Your thoughts on progress

[Guest Andys@coffs]

People

 

I would like to discuss change within RAAus and get your views.

 

Its my contention that the step changes we need in RAAus to finally meet our obligations under the recent failed audits and those necessitated by view that our business needs to be run like a real business are likely at this point in time to either not happen or to happen with pace that is simply unacceptable.

 

The changes we needed to see need to be driven into our organisation in my view within the next 12 months. Today I simply cannot see that occurring.

 

So how do we make it happen?

 

I can see at least 3 options but perhaps you can see more that I haven’t considered.

 

1) We ask our board of unpaid elected members to champion the changes and drive them in.

 

2) We ask our GM to prioritise the changes over other things

 

3) We employ a fulltime and long term specialist to be 2IC to our GM to implement the strategy our board and GM together determine.

 

Lets talk about these options in a bit more detail

 

1) Our board in the past has seen themselves as not really a board but more as individually or occasionally even as a group as a super GM above the GM who can step in at any time and direct any staff member in a particular direction. In the past many including myself on this forum have argued that such an approach is not good governance and the boards role is to collectively set the strategy and ensure the GM then implements it and in doing that they provide him with the tools and staff he needs to do that. No board member either individually or as a group should ever drive a single staff member to do anything. That is the role of the GM and the board must act only through the GM, and the GM must ensure that any direction he gets is legitimately a direction of the collective board or the collective exec IAW our constitution. Its my view that asking the board to champion and drive change tramples all over that concept and if we are desperately trying to get that established as good modus operandi then we cannot ask that on one hand they don’t touch directly and on the other hand they go full speed ahead. Im also of the view that we can realistically only expect so much from our unpaid board members and to me the changes needed aren’t 5 minutes of work and will need significant effort and energy well in excess of what we can reasonably expect from our board.

 

2) Our GM today is, Im told, close to being swamped, just managing on a day to day basis. Keeping the doors open and the regos and certificates rolling out in the post is core business and nothing can be prioritised above that. If he has no capacity for change then unless he can effectively delegate I don’t see how we can ever get the changes we need. You can only delegate if the delegate has capacity to take on the extra effort. If that doesn’t exist you are simply ensuring that both of you will fail.

 

3) If we were to employ a fulltime permanent staff member whose skills and experience lay within the Project management and IT areas of expertise and who had significant experience in document management systems in the corporate world then I believe you have the basis of an effective 2IC for the GM whose role is to do the business analysis and solution architect work necessary to determine the right step changes we need and then with board financial support and GM organisational support the ability to implement them. In my experience the P&L costs of such an employee are per annum somewhere between $100k and $150k (P&L impact <> salary, its salary plus oncosts like leave entitlements, the space necessary to seat him/her and the computing systems they need to do their job). On a per member basis that equates to between $10 and $15 per member. Standard costs of change graphs show that to enable a reduction in cost you generally have to spend beyond your current cost base before the savings can be realised. The risk is that the change takes time and if you change direction before the reductions are realised then all you will have achieved is a new higher costbase. The other risk I see is that if this person is as effective as I foresee then we have to ensure that the GM doesn’t delegate too much of business normal too him/her. Every bit of his working time consumed by business normal is time that cant be used for change and ensures that the length of time before we realise the savings shifts ever more to the right.

 

I guess from the above you can see Im clearly in favour of the board immediately moving to create with the GM a suitable position description document and to start the resourcing process.

 

Is there something that I have missed? Or do you agree that we should as an organisation kick of on something like option 3)

 

What do you think?

 

Andy

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

Andy

 

Thanks for your thoughts online.

 

Being a delegative person that I am, my take on this would be to investigate the appointment of a business management expert to review the current practices and recommend a plan for the future.

 

There are some very able firms out there that specialise in this field. I.e accountancy companies.

 

It could be unsettling for some but as I see it, it would be worth the $'s to get professional advice and direction.

 

The board and management could then deliver the goods.

 

What says you?

 

Phil.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Phil

 

Thanks for the response, however I don't think that there is lack of understanding about the issues, more a staffing level that wont allow the transformations to be implemented....

 

I expected that some would say, your gist is right but why does the 3) option have to be full time? I have reasons why I think that it needs to be full time but would love to debate.

 

Using your example the consultants generally identify what needs to be done but not necessarily how, I would have expected that the GM and board were capable of identifying the what....or are my expectations too high?

 

Andy

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The RAA definitely needs a plan. Not the current one. They need to get all the functions either automated or online. that will free up assets for other projects

 

 

[frank marriott]

My opinion :

 

Leave the structure and management to the new elected board and their new GM. They are in the best place to decide these issues.

 

Nothing can be run from home by 10000 members on their computers.

 

Agreement can't even be accomplished by the small sample of members that contribute on this forum.

 

By all means make suggestions to your local elected rep. but otherwise you get to have your input by either standing and/or voting at the next AGM.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Frank

 

discussing the points here just provides an insight into what people are thinking. I don't see anything wrong with discussing.

 

Its my view that member apathy and lack of involvement has in part lead us to where we are today. If we don't talk about this in the governing forums thread what do we discuss here ?

 

Andy

 

 

[frank marriott]

Andy

 

You asked for views, those are mine, I didn't expect agreement from yourself [or about 10 likely to follow], but there is a lot of different opinions and how they should be addressed is also varied. Like many strongly held views they are unlikely to change easily.

 

I must say that I didn't follow the governing forums thread very much when the option was available to select what comes up in "what's new" but now find myself reading it without realising the thread name.

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

Andy wrote

 

Using your example the consultants generally identify what needs to be done but not necessarily how, I would have expected that the GM and board were capable of identifying the what....or are my expectations too high?

 

Andy,

 

That's probably part of the problem.

 

As I see it the organisation needs direction and action!

 

Do they pussy foot around the problems, or take positive steps?

 

The board is made up of individuals that need leadership and positive decisions. IMHO one way to achieve this is to get sound expert advice as stated.

 

I don't necessarily agree with you on your point that the advice would only identify what needs to be done.

 

This would be entirely up to the brief.

 

Frank

 

I do hope that the new board has some positive input.

 

I joined Andy's discussion as invited with my two bobs worth.

 

Perhaps this line of action (refer my reply) has not been discussed at board level

 

If I chuck in a comment or thought, does this make me a stirrer?

 

Phil

 

 

[frank marriott]

If I chuck in a comment or thought, does this make me a stirrer?

 

Phil

 

No Phil, I don't decry anyone for having an opinion, I just have a different approach to how those opinions should be dealt with - go for your life, I just posted my opinion as asked, I am not after an arguement or debate.

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

If I chuck in a comment or thought, does this make me a stirrer?Phil

No Phil, I don't decry anyone or having an opinion, I just have a different approach to how those opinions should be dealt with - go for your life, I just posted my opinion as asked, I am not after an arguement or debate.

Fair enough

 

Phil.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Frank

 

I'm sorry if I come across too strong...As you say it is your opinion and you surely are entitled to it, and we are the better for hearing it whether I personally agree or not!

 

So thanks

 

Andy

 

 

[facthunter]

We are probably under resourced at the moment. If the board are up to full strength THEY ARE the ones to steer the show. I agree with what you say Andy about the board and the staff but the board do need to use the staff from time to time and that should be by a spelled out procedure. It wouldn't be rocket science to devise that procedure.. I have no doubt the GM is overworked. Getting more staff on permanently adds to the load till the new person is effective. We have to have trust in the people WE elect eventually. The board structurally are the directors of the show, and I don't know how you get away from that or if you would want to.. I have belonged to organisations that are structured similarly and they manage to survive quite effectively though various personalities push the boundaries at times. Beware of reacting to a situation that might be a one off as if it is endemic. Nev

 

 

[DonRamsay]

My concern is that RA-Aus has suffered from a penny-pinching attitude and a great lack of ambition to do things better smarter and to drive down the costs of the organisation per member.

 

The Board need the advice of a smart management consultant to identify a number of projects that will drag RA-Aus into the 21st Century. At the moment office systems at absolute best look like manual/computer assisted systems from the 1970s.

 

Paper and telephones need to be replaced with digitised records and online net-based systems. Each of these projects will need clear goals, project champion and project manager. The Project Managers will need resources. Projects on completion need post implementation reviews to build skills into RA-Aus in running improvement projects.

 

The GM cannot possibly be the Project Manager of the half-dozen or so urgent projects that RA-Aus needs to get done.

 

RA-Aus needs to be much more ambitious and embrace much shorted deadlines that are real deadlines.

 

We have the basis now of a sound Board. I'm happy to give them my support. But, they need to inject a great sense of urgency. Things cannot be allowed to take as long as they take. Things need real drive. They need to be in the mainstream not chasing windmills like buying airports or building hangars.

 

In my humble view we wasted 4 years with a CEO who I could not see made much of a difference to anything. We have a willing and capable GM but he must be given the resources and the encouragement to get lots done not just pressure to do stuff. We need the GM to manage multiple Project managers not get bogged down doing too much himself.

 

Don

 

p.s. As an example to back up my claim of penny-wise pound ($2 for those who don't remember 13th Feb 1966) foolish consider that in February 2012 the written down value of all computing equipment for RA-Aus was less than $3,000!

 

RA-Aus commissioned a re-write of its website for $13,000 back in 2010 or possibly 2011 and it rambled on for 18 months and achieved nothing. It had nobody driving the project and it failed to deliver.

 

RA-Aus must do a lot better than that if we are to get out of the dark ages we currently find ourselves living through.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Andy, Lets just go back a few months, ....as I recall you were a prime mover in the gang that called for the absolute need to recruit the 'right' type of GM this time, through a recruitment agency. This we did, at some expense, and ended up with the current one. Are you now saying just a few months later, that this process didn't work, was not a good idea, and he is not up to doing the job after all ???!.....just no pleasing some people is there, but when things don't work as suggested, they are usually the first to say 'not my idea !....If the GM is snowed under (just like the Tech manager was before his untimely departure) then I would suggest the GM is perfectly situated to do something about it. He applied for, and accepted the job, and he's taking the bucks. It might be the perfect time to examine his actual contributions so far, instead of suggesting we spend more bucks in hiring assistants for him. The Tech manger cried for help also, but all he got was a ticket down the road courtesy of our ' overworked ' GM.......the GM was pretty active in seeing the TM out from the correspondence I've read, let's see what he's capable of in other areas shall we ?........Maj...

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

h

 

Andy, .........Are you now saying just a few months later, that this process didn't work, was not a good idea, and he is not up to doing the job after all

No, that's not what I'm saying and your stretching way beyond anything I suggested to come up with that pearler......

 

It's my view that we could put JC in the job as GM today and he wouldn't succeed (failing a miracle or 2) because he simply would have insufficient capacity to do it all. Who ever is in there has to do the steady state stuff and fix years of neglect, not something that the current GM, through no fault of his own IMHO, has capacity to deal with. The bolded underlined section above is a statement of fact. If you don't think so READ THE AUDIT REPORTS!!!

 

Are you suggesting that we should go back to an appointment by virtue of a tap on the shoulder? cause that has worked out so well for us in the past....NOT......

 

You clearly are suggesting the GM is not up to the job, yet if I look at what has been achieved in recent times vs the previous incumbent ignoring the changes that haven't yet happened and looking at the changes that have happened I think we have had more good change in 6 months than we had in multiple years previously....... We now through the member portal actually have access to real documentation and real records..... Today, for example, the new CASA Deed of Arrangement for the next year has been put up on the members portal within days of it being signed......if I go back to the previous we would have never even seen it and had we asked would have been patted on the head and told "Nothing to see here Move on!".......

 

So, leave your obvious unhappiness with the Wayne Mathews thing aside (which I'm equally disappointed with for both parties) and tell me if you really consider the current GM to be a retrograde step as compared to the previous incumbent?

 

My post that started this thread isn't saying things are hopless...its saying that we still need better than we have today......Competition is coming and we aren't fit for competition is my contention, so how and what can we do to get to the place we need to be where we are fit for competition......

 

In not being fit for competition that simply translates to us all paying too much for the services we get, and in some cases of late, not even getting the services that we have paid for.......So, how do we improve things beyond the high level concepts which most of us know.....its more about what do we need to do to turn known requirements from knowledge into implemented improvements.......

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Andy, I'm disappointed ....the old 'having to fix years of neglect' line is well used in Canberra as you know, and used by most incoming parties every time they get elected. It really is a load of crap....Mark was well aware of the job ahead when he accepted it , so don't blame past neglect. The very high registration work load was well known when he accepted the position.

 

There have been some things that Mark has done that I am very impressed with, and was fully in agreement with. Things that need to be done, and things that I hope will bear fruit.

 

I am not really in a position to judge the man from a distance , having not yet met him, and I do still wish Mark the best in the job ahead. However.....given the almost weekly 'under the spotlight' gruelling we gave Steve Runciman as President, I feel it's time to look at what Mark has/is doing, to see if the RAAus is spending the members' money wisely. I still at this point hope that is the case.

 

For instance, I would like to see if the weekly completed registrations for our flying members has increased, or decreased since the decision to allow Wayne Mathews departure ...........Maj....

 

 

[Keith Page]

Andy

 

My thoughts:- 1. What do think about the silence regarding a new TM.?

 

2. The noise about SMS I have not heard anything.?

 

3. STCC that is now a silent issue.?

 

Last I was told any thing, there were meetings with CASA and it was " Not long now we will have something up and running" I am still waiting with excitement.

 

We do not need consultants, if we employ consultants, that tells me we have employed the incorrect people.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

I would like to see the following........

 

1. Getting on top of the rego backlog as a priority, and then giving something back to the membership, to offset the inconvince caused to many. All they've got so far is another bloody fee increase

 

2. At least once weekly upgrades of the RAAus website members info area. Daily up grades would be even better, but I understand if that's not possibly. It seemed at one point that the GM was doing all the upgrades, however surley it can be prioritised that someone in the office can do a weekly report. It goes a long way towards tackling the communication problems with the membership.

 

3. A portal on the RAAus site that elected board members can report to the membership on, as often as they like.

 

That's all for now !.................Maj...

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Maj,

 

I agree with your three points above and I particularly like the third one but there it could produce issues with numerous Board Members saying different things 0n a given issue which could add more to confusion than to clarity. I'm not saying there should be no dissenting views or minority verdicts but we can't have multiple spokespersons for the agreed Board position.

 

I think the point Andy is making is that we need to get done a lot more than any one human being could do if he worked flat out for 24 hours a day, seven days a week . Mark Clayton has been putting in some long days and weekends. There is no question in my experience about his work ethic or capability.

 

I won't comment on Mark's dealings with Wayne because I do not know the full facts and I am happy to leave that between those who do have the full facts to sort it out. However, in all my other dealings with Mark and I've had a few, I have found him to be courteous, professional and direct. I think he has a good grip of the politics and works to stay out of that side of things.

 

The criticism of previous administrations "Years of Neglect" revolve around the performance or more correctly perceived lack of performance particularly by the previous CEO. Nobody ever doubted Steve Runciman's commitment to the task. Criticisms of Steve had more to do with his "command and control" style approach and his endless defence of the CEO of the time regardless, it seemed to me, of the CEO's achievements or lack of achievements. And, as we all know, the issues that plague us now could well have originated back in the days when Middo would have been General Manager.

 

We cannot afford "prioritisation". We can not wait for jobs to be done sequentially, we need to do lots of good stuff - simultaneously. We can't wait for 12 months to get all the regos sorted and then move on to the next target for improvement. We need to do them all and the deadline is yesterday.

 

To get done what we need to have done, we need specialist advice from professionals. Call them consultants if you like but consider them first as specialists with special skills and capabilities. RA-Aus does not have ANY IT specialists on the payroll. I think it is better to pay a lot for a specialist for a short while and get the quality outcome we need in the time frame we need it than to pay an employee forever with lesser quality outcomes because he/she can't be a specialist in everything and can only do one thing at a time.

 

Keith, - why ask people here who know no more than you do about the SMS? If you want the facts ask your Members Rep on the Board - that's their job. It would be better if communication from the Board on such a crucial issue were more forthcoming but, if it isn't, and you really want the facts - ask those who have the facts.

 

If, on the other hand, you just want to illustrate the fact that the Board is not communicating well with the Members regarding progress with the SMS, then why not just say that?

 

 

[Aldo]

Ladies/Gents

 

A GM's job is to manage not to do, without sufficient underlings to manage a GM is useless (as he/she can't do it all him/her self).

 

The only solution is to spend whatever money is required to be spent, and if that means it will cost members more per year then so be it, put on full time staff (as many as is required) to get the systems updated and the work completed only then will RA-AUS be able to move forward. If this isn't done RA-AUS will die a slow death as it has been doing for some time now or CASA will speed that process up eventually with one swift blow.

 

Al

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Al,

 

The problem with putting on more employees is that the demand for hands and feet (or more importantly skills and capability) is temporary. The object of the improvements is improved efficiency which means fewer inputs for a given output. When the improvements are finished and working RA-Aus will need fewer staff not more. For a temporary increase in workload you need temporary staff.

 

And there will be no need for charging members more if costs come down with improved efficiency. The capital investment that is required to get the improvements can easily be paid for out of the substantial financial reserves of RA-Aus without increasing the grab from members wallets.

 

 

[Aldo]

Don

 

This is the same issue faced by any business, I know I've been there and the sooner we bit the bullet and put on staff specific to the jobs required to be done the better the business operated. This was mainly due to the fact that myself and business partners (directors/board) were able to get on with managing the business growth and direction.

 

As much as we didn't want to, we also put in levels of management to manage each department and allowed them to manage these departments (this initially increased our overhead for no increase in return) but has eventually allowed the business to grow and produce much better returns.

 

You will find that if you put on the correct staff and allow them to have ownership in the business/organisation it will produce much better results all round.

 

When the improvements are finished and working RA-Aus will need fewer staff not more. For a temporary increase in workload you need temporary staff.

Be very careful with this approach as it is quite easy to end up back where you started, also temporary staff have no ownership in the operation and therefore you will not get the maximum result.

Just my opinion for what its worth.

 

Al

 

 

[kgwilson]

Does Ra-Aus have a strategic plan, 1 year 3 years and 5 years? It should be a SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable Relevant and Timeframed) plan. This is not rocket science and is a core competency required for any business to be successful. I haven't seen any evidence of this but then I have not really checked.

 

If we know where we want to be I'd have thought this would be the top priority but it seem that fire fighting is the top priority. Achievement of the goals should be the GMs major KPIs. The costs and resources required are probably eye watering but the projects to get there must be done and all the time the day to day operation has to continue. As each project is implemented the jigsaw puzzle gets ever closer to the illusive goal. The goal of course will change with time, technology, legislative, regulator and other requirements but once we are actually in the 21st century things will become clearer and easier.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

There was a brief SWOT exercise done by the Board in Feb 2012. Don't know if anything ever came of it. Agree with your post KGW 100%.

 

For the last year not much has been done other than working on the Rego debacle and sacking Tech Managers. There is a clear intent from the new Board to get into some proper strategic planning. However, It's hard to remember that you set out to drain the swamp when the crocs are biting you on the butt!

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Al, you speak a lot of good sense and obviously from experience.

 

Unfortunately, I've worked in industries that have peaks and troughs and the worst feeling is retrenching people at Christmas - always seems to happen them. I always aim to be on the low side for permanent staff. It is true that some temps/consultants don't necessarily have the same commitment but professional ones come close.

 

Unless there is a major turnaround in the management of Recreational Aviation at ALL levels, it is a declining business. Our membership numbers tell us that sad tale now with a downward trend established. The RPL will not do anything to reverse that trend nor will putting the fees up at the time the "free" RPL is introduced.

 

RA-Aus has not shown it could manage well when it was getting easier with more members every year to spread costs over. How will we go with falling numbers and reducing revenue?

 

We need to spend money to get the efficiencies in quickly. We have some good staff but they already have a full time job and don't necessarily have wide experience. Consultants can bring that experience and our good people can run the show as the consultants walk away.