1.0KEY STATISTICS - Special Olympicsmedia.specialolympics.org/soi/files/resources/... · Web...

FA EVALUATION REPORT OF ATHENS 2011 SPECIAL OLYMPICS WORLD SUMMER GAMES

TECHNOLOGY – GAMES SYSTEMS

1.0 KEY STATISTICS

The Department of Games Systems has started from the beginning (3 years ago) to plan and design the distribution of the Games Systems. For the Special Olympics World Summer Games we have used the following Games Systems:

GMS (Games Management System) VMS (Volunteer Management System) VSys (Credentialing – Accreditation System) GEMS (Guest Event Management System) MES (Medical Encounter System)

Below you may also find some key statistics that depict the games in numbers. 24.193 Volunteer Applications

182 Assistant HOD 333 AS Staff 6261 Athletes 1138 Coaches 948 Head Coaches 168 HOD 286 Unified Partners 14.283 Volunteers Assigned Games Time 4.529 Approved Family Members 920 Accredited Media Members 1.331 GOC paid staff 272 SOI Staff 200 Program Staff 4.700 Vendors 2.150 Registered ASF/MVP guests

1


2.0 HIGHLIGHTS

The Technology Department received most of the Games Systems (GMS, VMS) the first quarter of 2009. Initially VMS was delivered via Remote Connection to Viewpoint’s Server and later on (Second quarter of 2009) was transferred in the GOC HQ. GMS was delivered to the GOC from the first day (Version 5.6) and it was used during the test events. For the World Games there was a joint decision from SOI and GOC to use Version 6 of the program, after some addition/alterations that the GOC asked SOI to implement on the software. VSys came along the first quarter of 2011, after the decision of GOC and SOI, that VMS could not support the printing process of the Accreditation Department. GEMS was little to be used, due to the nature of the program (logging via Web and did not have complete access to the system (In the form of manipulating it). MES was primarily used by the Medical Department and was using a web-page interface to log in to the system, in order to input the medical data of the athletes. All the Games System, were residing on SOI’s GTI Rack and was transferred on Athens on the first quarter of 2010.

The following section, will explain all the issues/usage of the Games Systems.

Volunteer Management System (VMS)

It was the Software provided by Viewpoint (a software vendor appointed by SOI) in order to manage the large number of volunteers that participated in the games. VMS has served for the registration of the volunteers and their assignment placements. Originally VMS was planned to also cater for the shift planning of the volunteers and credentialing of volunteers and other various groups, functionalities that were finally not used. Except for the group of volunteers VMS has also served the groups Families& Media. However, VMS proved unable to support the credentialing requirements for the games, as specified by the credentialing department. This resulted in huge delays, as far as the finalization of the technical specifications for the production of the credentials is concerned, until it was finally decided that VMS cannot meet the requested requirements, so approximately 6 months prior to the Games; it was found out, that it couldn’t so the GOC had to transverse to VSys, in order to print them.

VMS, despite not being a particularly flexible software platform, has performed satisfactory as far as volunteer management is concerned. Volunteer registration and assignment placement was performed without major problems. Other than that, regarding VMS:

The supporting documentation provided was very limited. The system was not very flexible and a lot of times it required that the Organizing Committee adapts its

business rules to the system instead of the opposite. This of course was not accepted, so requests by the Organizing Committee were either dropped or we needed to invent workarounds.

The system had long response times that were attributed either to the way the software was designed or to the way the software was setup and shared in the PCs (this is still not clear) and as a result it was not user friendly.

Unknown random errors appeared and although communicated were never resolved. These errors were attributed to the different Microsoft Access version in the server that VMS was installed, as opposed to the one VMS was designed for. However there was no requirement specified to GOC, to use a specific Microsoft access version in the server.

2


Issues were resolved after a lot of emails had been exchanged and not in a prompt manner. Updated versions of the program were released and sometimes the GOC was never informed regarding

these updates. The security module of VMS, was also a little bit unclear and it took a lot of time and effort to correctly

set up the security accounts, of the users. Finally modules and additions, which were asked as highly critical, were not accepted by Viewpoint, but

towards Games Time, were implemented by the Company.

Credentialing / Accreditation System (VSys)

According to the original plan, accreditations for the Delegations would be produced by GMS while accreditations for every other group of the credentialing guide would be provided by VSys. In February, after it was decided that VMS could not meet the requirements set by the credentialing department and could not produce credentials of the same standards as GMS, a new credentialing system was introduced i.e. VSys. VSys would cater for every credentialing group other than Delegations. In general VSys was a flexible system, data mass import/export was easily performed with specific tools within the platform, records were easily updated with the bulk value updater tool, and credentials were produced in a timely and efficient manner. It is worth noticing that the support was excellent and immediate in all requests.

Since a separate volunteer management system was utilized, an integration solution between VMS and VSys needed to take place. This added advanced complexity to the whole project, as a two way notification process between the two systems had to be implemented. After coming into communication with both development parties – both cooperated very well – the integration solution, a two way notification process was implemented between the systems.

Other than that, the major issues with VSys were the following:

Initial inability to work well with the SQL database. More specifically, it was not possible to make a correct backup of the VSys data in the SQL database. This problem was resolved with the updated versions provided by the vendor.

VSys required a lot more bandwidth than originally planned or specified by the vendor. As a result, once queries were run from locations other than GHQ, the response times were

unacceptably big. This was solved with an increase in the network connectivity bandwidth between GHQ and UDAC.

VSys had strange delays in the process of printing the credentials or modifying records. After communicating this behavior to the developer, the problem was identified and it was attributed to the integration process with VMS. Problem was successfully resolved. In addition every time VSys was synchronized with the VMS database it was loading all the report lists again for every person. This caused the huge delay on processing the data and printing accreditation cards. After examining the problem, Bespoke (Producer of VSys) and the GOC, found the solution, by deleting the entire list from the system. Unfortunately, this had to be done manually, one by one, which was time consuming and frustrating.

3


Games Management System (GMS)

GMS is being used from SOI for over than years running Local, National and World Games. The GOC initially and for the Test Events had used GMS 5.6 in order to run the Games. After evaluating the results the GOC indicated the GMS 5.6 could not support several sports, especially the team ones. These sports were:

Football Volleyball Tennis Table Tennis Handball Badminton

The joint decision of the GOC and SOI was to use the new version of GMS 6 for the World Games. The version was still in a beta form, but SOI had promised and approved a time schedule that the GOC released and agreed to have a working version mid-December, early January. In addition late August, early September, the GOC released the GMS Gap Analysis workbook that indicated, all the necessary changes needed to be included in GMS 6, in order to fully support all the sports. Unfortunately, until the indicated dates the GOC did not receive a working version of GMS 6. In mid-March, the GOC received a version of GMS 6, that could generate and print reports, but the requested reports and functionalities, were not there. With result the GOC to start designing and producing all the necessary reports for all the sports. During this stage, the GOC encountered many issues, with the software, which were solved by the producing company, by releasing new updates of the software. The major issue, that the GOC encountered, was, the backup of the SQL Server data, through GMS, that was adhered by the producing company. Moreover, due to speed responses of GMS, the Games Systems Team was working on a local Nexus Database and when they switched to SQL Server Database, the reports weren’t working. This was caused by the different way that, Nexus and SQL were handling null data. Again, this issue was fixed by an updated version of the software. One day prior to the Games Time, there was a serious problem, that till now we haven’t figured why it happened, that the SQL Server “went back in time” all the data (in some sports) 2 days. This issue, caused a lot of havoc and many delays, but thankfully, all the GMS Team, managed and restored all the data, in a day. During the Competition Days, the Producing Company released more updated versions of the software, for specific sports, in order to support several features that were requested previously by the GMS Supervisors and the Sport Managers. In addition, 6 sports did not run with the “live” database, but with a copy of it locally, on a Nexus Server. At the end of each Competition Day, the GMS Supervisors would export the data of their sport and send it to HQ, in order to import the data into the Database.

As a conclusion, GMS 6 did not meet the requirements agreed a year ago, and competitions in some sports needed to run in excel sheets. Additionally, all the deadlines were not kept, including, the deadlines put by the GOC for the Delegations, with results of constant changes of the Delegation Numbers, affecting all other Fas such as: Delegation Services, Accommodation, Sport and Transportation.

It is my belief that GMS should be re-designed from scratch and embedded into a new suite of applications that will support the Future World Games. SOI need to invest into a new and holistic solution and not use a different application, for each Department (Volunteers, Accreditation, Guests, and Results).

4


In addition, GMS has to be build, with respect to each sport exclusively. Meaning, that each sport, should have its own interface and its own reports. All sports have different needs and GMS has to support them. Off course, it will have several reports that will have the same structure (Delegation Details, Entry List Per Delegation etc.), but sport specific reports, should be unique. In addition, SOI, has to standardize the Report Names and build them into the system and embed the graphics for them. In addition, it should be made clear to the users, from where these reports are being pulled. A proposal is, to build a module, in each sport, name “Reports & Results”, and have all the reports listed there, it is not advisable to have the reports printed from different modules of GMS, instead of gathering everything into one module and into each sport with the correct and standard names. Names like heat sheets, advanced custom reports, etc. are confusing the users a lot.

5


3.0 FAs MAJOR ISSUES & RECOMMENDATIONS

No Issue Description Recommendation1 The most important issue with the systems, that

might have proven critical to the games, was the fact that there was not a unique system to handle all accredited categories. Almost three months before the games started and two months before the first credentials needed to be produced we were still contemplating how to proceed.

A single credentialing system should have been introduced from the very beginning. Since GMS was selected by SOI to handle delegations registration and credentialing, then VSys, a software from the same vendor should have been utilized from the beginning in order to handle registrations and credentialing of the rest of the participant groups associated with this games, as well as perform volunteers management. After all VSys included all the necessary tools for the assignment placement and shifting of the volunteers, plus allowing the production of credentials in the same format as in GMS. This said, without being partial to VSys as compared to any other system, just having in mind how things would have been easier for all involved parties

2 Regarding VMS, which serves its purpose as a volunteers management system but is kind of stiff and not particularly flexible to specific customers’ needs, communication with the vendor was kind of tricky as supposed to what was originally agreed to be provided and what was finally delivered, especially in the beginning when VMS was supposed to serve as a credentialing system as well. Every request regarding additional features and functionality was met with relative cost demands, which was not the technology’s responsibility to handle.

Since not GOC, but SOI was the one who appointed Viewpoint, then an account manager from the part of SOI should have been assigned in order to act as an intermediate between GOCs requests in terms of functionality and Viewpoint’s requests in terms of cost

3 In a workshop in February, and after GOC had expressed its concerns that VMS cannot meet the requirements set by the credentialing department, it was decided between SOI and GOC that a new credentialing system (Vsys) would be utilized for the production of the credentials. Although SOI had committed that they would inform Viewpoint about this change, apparently some miscommunication between the two parties took place. As a result, once the Viewpoint representatives visited SOI in April, they claimed to be unaware of the decisions made, annoyed about other vendors tampering with their code and this all resulted in GOC getting exposed.

6


4 Whenever the producing Company was releasing updates of the software, it wasn’t informing the GOC, of all the updates/fixes the program had.

A detailed accompanying document should be included, which states all the updates/fixes

5 A detailed manual of GMS 6 was never submitted to the GOC.

6 GMS 6 did not correctly support all the sports and most of them had to run in excel or use excel reports, to correctly represent the sport and the results.

GMS has to be re-designed in order to correctly represent all the sports. It has to be built with all the sport specific features and for each sport separately. It must not be designed as one common platform for all sports. It should have “different modules”, which would be sport specific.

7 GMS 6 had issues with “slow” connections (2-4 MBps), even though that the GOC was informed that it would run flawlessly even with slow connections. What the GOC wasn’t informed, only a month prior to the Games, was that, in all the previous World Games, GMS was running locally on the Server and that all the clients/operators were connecting to the server via Citrix Services and run the competition.

There is no actual recommendation here. Personally I believe that using GMS this way, the GOC puts the server’s security at risk. It is better to install GMS locally, on each pc and connect it to the SQL Server’s database. This way, we avoid the unnecessary security risks. The problem that occurs though is that GMS is “pulling” all the data from the Server and does most of the calculations, on the client pc. Unfortunately, this is the way that the system works.

8 In addition, to the previous issue, the GOC found out, that the reports that were saved in the system, were pulling a lot of data (approx. 150-175 MB), in order to produce the reports. This was also the case, because of the jpeg’s that were inside the reports.

A solution was implemented, that all the reports were deleted from the system and the Venue Results Teams, were loading the reports locally from their computers.

9 No previous after action reports were found SOI’s knowledge base. The last after action report was back from 2001. THE GOC had minimum knowledge from the previous major World Games (Ireland and Shanghai).

10 During the Competition Days, several Technical Delegates changed the Competition Format during the Competition. This created a lot of havoc, especially for the Sports of Basketball and Table Tennis.

Changes in Competition Formats should not be done, during Competition Days. The Sport Department and the Technical Delegate should agree on the Competition Format and the produced reports at least 3 months prior to the World Games.

7


4.0 MAJOR ISSUES WITH OTHER FAs

No Functional Area Issue Description1 Accreditation The accreditation department’s requests were not specified well in advance, in an

organized and detailed way, especially as to what is supposed to be printed on the badge of each accredited group. However, all requirements and deadlines have been met.

2 Volunteers Since there was no final deadline for the volunteers’ registration and placement and volunteers were changing tasks even during the games, a lot of pre-printed badges went wasted and needed to be reprinted. Systems could accommodate the changes without any problems; the only issue has to do with wasted paper and ink.

3 Technology Sometimes the processes and specifications set – which is a good thing to have - been kind of stiff and not flexible to satisfy specific users’ needs.

4 Sport Until the last moment, a few SM’s changed the list of each sport outputs, so the production of each report, delay.

8


5.0 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

At this section, you will find the After Action Reports of each Sport separately.

5.1 Aquatics

Sport: Aquatics/SwimmingVenue: Olympic Aquatic CenterCompetition Schedule: June 26th – July 3rd Sector: GMS Technology

5.1.1 KEY STATISTICS

662 Athletes 115 Delegations 25 Events 8 Competition Days 255 Preliminary Divisions 341 Final Divisions 545 Heats 320-450 Entrants per Day

5.1.2 HIGHLIGHTS

Due to the high number of entrants, divisioning procedure as well as the design of the daily competition schedule should be done by a divisioning team which will run at the same time with the games, taking live results. In this case GMS expert Miss Melissa Bergin, GMS user Miss Christina Colombos, Technical Operations coordinator Mr. Anastasios Nikitas with their previous knowledge of divisioning philosophy and the volunteer team of divisioners, were valuable partners.

Help of GMS expert was also valuable in critical cases that have been faced with the program.

Many thanks to the team of sport services, results, and technology and especially to Mr. Thanos Kontonasios, Mr. Ioannis Koulouris, Mr. Dimitris Matalas and Mr. Harris Spilliakos for the knowledge and support that they provide me for the implementations of the GMS project for Aquatics.

9


5.1.3 FAs MAJOR ISSUES & RECOMMENDATIONS

GMS Functionality

Although GMS program was supporting Aquatics Sport 100%, difficulties were faced during the games.

No Issue Description Recommendation1 Disqualification codes were not being printed at

the reports of preliminary roundsThe solution was to be added as comments and redesign the report for loading the field of comments

2 Disqualification codes were not being printed also as comments in Relay reports for both preliminary and final rounds

The solution was manually handwriting of the DQ-Code on the report

3 Automatic Transition from Finished unofficial to Finished Official, never worked

Manual transition from Unofficial to Official. (When an event is locked to a single user during the results entry, only the same person can do the transition. This can cause delays to the production of reports)

4 An event is locked to a single user for the results entry and all other users can only open it at the same time using the read only mode

This causes the delay of the divisioning process because divisioning team should wait for the whole event to be finished and then to begin the process. The solution could be the events to be locked per gender, so when e.g. 25m Freestyle Female finishes and 25m Freestyle Men starts, divisioners should be able to open the divisioning tool for the females and start the procedure

5 Gender of the relay teams was not properly working. The gender of the first person of a team was printed which sometimes was right but not always

Solution was to change the field of the database that was being loaded. In this case the representation of the gender was only “M” or “F”

6 Almost every second day of the competition days was an update of the GMS program

The program should have been ready on time and only updates for major issues should have been distributed. In some cases a new update was causing malfunctions to the reports which with an older version of GMS were working properly!

7 There were cases that the print of a report into a pdf file was unable

Solution was to restart the program

8 While working with ARES21 external timing system, save button was disappearing

Solution was to restart the program

In general the services provided by the technology department and especially IT-Support Mr Anastasios Gkamaris and Net-Support Miss Alexandra Tsakri were excellent. No issues arise at all, continuously information about network status, continuously support for technological equipment.

GMS Team was working great and every single person had its own role. Production of reports, tracking of time that reports should change from Unofficial to Official and to be printed, creation of pdf files and upload on the common disk for later results cd and internet upload from the COG staff.

10


I should also mention the excellent cooperation with the Results supervisor Ms. Katerina Pappa whose experience from other sport events was valuable for the GMS and Results areas.

5.1.4 MAJOR ISSUES WITH OTHER Fas

There was only one issue that was more technical about the sport

No Functional Area Issue Description1 Technical Officials were using

a catalog of FINA for Disqualification Codes

GMS has been asked to add specific-basic DQ-codes for the sport and not all the DQ-codes that exist for Aquatics. The result was to select simple DQ in cases that the code was not exist which was causing protests from the coaches who want to know the reason of disqualification. Solution for that later on was the manual handwriting of the DQ-code. There must be a previous agreement between Sport Department and Technical officials for the codes that will be used, so should be added to GMS

Moreover an important issue referring to the external timing system ARES21 of Omega arises. The connection of ARES21 and the GMS worked only for the first day. Results entry for all the other competition days were done manually from GMS users. The reason was the malfunction of the middle box that converts ARES21 data to data that are understandable for the GMS. This box was property of OAKA (Olympic Aquatic Center) and it was difficult to be fixed although all the staff of the stadium tried many different solutions. At this time except this technical problem I should also mention the cooperation with OAKA staff which was great and very helpful in the cooperation with GMS and ARES21-Scoreboard system.

Cooperation with Technical Delegate Miss Maria Conroy and Assistant Technical Delegate Miss Shirley-Anne Milgate was great and free of Issues.

Cooperation with all other functional areas and more specifically with those who are directly connected with the GMS as clients of its report production (e.g. Field Of Play, Competition Staging, Sport Info Desk, Sport Presentation) was more than excellent and it is the reason for the success of Aquatics Venue.

Last but not least the support of the Sport Manager Mr. Chrysostomos Giannoulakis and the Sport Administration Coordinator Ms. Eleonora Markou helped a lot for the combination of technology (GMS) and the Sport (Aquatics).

5.1.5 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

Aquatics Sport is very sensitive from a technical aspect because of the use of a scoreboard and an external timing system. This makes difficult changes of the last minute. Due to this sort of changes (Delegations, Athletes, Divisions etc.) the first days of the competition were difficult. Change of a single athlete from an event to another could change the whole divisioning process and requires doing the whole process again. In the future all changes and data provided from delegations as well as Delegation Registration Meetings should be available and corrected minimum a week before the games, thing that has not been done at this time and resulted to do almost four times divisioning of all the athletes and events. Changes should not be accepted from the system minimum 2-3 days before the games, to have a stable competition.

11


In addition GMS should be beta tested in an acceptable time before the games, from the bespoke staff. GMS supervisors should work on a stable program for the success of the games and for the “fine tuning” of the program in specific sport related cases.

12


5.2 AthleticsSport: ATHLETICSVenue: OAKA OLYMPIC STADIUMCompetition schedule: 26.6 - 3.7.2011Sector: GMS

5.2.1 GMS Functionality & Reliability

Athletics competitions run exclusively by the GMS application and SQL live database. All the required reports were produced by GMS. The only problem that GMS had was that in the relays did not show the correct rank according to the performance of athletes and does not display correctly the gender in each group.

During the competition days the sport run perfectly, quickly, without any problems and very well-tuned.

5.2.2 GMS Assistants

GMS Assistants Team consisted of 5 excellent volunteers who offered great services and they were very helpful. Their participation was precious and they run the competition quickly, effectively and without any problems.

5.2.3 Sport Team Cooperation

The cooperation with the Sport Manager, Assistant Sport Manager and Results Supervisors was very good. We had no further problems and excellent cooperation.

5.2.4 TD & TD’s Assistant Cooperation

The cooperation with the international officials was great.

5.2.5 VTM Team Support

VTM team provided excellent technical support to GMS team and to all sport staff at the venue before and during the games.

5.2.6 Other FAs Cooperation

Cooperation with other functional areas was very good.

5.2.7 GMS Partners

I would like to thank you the team of GMS for the excellent and effective cooperation, the cohesion and coverage we had as part and all part of the technology for the continued essential guidance they gave me from the beginning and end of matches.The experience was unique and in that we all helped the maximum.

13


5.3 Badminton

5.3.1 KEY STATISTICS 155 athletes 40 delegations 6 days of Competition 55 Divisions 8 courts Competition format: Round Robin

5.3.2 HIGHLIGHTS

If GMS for Badminton was 100% functional the presence of one GMS Supervisor and one Assistant would be more than enough. Due to GMS inefficiency our team was consisted off one GMS Supervisor and three Assistants per shift.

Even though there were always GMS experts nearby they were not able to come up with any kind off help and their role restricted to act as intermediates between me and the GMS Software Developers.

Cooperation with most of my colleagues, apart from some unfortunate moments, in the HFI venue (Venue Manager, VTM and assistants, TD, Badminton Staff) was perfect.


No

Issue Description Recommendation

1 Even though GMS should have been fully functional from the beginning of 2011, three months before the beginning of the games we were copping to solve major issues, some of which were never solved.a) The option “Start Time – Between “never worked.b) There was never a solution from the GMS developers to achieve the appearance of each set’s points.c) A double input off scores took place (into GMS and Excel) because the Score Presentation Sheets were not prepared by the GMS developers.d) There was a frequent problem in the playing Schedule because sometimes a “Ghost Match” appeared.

- There must be a deadline for the GMS Developers to solve or not all pending issues. This would allow all FAs to produce their Back up plan and not start a struggle against time (which happened in our case). Quite many times we felt that we were the Guinea pigs to test new and not trustworthy Software.

2 During the last Competition Day GMS did not produce correctly the: Awards Report, Awards Staging Report and the Awards Presentation Report. To overcome this problem we came up with a non orthological solution.

3 Cooperation with the SM of Badminton appeared to be very difficult from the very beginning. The SORIS had its final only a few days before the beginning of the games. The SM of Badminton continuously changed the layout and the design of many reports. There was a big delay from his side to feed us with crucial information regarding the competition format and the information that each report should contain. The SM of Badminton was not cooperative and according to my opinion his management skills were not sufficient to guide personnel under his command. This resulted to an overstressed environment.

14


5.3.4 MAJOR ISSUES WITH OTHER FAs

On the 26th of June one of our Athlete’s Accommodation Sites had a major problem with the Internet Connection. As a result all the crucial information for many athletes could no be delivered via email. I was obliged to deliver the information at three o’clock in the morning with my personal vehicle and on my own expenses.

5.3.5 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALClosing I would like to say a big thank you to Thanos Kontonasios (Games System Director) and John Koulouris (GMS Supervisor) for their help. Of course I would like to thank all GMS Supervisors for their useful ideas and immediate solutions regarding problems we faced with GMS. Furthermore, a lot of thanks to George Bebetsos, Harris Spiliakos, and Dimitris Matalas and of course my volunteers and contractors for their patience, help and great support.

With Regards,

Christos Gkogkas

GMS Supervisor, Badminton

15


5.4 Basketball

5.4.1 KEY STATISTICS 475 athletes 52 delegations 4 courts

5.4.2 HIGHLIGHTS

Basketball as a sport is pretty straight forward. The competition format was pretty clear (Double Round Robin for the Group of 3and Round Robin going to finals for the group of 4). All the reports, to support the desired scenarios, were build and ready to run. On the third day, though, the Technical Delegate changed the divisions and with this change, changed the whole competition format. The result of this change was the complete breakdown, of GMS and its support of the sport.

The next day, assistance was provided, after consulting with Mr. Silva, by a GMS Expert in order to re-configure GMS, to support the new competition format and the requests of the Technical Delegate (Transferring scores from previous matches, re-defining events, rounds etc.). The assistance provided by the GMS Expert for BOCCE was indispensable.

During the competition it was clear that not all reports from SORIS were needed. Some were left out, new internal reports were added during the competition itself, that allowed the staging FA and the awards FA to do a proper check on the athletes that were in their FA.


No Issue Description Recommendation1 The Team Roster Report was showing all the

scratched athletes, even though in the filter, we asked the program to exclude them. This was fixed the third day of the Games, with a new version of GMS (Ver. 5.99.0.272)

16


2 In the end of the third day and after having done divisioning two times, the Technical Delegate decided to re-division the teams. The teams, that didn’t change divisions and got points from previous matches, should carry these points to the new divisions. Mr. Silva was asked, if GMS could support this new format. After consulting with the Technical Delegate and the GMS Expert, we changed the philosophy and setup of GMS, to support the case. After finishing the Preliminary Round, we duplicated the Event and from a “Team Bracketed Event” (Preliminary Round), we changed the setup to “Team Event”. In the New “Preliminary Round”, every day, every round nad match, is a division. At the end of the “Preliminary Round”, GMS would sum all the points, the teams got. For the “Final Round”, we duplicated the events of the sport and defined the event as a “Team Bracketing Event”. With this setup, we could easily, create groups, that the teams would have the points from the previous rounds and bracket them, according to need.

3 With this philosophy, for the Final Round, the Reports, should work, because they were created based on bracketed events. This was not the case though. We faced too many problems, due to the new setup of the sport. In addition, old errors showed up again. If a team, would get its final place from the “Preliminary Round”, the report didn’t show it, because on the “Final Round” it didn’t participate in any Game. To show the place, we should Schedule the Team, for at least on e game.

4 Finally, the “Location Field” was working, only if you design the report, by using the “Tournament Matches pipeline”. If you were using the “Heat Sheets” module, it didn’t work and you could sort them. For Example, it could show the games for Court 1 per day.

17


5.5 Bocce

5.5.1 KEY STATISTICS 320 athletes 89 delegations 2 days of Teams Competition (13 Divisions) 3 days of Singles Competition(70 Divisions) 2 days of Doubles Competition(33 Divisions) 16 courts Competition format: Double Elimination , Advantage Seeding

5.5.2 HIGHLIGHTS

GMS for Bocce is very intensive and cannot be run by 1 GMS Supervisor alone. More than 800 matches were played. Since the competition is so extensive, the divisioning process is very long and the scheduling for each of the events takes a long time. The assistance provided by the GMS Expert for BOCCE was indispensable.

The tasks were divided between the GMS Supervisor and the GMS Expert that was provided by SOI. While the GMS Supervisor was creating the reports that were necessary for the smooth running of the competition, the GMS Expert created the divisions and was responsible for the scheduling. This proved to be very helpful, since the GMS expert had used GMS before for this purpose. Moreover, he had cooperated on several occasions before with the TD, which made the divisioning and scheduling a relatively smooth operation.

During the competition it was clear that not all reports from SORIS were needed. Some were left out, new internal reports were added during the competition itself, that allowed the staging FA and the awards FA to do a proper check on the athletes that were in their FA.

18



No Issue Description Recommendation1 During the beginning of the Singles Competition, it

became clear that a parameter for the competition was not set correctly. Due to time pressure and several other tasks that were going on at the same time, I could not immediately find the correct way to set the parameter correctly. The GMS Expert was not yet in the venue (he was stuck in the centre of Athens during the riots) and was not reachable since he had no mobile phone. I called the GOC and asked Rueben Silva, who gave wrong directions, after which the complete schedule for the singles competition was lost.The immediate solution was to switch to a local database, install the backup that was taken the night before, so the schedule was recovered. In the meantime the competition was continuing as good as possible by using manual score sheets. It took about 45 minutes before GMS was back to regular schedule. Unfortunately the other FA’s (competition management, staging and awards) never really recovered from the delay.

- Even though the problem was a wrong parameter in GMS, the issue was a simple one and the delay could have been avoided if the GMS Expert could have been reached. In the future, every GMS Expert should have a mobile phone and should stay in a hotel closer to the venue to which he is allocated. This would have saved valuable time in our case.

2 320 athletes on 16 courts for a duration of 3 competition days from 9:30 AM to 5:30 PM is a very tight schedule. In case there are problems (see issue 1) or there are appeals and protests and matches need to be rescheduled, this competition schedule is too tight.

On day 2 of the Singles event, it became clear that the event would not finish on time, so an extra court was installed.


No Functional Area Issue Description1 Results

ManagementResult Management of Bocce interfered with the internal working and procedures of the GMS Team. This was not necessary and only caused confusion.The issue was solved after the first competition day, when the procedures were put in place during the competition management meeting in order to ensure a smooth running of the competition.


The setup of the GMS room was strict and is recommended for all competitions:

1 workstation for the creation of the score sheets for the matches (this can only be done as soon as both competitor names are known)

1 workstation for results entry 1 workstation for the creation of the brackets (to be updated after every match) 1 workstation for the creation of the awards/results report 1 workstation for the divisioning and scheduling

19


GMS is able to create an Excel grid with all the divisions/matches that need to be played during a competition day. This grid was used as a control sheet by GMS, Results Management, Staging, and Competition Management.

1. GMS used the grid to tick off whenever a score sheet was produced. 2. Results Management used the grid to tick off when the score sheets were delivered to staging and

competition management.3. Competition Management used the grid to tick off which match is to be played/was played.4. GMS used the grid to tick off whenever a filled out score sheet was checked and entered into the system

This way GMS had control over the full circle, since it had a checklist for the first chain in the circle and for the last chain. If the ticked-off grid of results entry is different from the ticked-off grid of score sheet creation, then something is wrong with the competition.

20


5.6 Bowling

Sport: BOWLINGVenue: BLANOS SPORT PARKCompetition Schedule: June 27th – July 3nd Sector: GMS Technology


Bowling competition was run by the local base of GMS due to the low speed of the network in the Blanos Sport Park. All over the games time the issue was that one of the versions of GMS that I had could not support two of xml files (which had no problem in previous versions), so I had to re-design the reports and take a new version again during the games.


GMS Assistants Team consisted of 4 volunteers and 2 contractors who offered great services and they were very helpful. Their participation was precious and they run the competition quickly, effectively and without any problems.

5.6.3 Sport Team CooperationThe cooperation with the members of Bowling team (Sport Manager, Administrator, Tech.Op, etc.) was very good. The problems were that there wasn’t GMS room so it was very difficult for us to do the divisioning and the scheduling during the competition and after the end of the daily competition; sport team hosted an event for the volunteers with results of not being able to correctly work on this environment.

5.6.4 TD & TD’s Assistant CooperationThe cooperation with the international officials was great. TD and TD’s assistants were very good and when it needed they solved the problems with the best way to help me.

5.6.5 Cooperation with other services (Spectator Services, VIP, etc.)The cooperation with the other services of the venue was very good. Maybe an issue to mention is that many times people were standing in front of me so I could not see the results and a last thing is that sometimes the delegations going out of the field of play from wrong exits so there was no one there to guide them. All these happened because volunteers didn’t know very well the passing zones.

21


5.7 CYCLING


4 months of Preparation & Training 10 Days of Special Olympic Games 38 Delegations 180+ athletes 5 members G.M.S team (2 volunteers, 2 contractors & myself) 9 Template Reports produced & used 150+ Generated Reports 8+ toners used (1 toner = 1500+ prints)

5.7.2 HIGHLIGHTS

5.7.2.1 GMS

Being aware of all the problems G.M.S exhibited for other sports, I would call “Luck” the fact that the software was able to support to a 100% degree the sport of cycling. Despite its awful interface, which makes it look like an application of the late 80’s, the necessary functionality was there and with training and common sense – and some deep thinking sometimes – our team members were able to carry out all the Sport’s necessary tasks without any problems.

5.7.2.2 Reports

The SORIS and Distribution List worked flawlessly. The initial plans, adjustments & G.M.S reports that were produced – by Dimitris Matalas, Harris Spiliakos, Panagiotis Karaxalios and me - during the preparation period were so accurate and functional that no major adjustments were necessary nor we missed any functionality due to the lack of a report.

5.7.2.3 Technology

The technology aspect of the whole operation was fine. The backup system that would enable us to operate without a live database, although we did not need it, was there which was a great plus.The equipment such as laptops, printers, internet & network connection etc. was also fine and working without problems. Only, minor, problem was the toner consumption during the first days of the competition – 3 only in the first day, and the fact that no UPS was attached to the remote tents electricity provider (due to budget cuts as I was informed).

5.7.2.4 Staff/volunteers/officials Concerning the staff of the sport I could easily say that everybody cooperated perfectly, from the very first moment, which was unexpected to me, especially due to the lack of properly rehearsing before the competition started.The volunteers/contractors and the Results manager that operated within the G.M.S and Results team exhibited high levels of cooperation and high sense of purpose for the task at hand. Major congratulations to these people, whereas without them our job would be 10 times more difficult.

22


The cooperation with the TDs was unproblematic and highly successful taking into account that TDs proposed me to operate G.M.S for cycling in the Special Olympics 2015 at Los Angeles and the fact that Head Coaches in cycling felt the happiest in these particular Special Olympics.

5.7.2.5 Personal OpinionBeing well prepared - in fact, G.M.S wise I was ready 1 month prior to the beginning of the Games – and aware of what to expect from the Games Systems Supervisor position I was commissioned – due to my past experience as timekeeper and results producer & manager for various motorsport events – I did not encounter any major problems that I felt I could not tackle.The workload was sensible enough especially after the first day of competition which was the busiest for us. Any problems that arouse I was able to solve them and adapt based on the given situations.I did not receive any bad critic from the other FAs, at least none to which I am aware of – in fact both G.M.S and Results management operations were congratulated by all other FAs, especially compared to the ones from last year’s test event which we were told were chaos and caused many problems to the entire sport functions.


No Issue Description Recommendation1 G.M.S database was acting like going back in

timeduring Saturday, 1 day prior to the beginning of the games

Nothing to recommend here, the problem was solved by the H.Q. and no major drawbacks were experienced, at least for cycling

2 Assistant TD decided not to include a detailed schedule report for Monday’s competition since he believed a general timetable would be sufficient – whereas for Sunday(1st day of competition) we had produced a schedule report with detailed times for each division’s run time, which proved really useful for the coaches who demanded to have one on Monday and the competition’s subsequent days

Assistant TD became aware of his error and was persuaded by us (Karaxalios and myself) and the coaches demand to include a detailed schedule report for all the subsequent days of the competition

3 For the first 2 days it was difficult and time consuming to decide all the parameters concerning the material that needed to be emailed at the various Villages

ONE detailed and well thought email needed to be sent out covering all the mailing lists that needed to be used & the material that was allowed to be sent to the villages (e.g. I was informed after I had sent the first mail, by Dimitris Matalas, that the villages did not have major printing capabilities – thus I should not have sent an”entry list by delegation” report to them.

4 During the last day of competition we lost electricity in the whole venue, which resulted on not having G.M.S live connection, no network in general and printers– since there was no ups attached to the remote power that the network switch and printers were attached on

Despite the fact that no competition was taking place at this time, we shut down the 2 laptops so we would not consume the batteries, and for the races that were to start in 20 minutes from the beginning of the incident we decided in collaboration with the sport to produce any necessary material (results, awards staging & competition reports) handwritten and produce

23


the hard copies necessary after the power was restored. Fortunately none of these plans were necessary since 15 minutes after the power was restored and we were back online.

5.7.4 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL I would like to send my BIG THANKS to both G.M.S and Results volunteers (Sofia, Eirini, Stamatia, Maria, Stefania), the 2 contractors ( Nikitas & Christos) and the Results Manager, Manos Sofoulakis, for all the effort they put, the way they cooperated and the successful outcome we managed all together!

Vassilis Passalis

GMS Venue Supervisor Cycling

24


5.8 EQUESTRIAN


Number of reports asked: 30 Number of reports used: 28 Reports Requested after SORIS’ definition: 1 Reports made after SORIS’ definition: 0 Daily personnel requirements (GMS Assistants): 3 Total volunteers assigned: 3 Total contractors assigned: 1 Competition days (including Matching & Divisioning): 8

5.8.2 HIGHLIGHTS

The most important issue was that we could not work with the live database because the response times when opening a report were above ten minutes, which was unacceptable. Because of this we worked on a local nexus server (on the bright side, any connection failures with the live database would not have affected us).We had a problem (on 28-06-2011) when we tried to import scores from events such as EQ Matching and EQ Divisioning to other Equestrian events. Specifically GMS would crash with a Database Error each time we tried to import score. After a couple of phone calls with Reuben and following his instructions, we didn’t manage to solve the problem. After that, I took the initiative to export the whole Equestrian event (via GMS Transfer), restore the database to a previous version (ver. 26-06-2011) and following that, importing the event I previously exported. This procedure fixed the problem and allowed us to proceed with score importing. Nevertheless, several hours following that, Mr. Reuben gave us a new GMS version which was supposed to fix this issue. Despite that, had we been waiting for the official fix, there would have been a serious setback with the sport (delegations would have received the next day’s schedule later during the night).We had an issue when we tried to import scores (specifically the “level 2” field) from EQ Matching to EQ Team Relays (a team event). The process would complete but when I tried to save the changes, the level 2 fields of all Team Relays entrants were reverted back to the original blank value. It’s worth noting that we didn’t have any problems doing that with previous GMS versions. Fortunately we noticed that several days before the Team Relays event, so after notifying Mr. Reuben about the issue we received a newer GMS version which with the changes made at an event’s definition the problem was solved.We had an issue when we were changing a division’s status at the results entry screen, and we had entered said screen via the “multi user result entry” option. The status would not change. I bypassed this by me changing each division’s status.We had an issue when entering results in the format of time. Normally when we would enter values over 60 (seconds) GMS would automatically convert this time to minutes. But on one occasion it did not. For example if we would enter 76, GMS would convert it erroneously to 01:76:00 instead of 01:16:00. In order to correct this we converted seconds to minutes ourselves and then entered the information to GMS.

25


Concerning the reports which I had made, two of them (Divisioning Report, individual and team relays) were never asked, so I never printed them. In addition I was asked to make a report by the Technical Delegate, literally at the last moment to which I responded that it was not possible. And as an alternative I used an online pdf editor in order to bypass this issue (it concerned the Scheduling Report for Team Relays).Regarding my cooperation with the sport (specifically with the Result Manager with whom I was working/cooperating mostly) there were no problems. Except for their lack of GMS’ knowledge of how it works, this made it hard for me to communicate the program’s specificities to them.As for my volunteers I didn’t encounter any problems working with them. The only issue was that three volunteers were more than enough to cover Sport’s requirements during six out of eight competition days. In order to counter this I was rotating my volunteers at results entry in order to avoid boredom and dissatisfaction.


No Issue Description Recommendation1 GMS Connectivity with the live SQL database To my knowledge this is a GMS issue and the

developer of the program must see to it2 Major interface flaws when arranging Schedule for

each entrant/team separately from his/her division

The developer should see to it that the interface is more self-explanatory and in addition he should do more testing on this, because this functionality is not working as intended

3 The developer of GMS would not fully inform us of all the changes made on the program

To my knowledge professional companies always keep track of the changes made which they hand out to their clients. Bespoke’s attitude should change to the better

26


5.9 FOOTBALL


3 months of Preparation & Training 9 days of Special Olympics Games 83 Delegations 116 Teams 1,445 Athletes 15 members G.M.S. Team (12 volunteers and 3 G.M.S. Supervisors) 17 Template Reports produced & used for each Football (6 reports produced by EXCEL & 11 reports by GMS) 13 courts 3 Venues

5.9.2 HIGHLIGHTS

5.9.2.1 G.M.S.

Concerning the GMS use, despite the significant obstacles and insufficiencies that raised from the very first moment in Football, the GMS Team managed to overcome many of the problems and find alternative solutions. On the grounds that even during the last year’s test event GMS failed to fulfill the sport’s needs, we produced and designed all the reports from scratch. Thus, we are contented with the fact that GMS was successfully used to a great extent for the first time in Football.However, GMS seems to be inadequate to include several parameters, which are very important in Football, for example red/yellow cards and penalties. Furthermore, it was quite disturbing the fact that one day before the beginning of the competition none of the reports could run in the live database (SQL server). Fortunately, this problem was solved when we were given the updated .exe file of GMS. In general terms, it can be argued that we exploited 100% the options and the strengths of GMS in relation to Football, and still it was inevitable to use EXCEL, since a software with such a general template cannot be applied to a complicated sport, such as Football.

5.9.2.2 REPORTS

The reports were produced exactly in accordance with the SORIS that we were given, apart from an important update that was made in the report Team Results per Day: the addition of the two extra fields, where we could record any penalties and any extra time given. These reports were designed the last competition day, when the need of such an update was identified by the Sports Team.As far as the Distribution List is concerned, we were quite confused regarding the reports that should be sent to the Accommodation SIDS. According to the initial guidelines, we had to send a lot more reports than it was finally confirmed.

5.9.2.3 TECHNOLOGY

Regarding the Technology department, all our needs were satisfied to the full. Our cooperation with the Technical Support and Network Team was excellent, since our equipment was flawlessly installed and used (laptops, printers etc.) during the entire competition.Also, it should be mentioned that due to the low speed of network offered by the Hellenic Organization of Telecommunications in Agios Kosmas Sports Center and Apilion Training Center, we were obliged to use local databases in 7-a-side and 11-a-side respectively. Finally, we had made a backup plan that could be applied in case the network was totally down; to be more specific, we built a local connection between the laptop and the printer, so in this way we would be able to print our reports even without network.

27


5.9.2.4 STAFF/VOLUNTEERS/OFFICIALS

We firmly believe that we were offered more GMS Volunteers than it was necessary, since it was impossible to enter the same event using more than one laptop at the same time. Apart from that, there were so many updates in the content and design of the reports every day that it was a lot more time consuming to train the volunteers on the new updates than to perform them by ourselves. Thus, we believed that our volunteers could be more useful in other FAs.As far as the rest of the staff and officials are concerned, we did not face any problems whatsoever in our cooperation.


No Issue Description Recommendation1 Team Roster: A few days before the Head Coaches

Meeting we were asked to produce a report for the Team Rosters that would include the Head Coach and Assistant Coaches for each team (although we had already clarified that this cannot be produced by GMS). In order to avoid the amateur image that would be produced by a report with handwritten names, we decided to create this report using EXCEL.

We feel that such a decision could had been made by the time it was made clear that this addition cannot be made by GMS (during the homologation tests), and not a couple of days before the beginning of the competition. Apart from that, we strongly recommend the import of this feature into GMS in the future.

2 Match Report: Probably this was the most significant report in Football and the one we used for all the matches during the competition. It was not feasible to be produced by GMS, thus we used EXCEL. Specifically, this report was generated manually (copy-paste the teams) in 7-a-side and 5-a-side (the events with the largest number of teams and divisions in FB), provided that the excel file did not include any macros.

We believe that this report should have been produced with macros, since there was a high risk to make mistakes during the copy-paste procedure, and on the grounds that it had been clarified during the homologation tests that this report cannot be produced by GMS. However, no mistakes were made. Of course, we suggest that such an important report should be produced by GMS in the future.

3 DRM : There were many cases where the entry lists that were given during the DRM did not agree with the lists given after the Head Coaches Meeting (they included players who never arrived in Greece)

The procedure of DRM should be made more carefully by all the people involved in the future.

4 GMS Version: One of the latest versions modified the correct ranking of the teams in the Awards Report

The updated version of GMS fixed this problem.

5 5-a-side: The Divisioning Competition Schedule was initially designed for 46 teams. Two days before the divisioning games two unexpected changes happened ( SO Benin and SO Mauritania did not show up)

We believe that a contact with these delegations should have been made in time, since the deadline (1-5-2011) according to which the GMS Database would lock, never performed.

6 5-a-side: SO Mauritania showed up in the middle of the competition and required to be included in the competition schedule so as to participate in the games. This was practically impossible to happen by GMS. Finally, SO Mauritania participated in some unscheduled friendly games, for which we produced separate reports in EXCEL.

Same as above.

28


7 Galanis Software: We believe that the use of this software, that was built in order to support us during the design of the competition schedule, was unnecessary, since a lot of changes were made manually by the GMS Team and the Results Supervisors.

A more direct solution to his problem could be given the GMS itself, if we could import the desired parameters into the program and in this way we would produce automatically the competition schedule.

8 Group of 4: It was impossible to illustrate in the competition schedule (which is produced right after the divisioning games) the 2 classification matches in the final round of the groups of 4.

In order to overcome this problem, we created virtual teams in the GMS and we imported them in divisions, so as to achieve the illustration of the classification matches before the preliminary round was finished. After the preliminary round, we deleted the virtual teams and we replaced them with the real ones.


No Issue Description Recommendation1 None None

5.9.5 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALWe firmly believe that Football had a really united GMS Team that acted as a single entity; this is why we thank each other for all the support and patience that showed during these 3 months. Finally, we thank our Results Supervisors and our Volunteers; we had an excellent cooperation that resulted in a timeless and unforgettable experience!

Best of luck to all of you! We hope that we will meet again one day!

Best regards,

The GMS Team of FootballMichalis KoutalisMolly KonsolakiStefania Meleki

29


5.10 Golf

Sport: GolfVenue: Glyfada Golf CourseCompetition Schedule:June 27th – July 2nd Sector: GMS Technology


26 Delegations 113 Athletes 20 Unified Partners Many Volunteers 5 Sporting Days 1 Golf Course

5.10.2 FAs MAJOR ISSUES

5.10.2.1 GMS Functionality

Firstly I have to mention that all the golf competition was run by the local base of GMS due to the low speed of the network in the Glyfada area. Despite the big success of the games the problems did not miss especially in GMS software. We started working and designing the reports of the games from April 2011 almost 2 and half months before the opening ceremony. The problems and the difficulties in the creation of some reports were already known to us from the first days. We mentioned all our problems to the people of the SOI and I have to admit that some of these problems were fixed by them. The first sporting day came and the GMS software especially in my sport was not totally ready. I mean that the results sheets were created by excel files and we had some scheduling problems too. As I said the problems were known many days ago that’s why I believe that is unprofessional for SOI to send me a new GMS version with the results solution one day before the end of the competition.

5.10.2.2 Reports

I had created all the xml files-excel files for all the reports that were going to be used in the games for the sport of Golf. With the help of the sport manager, the result manager, and all the GMS team including of course T. Kontonasios, I. Koulouris, H. Spiliakos, D. Matalas, all the reports were on time and everyone including athletes, coaches and staff were satisfied by this outcome.

5.10.2.3 Technology

The corporation with all the people in the technology room (IT support, VTM) was great, we didn’t have any equipment problem too and everything worked as it was scheduled.

5.10.2.4 GMS Assistant

Ionna Spyratou was the only one volunteer in the GMS room for the sport of Golf. I have to say that her help was great, due to the GMS difficulties we worked as a team and we had all the reports on time.

30



5.10.3.1 Venue

One day before the starting day and the head coaches meeting we had a serious problem with the electricity in the venue, especially we had low power that’s why we turned off all the computers and all the technological equipment to avoid something really bad for the competition. Due to the fast response of the Headquarters they managed to fix the problem without any cost to our equipment.

5.10.3.2 Corporation with the members of the sport

The corporation with all the members of the sport was excellent during the days of the competition.

5.10.3.3 Corporation with the TD and the GMS expert

Two days before the starting day of the competition the TD with the GMS expert arrived in the Glyfada Golf Course. The corporation was really good with both of them. Alana (TD) and Brooke (GMS expert) was really friendly and tried to help me with all the problems of the GMS software. Alana told me that not all reports from SORIS were needed that’s why some of these reports were left out. From the other hand Brooke was there to help me at any time I wanted.


Finally I would like to give my big thanks to all of you, we had a great team and all this was a part of the success. It was really nice experience for me and I hope to see you soon. I wish you the best in your lives!

Charis Katsikakis

GMS Supervisor for the sport of Golf

31


5.11 Gymnastics

5.11.1 Technical Functionality (Laptop, Printers, Phone)No problems at all with the functionality of the technical equipment (Laptop, Phone & Printer).

5.11.2 GMS FunctionalityDuring the games, there were several problems with the functionality of GMS. In 2 out of almost 380 Divisions, the program calculated wrong the places for Awards Staging and in 9 more divisions it didn’t calculate places at all! I managed to find a solution by recalculating the places in order to proceed with the Awards ceremonies. All the other reports were correctly produced, even though Competition Schedules and Start Lists were produced by the Sport itself, in Excel forms! Other than that, there is nothing more to mention.

5.11.3 Cooperation with the Sport

The cooperation with the members of Gymnastics team (Sport Manager, Administrator, Tech.Op. etc.) was the best.


GMS Assistants Team was constituted by 16 excellent volunteers and 8 Contractors who offered great services and they were very helpful. Their participation was precious and they ran the competition quickly, effectively and without any problems.

5.11.5 Cooperation with TD’s & International Officials

The Cooperation with the Technical Delegates and all the Officials in general was excellent!

5.11.6 Cooperation with other Departments

The cooperation with the other Departments of the Venue was very good. I have to mention the excellent work of VTM and all the Technology Support team! They were always very professional and kind, but most of all effective!

In conclusion, I would like to thank, Thanos Kontonasios and Ioannis Koulouris for their Support, kindness and given knowledge and also Mr. Harris Spiliakos and Dimitris Matalas for their understanding and support throughout the duration of our collaboration!

Reported by

Stavros Zoulakis

GMS Supervisor-Gymnastics

32


5.12 Handball


150 athletes 12 delegations 5 days of Competition (27 June – 1 July) 4 Divisions 1 court Competition format: Round Robin, Double Round Robin

5.12.2 HIGHLIGHTS

GMS for Handball can operate by 1 GMS Supervisor alone. The playing schedule (one court, 75 minutes between each match) worked perfectly, providing the GMS team enough time to produce the necessary reports. The GMS team which was consisted of one Supervisor and two Volunteers had no problem handling any scenario.

Cooperation with Handball Sport Manager Mr. George Bebetsos, Staff of Sport and all Volunteers was perfect. The accurately responsive Sport Dedicated Team, provided immediate and effective solutions to any problem that aroused.

Furthermore we were glad to be constantly supported by the Venue Technology Staff in every major and minor issue regarding the disposed electronic equipment function.

During the competition it became clear that not all foreseen from SORIS reports were needed. While one were left out, new internal reports were added during the competition itself, allowing all other FAs to do their task more easily.

Finally the cooperation with the TD proved to be excellent. Due to her experience the process of divisioning and scheduling became very easy.

33



No Issue Description Recommendation1 One major problem that was detected even before the

beginning of the games was that the GMS was unable to produce the necessary information for the tournament standings and the ranking of each team. This problem was known to the developers of the GMS software at least two months before the beginning of the Athens 2001 Special Olympics World Summer Games but no reply was received.It must be mentioned that Mr. Kontonasios (Games System Director) and Mr. Bebetsos (Handball Sport Manager) were constantly communicating with GMS developers in order to come up with a solution.Finally we realized that it was not possible for GMS software to take into account all the necessary info and criteria for a Group’s Standings. (Goal Difference, Wins. Loses, Ties, etc). In order to resolve this problem, in cooperation with the Results Supervisor we created our own software that produced all the required information, as well as the Group Standings.

- There must be a deadline for the GMS Developers to solve or not all pending issues. This would allow all FAs to produce their Back up plan and not start a struggle against time (which happened in our case). Quite many times we felt that we were the Guinea pigs to test a new and not trustworthy Software.

2 Having a good knowledge on the Sport of handball, we realized from the early beginning that GMS was unable to produce our quite complex score sheet. Thanks to Mr. Dimitris Matalas (Sport Services Manager) we had an Electronic Score Sheet based on Microsoft Excel Software.


No major issues with any FA aroused. On the contrary there was an excellent cooperation among all FAs in the Sport of Handball and the Venue of HFI.


Finally I sincerely thank Thanos Kontonasios (Games System Director) and John Koulouris (GMS Supervisor) for their constant help and support. My best acknowledgments to thank all GMS Supervisors for their useful ideas and immediate solutions regarding any problem we faced with GMS. Furthermore, best regards to Harris Spiliakos and Dimitris Matalas for their patience, help and great support.Particularly, I would like to pay my respect and express my gratitude to Mr. George Bebetsos (Handball Sport Manager) for assembling a very professional team that created a Top Level Handball Tournament.

It was an unforgettable experience. I wish you all the best and hope that sometime we will meet again.

With Regards,

Panagiotis Giannakos

GMS Supervisor, Handball

34


5.13 Judo

Sport: JUDO Venue: The American College of Greece-Deree Gym Competition schedule: 26.6 - 2.7.2011 Sector: GMS


Judo competition run exclusively by the GMS application and SQL live database. All the required reports were produced by GMS except 2 simple listing reports that were created by excel and were used for internal use.

The only information which could not be provided by “Tournament Matches” type reports was the “comments” field. That was not a problem, since this data we needed was perfectly produced and printed out by other type of reports. One extra report (Coaches List per Delegation), which was not applied to SORIS was designed easily.

During the competition days the sport run perfectly, quickly, without any problems and very well-tuned. The only delays we had were due to ties (athletes had to compete each other one more time) and medical emergencies.


GMS Assistants Team consisted of 3 excellent volunteers and 1 contractor who offered great services and they were very helpful. Their participation was precious and they run the competition quickly, effectively and without any problems.

During the competition days, 2 GMS assistants (one for each tatami) entered the results into GMS and produced the contest results reports for every round. The third volunteer was put in the central laptop and produced the divisions’ final results and awards reports. Contractor was mainly used for pre-games reports and data entry (athletes’ exact weight/comments) and he was very helpful, since before the competition days only one GMS assistant was available.


My cooperation with SM, SM assistant and Results Supervisors was very good. Although all the homologation tests were done without the presence of the 3 results supervisors and SORIS refinement was done just a few days before the games, we had no further problems and excellent cooperation. However, if we started working all together earlier, we would avoid last moment communication gaps about the competition flow, distribution list and other match details that were very potential.


The cooperation with the international officials was great. There was one change by TD during the games according to the case of equivalence of 3 athletes who were in a division of 5. In this case (we had equal number of wins and equal number of points) as described in SORIS, the athletes’ placement should accord to their exact weight at the particular competition day. Instead of this, TD asked to put them in a new division of 3 and compete each other again. Since we could not do that in GMS, we produced one more contest sheet report only for the 3 athletes (exported by GMS as excel), and the final points were set manually by technical officials. After that, the final athletes’ placement of the initial division of 5 was manually set in GMS and the final results/awards reports were produced without problems.

35





Cooperation with other functional areas (Venue SID, Spectators, Honor Guests, Family Services, etc.) was very good.

5.13.7 GMS Partners

At last but not least, i would like to thank a lot the GMS Volunteers for their great services and division, Thanos Kontonasios and John Koulouris for their great help and support, and of course the whole GMS partners for exchanging opinions and solutions for similar problems we had in GMS application during this period. Furthermore, a lot of thanks to Harris Spiliakos and Dimitris Matalas for their patience, help and great support.

It was really a great experience for me!

Thanks to all,

Good luck to everyone!

Antonia Liti

GMS Supervisor, Judo

36


5.14 Kayaking


I am writing this report, now that Special Olympics World Summer Games Athens 2011 has come to an end, to

point out some weaknesses of the GMS program, as well as to express my gratitude for the continuous support

I received from my colleagues, the TD and the GMS team.

First of all, the GMS program in the reports of the preliminary round did not show the DNS (did not show) place.

Moreover, I had to divide some of the reports into four sub-reports based on the round (preliminary, final) and

the type of the event (single, double). In case I did not perform this the GMS would show double names of the

athletes.

As far as I am concerned, my colleagues, the TD and the GMS team were present whenever I had problems or

questions about the GMS program. They also encouraged me in my effort to provide the right results and

reports fast.

In conclusion, the GMS program was not flexible in the designing of the reports, as I had to do many tricks and

try many combinations to produce the desirable appearance. Fortunately, we all worked as a team and

overcame any difficulties.

Sincerely,

Dimitris Tsivikis

GMS Supervisor Kayaking

37


5.15 Powerlifting

Primary Sport: Powerlifting Venue : OAKA Olympic Velodrome Department: Technology / Sector: GMS

5.15.1 Post Games Evaluation Report

5.15.2 Executive Summary

The 13th Special Olympics World Summer Games took place in Athens, Greece from 25 June – 4 July 2011 and I am glad that I took the opportunity to participate and contribute in this international event. Special Olympics is a different celebration with an aim to reward the abilities and accomplishments of people with special abilities. After the end of the competition, as GMS Supervisor of Powerlifting I have some suggestions for even better games in the near future. This report is intended to identify potential areas for further improvement and recommend an enhanced policy for forthcoming sport events.


5.15.3.1 Technical Functionality

There were no problems with the functionality of the technical equipment of GMS Area (FOP). Everything worked as it was scheduled. The only thing that I would like to recommend for the next games would be the expansion of the special rights of the GMS Assistants in editing the athletes’ profile as long as the privacy of the athlete ‘s personal data is not being violated. For instance, it would be very useful if the GMS assistants had the right to enter the athletes’ bodyweights by having access only at the additional data in the athletes’ profiles. In this way the cooperation among the GMS Supervisor and the GMS Assistants would be better. If the number of athletes was larger than the one we had in the Special Olympics World Summer Games Athens 2011, the delays might have caused serious problems during a competition day.


The sport of Powerlifting used GMS6 in order to produce all the necessary reports before, during and after the competition, with the exception of two reports which were created by excel program. The software of GMS6 ran in connection with the SQL live Database. There were some problems during the competition. First of all, it would be very important to mention the delays the time we needed the Results reports. More specifically, there were notable delays when we needed Reports for specific events like “Combination all lifts“ and “Combination Bench and Deadlift” which should be produced by entering through these events. Secondly, there were bug errors during the calculation of places of athletes after entering their final scores. It was necessary to double-click the suitable button in order for this error to be corrected.

Last but not least, there was a problem with the selection of “wilks” which was similar to the one we mentioned above previously. The calculation of the final scores having the selection of “wilks” in specific divisions of the athletes was not always correct. In several times, it was necessary to double-click the button of “Calculate Places” or to exit and then re-enter the event we did the “Results Entry” procedure.

38



5.15.4.1 Cooperation with Sport Team

The cooperation with the team of Powerlifting (Sport Manager, Administrator, Tech.Ops, Venue Op. Sports Pres., Awards Pres. etc.) was the best. We had some difficult time during the event but we managed to stay together and eventually to come through. We all worked under the team spirit and we all were united until the last time of the competition. The only noteworthy issue I would like to mention is the re-designing of Scheduling Report during the Competition due to the fact that it was considered that it would be more helpful if it was designed according to a competition day and not according to every event as it had been agreed by the homologation test.

Furthermore, I would like to mention that the offer and the help of the team of GMS Assistants (GMS Volunteers and GMS Contractors) was precious. Their efficiency in comparison with the little training they obtained from me was great. During the competition, my immediate cooperator was the Results Supervisor with whom there was excellent synchronization and mutual help.

Moreover, I would like to thank the VTM team that provided excellent technical support to GMS team and to all sport staff at the venue before and during the games.

Last but not least, I would like to thank Thanos Kontonasios and John Koulouris for their great help and support, and of course the whole GMS partners for exchanging opinions and solutions for similar problems we had in the GMS application during this period. Furthermore, a great thank to Harris Spiliakos and Dimitris Matalas for their patience, help and great support.

5.15.4.2 Cooperation with TD & International Officials

The cooperation with the TD was excellent. Similarly, the GMS Support was very helpful and very willing to solve every possible problem and I am very grateful for this. The only issue worth mentioning is that after the Head Coaches Meeting the divisioning procedure took longer time than we expected due to the fact that there were a lot of changes at the data of athletes in most of the delegations. After the problems we faced at the beginning of the first day, all the competition ran with great success.

5.15.4.3 Cooperation with other services

The cooperation with the other services of the venue, such as the Spectator Services, the Media, the VIP, the Food Services, the Security Services etc. was very good.

Thanks for the great experience.

Reported by

Alexandra Michota

GMS Supervisor-Powerlifting

39


5.16 Roller Skating


5.16.1.1 Technical Functionality (Laptop, Printers, Phone)

There were some problems with the functionality of the technical equipment (Laptop & Printer) of GMS Room. The laptop 3 times crashed, and every time a system restore was needed in order to function normal again. As a result, every time GMS Supervisor had to establish again new Connection for MySQL Database, because the previous settings were gone. One time, also, laptop lost network connection (after the end of 3 rd Day of the Games). All these problems were successfully repaired by Technology team on venue.


All over the games time, there was no problem with the functionality of GMS. No delays and no significant problems in reports appearance. The only issue was that when needed, the “comments” field (of the athlete comments) didn’t appear on relay (team events) reports.


5.16.2.1 Cooperation with Sport Team (Roller Skating)

The cooperation with the members of Roller Skating team (Sport Manager, Administrator, Tech.Ops, etc.) was the best. I would like to mention that sport team provided me with 2 more volunteers when needed in order to perform the best functionality of GMS. This was a great help for GMS Supervisor.


Generally, the cooperation was very good. Some issues appeared when some times, the TD of Roller Skating changed the games schedule and divisions for a day, although she had checked that the previous day. Also, once, during games time, after the end of an event, TD decided to change the divisions, and as a result the event should be re-divisioned and re-scheduled before printing the results. So, there were some delays in schedule time and reports printing.

5.16.2.3 Cooperation with other services (Spectator Services, VIP, etc.)

The cooperation with the other services of the venue was very good. Maybe an issue to mention is that zone control didn’t work as well as it should. Many times people that didn’t have the right color pass in their accreditation or with no accreditation at all (!) could approach GMS Room. It also must be mentioned that staff lounge was open only for a few hours and as a result of it some people of the staff that had a lot of work to do at these specific hours, couldn’t enjoy their lounge. A last issue that should be mentioned is that sometimes people of VIP or Spectators Services (most of them volunteers) seem that didn’t know very well the passing zones (blue or red or 5,6,7).

Reported by

Timotheos Tsakalos

GMS Supervisor-Roller Skating

40


5.17 Sailing

Sport: SAILING Venue: SAILING ACADEMY SCHINIAS Competition schedule: 26.6 - 3.7.2011 Sector: GMS


Sailing competition run exclusively by the GMS application and SQL live database. All the required reports were produced by GMS except 2 simple listing reports that were created by excel and were used for internal use.

The only information which could not be provided by “Tournament Matches” type reports was the “comments” field. That was not a problem, since this data we needed was perfectly produced and printed out by other type of reports. One extra report (Coaches List per Delegation), which was not applied to SORIS was designed easily. During the competition days the sport run perfectly, quickly, without any problems and very well-tuned.

5.17.2 GMS AssistantsGMS Assistants Team consisted of 5 excellent volunteers and 2 contractors who offered great services and they were very helpful. Their participation was precious and they run the competition quickly, effectively and without any problems.

During the competition days, 1 GMS assistant entered the results into GMS and produced the contest results reports for every round. The third volunteer was taking with mobile and vhf the results from juria boat at the scorecard. Contractor was mainly used for pre-games reports and data entry (athletes’ comments) and he was very helpful, they others it was very helpful for the second shift.


My cooperation with SM, SM assistant and Results Supervisors was very good. We had no further problems and excellent cooperation.


The cooperation with the international officials was great. There was one change by TD during the games In this case (we had equal number of wins and equal number of points) as described in SORIS, the athletes’ placement should accord to their exact weight at the particular completion day.





41


5.17.7 GMS Partners

At last but not least, i would like to thank a lot the GMS Volunteers for their great services and division, Thanos Kontonasios and John Koulouris for their great help and support, and of course the whole GMS partners for exchanging opinions and solutions for similar problems we had in GMS application during this period. Furthermore, a lot of thanks to Harris Spiliakos and Dimitris Matalas for their patience, help and great support. It was really a great experience for me!

Thanks to all,

Good winds to everyone!

Georgios Mastrandreou

GMS Supervisor for Sailing

42


5.18 Softball

Primary Sport: Softball

Venue : Hellinikon Softball Arena

Department: Technology / Sector: GMS

5.18.1 Executive Summary

The 13th Special Olympics World Summer Games took place in Athens, Greece from 25 June – 4 July 2011 and I am glad that I took the opportunity to participate and contribute in this international event. Special Olympics is a different celebration with an aim to reward the abilities and accomplishments of people with special abilities. After the end of the competition, as GMS Supervisor of Softball I have some suggestions for even better games in the near future. This report is intended to identify potential areas for further improvement and recommend an enhanced policy for forthcoming sport events.


5.18.2.1 Technical Functionality

There were no problems with the functionality of the technical equipment of GMS Area (FOP). Everything worked as it was scheduled. The only thing that I would like to recommend for the next games would be the expansion of the special rights of the GMS Assistants in keeping the separate score and statistics for each inning so it would be more interesting for the spectators and for the athletes.


The sport of Softball used GMS6 in order to produce all the necessary reports before, during and after the competition, with the exception of two reports which were created by word program. The software of GMS6 ran in connection with the SQL live Database. There were no problems during the competition.


5.18.3.1 Cooperation with Sport Team

The cooperation with the team of Softball (Sport Manager, Administrator, Tech.Ops, Venue Op. Sports Pres., Awards Pres. etc.) was the best. We had some difficult time during the event but we managed to stay together and eventually to come through. We all worked under the team spirit and we all were united until the last time of the competition. The only noteworthy issue I would like to mention is the re-designing of Scheduling Report during the Competition due to the fact that it was considered that it would be more helpful if it was designed according to a competition day and not according to every event as it had been agreed by the homologation test.

Furthermore, I would like to mention that the offer and the help of the team of GMS Assistants (GMS Volunteers and GMS Contractors) was precious. Their efficiency in comparison with the training they obtained from me was great. During the competition, my immediate cooperator was the Results Supervisor with whom there was excellent synchronization and mutual help.

43


Moreover, I would like to thank the VTM team that provided excellent technical support to GMS team and to all sport staff at the venue before and during the games.

Last but not least, I would like to thank Thanos Kontonasios and John Koulouris for their great help and support, and of course the whole GMS partners for exchanging opinions and solutions for similar problems we had in the GMS application during this period. Furthermore, a great thank to Harris Spiliakos and Dimitris Matalas for their patience, help and great support.


The cooperation with the TD was excellent. Similarly, the GMS Support was very helpful and very willing to solve every possible problem and I am very grateful for this. The only issue worth mentioning is that after the Head Coaches Meeting the divisioning procedure took longer time than we expected due to the fact that it was decided to change the divisions so the tournament to be more interesting for the spectators but also for the athletes. After the problems we faced at the beginning of the first day, all the competition ran with great success.

5.18.3.3 Cooperation with other services

The cooperation with the other services of the venue, such as the Spectator Services, the Media, the VIP, the Food Services, the Security Services etc. was very good.

Thanks for the great experience.

Reported by

Ioannis Gkotsis

GMS Supervisor-Softball

44


5.19 Table Tennis


5.19.1.1 Technical Functionality (Laptop, Printers, Phone)

There were no problems with the functionality of the technical equipment (Laptop & Printer) of GMS Room. Everything worked as it was scheduled.


In Table Tennis we didn’t use the GMS software due to the lack of some features:

The name of the Division could only be read through the Schedule_item_entry pipeline. Due to that we couldn’t group the needed information by Division name. The field Division_name through Schedule_records pipeline didn’t work for Table Tennis.

The information about the points of each set became available in 29 th of June, while the Games started in 25th.

The competition type for Table Tennis was not available. In Doubles and Mixed Doubles we couldn’t get the bib numbers of the two entrants in the desired form

(Bib1/Bib2). We couldn’t get in the same report all the information that the Sport wanted. We needed:

The field Entrant_name in the Tournament_matches reports (the fields Player1/2 and Team_players were no good for this purpose).

The information for the points of each set (it was not available at all). The ability to group all the above information (plus the rankings, points etc that were available) by

Division name.

As a result the Sport decided to use excel sheets for Table Tennis. The excel sheet were prepared from the SM with the help of the GMS Supervisor. TD decided that we should change the competition type of the event. We had to add some extra matches to the divisions that had six or more entrants and some divisions of five entrants. After that we had to prepare another excel sheet. The excel sheet in the first day of the Finals crashed and we had some delay to the event that day. The SM and the GMS Supervisor worked all day and night to be ready during the second day of the finals. With the help of the TD and her Assistants we manage to come through. To do that we used hand written score sheets and match list and after the end of the match we inserted the results in the excel sheets.


5.19.2.1 Cooperation with Sport Team (Roller Skating)

The cooperation with the members of Table Tennis team was the best. We had some difficult time during the event but we managed to stay together and eventually to come through.

45



We had some issues with the TD because she changed the competition type of the event and we had to prepare a new excel sheet at the last moment. Moreover we had changes in the entrants of some divisions just one hour before the start of the competition. After the problems we faced at the beginning of the first day of the finals she was very helpful. She worked for the scheduling of the next day matches and was very active during the event trying to find solutions to all problems, so we were very lucky that we had her on our side.

5.19.2.3 Cooperation with other services (Spectator Services, VIP, etc.)

The cooperation with the other services of the venue was very good.

Souleles Panagiotis

GMS Supervisor-Table Tennis

46


5.20 Tennis

SPORT: TennisVENUE: OAKA Olympic Tennis CentreSECTION: Games Management System (GMS 6)

5.20.1 GMS 6 Functionality

Bespoke’s INC. GMS 6 is a multifunctional application that used as Games Management Software for the Special Olympics World Summer Games - ATHENS 2011 that is based on the online database Microsoft SQL Server. During the pre-games period many issues occurred with the implementation of the games reports. Although with the great help of Mr. Thanos Kontonasios many of the issues was fixed. During the Games Time GMS 6 runs great for Tennis without any issue except some lag, which SQL Server was responsible? The only one issue for Tennis was that GMS 6 wasn’t support set points/games score until 2 days before the end of the games. Also GMS 6 didn’t generate the Bracketing Draw for competition type Single Elimination Equitable Seeding with loser’s Bracket, which is the main Report for Tennis. The solution came from sport with a Microsoft Excel app.

5.20.2 Technical Support, Technology FA

Technology, IT and Network Support was great; Venue Technology Manager Mr. Kalaitzidis was very helpful and cooperative. Hardware (printers, laptop, PCs, PMRs etc.) worked well during the games without problems.

5.20.3 Cooperation with Sport FA

I was fortunate to cooperate with a great Tennis Sport Team with an experienced and accomplished Sport Manager Ms. Denise Panagopoulou. During the pre-games period cooperation for the implementation of the reports with sport team was excellent and it was continued. For the Results Supervisor we managed to make everything right and just in time without causing problems to other FAs and the distribution (PRD) were great.

5.20.4 Cooperation with other FAs (Transportation, SPS, Awards, Honored Guests etc.)

Cooperation with all those FAs was perfect without problems and the reports for all were in time. All was great.


GMS Assistants was done a professional job with a very good reactions and quickly data entry for results.

5.20.6 Cooperation with Technical Delegates and International Officials

Technical Delegate Ms. Teresa Leitao and her assistant Mr. Greg Gibson were very cooperative and helpful. Generally some issues occurred after the 1st Head Coaches Meeting with many updates from the coaches and the reaction was very quick correcting the Order of Play and divisions. There was no other issue.

5.20.7 GMS Director and Assistants

Mr. Thanos Kontonasios was a great manager with a big knowledge around Game Systems and also Mr. Koulouris who provide a great help and they were anytime in contact with us.

Christos GarmpisGMS Supervisor Tennis

47


5.21 Volleyball

Sport: VOLLEYBALL Venue: Olympic Stadium (MOL) Competition schedule: 26.6 - 3.7.2011 Sector: GMS - Technology


Volleyball event run exclusively by the GMS application and SQL live database. All the required reports were produced by GMS except 2 reports that were created by MS Excel. The first one was decided during homologation test that it would be created by MS Excel and it was a competition schedule with all days and courts in a time table format. The second one was the matches’ results and decided to be used during games time because GMS couldn’t print the set points until Thursday 30 of July.There were also 4 other issues that had been notify during homologation test and never got fixed. So, in order to avoid any malfunction during the games, i had to duplicate both Volleyball Team and Volleyball Unified Team events. I used the duplicated events for the Divisioning and Preliminary Rounds and the original events for the Final Rounds. Beyond that, GMS ran satisfactorily with no other problems and no issues depending on network speed and connectivity.


GMS Assistants Team consisted of 2 excellent volunteers who offered great services and they were very helpful. Their participation was precious and they run the competition quickly, effectively and without any problems.


Cooperation with SM, Admin and Result Supervisor was excellent and with no any problem.


During the first meeting we had with the TD Daniel Leake and the Sport Team, TD told us that his job is to supervise the Games and not to interfere in our job. So it happens. He was very distinctive and cooperative were needed.

5.21.5 VTM Support

VTM Athanasios Dobros and his team provided excellent technical support to GMS team and to all sport staff at the venue before and during the games.



5.21.7 GMS Partners and Sport/Results Managers

Finally, i would like to give special mention to all GMS collaborators and to the stunning cooperation we had, to the GMS Managers Thanos Kontonasios and Ioannis Koulouris for the training before the Games and the

48


support that they gave us during Games Time and to the Sport Services Director Dimitris Matalas and Results Project Manager Harris Spiliakos for their help during homologation tests.

49


5.22 Beach Volleyball

Sport: BEACH VOLLEYBALL Venue: SEF – Beach Volleyball Competition schedule: 30.6.2011 Sector: GMS - Technology


Beach Volleyball event run exclusively by MS Excel. The reason was that the GMS could not assign a Delegation Coach as a Unified Partner.


There were no GMS Assistants in Beach Volleyball Event.


Cooperation with SM George Gagalis was excellent.

5.22.4 Technology Support

Technology from SEF provided excellent technical support to GMS.

Ioannis KravaritisGMS SupervisorBeach Volleyball

50

1.0KEY STATISTICS - Special Olympicsmedia.specialolympics.org/soi/files/resources/... · Web...

Documents

Transcript of 1.0KEY STATISTICS - Special Olympicsmedia.specialolympics.org/soi/files/resources/... · Web...