mean people know that the resources exist or where to find them. The best way (while not necessarily as efficient) to communicate key initiatives and resources available to sailing stakeholders (clubs and individuals) is improved face-to-face briefings through the conduit of FA delegates and MYA directors and management. These types of activities occur regularly in Perth and Melbourne through the conduits of YWA and YV respectively, and have proven to be highly beneficial in strengthening upward and downward communications within the sport. If YA and MYA management teams are working seamlessly towards the same sport and business priorities then key messages to the sailing community can only be further improved. A majority of those consulted in this review commented that a structured communication plan incorporating national marketing and media management strategies is required to help promote the sport to the wider community. This element is discussed and addressed in Section 2.4 of this report. 2.5.5 Stakeholder Relationships and Roles MYAs are principally responsible for servicing the needs of their constituent members in their respective state or territory. In many instances the MYA acts as the local service centre for Yachting Australia, supporting affiliated clubs and classes in adopting Yachting Australia services and acting as a local agent for agreed national programs and initiatives. MYAs also manage the relationships with their respective state and local governments and their agencies by representing and advocating the interests of their member clubs. The MYA Executive Officers report that they work very well together at operational level and this could be harnessed to broaden the ‘management team’ of the sport. The majority of the MYAs and clubs are supportive of YA and have stated that they are looking for guidance, support and tools to improve the delivery of the sport to their members. They perceive there is a need to clarify the roles and responsibilities of YA and the MYAs to ensure efficient development and delivery of the sport’s programs and policies. However, in some instances MYA management is not permitted to collaborate effectively with YA management. This will require a change in behaviour and commitment brought on by strong leadership from YA and a working environment of trust, open communication and unity of purpose. The federated structure can be a robust model for sport delivery – but only in an environment where the stakeholders have aligned vision and are committed towards a common goal of strengthening the sport. An aligned PMS adopted by both YA and the MYAs will overcome the majority of these concerns. Increasing the regularity of joint YA and MYA strategy and operational forums will also further promote the trust, respect and overall togetherness of the management team. We have summarised the feedback from the capital city workshop participants and personal interviews on what they believe should be the primary roles and responsibilities of both YA and the MYAs. This summary can be found in Appendix 8. 2.5.6 People Development (Excl. AST Coaches) Following the development of the new strategic plan and refinement of the YA management structure to reflect the new plan and organisational deliverables, there would be a need to reassess the roles and responsibilities of each business unit and the staff accordingly. This process will enable YA to assist staff in better understanding their roles and to identify potential gaps in their skill sets that can be addressed in a number of ways, including through development or mentoring. There is an opportunity for YA to take a further leadership role in assisting the MYAs with similar exercises in re-evaluating their own structures and the skills of their staff through the establishment of a consistent PMS. This would again contribute to alignment and a unified approach to delivering the sport nationally. Consideration should also be given to developing the career pathway in sailing for MYA staff to build their skills and capacity. The AFL, Cricket Australia, Australian Rugby Union and Tennis Australia are strong advocates of identifying and developing management talent at state levels to transfer to their national bodies. There are multiple benefits to this approach for individuals and the overall organisational development and retention of corporate knowledge by YA and MYAs. CONCLUSION At the Strengthening Sailing Solutions Retreat on 21 September 2007, the YA Board were in agreement that the current structure and governance model is not assisting YA to deliver its goals and objectives, and the quest for an ideal model has begun. Following the design of the business strategy and model for YA, reform of YA’s current constitution and legal structure as well as a redefinition of the roles and responsibilities of YA’s voting members and stakeholders supported by a consistent Performance Management System will be required. This will translate to a Board that is truly empowered to govern the organisation nationally and supported by a seamless national management team empowered to manage the sport and deliver the goals and objectives of the new strategic plan. However, for this to succeed there must be a commitment at all levels to a working environment of trust, high levels of accountability, open communication and unity of purpose. Importantly, it will require that the sport overcomes the current impediments of the federated structure in order for sailing to remain competitive in a changing marketplace. DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS: GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT There is a strong majority agreement that the current structure and governance model is not assisting YA to deliver its goals and objectives. The following table compares the key elements of the current YA model to that of the desired model to systematically progress YA along the professional business continuum. Table 10: Comparison of Current and Desired Governance Models
The following recommendations are provided to guide the adoption of the desired governance and management model. Legal Structure The move to a company limited by guarantee structure is appropriate for sports as they grow and move away from the activities of the traditional association towards a professionally governed and managed organisation. To support the growth and professionalisation of the business, YA require a legal structure which enables the organisation to carry out business in states other than that in which it is incorporated. To operate in this manner, YA would be required to be registered under the Corporations Act as a registrable Australian body. This registration does impose additional administrative requirements on an organisation; however the additional annual costs are not prohibitive (under $3,000 p.a.). The more comprehensive legislation entailed within The Corporations Act 2001 (Commonwealth) provides for a very robust and structured platform for the operation of organisations and provides clarity in areas otherwise silent within The Association Incorporation Act. The key governance role of the organisation under each of the Acts rests with the board of directors, who must act in accordance with the requirements of the relevant Act, within other federal and state laws, and the constitution of the incorporated body. YA is now at a point on that continuum where the scale of its operations and the expressed intent to operate more commercially warrants a change to a new legal structure. Moreover, the recommended legal structure is encouraged within the ASC’s governance principles of best practice and is considered highly desirable and appropriate by the ASC in this instance. Therefore, it is recommended that:
Constitutional Reform The reviewers support the overall findings of the Kilmister report and have reinforced the need to adopt and implement the outstanding recommendations of the 2000 report in the recommendations of the Strengthening Sailing Review. While the YA Constitution was modernised to a degree following the Kilmister review, it will require further review in relation to a few key points: There is currently no limit on the terms for Directors (Recommendation 7 in the Kilmister Report); The constitution does not provide adequate provision for an independent board aimed at preventing conflicts of interests. Specifically, the constitution does not prohibit a YA director from simultaneously holding office in a voting member organisation; Annual election of the YA President is problematic in that it has the potential to create an uncertain governance environment and inhibits continuity of business strategy and corporate knowledge; Clause 11.7 of the constitution requires the board to submit an annual budget for approval by the Federal Assembly (FA) at the AGM. This is seen as an inappropriate function of the FA and the AGM as an organisational budget is essentially a management tool rather than a governance tool. Neither the board nor the CEO should be constrained in their financial planning activity by an AGM (Recommendation 19 in the Kilmister Report); Clause 11.1 describes the powers of the YA Board as the ‘managing authority’ responsible for exercising the powers of the Federation. The powers of the YA Board should be described and discharged as the ‘governing authority’ of the Federation which shall be responsible for itself determining and acting on all national issues and issuing of policy directives in accordance with the objects of the Federation; and It may be problematic to align the state constitutions with the current YA Constitution (ASC governance principle 1.8 states that NSOs and SSOs should have aligned objects and purposes and a common strategic plan). Ideally, when the constitution of an NSO is reformed, the constitutions of SSOs should be realigned to reflect the national model. This then ensures ease of adopting national policies such as the member protection policy, anti-doping, and selection appeals and arbitration. If alignment of state constitutions is not possible, YA and the MYAs will need to agree on the key principles in service contracts that will allow the adoption of important national policies and programs at state level. To enable the progression of YA along the continuum of a professional sport business, and to comply with the requirements under The Corporations Act 2001, it is recommended that YA make the following amendments to the YA Constitution:
(ASC governance principle 1.6 states that it is the board’s responsibility to confirm the strategic direction. This means that the FA can have input, however it is the board, not the FA that should determine YA’s strategic direction.) Term of the YA President and Chairman In order to nurture the development of the business and to prevent potential disruption during an Olympic campaign, the terms of the Directors and the President should be better aligned with the Olympic cycle. Therefore it is recommended that:
* While an indicative two-year appointment has been recommended, the YA President and Chair must have the support of the Board to make the position tenable. Therefore, the recommendation of the two-year appointment is made with the provision for the President/Chair to be reviewed by the elected and appointed Directors from ‘time to time’. It can also be argued – as other consultants conducting reviews of National Sporting Organisations have - that annual validation of the position of President/Chairman is the means by which a board signals its continued or discontinued support of the leadership of the Chairman - “the first among equals”. This assumes that the Chairman would only be able to serve for a maximum number of annual terms – say for 6 years subject to annual election by the board. Terms and Nominations of Elected Directors A rotation process would allow for half of the newly elected Directors on the first Board under the new model to serve only one term with the other half serving two terms. This would ensure continuity of knowledge in that only half the Directors could ever be replaced at any one time. It is recommended that:
Nominees for the election of the position of Director should be made by those Directors who are not retiring in the year in question. It is recommended that:
Terms and Nominations of Appointed Directors Appointed Directors will be determined by a Board Nominations Committee to address skill gaps identified amongst the elected Directors. The Board Nominations Committee makes recommendations to the Board on candidates it considers appropriate for appointment. It is recommended that:
Independence of Directors To provide suitable provision for an independent board aimed at preventing conflicts of interest, it is recommended that:
Structural Reform - Implementation Steps/Recommendations In many instances, it would be appropriate for organisations to immediately implement recommendations of major structural changes emerging from a comprehensive review of operations. However, due to the nuances of sport delivery in a federal model which consists of both professional and volunteer stakeholders, it is neither practical nor realistic to execute structural reform all at once. Cultural change is more gradual and requires an approach to reform which is incremental. Implementation of structural and cultural reform should be carried out over three distinct stages, over an indicative period of six to seven years, with each stage subject to an annual evaluation. Should there be compelling reasons to accelerate the staged approach, then this should be at a pace that can be realistically managed by the sport. To support the progression of YA’s movement towards a more streamlined and effective national sporting organisation, it is recommended that:
In all of the above stages (1, 2 and 3), YA should maintain the option to possibly incorporate a provision for the Olympic High Performance Program being managed by either: (1) An unincorporated structure (a division of YA) reporting to the CEO but with a high level of operational autonomy and advised by a strengthened Beijing Athlete Program (BAP) Committee. This would formalise existing arrangements and would make use of an existing committee structure. The BAP Committee would have the same terms of reference as the current Yachting BAP Committee but would have a particular responsibility to ensure that pathways planning and delivery at all levels worked optimally. The Committee would meet as required, but at least quarterly, in lieu of only twice per year as at present; or (2) As a separate incorporated legal entity (i.e. a company set up as a controlled entity of YA) to employ the key program staff and where a small number of non-executive directors (up to five) with a majority having specialised expertise in running high-performance programs could oversee the program. This would leave YA directors to concentrate on the non-Olympic side of the sport. There would not be significant additional costs with the first option. The key consideration in exploring these options is whether the cost–benefit of the second option is justifiable given that significant additional expenditure may be incurred and whether the separation of the Olympic and non-Olympic components of the business would create an ‘us and them’ divide within the sport. Board Skill Sets and Performance As a result of the previous recommendations, the Board is required to have a sufficient blend of expertise and skills necessary to effectively carry out its role of providing leadership and setting direction on the strategic priorities of the sport and business, which reflect the needs of YA members. It is recommended that:
The reviewer shared dialogue with the Steering Committee and the YA Board about the benefits of self-assessment versus independent assessment of skills and performance. While the reviewer recommends independent assessment as the preferred approach, the YA directors of the day should have the flexibility to make a decision themselves on a preferred assessment method. The key point to take away from recommendations 38 and 39 is that there must be a regular and robust form of skills and performance assessment, which satisfies the directors and nurtures the intent to be a high-performing business. Roles and Responsibilities of YA and MYAs Recommendations made in Sections 2.1 and 2.5 of this report address business strategy and structure. Recommendations 40 through 43 address how behavioural change may be enacted within the sport at national and state/territory levels. There is a need for better collaboration and alignment to improve the health of the sport overall. Clarity is needed for the roles, responsibilities and obligations of YA and the MYAs and agreement on development and delivery of the sport’s programs and policies. This should be reflected in future service agreements or memoranda of understanding outlining the roles, responsibilities and commitments of each party. A Performance Management System (PMS) is the recommended mechanism to ensure appropriate alignment of responsibility and authority and improve accountability of deliverables by the partner network – a strengthened federated structure cannot work without this in place. It is recommended that:
In addition to the development and implementation of a national PMS, YA and the FA may wish to consider enshrining the roles, responsibilities and obligations of YA and the MYAs within the YA constitution. Like many other NSOs, Athletics Australia and its state and territory organisations have experienced difficulties in clearly articulating the respective responsibilities of the national and state bodies. The approach adopted by Athletics broadly separates ‘National Programs’ and ‘State and Territory Programs’ and the respective responsibilities and obligations of the NSO and members in the delivery of core business activities. The YA CEO should have an unambiguous leadership role in relation to national programs. Management Team and Practices To ensure the operational effectiveness of the YA management team to deliver the strategic plan for yachting in Australia, YA Management needs the support and the appropriate structure which reflects the new strategic plan and its associated expectations. It is recommended that:
Through its representatives on the Steering Committee of this review, the ASC has indicated its support to assist YA in the development and implementation of a PMS featuring a key list of common measures/data sets based on the sport’s key performance drivers. It is recommended that:
Communication and Stakeholder Relationships As stated in Recommendation 40, there is a need to clarify the roles and responsibilities of YA and the MYAs to ensure efficient development and delivery of the sport’s programs and policies. This will require a change in behaviour and commitment brought on by strong leadership from YA. A plain English agreement is required which outlines the broad parameters of how YA and the MYAs work together as a seamless management team with a shared vision, shared values, mutual respect and teamwork to strengthen the outcomes for the sport. It is recommended that:
Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2013 2013 -> International post doctoral research fellowship programme final report title of the research 2013 -> Seals Family History 1565 to 2004 2013 -> Rao bulletin 15 July 2013 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2013 -> R institute of technology school of foreign languages 2013 -> Provisional Programme – subject to change thursday 10th april 2013 -> June, 2013 National hiv testing Day Month Men’s Health Week Hurricane Safety Month 2013 -> In memory of the residents of the Parish Chesham Bois that served their country during wwii 2013 -> Federal contract awards in georgia april 2013 Download 2.74 Mb. Share with your friends:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
