Post by tom on Nov 20, 2013 15:19:03 GMT 9.5
AIDKA management, is it time for a change?
Based on a question on facebook by DirtKartWorld
With the growing membership, and a greater level of professionalism amongst the sport, it seems that the time is right for a more professional approach to the management of AIDKA.
I agree that for the sport to grow, and most importantly in my opinion, expand into the eastern states, it is imperative that we have a professional image, and a simple and stable rule-set.
The AKA are currently looking towards governance, and in the past have been plagued by industry people pushing their own barrow, and infighting amongst member clubs that has led to rule instability, and a confused membership not knowing where the future of their sport lies.
To their credit, the main industry players in dirt karting have (by and large) resisted pushing their own agendas over the years, and the rule stability is in my opinion the main reason the sport is thriving at the moment, even in difficult economic times.
If the association is to implement paid administration, I think it’s extremely important to get it set-up correctly. Having studied the Australian Commission of Sport’s guidelines for governance, I think it offers some good assistance to a framework on running the sport, but in the case of AIDKA I think it shouldn’t be followed blindly.
My opinion is that the system of one-club, one-vote gives good check and balance to new issues, I know the bigger clubs are sometimes frustrated by the smaller clubs, but ultimately if there isn’t a clear majority consensus for a decision, it surely isn’t the right one?
I also feel that any major decisions should come back to the clubs. The managers (AIDKA council) should take on board all the information from stakeholders, then consolidate this information into direction that can be understood, debated, and voted on by the clubs. I think it is a mistake to allow the council to make decisions of their own. This disenfranchises the clubs, and more importantly the members. I have often said that an online forum where all AIDKA members can have their say is a good way to gather information before making a significant change.
To grow this sport and manage all the various facets is certainly the domain of a full-time position. I’m positive the sport would be well rewarded by employing the right people in management positions.
My feeling is that a group of existing stakeholders of the sport (industry/club/individual) should be nominated with the task of writing a list of objectives that are required to grow the sport, matching this with a group of positions (the ASC governance model could be used as a guide). Then applicants could be advertised for, and interviewed by this panel to find a suitable skill match.
Most importantly is that this whole process should be documented, and the information should be made freely available (eg, on the AIDKA official site). This will give the general membership confidence, and the ability to comment throughout the process to make sure it is the best fit for the majority of the members moving forward.
Any comments?
Based on a question on facebook by DirtKartWorld
With the growing membership, and a greater level of professionalism amongst the sport, it seems that the time is right for a more professional approach to the management of AIDKA.
I agree that for the sport to grow, and most importantly in my opinion, expand into the eastern states, it is imperative that we have a professional image, and a simple and stable rule-set.
The AKA are currently looking towards governance, and in the past have been plagued by industry people pushing their own barrow, and infighting amongst member clubs that has led to rule instability, and a confused membership not knowing where the future of their sport lies.
To their credit, the main industry players in dirt karting have (by and large) resisted pushing their own agendas over the years, and the rule stability is in my opinion the main reason the sport is thriving at the moment, even in difficult economic times.
If the association is to implement paid administration, I think it’s extremely important to get it set-up correctly. Having studied the Australian Commission of Sport’s guidelines for governance, I think it offers some good assistance to a framework on running the sport, but in the case of AIDKA I think it shouldn’t be followed blindly.
My opinion is that the system of one-club, one-vote gives good check and balance to new issues, I know the bigger clubs are sometimes frustrated by the smaller clubs, but ultimately if there isn’t a clear majority consensus for a decision, it surely isn’t the right one?
I also feel that any major decisions should come back to the clubs. The managers (AIDKA council) should take on board all the information from stakeholders, then consolidate this information into direction that can be understood, debated, and voted on by the clubs. I think it is a mistake to allow the council to make decisions of their own. This disenfranchises the clubs, and more importantly the members. I have often said that an online forum where all AIDKA members can have their say is a good way to gather information before making a significant change.
To grow this sport and manage all the various facets is certainly the domain of a full-time position. I’m positive the sport would be well rewarded by employing the right people in management positions.
My feeling is that a group of existing stakeholders of the sport (industry/club/individual) should be nominated with the task of writing a list of objectives that are required to grow the sport, matching this with a group of positions (the ASC governance model could be used as a guide). Then applicants could be advertised for, and interviewed by this panel to find a suitable skill match.
Most importantly is that this whole process should be documented, and the information should be made freely available (eg, on the AIDKA official site). This will give the general membership confidence, and the ability to comment throughout the process to make sure it is the best fit for the majority of the members moving forward.
Any comments?