Re: Manipulating "Purpose" of the Alden Report
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ManAboutTown
There is a Personnel Review portion of the Alden Report. It was, for good reason, not made public.
So apparently the report was paid for via private funding?
Re: Manipulating "Purpose" of the Alden Report
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jumboragncajun
So apparently the report was paid for via private funding?
Federal privacy laws. Has nothing to do with source of funding.
Re: Manipulating "Purpose" of the Alden Report
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ManAboutTown
Mike Adlen and group came here to accomplish a goal: get branding under control, reaffirm an identity, make money for Atheltics, position the Atheltic fundraising arm to reach national contacts, to propel this university into a place where its peers where on par with its potential.
It was also an adult and a road map.
On page 60 of the PDF, the consultant listed 20 "strategic recommendations" related to a variety of issues ranging from staffing to ticket sales to developing a 5-year deferred maintenance program.
And, yes, Branding.
However, starting on page 35, there is a series of "recommendations" (on Branding) listed thru what appears to appears to have (maybe) been part of a power point. With no "strategic" attached to them.
The problem is, how do you reconcile the "strategic recommendations" with the "recommendations?
Which is why I don't think this is a strategic, implementation document. It's primary purpose, as listed in the executive summary, is as an analysis. And the recommendations (whether they or strategic or not), are just that....recommendations.
Don't take this to mean I'm trashing the document. I'm not. I think its absolutely valid. I think the "strategic recommendations" on page 60 can easily by formatted into a strategic, implementation tool outlining how each of these "strategic recommendations" is now a goal or objective (or part of a broader goal/objective) with accompanying actions to accomplish that goal.
This is just my two cents. I don't know where Louisiana is with this. If you look at the timeline for the "strategic recommendations" everything thru #14 should have been accomplished. Shucks, 8 of them were immediate.
Turbine pointed out in another thread you have to know where you've been to know where you need to go. I think the Report tells us where we've been and where we're at, and maybe even where we need to go.
I just don't think it tells us how to get there.
Re: Manipulating "Purpose" of the Alden Report
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Duggie35
I bet the Russians hacked into the report and leaked the information! LOL!!!
Julian Assange is MAT's source. He even told MAT that cracking the code of secrecy at UL was the hardest test yet. After discovering UL had a tremendous computer science and computer engineering program... Wikileaks sent their very best hackers into the darkest cyberspace tunnels to hack the athletic department servers. They could find nothing... literally nothing but some restaurant menus, old expense reports and pictures of Alaskan moose mating.
Julian then said that all he did was go to the Corner Bar and say "Ragin Pagin is full of faceless baffoons"... and he was given a secret handshake... and allowed to view the stack of Yuenling soaked napkins that were part of a scheme to cover up the debacle of "The Tigue Renovation Funding".
There it is... finally out in the open.
Re: Manipulating "Purpose" of the Alden Report
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cajun Monkee
On page 60 of the PDF, the consultant listed 20 "strategic recommendations" related to a variety of issues ranging from staffing to ticket sales to developing a 5-year deferred maintenance program.
And, yes, Branding.
However, starting on page 35, there is a series of "recommendations" (on Branding) listed thru what appears to appears to have (maybe) been part of a power point. With no "strategic" attached to them.
The problem is, how do you reconcile the "strategic recommendations" with the "recommendations?
Which is why I don't think this is a strategic, implementation document. It's primary purpose, as listed in the executive summary, is as an analysis. And the recommendations (whether they or strategic or not), are just that....recommendations.
Don't take this to mean I'm trashing the document. I'm not. I think its absolutely valid. I think the "strategic recommendations" on page 60 can easily by formatted into a strategic, implementation tool outlining how each of these "strategic recommendations" is now a goal or objective (or part of a broader goal/objective) with accompanying actions to accomplish that goal.
This is just my two cents. I don't know where Louisiana is with this. If you look at the timeline for the "strategic recommendations" everything thru #14 should have been accomplished. Shucks, 8 of them were immediate.
Turbine pointed out in another thread you have to know where you've been to know where you need to go. I think the Report tells us where we've been and where we're at, and maybe even where we need to go.
I just don't think it tells us how to get there.
Perhaps therein lies the problem. We do have a roadmap to help us get to where we want to be, i.e minimally an AAC invite, with an immediate timeline of completion given the conference realignment scenairios quickly approaching. Problem - an AD who doesn't know how/want to get these done (as they were not his ideas) AND/OR a President who doesn't want to spend the money to implement them. Either way, we are furked.
Re: Manipulating "Purpose" of the Alden Report
And I'll throw this one out there.
SR 14 suggests reorganizing fundraising/development in ICA under the umbrella of the Senior Associate AD for Development.
Although I think this would be part of SR 1, I think it would run contrary to the purpose of the RCAF.
*I'm tired of typing "strategic recommendation" hence "SR"
Re: Manipulating "Purpose" of the Alden Report
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cajun Monkee
I think the Report tells us where we've been and where we're at, and maybe even where we need to go.
I just don't think it tells us how to get there.
It's like guacamole... sometimes you got to pay extra for it.
Re: Manipulating "Purpose" of the Alden Report
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Just1More
It's like guacamole... sometimes you got to pay extra for it.
Yuhhhh.
I mean, how do you do this? And according to the timeline, immediately?
SR 2
"Create a competitive marketplace for expanded UL programming and set the stage for bringing in a multimedia agency to maximize revenues and resources
a. RFP for Multimedia Rights by selecting a multimedia
agency to collaborate on media agreements and
sponsorships."
*Again, I'm not taking shots at the Report.
Re: Manipulating "Purpose" of the Alden Report
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cajun Monkee
Yuhhhh.
I mean, how do you do this? And according to the timeline, immediately?
SR 2
"Create a competitive marketplace for expanded UL programming and set the stage for bringing in a multimedia agency to maximize revenues and resources
a. RFP for Multimedia Rights by selecting a multimedia
agency to collaborate on media agreements and
sponsorships."
*Again, I'm not taking shots at the Report.
Because... I'll say "Where's the guacamole?"... and they'll say "You gotta pay extra.".
We paid for an audit. It is not often you pay for an audit... and then the auditor says, "Hey buddy... I know it looks bad... but do you want me to tell you how you can fix this dump of a business you don't know how to run?".
Re: Manipulating "Purpose" of the Alden Report
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cajun Monkee
Yuhhhh.
I mean, how do you do this? And according to the timeline, immediately?
SR 2
"Create a competitive marketplace for expanded UL programming and set the stage for bringing in a multimedia agency to maximize revenues and resources
a. RFP for Multimedia Rights by selecting a multimedia
agency to collaborate on media agreements and
sponsorships."
*Again, I'm not taking shots at the Report.
IMG, its what they do....
Re: Manipulating "Purpose" of the Alden Report
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fanof71
IMG, its what they do....
But staying in the Sunbelt, where we can comfortably meet all our goals, is free...
Does IMG have a free 30-day trial plan?
Geaux Cajuns!
Re: Manipulating "Purpose" of the Alden Report
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cajun Monkee
This timeline doesn't make sense.
In the executive summary (paragraph 3), the report says Alden met, in August 2015, with Savoie, Jerry Luke Leblanc, Tom Pears, and Ryan Conwell as well as Farmer, members of both the RCAF and the community in general.
He was not told or consulted about Alden coming to campus in August until after the meeting was scheduled. He adamantly told people that in the press box at the Louisiana Tech game in early September. He had nothing to do with the decision to hire Alden as a consultant, Dr. Savoie commissioned Jerry Luke Leblanc to make the contract and find the funds once legal department reviewed the contract.
Re: Manipulating "Purpose" of the Alden Report
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CajunT
He was not told or consulted about Alden coming to campus in August until after the meeting was scheduled. He adamantly told people that in the press box at the Louisiana Tech game in early September. He had nothing to do with the decision to hire Alden as a consultant, Dr. Savoie commissioned Jerry Luke Leblanc to make the contract and find the funds once legal department reviewed the contract.
In a strange way, I get it. If this is truly about becoming less dependent on state funds and not introducing student fees.
Much like the Tigue, it took time to get the funds and legal blessing. As it does to induce change in leadership, be it behavior or resignation. Seems, accepting the premise T's post is spot on, our president and AD might not be seeing things eye to eye. And we know who will win at the end of the day, but how much damage can be done in the interim?
Re: Manipulating "Purpose" of the Alden Report
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cajun Monkee
On page 60 of the PDF, the consultant listed 20 "strategic recommendations" related to a variety of issues ranging from staffing to ticket sales to developing a 5-year deferred maintenance program.
And, yes, Branding.
However, starting on page 35, there is a series of "recommendations" (on Branding) listed thru what appears to appears to have (maybe) been part of a power point. With no "strategic" attached to them.
The problem is, how do you reconcile the "strategic recommendations" with the "recommendations?
Which is why I don't think this is a strategic, implementation document. It's primary purpose, as listed in the executive summary, is as an analysis. And the recommendations (whether they or strategic or not), are just that....recommendations.
Don't take this to mean I'm trashing the document. I'm not. I think its absolutely valid. I think the "strategic recommendations" on page 60 can easily by formatted into a strategic, implementation tool outlining how each of these "strategic recommendations" is now a goal or objective (or part of a broader goal/objective) with accompanying actions to accomplish that goal.
This is just my two cents. I don't know where Louisiana is with this. If you look at the timeline for the "strategic recommendations" everything thru #14 should have been accomplished. Shucks, 8 of them were immediate.
Turbine pointed out in another thread you have to know where you've been to know where you need to go. I think the Report tells us where we've been and where we're at, and maybe even where we need to go.
I just don't think it tells us how to get there.
Are you comparing the Alden report or analysis to the one you linked me? Because one was done for a government entity/municipality and the other was done for a college athletic program. I don't know if you have read any other college analysis or strategic plans, but I have now read five including Colorado State, Memphis and USF. This was not just an analysis but also recommendations were made, some with specific timetables that were mentioned to you.
You asked "However, starting on page 35, there is a series of "recommendations" (on Branding) listed thru what appears to appears to have (maybe) been part of a power point. With no "strategic" attached to them.
The problem is, how do you reconcile the "strategic recommendations" with the "recommendations?''
Because some of the evaluations and recommendations were not made public. There were employee personnel evaluations performed on each department including Athletic Director, Fundraising and Marketing and Branding. Dr. Savoie even commissioned one on himself as well, along with recommendations for changes in each department including termination. The public will never see that part of the analysis and consultations, but we know they exist because everyone that attending the staff meetings were told they were going to be conducted.
You said "Don't take this to mean I'm trashing the document. I'm not. I think its absolutely valid. I think the "strategic recommendations" on page 60 can easily by formatted into a strategic, implementation tool outlining how each of these "strategic recommendations" is now a goal or objective (or part of a broader goal/objective) with accompanying actions to accomplish that goal."
You have every right to ask questions, but no one on this board or in our athletic department is qualified, or educated enough in these matters to question it's recommendations. And certainly not any radio host either.
This is simply part of the strategic plan that should have been implemented before the facility plan was introduced. Most of the strategic plans I've read started with a First Phase discussing the goals of the university and how it was going to be accomplished. The Facilities is often in Second Phase of the strategic plan which discusses what commitments you will make in building them. We are the only University that I have read up to this point that decided to build facilities without knowing or stating it's destination.
Re: Manipulating "Purpose" of the Alden Report
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cajun Monkee
On page 60 of the PDF, the consultant listed 20 "strategic recommendations" related to a variety of issues ranging from staffing to ticket sales to developing a 5-year deferred maintenance program.
And, yes, Branding.
However, starting on page 35, there is a series of "recommendations" (on Branding) listed thru what appears to appears to have (maybe) been part of a power point. With no "strategic" attached to them.
The problem is, how do you reconcile the "strategic recommendations" with the "recommendations?
Which is why I don't think this is a strategic, implementation document. It's primary purpose, as listed in the executive summary, is as an analysis. And the recommendations (whether they or strategic or not), are just that....recommendations.
Don't take this to mean I'm trashing the document. I'm not. I think its absolutely valid. I think the "strategic recommendations" on page 60 can easily by formatted into a strategic, implementation tool outlining how each of these "strategic recommendations" is now a goal or objective (or part of a broader goal/objective) with accompanying actions to accomplish that goal.
This is just my two cents. I don't know where Louisiana is with this. If you look at the timeline for the "strategic recommendations" everything thru #14 should have been accomplished. Shucks, 8 of them were immediate.
Turbine pointed out in another thread you have to know where you've been to know where you need to go. I think the Report tells us where we've been and where we're at, and maybe even where we need to go.
I just don't think it tells us how to get there.
It's not a "How To" it's more of a "Just Do" that is the way I took it.
Re: Manipulating "Purpose" of the Alden Report
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CajunT
Are you comparing the Alden report or analysis to the one you linked me? Because one was done for a government entity/municipality and the other was done for a college athletic program. I don't know if you have read any other college analysis or strategic plans, but I have now read five including Colorado State, Memphis and USF. This was not just an analysis but also recommendations were made, some with specific timetables that were mentioned to you.
You asked "However, starting on page 35, there is a series of "recommendations" (on Branding) listed thru what appears to appears to have (maybe) been part of a power point. With no "strategic" attached to them.
The problem is, how do you reconcile the "strategic recommendations" with the "recommendations?''
Because some of the evaluations and recommendations were not made public. There were employee personnel evaluations performed on each department including Athletic Director, Fundraising and Marketing and Branding. Dr. Savoie even commissioned one on himself as well, along with recommendations for changes in each department including termination. The public will never see that part of the analysis and consultations, but we know they exist because everyone that attending the staff meetings were told they were going to be conducted.
You said "Don't take this to mean I'm trashing the document. I'm not. I think its absolutely valid. I think the "strategic recommendations" on page 60 can easily by formatted into a strategic, implementation tool outlining how each of these "strategic recommendations" is now a goal or objective (or part of a broader goal/objective) with accompanying actions to accomplish that goal."
You have every right to ask questions, but no one on this board or in our athletic department is qualified, or educated enough in these matters to question it's recommendations. And certainly not any radio host either.
This is simply part of the strategic plan that should have been implemented before the facility plan was introduced. Most of the strategic plans I've read started with a First Phase discussing the goals of the university and how it was going to be accomplished. The Facilities is often in Second Phase of the strategic plan which discusses what commitments you will make in building them. We are the only University that I have read up to this point that decided to build facilities without knowing or stating it's destination.
Ahhh... so we did get the gaucamole with it. You know you want to eat the gaucamole fairly soon after it gets served... or it goes bad. These things do come with an expiration date.
Re: Manipulating "Purpose" of the Alden Report
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CajunT
He was not told or consulted about Alden coming to campus in August until after the meeting was scheduled. He adamantly told people that in the press box at the Louisiana Tech game in early September. He had nothing to do with the decision to hire Alden as a consultant, Dr. Savoie commissioned Jerry Luke Leblanc to make the contract and find the funds once legal department reviewed the contract.
The original point was that Farmer didn't know until October that the Report was being conducted. This conflicted with the executive summary.
I said nothing of Farmer's involvement (or lack thereof) in the process.
Re: Manipulating "Purpose" of the Alden Report
Nope, not a comparison. Its the formatting of the document, not the substance. Don't look at the left margin, look to the top of the matrix: lead agencies, specfic timelines, funding sources, etc. The who's, when's, how's, etc. These who's, when's, and how's aren't identfied in the "Strategic Recommendations."
And, from what I read of the report (in my opinion) 11 of the timelines were generally ambiguous and 9 had some specificity. But are these timelines a starting point or a due date? So how are they specfic?
I have no idea what relevance your point regarding "evaluations and recommendations" not being made "public" has with my point regarding "strategic recommendations" and "recommendations." I am talking abou this report in the form presented; and in that form it (the Report) uses these terms.
When did I question the recommendations? As a matter of fact, I said, "I think the "strategic recommendations" on page 60 can easily by formatted into a strategic, implementation tool outlining how each of these "strategic recommendations" is now a goal or objective (or part of a broader goal/objective) with accompanying actions to accomplish that goal."
But with regarding to "questioning" any of the recommendations, you'd be comfortable with Reorganizing "fundraising/development in ICA under umbrella of Senior Associate AD for Development?" Don't you agree this flies in the face of the RCAF and its eventual separation from the University?
After all of the huffing and puffing, I'm glad to see you agree with my point regarding the need for an implementation matrix. IMO, its the lack of these that tends to result in any "plan" or "report" sitting on a shelf collecting dust.
Re: Manipulating "Purpose" of the Alden Report
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Turbine
It's not a "How To" it's more of a "Just Do" that is the way I took it.
And I agree with this. I don't think it offers the specifics of who, when, how, where implements the things the recommendations say to "just do."
For example, earlier C4L and fanof71 both had responses on how to address SR 2 (this isn't arguing their points at all, just using them as an example).
I think C4L seemed to suggest doing one thing to address this particular recommendation in-house.
On the other hand, I think fanof71 suggested doing something else to address this recommendation by contracting out the service.
I think both suggestions address the recommendation. But my point is two different posters had two different takes on one recommendation. And until we have this mapped out, things flounder.
Re: Manipulating "Purpose" of the Alden Report
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cajun_lannister
2011-2014 was just a tease that left you with blue balls for years to come
Very true... Just like going into the VIP area of the strip club.
Re: Manipulating "Purpose" of the Alden Report
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheFan
Very true... Just like going into the VIP area of the strip club.
you're not going to the right strip clubs then my friend :)
