Tweet
If you've already read that thread and moved on, I'd appreciate it if you'd scroll down to that and read my comment at the end. FWIW Mike Ernst
-
-
Did so, and I agree. Ayone who has
served on these teams (58-60, 61-2, 63-4) knows that it is not easy. I was fortunate enough to serve on Keith Kibbe's 61-2 team that took input from EVERYBODY on issue "X" and Judy put it out there so we could all comment. We did this a # of times - and not everybody was TOTALLY happy with the result - but when Keith turned it in, Sam Folz and the other "powers-that-be" were floored and declared it to be the model and example that would be used in the future.
We have now reached the stage where I am aware of "Team Leaders" who do NOT participate in the amendment process - but insist that their ego wants to continue to be "the guy".
I STILL like Kibbe's methods - take all of the comments in - spell out all of the comments to everyone - AND MAKE THEM THINK ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE DOING BEFORE THEY AGREE OR DISAGREE - and when you move to the next stage with what 7-8 guys who are knowledgable to begin with
agreed, you've got a pretty good bridge to start building railings on.
Understand what you are doing - like it or not, you're setting the standards and they had better be right - or as close as you can get. For those who attend and view Bloomington as the ideal - they do a helluva job, more quickly than NCRS, but never lose sight of the fact that underneath the sheets on the clipboard, that Bloomington judge has the current NCRS manual - and there's more than an 80% chance that he has had input into that NCRS manual.
Good job of attention getting, Michael. I'll say "Hello" for you tomorrow when I see Noland and John Kennedy in Scottsdale. -
Did so, and I agree. Ayone who has
served on these teams (58-60, 61-2, 63-4) knows that it is not easy. I was fortunate enough to serve on Keith Kibbe's 61-2 team that took input from EVERYBODY on issue "X" and Judy put it out there so we could all comment. We did this a # of times - and not everybody was TOTALLY happy with the result - but when Keith turned it in, Sam Folz and the other "powers-that-be" were floored and declared it to be the model and example that would be used in the future.
We have now reached the stage where I am aware of "Team Leaders" who do NOT participate in the amendment process - but insist that their ego wants to continue to be "the guy".
I STILL like Kibbe's methods - take all of the comments in - spell out all of the comments to everyone - AND MAKE THEM THINK ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE DOING BEFORE THEY AGREE OR DISAGREE - and when you move to the next stage with what 7-8 guys who are knowledgable to begin with
agreed, you've got a pretty good bridge to start building railings on.
Understand what you are doing - like it or not, you're setting the standards and they had better be right - or as close as you can get. For those who attend and view Bloomington as the ideal - they do a helluva job, more quickly than NCRS, but never lose sight of the fact that underneath the sheets on the clipboard, that Bloomington judge has the current NCRS manual - and there's more than an 80% chance that he has had input into that NCRS manual.
Good job of attention getting, Michael. I'll say "Hello" for you tomorrow when I see Noland and John Kennedy in Scottsdale.Comment
-
Re: On-line image archive
Yes Mike, I've read your post and appreciate your thoughts. I know this organization is run completely by volunteers and as such, things move pretty slow. I'd like to personally volunteer my support of this effort.
I've spend a little time this evening listing some items needed to put a presentaion together for the BOD on this topic. I would appreciate comments for all members on any of the items listed below and certainly welcome input from others on addition items on the topic.
As part of my day job, I put together program proposals for management review. I'd be happy to lead or assist in this effort.
The listing below is just a brainstorming primer put together by myself. To flesh out a meaning presentation, we all need to be involved.
If any you have input on any particular line item, you can post or email me direct at crisler@wheatstate.com
Happy reading...
tc
Program Definition (need a title with a catchy acronym)
Corvette Component Photographic Library
• Online resource
• Data C/Ds or Hard Copy used as a J/G supplement
Program Vision
Provide quality photographic images to assist judges and our members with proper restorations of their cars.
• Segregate images by individual years
• Start with parts highlighted for judging in the J/G s
• Expand to include other components when feasible
• Running Model year change information for detail components.
• Installation views of parts as well as multiple views of the part on the bench.
Program Needs
Review team review/acceptance process defined.
• How is this funded?
• How are photographs submitted?
• Who votes on part/photograph accuracy?
• How is submittal information disseminated among review team members?
• Is an appeal process allowed for rejected contribution?
• What is required as part of an appeal process?
• How are acceptance records archived and maintained?
IT assistance for integration into our computer system
• Define operating system requirements
• Common formatting for submittals
• Who is the gate keeper for the data?
Pro’s Cons
• Why is this needed?
• Why should we not do this?
Other slide ideas from you?Comment
-
Re: On-line image archive
Yes Mike, I've read your post and appreciate your thoughts. I know this organization is run completely by volunteers and as such, things move pretty slow. I'd like to personally volunteer my support of this effort.
I've spend a little time this evening listing some items needed to put a presentaion together for the BOD on this topic. I would appreciate comments for all members on any of the items listed below and certainly welcome input from others on addition items on the topic.
As part of my day job, I put together program proposals for management review. I'd be happy to lead or assist in this effort.
The listing below is just a brainstorming primer put together by myself. To flesh out a meaning presentation, we all need to be involved.
If any you have input on any particular line item, you can post or email me direct at crisler@wheatstate.com
Happy reading...
tc
Program Definition (need a title with a catchy acronym)
Corvette Component Photographic Library
• Online resource
• Data C/Ds or Hard Copy used as a J/G supplement
Program Vision
Provide quality photographic images to assist judges and our members with proper restorations of their cars.
• Segregate images by individual years
• Start with parts highlighted for judging in the J/G s
• Expand to include other components when feasible
• Running Model year change information for detail components.
• Installation views of parts as well as multiple views of the part on the bench.
Program Needs
Review team review/acceptance process defined.
• How is this funded?
• How are photographs submitted?
• Who votes on part/photograph accuracy?
• How is submittal information disseminated among review team members?
• Is an appeal process allowed for rejected contribution?
• What is required as part of an appeal process?
• How are acceptance records archived and maintained?
IT assistance for integration into our computer system
• Define operating system requirements
• Common formatting for submittals
• Who is the gate keeper for the data?
Pro’s Cons
• Why is this needed?
• Why should we not do this?
Other slide ideas from you?Comment
-
Re: On-line image archive
I wish we could edit posts here...
Having gone back and re-read my post above, it appeared to me that I was some how taking credit for the entire list of ideas in the post. I'd like to clarify that the list as it was presented is a both a gathering of input from others on the topic beginning from Russ's post a couple of days ago with a couple of my own thoughts sprinkled here and there.
I've now copied those posts in a word file, but we certaining still need the details as to how we support follow through on these items.
tcComment
-
Re: On-line image archive
I wish we could edit posts here...
Having gone back and re-read my post above, it appeared to me that I was some how taking credit for the entire list of ideas in the post. I'd like to clarify that the list as it was presented is a both a gathering of input from others on the topic beginning from Russ's post a couple of days ago with a couple of my own thoughts sprinkled here and there.
I've now copied those posts in a word file, but we certaining still need the details as to how we support follow through on these items.
tcComment
-
Re: Did so, and I agree. Ayone who has
The Internet is a wonderful tool for teams to use to make this a much smoother operation. The problem is they have to embrace it, not shun it. The problem many see if that non-NCRS member might submit information. I don’t see that as a disadvantage. After all, are NCRS members the only ones who can tell you what the serial number of their car is and that it has a xxxx-101 item on it or not?
Advantages:
Data collection:
1. This is easy as email submittals.
2. Photos can be emailed also.
3. Forms or Active Server pages can be set up to collect and sort data.
4. Information can come from anywhere in the world. How many Corvettes are overseas?
Data evaluation:
1. Material can be sorted into internal team sections so that the teams can access and review. This means you can have team members in NY, WA, CA, FL, IN, and so on all reviewing the same material.
2. There is no cost of materials once the initial costs of a server are paid.
3. Material can be quickly changed.
4. Material can be changed with insignificant cost (a few minutes to a few hours of labor).
Teams:
1. Teams do not have to physically meet to review materials.
2. It can be open to anyone, including those with disabilities that prevent travel.
3. Individual reviews can be done at any time, at one’s advantage.
4. Conference calls can then be used for overall meetings, voting on items, and so on as needed.
Data Distribution:
1. No mailing costs.
2. No printing or materials costs.
3. Instant availability to all members.
4. Can be set up as a member-only site or a pay site.
5. A site for the materials isn't necessary, but could be an advantage.
6. If a site for materials is not desired, then the electronically prepared materials can easily be distributed on CD or email mailing after payment received.
7. Paid download is possible.
8. Paper is no longer needed. Material can be on any laptop anywhere.
9. There is no more forgetting a copy, if an Internet storage site is used, as judges at a meet could download the latest TMJG at the site if needed.
10. Manuals in lost baggage is not an issue for meets.
Disadvantages:
Data Collection:
1. Control over who submits is limited.
2. The amount of material could overwhelm a single person handling input.
Data evaluation:
1.
2.
Teams
1. Teams who like the personal aspect may feel the system is impersonal as physical contact is not required.
2.
Data Distribution:
1. Paper book won’t be in a person’s hands. Books would have to be printed for those insisting on paper or for use at meets.
2. Printed books by the individual may not be to the quality of a professional printer.
Costs:
1. A server will be needed to handle the volume of material.
2. A server will be needed to handle incoming data and applications associated with collecting the data.
3. A part time webmaster versed in Internet applications will be needed.
These are just items I could think of. Others can add what they want to see if this is a good idea or not.Comment
-
Re: Did so, and I agree. Ayone who has
The Internet is a wonderful tool for teams to use to make this a much smoother operation. The problem is they have to embrace it, not shun it. The problem many see if that non-NCRS member might submit information. I don’t see that as a disadvantage. After all, are NCRS members the only ones who can tell you what the serial number of their car is and that it has a xxxx-101 item on it or not?
Advantages:
Data collection:
1. This is easy as email submittals.
2. Photos can be emailed also.
3. Forms or Active Server pages can be set up to collect and sort data.
4. Information can come from anywhere in the world. How many Corvettes are overseas?
Data evaluation:
1. Material can be sorted into internal team sections so that the teams can access and review. This means you can have team members in NY, WA, CA, FL, IN, and so on all reviewing the same material.
2. There is no cost of materials once the initial costs of a server are paid.
3. Material can be quickly changed.
4. Material can be changed with insignificant cost (a few minutes to a few hours of labor).
Teams:
1. Teams do not have to physically meet to review materials.
2. It can be open to anyone, including those with disabilities that prevent travel.
3. Individual reviews can be done at any time, at one’s advantage.
4. Conference calls can then be used for overall meetings, voting on items, and so on as needed.
Data Distribution:
1. No mailing costs.
2. No printing or materials costs.
3. Instant availability to all members.
4. Can be set up as a member-only site or a pay site.
5. A site for the materials isn't necessary, but could be an advantage.
6. If a site for materials is not desired, then the electronically prepared materials can easily be distributed on CD or email mailing after payment received.
7. Paid download is possible.
8. Paper is no longer needed. Material can be on any laptop anywhere.
9. There is no more forgetting a copy, if an Internet storage site is used, as judges at a meet could download the latest TMJG at the site if needed.
10. Manuals in lost baggage is not an issue for meets.
Disadvantages:
Data Collection:
1. Control over who submits is limited.
2. The amount of material could overwhelm a single person handling input.
Data evaluation:
1.
2.
Teams
1. Teams who like the personal aspect may feel the system is impersonal as physical contact is not required.
2.
Data Distribution:
1. Paper book won’t be in a person’s hands. Books would have to be printed for those insisting on paper or for use at meets.
2. Printed books by the individual may not be to the quality of a professional printer.
Costs:
1. A server will be needed to handle the volume of material.
2. A server will be needed to handle incoming data and applications associated with collecting the data.
3. A part time webmaster versed in Internet applications will be needed.
These are just items I could think of. Others can add what they want to see if this is a good idea or not.Comment
Comment