2016: Alden Report Released by University of Louisiana Athletics

[CajunT]

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.

[Turbine]

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.

[ManAboutTown]

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.

My lord.. This post is like a 13th positive pregnancy test.. That moment when reality btch slaps you into the real world.

[Just1More]

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.

[Cajun Monkee]

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.

[Cajun Monkee]

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.

[Cajun Monkee]

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.

[TheFan]

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.

[CajunJack55]

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

[Cajunrunner]

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.

You do know you can buy those packs of guacamole at the grocery store and freeze them till you're ready to eat, right?