On-Line Registration Committee Report: Exploration of Online Registration Options, Comparison Study...

On-Line Registration Committee Report: Exploration of Online Registration

Options, Comparison Study and Vendor Recommendation

Ellen HallDaisey Acosta

Bill ElrodBill Pryor

Exploration of Various Online Registration Options

Committee CharterExplore various online registration optionsFrom that, Select a VendorRecommend that Vendor to the Board

2

Charter stated in the MINUTES of the Meeting, “Howard then appointed a committee to explore various online registration options and then recommend one option for the board to approve. The committee members are Bill Pryor, Bill Elrod, Daisey Acosta, and Barry Breaux, if he agrees to participate.”

PowerPoint: GNOSO On-Line Registration – May 3, 2015

ON-LINE REGISTRATION COMMITTEE: Accomplishing the Task

To Select from Available Options it was Necessary for the Committee to:IDENTIFY Selection CriteriaAPPLY those Criteria to Assess Vendors

Board of Directors had already voted to use a Vendor.Committee selected the best three Vendors; FuseSport, ActiveNet and ClubAssistant

Then, by Applying those Criteria, SELECT one Vendor to recommend

3PowerPoint: GNOSO On-Line Registration – May 3, 2015

CLARIFICATION, CAVEATS Online Registration had been agreed to by GNOSO BOARD in a previous meeting.

Committee task was to choose the appropriate Vendor. Details of online registration process, i.e., “paper entries” and depositing of checks etc. is to be handled per direction of the Board and or Executive Board. Such aspects were never the purview of the Committee .

This PowerPoint show’s purpose is to show reasons for the Committee choosing the service Vendor selected.

In the interest of time, there must be no questions or interruptions during the presentation. All comments and/or questions that occur to you, should be written down and turned in after

the meeting; hold it and ask a committee member. All committee members will be glad to answer questions after the meeting. We need everyone to be comfortable with this system and will make every effort to put everyone's mind at ease.

CAVEATS: THIS COMMITTEE WAS NEVER TASKED TO TEACH ANYONE HOW to use a

computer, who does use a computer user NOW USERS MUST POSSESS THE BASIC COMPUTER SKILLS TO BE ABLE TO USE ANY

OF THE SYSTEMS WE EXPLORED

PowerPoint: GNOSO On-Line Registration – May 3, 2015 4

Selection CriteriaThe Committee Settled on the Following:

1. Security – a top priority2. Cost – also a priority - must be reasonable3. Ease of Use - “man-on-the street” can use4. Compatibility - with existing software5. User Forum – easily searchable for answers6. Vendor Viability – how likely the company is,

to remain in business


Comparing Database Management System Vendors

FuseSport - ONE main client; NSGA Payment Method is via “We Pay” Cannot enter “just Mailing List”

ActiveNet – 50,000+ user organizations Payment methods flexible – even checks CAN enter “just Mailing List” They own Hy-Tek (Swimming&Track&Field reporting systems)

ClubAssistant – mostly Swimming Clubs Less flexible payments - no checks All three about the same – ActiveNet overall better, more flexible All use customized Reports; financial, tee-shirts, participant lists, etc.


Comparing Database Vendors to the Criteria; (Arbitrary Scale 0-5, 5 being the best)

7

Criterion FuseSport Scale ActiveNet Scale ClubAssistant ScaleSecurity Lower(1) 4 High 5 High 5Cost Higher Lower(2) Lower

Fees $5.00(3) 4 $4.90 (up to) 5 $5.00 4Ease of Use Intuitive 5 Intuitive 5 Intuitive 5Compatible High(4) 5 High 5 Less High 4Users Sr Olympics 4 50,000 Orgs 5 Swim Clubs 4Viability 1 Main Client 2 MANY Clients 5 Many Clubs 5OVERALL 24 30 27

(1) FuseSport uses “We Pay;” ActiveNet uses “PayPal“ and credit card company(2) ActiveNet charges $200 but that is made up for by greater portion retained(3) All charge a “card fee,” usually 3%, but somewhat disingenuous for FuseSport(4) FuseSport sells “modules;” others simply treat database elements as just thatAdded Note: “WePay” is FuseSport’s own subsidiary. Similarly, e-Bay acquired “BillPoint” in 1999 – then acquired PayPal in 2002 for 1.5 BILLION dollars.


Conclusion & Recommendation Security – ActiveNet wins. FuseSport’s “WePay” has a less

impressive “track record” than PayPal, used by ActiveNet and by ClubAssistant

Compatibility – blends with GNOSO, and with Hy-Tek Vendor Stability – ActiveNet better than others Number of Users – ActiveNet has far more than others Flexibility of Payment Options – ActiveNet is the only one that

allows payment by check, or “mailing list only” Cost – No Vendor is significantly better – or worse - than others

8

Recommendation: Committee selects:ActiveNet


ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:ONLINE REGISTRATION IS IDENTICAL to Paper

Registration, But Can Be Done by Anyone EVERY REGISTRATION is Actually “On-Line,” whether a

User actually goes on-line, Registers & Pays with Credit Card, or a Paper Form is Mailed in with a Check

GNOSO’s On-Line Database is accessible yet secure Users are granted “level of access” unique to on-line

data specifically needed by that User class Program Director, Treasurer* and Web-Master will have top-

level Coordinators have a lower level of access Any Member of the Public can “log on” to gain limited access


*Only Treasurer should have access to Financials


Access to Data Fields is assigned by User Category: Administrators are “Super-Users” who:

Set up Events, including Dates and Venues Post Administrative information to the Database Add (additional) Participants to the Database Generate:

Tee-shirt list(s) Banquet Attendees List Event Participants Lists Financial, Demographics, etc (software keeps a running tally of

Financials) RESULTS NEWSLETTER could be created directly from Data Could have an ON-LINE Newsletter Mailing Lists (actually, Coordinators may also do this)


User Category: Event Coordinators Meaning of parentheses below: “(s)” =same-old, “(n)” =new, “(e)” =enhanced

May* access the Database for Specified Events to Print out Participant Lists (n), to view Participant phone numbers, e-mail, ages and contact Participants (n)

May* e-mail their Event participants directly from database (e)

May* Input Event Results (e) May* Print out Event Results for Reporting to

Participants (n) May have “Coaches” assigned, to assist them with

their Events if they desire (“Computer-Challenged”) (n)*May – not “Must” – because Coordinator actions are strictly voluntary


User Category – Event Coordinators , Continued

Coordinators have ability to Print Out a Database Report to use at Event (n)

Coordinator (or Coach) may input Results (n) GNOSO Web-site may be directly updated

from those Results (e) After this has been done, that Coordinator’s

job is complete (s)


Additional Considerations

GNOSO must keep its Domain Name and Web-site (s) Photographers able to upload photos for web-site (e) Games Results may be incorporated in a Newsletter which can be

published immediately; not “real time” but close (e) GNOSO notifies participants of Newsletter, listing web-site URL

for on-line reading, or for mailing to them if they sign up for it. (n, e)

Following year mail 3X5 cards to participants telling them to Register on-line, or download a hard copy. (n, e)

“Phase-in” of the new system – to be handled by a separate Committee to be named for that purpose

This MUST be an “organization-wide” effort


Financial Data is Continuously updated; Demographics Data may be easily extracted by anyone with a background in those areas

Note that the On-Line Database Will Not AFFECT:Day-to-day operations of the organizationParticipant Package Preparation/pickupPreparation for Individual EventsVolunteers (unless they help with computer use)

Additional Considerations, Continued


“User Impact:” How the On Line Process Will Affect Each Category of User

Scale of 0 – 5, 5 Being Most Affected

Criterion Registrants Wt Administrators Wt Coordinators Wt

Security Big Impact 5 Big Impact 5 Some Impact* 4

Cost Little Impact 1 Some Impact 4 No Effect 0

Ease of Use Big Impact 5 Big Impact 5 Big Impact** 5

Compatibility No Effect 0 Big Impact 5 No Effect 0

User Forum No Effect 0 Some Impact 4 Little Effect*** 2

Viability No Effect 0 Big Impact 5 No Effect 0

OVERALL Weighting 11 28 11

*Mainly – if used; **ONLY - if used; ***ONLY – if used. If NOT used, it is 0 for all criteria

On-Line Registration Committee Report: Exploration of Online Registration Options, Comparison Study...

Documents

Transcript of On-Line Registration Committee Report: Exploration of Online Registration Options, Comparison Study...