Independent Review Badminton New Zealand

Transcription

1 Independent Review Badminton New Zealand September 2013 Senior Sport Leadership Panel Lawrie Stewart Mike Thompson Colin Stone Peer Reviewed by Dr John Maxted 1

2 Executive Summary Badminton New Zealand (Badminton New Zealand) is the National Sports Organisation responsible for advancing and promoting the sport of Badminton in all its forms and at every level throughout New Zealand. Badminton is the second largest sport in the world behind soccer, with over 220 million people globally playing the sport. In New Zealand it is one of the fastest growing sport in secondary schools with more than 9,500 participants. Badminton has overtaken all other racquet sports to be the number one racquet sport for young people years old in New Zealand. In ,346 primary school aged children participated in the Badminton New Zealand Racqueteers programme designed to provide fundamental skill development. Association membership numbers are steady at around 10,000 members in the 2012 season. Casual (pay for play) participants numbers continue to grow with in excess of 100,000 people playing badminton each year. The SKYCITY NZ Badminton Open is a premier international sporting event that in 2013 attracted 251 players from 21 countries, televised live in NZ, China, Malaysia and Thailand to an audience of 7 million people. An Independent Review was called for by member associations at the 2012 Badminton New Zealand Annual General Meeting. A Senior Sport Leadership Panel was established by Badminton New Zealand and tasked with completing the Independent Review to assess Badminton New Zealand s ability to deliver future strategy. The Senior Sport Leadership Panel consisted of Lawrie Stewart, Colin Stone and Mike Thompson who each provided their own analysis and review of documentation provided by Badminton New Zealand to formulate a response and recommendations to the following three key components: 1. Whether the organisation is structured in a way to support the delivery of strategy. 2. Whether the current membership model meets the market demand for sport and entertainment and enables the successful execution of strategic results. 3. Where the optimal location of the Badminton New Zealand head office should be situated. It is important to note that this Independent Review was carried out with limited consultation with the Badminton community. The rationale for this approach was to ensure a cost and time effective review that provides a starting point for wider consultation. 2

3 Report Recommendations: Please note that the Senior Sport Leadership Panel believe this Independent Review is best used as a starting point for wider consultation and that the recommendations should be considered in this light. 1. That further and more in depth consultation is undertaken with Associations before any recommendations or actions are followed from this report. 2. That the rules of Badminton New Zealand are modified to place Badminton New Zealand as the peak entity leading a whole of sport approach for Badminton in New Zealand. 3. That the vision of Badminton New Zealand is modified to remove reference to meeting the needs of the associations and that the vision is expanded to include a whole of sport approach. 4. A better definition of who the members of Badminton New Zealand are and where each segment of these stakeholders sits is developed and actioned. 5. A review the constitutional voting rights at the Badminton New Zealand Annual General Meeting is undertaken to reduce parochial influence of voting blocs. 6. A review of the constitution is undertaken to clearly describe the role and responsibility of the Board to achieving the objectives of the federation with specific reference to setting and monitoring the achievement of strategic goals and the management of the CE through the Chair. 7. A review of the Badminton New Zealand current strategic plan is completed to ensure it is more measureable, more realistic, and focusing on outcomes rather than processes. 8. The current membership or affiliation model is replaced from a population association levy to a mixed affiliation model. Badminton New Zealand should invest in a model that captures non-members with casual participation fees. 9. The number of associations affiliated to Badminton New Zealand is reduced to reflect the effectiveness and levels of programming and support for the sport in a defined geographical region rather than solely around a geographical region. 10. A process to invest funds back to effective associations is developed and implemented with clear measureable outcomes for the re-distributed funds. 11. Transitional funding from Sport New Zealand is sought to embed the new affiliation / membership / association structure. 3

4 12. The development of a head office strategy is of low importance and will have minimal impact on the effectiveness of the organisation. 13. A head office location strategy should be considered as the organisation grows and looks to employ more staff and specialise in more centralised programmes and initiative. Recommended Next Steps: The Senior Sport Leadership Panel suggest the following next steps for Badminton New Zealand: 1. Distribute the Independent Review to associations and establish a mechanism to collect feedback. 2. Present the Independent Review at the 2013 Annual General Meeting for discussion. 3. Decide on how wider and more in depth consultation will be achieved with associations 4. Decide which of the recommendations from the Independent Review will be accepted for action. 5. Develop a timely and specific action plan for implementing the selected recommendations. 6. Continue the consultation and collaboration required for the successful achievement of selected recommendations. 7. Report back to the badminton community on the outcomes achieved through the action plan. 4

5 Independent Review Terms of Reference The purpose of this independent review to assess Badminton New Zealand s ability to deliver on its stated strategic plan. The primary evaluation objective is to: Assess Badminton New Zealand s ability to deliver future strategy To specifically assess the organisations ability to deliver against the stated five key strategic objectives: 1. Organisational Excellence 2. More People Participating in Badminton 3. High Performance Pathways 4. Event and Competition Excellence 5. Strengthening Regional Capability A review into this capability focuses: 1. Whether the organisation is structured in a way to support the delivery of strategy i. Do the legal and constitutional structures allow success ii. Does the organisational structure (cascading model) enable successful delivery 2. Whether the current membership model meets the market demand for sport and entertainment and enables the successful execution of strategic results? (A comparison of other market models is desired) 3. The optimisation of the Badminton New Zealand head office location a specific focus here will be the identification of a head office location strategy This review was undertaken by a Senior Sport Leadership Panel formed by Badminton New Zealand as a group of independent professionals with a high degree of knowledge and expertise in the New Zealand sport sector. 5

6 The Senior Sport Leadership Panel consisted of: Lawrie Stewart, Director, Activating Education, former Senior Advisor/ Senior Policy Analyst with SPARC Colin Stone, CEO of Sport Hawke s Bay, Trustee of the Hawke s Bay Regional Sports Park Trust, Trustee of the Regional Indoor Sports and Events Centre Trust (RISECT/PGA), Trustee of the McLean Park Trust Mike Thompson, Executive Officer, Project Management Institute of NZ, CEO of CEO International Taekwon-Do, Former Squash NZ CEO, Former College Sport Auckland CEO. This review has also been peer reviewed by Dr John Maxted, Senior Lecturer at the Eastern Institute of Technology working in the areas of sociology of recreation & sport, research methods, professional practice in recreation & sport, community recreation and industry cooperative. It is important to note that this Independent Review was carried out with limited consultation with the Badminton community. The Senior Sport Leadership Panel have utilised information provided by Badminton New Zealand which has included: Driving Forces Review (2007) BDO Spicers Review (2008) Badminton New Zealand Annual Reports Badminton New Zealand Financial Reports Badminton New Zealand Association Survey (2013) Badminton New Zealand High Performance Players Survey (2013) Badminton New Zealand Strategic Plan and Framework Badminton New Zealand Operational Plans Please note that the Senior Sport Leadership Panel believe this Independent Review is best used as a starting point for wider consultation and that the recommendations should be considered in this light. 6

7 Badminton New Zealand Overview Legal Structure The sport of Badminton is governed by a Not for Profit Federation structure and operates a cascading operational model with 27 associations (and their approximately 180 clubs) acting as a link between Badminton New Zealand and badminton stakeholders nationwide. Badminton New Zealand, it s board and management staff, are responsible for delivering national strategies, policies, programmes and services to clubs and schools, members and participants in a manner that meets the needs of the sport. Governance Structure The board of Badminton New Zealand consists of 6 members, four elected members and two appointed members. In addition Badminton New Zealand has a President and Vice President, both of whom attend and have voting rights at board meetings. The board of Badminton New Zealand is responsible for the development and monitoring of national strategy in partnership with associations and the CE. Where board members are not nominated and elected at the AGM the board of Badminton New Zealand has the right to Co-opt board members. In 2013, the Badminton New Zealand board comprises two appointed board members (one of whom is Chair), two elected board members, two co-opted board members, and an elected President and Vice President. Management Structure In 2012 employees of Badminton New Zealand included a full-time Chief Executive and a fulltime Office manager. Badminton New Zealand also has contracts in place for a part-time Events Manager, and part-time Coach & Development Officer. Due to a shift in leadership in April 2013, Badminton New Zealand now includes a full-time Chief Executive, a full-time Development Manager, a full-time contracted Events Manager, a part-time contracted High Performance Coordinator and a part-time Office Administrator. Past Reviews Previous evaluations of Badminton New Zealand include the Driving Forces Review in 2007 and BDO Spicers Review in 2008*. These evaluations have been completed in Association with Sport New Zealand (in its historical structures). A remit for the current Independent Review was passed at the Badminton New Zealand AGM in November 2012, this review has the specific goal of offering executable objectives for the improvement of Badminton New Zealand s ability to delivery its strategy on behalf of and in association with its stakeholders. 7

8 Strategic Framework, Organisation Chart and Proposed Products and Services 8

9 Badminton New Zealand Today In 2013, Badminton New Zealand is constrained, financially, organisationally and in relation to the market in which it exists. Financial constraints include reduced and restricted revenue streams in a highly competitive NSO and sports market, limited financial reserves and anticipated forward financial risks with changes to membership fee structures and numbers (a vote at the 2010 AGM made changes to model used to collect Association affiliation fees) and a continued national reduction in the availability of charity and sponsorship funding. Organisationally Badminton New Zealand has limitations in the number of employees available for the delivery of programmes, 27 associations place considerable demand on this resource, culturally the organisation is requesting a review for change evidenced by the remit passed for this independent review; however acceptance and implementation of change will require the commitment and buy-in from all associations. Market constraints Badminton in New Zealand, along with many other sports, has seen a change in the structure and demographic of the sport, with among other things a move away from affiliated membership to increased participation and an increasingly user pay model. The sport has limited High Performance profile and limited recent success stories to sell, diversification of the sport exists in the form of Speedminton (a modified version of Badminton) that is in its infancy. An increasing Northern concentration of participants and affiliated players exists with a growing Asian demographic in this region also apparent. 9

10 Is Badminton New Zealand structured in a way to support the delivery of strategy? a. Do the legal and constitutional structures allow success? b. Does the organisational structure enable successful delivery? 10

11 Do the legal and constitutional structures allow success? Background Historically national sport organisations in New Zealand have been structured in one of two ways, either as: a mail box or conduit organisation for their provincial or regional member associations or other national organisations within the sport that are responsible for a discipline of the sport, for the purposes of meeting requirements of the relevant international sporting federation; or an organisation for the sport which deals with, and manages, national matters such as selection and management of national teams, national events, and funding applications and meeting requirements of national governmental agencies. Its members generally comprise member associations in districts, provinces and/or other local entities. This type of organisation may be described as the representative body for the sport. In recent years the environment in which sport operates has changed remarkably and new challenges and issues have resulted in many national sport organisations choosing, or being required to, change the structures in which they operate, in order to keep up with competing demands or in some cases for their own survival. As the Graham Report concluded: It is critical that all recreation and sport strategies and structures fully recognise best contemporary practice and adapt to the changing lifestyles of New Zealanders. The factors causing these changes are numerous; however, they have included one or more of the following: The pressures on funding available, i.e. reduction or changes in funding criteria, reduction in commercial sponsorship available, and the changing landscape of gaming-derived funding; The need for clearer leadership and direction of the sport as a whole, not just the management of the national organisation; The duplication of resources and facilities across the sport (e.g. administration, finances, facilities) due to the layers of legal entities within the sport; The need for strategy to be aligned across the sport to ensure efficient and effective delivery of programme and initiatives; The call from member associations and individual participants in the sport for improved communication; 11

12 The legislative and compliance requirements required of all entities within sport, such as the Health and Safety in Employment Act, Privacy Act, Employment Relations Act; The desire to protect and safeguard assets within the sport for future generations coupled with aging facilities; The reducing profile of some sports due to decline in high performance results together with high costs of, and changes to, sports broadcasting rights; Shrinking membership and participation numbers as participants become reluctant to join clubs and prefer casual, one-off, easy access participation; The growth in sports and events promoters and commercial operators creating competition in the market for participants, supporters and funds; Confused governance as national sports organisation seek to gain greater control of the sport within existing structures which provide for governance at many levels; The reduction in availability of volunteers to assist with the sport due to changing work and society pressures; The introduction of professionalism both within, and of, sport; and The challenge from new forms of physical recreation and sport. Review: The current structures (both constitutional and organisational) do not enhance the ability of Badminton New Zealand to be successful. The premise is that the current constitutional structure is predicated on a historical model of associations being paramount and Badminton New Zealand s role being established to service to desires and functions of member associations. The objects of the Constitution focus on; Control Administration Events Rules Manage affairs Critical areas of concern include; There is no reference to the growth and increased participation of badminton The members are only the Associations and Life Members Participants are not mentioned in the Constitution 12

13 Whether the constitution allows for success is really dependent of the capability of associations. The panel believes that success is mitigated to a degree by the structure, with many associations potentially operating at low levels of capacity and capability. Also, given the very large proportion of casual and pay-for play participants further thought should be given as to how these players are brought into the structure, in a way that meets their requirements. Governance Structure The board structure as it stands aligns with current accepted practices and the Panel believes this does not require modifications. Rules of the Federation It is recommended that the rules and vision of Badminton New Zealand are written to place Badminton New Zealand as the peak entity leading a whole of sport approach for Badminton in New Zealand. It is recommended that the vision does not reference meeting the needs of the associations, but the needs of badminton as a sport in whole. The objects and powers of the federation in their rhetoric place Badminton New Zealand within a whole of sport model. However the current rules of the federation and the vision creates a structure and impression that effectively places the function of Badminton New Zealand to primarily benefit and support the associations rather than a function of building badminton through running an effective and efficient whole of sport organisation. Where responsibility for building badminton is left to associations and the role of Badminton New Zealand is to support associations, there is very little likelihood of improvement with badminton in NZ. Association are more likely to focus only on their region and operate in competition against other associations with their own rules, strategic direction, expectations to host events, and personalities that either drive or restrict strategic improvement. Any improvement in the positioning and growth of badminton nationally will be limited by the level of efficiency or inefficiency of each association. Under the current model associations are not held to account for poor performance. They are only expected to be supported by Badminton New Zealand. The current structure places Badminton New Zealand in a no-win situation. Badminton New Zealand is expected to be the peak body when it suits associations and is likely to be criticised when things aren t going well. However there is no leverage in the constitution to expect associations to change direction or activities that specifically align to the strategic direction of Badminton New Zealand. To progress to a structure that enables successful delivery requires a single point of leadership (with strategic goals developed through a consultative process) and a mechanism to facilitate the implementation of achieving Badminton New Zealand strategic goals through collaborative (either coercively or cooperatively) associations. 13

14 Voting Rights It is recommended that the constitutional voting rights at the annual general meeting be changed to reduce the potential influence of association that may prevent strategic direction being auctioned. Under the current structure there is too significant a voting bloc related to associations and in particular the association with larger populations. If associations operate in a self-serving manner it becomes difficult for the Board to progress decisions that are designed to enhance the successful development of badminton in New Zealand. Changes to the structure of member of affiliated association would reduce the influence of association that represent high population communities and provide a more level playing field based on the number of operating clubs. The suggestion is that the constitutional voting rights at the annual general meeting be changed to include: all board members will have a voting right each officer of the federation will have a voting right each of the associations have voting rights - Each association has one (or a maximum of 2) votes and they must be executed independently of each other each association may appoint a proxy for their votes in the event they are not represented at the AGM associates and life members will not have any voting rights as their opinions are likely to be historically oriented rather than strategically oriented. Board Role It is recommended that the constitution clearly define the role of the board. Currently the constitution clarifies the structure of the board but provides no guidance as to the purpose, role and responsibilities of the board. These would be useful additions to the constitution. It is suggested that the role of the board is to achieve the objectives of the federation and that the primary responsibilities of board are to ensure: strategy development for badminton in New Zealand (not just for Badminton New Zealand) annual revision of its strategic plan and an annual business plan clear expectations are set for the reporting against explicit KPI at each board meeting the appointment and performance management of the CE through the chair of the board an annual board professional development programme for directors. 14

15 Recommendations It is recommended that Badminton New Zealand: 1. Modify the rules of Badminton New Zealand to place Badminton New Zealand as the peak entity leading a whole of sport approach for Badminton in New Zealand 2. Modify the vision to remove reference to meeting the needs of the associations 3. Define who its members are and where each segment of their stakeholders sits. 4. Change the constitutional voting rights at the annual general meeting to reduce the influence of associations 5. Review the constitution to clearly describe the role and responsibility of the board to achieving the objectives of the federation with specific reference to setting and monitoring the achievement of strategic goals and the management of the CEO through the chair 6. Review its current strategic plan to ensure it is more measureable, more realistic, and focusing on outcomes rather than processes 15

16 Does the organisational structure enable successful delivery? Background: The traditional structure of national sport organisations in New Zealand is generally characterised by the following features: The organisation is an incorporated society under the Incorporated Societies Act It is headed by a management or executive committee elected annually by the member associations at a general meeting of the organisation (although in recent years some of these have been renamed as boards and some have become governance boards with independent appointed directors with longer terms of office). The organisation has a President as governing and titular head of the organisation. There is a secretary (who may be paid or unpaid) and/or staff person or persons such as an executive director or administration person(s) with varying responsibilities, from administration to operations. (In recent years some organisations have appointed chief executives although the scope and nature of their authority and role are variable.) There are often several organisations which have a connection with the organisation but which are not legally connected to it, such as national Màori sport organisations, national coach and umpire organisations, and national organisations in the sport for people with a disability. The objects and powers of the national sport organisation are traditionally limited to national matters such as national teams and funding. The local associations and clubs are separately incorporated legal entities with their own constitutions/rules and often independent strategic plans. In general terms the traditional structure requires the national sport organisation, member regional/provincial associations and member clubs to operate as separate autonomous entities in accordance with their rules. This can result in large numbers of strategic and operational plans, accounts, annual reports, human resource systems, membership databases, and websites. The national sport organisation also has limited ability to lead, influence or require change across the sport as a whole. The connection between the national body and the individual participant is tenuous at best and often non-existent. The traditional structure remains a viable and sustainable structure for some sports. However, for many national sport organisations, the ability to tackle these issues will be frustrated by a traditional structure. 16

17 As part of any national sport organisation s strategic thinking and planning, consideration should be given to the appropriate legal structure to suit its needs. This may result in national sport organisations remaining with a traditional structure, or a sport as a whole structure or a combination of both, or other structures. Review: It is recommended that Badminton New Zealand review its current strategic plan to be more measureable and realistic and focussed on outcomes rather than processes. The current strategy plan is aspirational which is admirable however in the current sport environment the strategic plan s goals are likely to be unachievable. I also would describe many of the goals as means to end rather than an end in themselves. These goals focus on measuring processes rather than measuring outcomes. For example, stakeholder satisfaction with Badminton New Zealand and supporting 10 associations are means to an end and not an end in themselves. The end goal is the satisfaction of badminton participants to continue enjoying and playing badminton. The current strategic plan includes many examples of KPI that should be placed within an annual operational plan for the CEO rather than a KPI in a strategic plan. The priority area of organisational excellence and strengthening regional capability should be combined under a single priority of an effective whole of sport organisation. Both Badminton New Zealand and each association need to be effective and aligned to achieve a whole-of-sport approach to enable successful delivery. To separate Badminton New Zealand and associations can be counterintuitive. However a single KPI can be applied to the effectiveness of Badminton New Zealand and a single KPI can be applied to the effectiveness of each association. It is suggested that the revised strategic plan should: Be reduced to four priority areas Identify a maximum number of key performance indicators (KPI) for each priority area (suggested at 2-3 KPI) Seek to revise, remove or replace each KPI annually. The current staffing levels seem prudent, reflective of strategy and more aligned with resource capacity than the previous structure. From a resource perspective, with $200,000 coming from members and $100,000 Sport NZ grant being development focussed and a large portion from events, then staffing should also reflect this. High Performance should be selffunding until world class players are developed. It would be of value for the organisation to have a whole of sport organisation structure from Patron and Chair to the Participant. Include roles and responsibilities Include communication channels and flow 17

18 Whether the current membership model meets the market demand for sport and entertainment and enables the successful execution of strategic results? 18

19 Background National sport organisations traditionally had membership structures which included these key points; The members of the national sport organisation are usually local associations (ranging up to 100 or more in some organisations). The members of the local associations are member clubs. The participants in the sport (players/athletes and game officials) are not direct members of the national sport organisation or the member associations, but members of clubs, which are in turn members of the regional associations. With new thinking and a greater understanding of societal and organisational change, national sport organisations have mostly restructured to reflect the desire for the national organisation to work with its members and participants to have the power to create and implement plans, policies and programmes which benefit the sport as a whole. This is sometimes referred to as a unitary model, as all the members are united under the one organisation. The whole of sport approach or unitary model can be identified by the following principles: One single legal entity with one governing body responsible for the whole of the sport; Regional committees or groups existing as delegated bodies of the board, and not separate autonomous legal entities; A national membership system so that every participant and every club is a member of the national body. This can be affected by every participant being deemed to be a member of the national organisation upon joining a member club, or entering an event or competition at club or local level. It is referred to as cascading membership, as joining at one level results in that person s membership cascading into the membership of the national body; Objects which expressly state that the organisation exists to promote the sport as a whole in New Zealand and that the members and member clubs act collectively for the mutual benefit of the sport as a whole; Wide powers which enable it to run a business properly and efficiently, including protecting its property (including intellectual property), and the powers to set up additional separate corporate entities (which might, for example, own and run national events) and engage in other business transactions and investments for the good of the sport; 19

20 A governance board which is empowered with the responsibility for leading the sport as a whole, headed by a chair. The make-up of a board may be determined by election or appointment (for example via an electoral college or appointments panel) or a mixture of both, as long as the appointments are made on the basis of merit. To retain the voice of the people, some organisations may choose to have directors elected by the regional committees5; and Strong management structures which may include employment of staff at national, regional and local levels by the national body. The cascading membership ensures that every individual who participates in the sport is a member of the sport. This includes players, umpires/referees, committee members, game officials and other officials. Whether they participate or are involved on a regular and indefinite basis (the traditional club member) or as a casual one-off participant, they are considered as part of the family. Also in the family are the legal entities which support the sport. These include the national body, regional/provincial bodies, clubs, and other groups within the sport, such as other organisations with whom the sport has a connection or affiliation e.g. coaches associations. The benefits of the national membership structure include the ability for the sport through its national sports organisation, to: Know the precise number and nature of participants, giving national sport organisations the ability to understand and tap into the make-up of their sports; Possess the necessary information to give support for seeking commercial sponsorship and support; Know the names and contact details of the members to enable accurate and effective communication with them; Determine different fees within the sport (whether as subscriptions, membership, capitation, participation or licence fees) as a distinct and separate issue from the types of membership; Seek and deliver benefits for all members at all levels of the sport to enable the membership to be and feel supported; and Be able to implement an integrated discipline structure across the whole sport to ensure uniformity in process and sanctions on all participants in the sport via the various levels within the sport, for example doping matters. 20

21 The most efficient mechanism to administer a national membership system is to have a standard national membership form which all members must complete and sign. Technology makes this process far more efficient than it would have been 5 10 years ago. This form would need to set out the fact that membership is for the national organisation and their club(s). This layered membership should not alter the fees payable by members. This may result in increased income to the organisation only because all people participating in the sport/game (such as casual participants) are properly accounted for, which may not have been the case in the past. Another alternative or variation to the unitary model is a regional model, in which entities exist at regional level but the traditional associations (or levels between regional and clubs) are removed. The other elements of the unitary model can be adopted, including the national cascading membership which would result in participants becoming members of a club, their regional associations and the national body. The advantages of the unitary model are that it: Enables a vision for the whole of the sport to be led and implemented by one entity; Permits uniform goals, practices and outcomes; Enables tighter financial controls and accountability; Reduces the duplication of effort and systems; Gives opportunity for greater income potential through a national approach & branding; Provides greater buying power when assets are pooled together; Enables whole of sport programmes and initiatives such as athlete pathways; and Gives greater control over systems and structures. The disadvantages to this structure can be that: It can be difficult to implement due to traditional fears Clubs, associations and volunteers may feel further disenfranchised and leave the sport; There can be significant costs in money, time and effort to consult, plan and implement this type of structure; The centralised power can be used in a destructive way; and There may be complex legal and political impediments to implementing this type of structure. 21

22 Review: The be successful in the execution of strategic results the current model should move to a whole-of-sport model as described in the nine steps to effective governance (Sport NZ) The whole of sport approach or unitary model can be identified by the following principles: One single legal entity with one governing body responsible for the whole of the sport; Regional committees or groups existing as delegated bodies of the board (not separate autonomous legal entities) tasked with achieving the strategic goals of the strategic plan as represented in annual targets; A national membership system so that every participant and every club is a member of the national body. This can be affected by every participant being deemed to be a member of the national organisation upon joining a member club, or entering an event or competition at club or local level. It is referred to as cascading membership, as joining at one level results in that person s membership cascading into the membership of the national body; The number of associations and the capability of many of these affiliates should be an area of concern for Badminton New Zealand. 27 associations of varying size, location and constitution does make it very difficult for Badminton New Zealand to ensure proficient and sustainable delivery to an acceptable standard. This does not assist Badminton New Zealand in delivering on its Strategic Plan. Experience has shown that in rationalisation one has to; Allow for competition parochialism Ensure local input into local and regional consultation and decision making Consider geographic challenges e.g. Central Football from New Plymouth to Napier Have a robust education, consultation and implementation timeline in place and stick to it! Commit. Without pre-empting any consultation and decision making, previous restructures have found room for either o Sub associations under an umbrella of a regional body o Smaller associations focussing on its core work as Local advisory group or Local competition management committees 22

23 Sport can be viewed as a Franchise System: Badminton New Zealand Master Franchise Development of universal offering. Associations Franchise Holders Delivery Local Flavour Participant - the Customer Brand Management National Marketing Local Advertising Wants and Needs Pays for Service Based on this model, Badminton New Zealand needs to; 1. Spend its time on developing its programmes 2. Training its providers 3. Strategy development 4. Resource procurement Other important components of consideration include: Addressing layers of administration Speed to market Identifying who needs to talk to the customer and why (e.g. sponsorship, effecting change, retention, communication and base decision making on this). Membership model It is recommended that membership be moved from the current population model with a fixed income distributed across the population of the associations to a mixed model that represents the contribution Badminton New Zealand makes to badminton as a whole and individually for each player of badminton. It is recommended that the membership model includes payment to Badminton New Zealand from mixed sources that include: 23

24 Each regional association pays a smaller fee based on population or size of association. Each club irrespective of size contributes a club levy to both the regional association and to Badminton New Zealand. Each individual member of that club contribute an affiliation fee to Badminton New Zealand. Each individual that is not an affiliated member of a club or association that enters a badminton event run by an association contributes a per event fee towards Badminton New Zealand. Investment in outcomes It is recommended that the board seek to redistribute income gained from levying affiliated clubs and association back to the association with clear measureable outcomes for the redistributed money. For example as a result of this increase in affiliation fees in the example above the constitution will need to be restructured so that the Board of Badminton New Zealand ensure that funds are reinvested back into associations to achieve specific key performance indicators. These key performance indicators should be directly related to the strategic plan of Badminton New Zealand. For example, increased participation in regional competitions, increased club membership, and increased engagement of players into Badminton New Zealand/regional talent development programme. It is assumed that associations will employ personnel to achieve the key performance indicators. From a management perspective failure to achieve key performance indicators places the investment into association at risk of being reduced in subsequent years or redirected to associations that are achieving or exceeding key performance indicator expectations. The rationale for recommendations falls under a whole of sport model: All players and entities that benefit from Badminton New Zealand (under the whole of sport model) contribute directly to Badminton New Zealand Badminton New Zealand becomes accountable to all players and entities that contribute to Badminton New Zealand rather than being solely accountable to associations The single legal entity is a more efficient means to make progress and implement strategy The power (and training) is invested in the decision makers (Board) rather than the doers (associations and clubs). The association become aligned with and accountable to the strategic direction of Badminton New Zealand 24

25 The risk of this model is the perception of disenfranchising associations and the perception that a Badminton New Zealand drive for efficiency overrides the emphasis on effectiveness. As the old African proverb goes If you want to go fast - go alone. If you want to go far - go together. Structure of regional associations and associations It is recommended that associations be restructured around the number of operational clubs or development programmes and level of support in a defined geographical region rather than solely around a geographical region. The capability and capacity of associations can be seen at both ends of an effectiveness continuum. On one end of the continuum there are associations that are professional, financially, sustainable, experiencing growth, provide a number of development programmes and compete in all national events. On the other end of the continuum there are associations that are financially struggling, have reducing player numbers, declining volunteers and provide little to no development programmes or opportunities. In the event of any restructure association it is important to consider what a successful association looks and feels like. Effective and efficient local and regional delivery of badminton in critical to the growth of the game and the panel present that each association affiliated to Badminton New Zealand should be able to achieve the following: Functioning governance structure with management staff. Are financially viable and working towards sustainability. Provision of their own courts or playing venue (could be in partnership with third parties). A club structure that includes at least 6 active clubs. An ability to host local, regional and national badminton events. Provision of development programmes of each of the year groups represented at New Zealand Championships (U13, U15, U17, U19, U23). Entry of at least one team in each of the year groups represented at New Zealand Championships (U13, U15, U17, U19, U23). Provide a participation pathway for players, coaches and officials. Provide a high performance pathway for players, coaches and officials. 25

26 The panel present a number of options for restructure, but ultimately believe that this process should be completed in collaboration and partnership with associations to ensure the most effective structure. Please note that the models below would mean a decrease in the number of associations affiliating directly to Badminton New Zealand. However these associations could remain intact as either sub associations or clubs of a larger more regional association that does affiliate to Badminton New Zealand. Current 27 Association Structure: Badminton New Zealand Northern Region Central Region Mainland Region Auckland Badminton Association Badminton Hawke's Bay Badminton Canterbury Badminton Waitakere Badminton Horowhenua Kapiti Badminton Otago Badminton North Harbour Badminton Hutt Valley Badminton Southland Bay of Plenty Badminton Badminton Manawatu Badminton Marlborough Counties Manukau Badminton Association Oroua Badminton Association Nelson Badminton Association Northland Badminton Association Thames Valley Badminton Association Badminton Eastland Taranaki Badminton Association South Canterbury Badminton Association West Coast Badminton Association Waikato Badminton Association Wanganui Badminton Association Wellington Badminton Association Wellington North Badminton Association 26

27 Alternative 3 Association Structure: Northern Northland, North Harbour, Auckland, Waitakere, Counties Manukau Central Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Thames Valley, Taranaki, Wanganui, Manawatu, Oroua, Eastland, Hawkes Bay, Horowhenua, Kapiti, Hutt Valley, Wellington North, Wairarapa, Wellington Mainland Nelson, Marlborough, West Coast, Canterbury, South Canterbury, North Otago, Otago, Southland Northern (including Northland, North Harbour, Auckland, Waitakere, Counties Manukau). Central (including Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Thames Valley, Taranaki, Wanganui, Manawatu, Oroua, Eastland, Hawkes Bay, Horowhenua, Kapiti, Hutt Valley, Wellington North, Wairarapa, Wellington). Mainland (including Nelson, Marlborough, West Coast, Canterbury, South Canterbury, North Otago, Otago, Southland) 27

28 6 Association Structure: Northern (Northland, North Harbour, Waitakere) Mainland (Nelson, Marlborough, West Coast, Canterbury, South Canterbury, North Otago, Otago, Southland) Auckland (Auckland, Counties Manukau) Badminton New Zealand Wellington (Horowhenua, Kapiti, Hutt Valley, Wellington North, Wairarapa, Wellington) Central North (Waikato, Thames Valley, Bay of Plenty) Central (Taranaki, Wanganui, Manawatu, Oroua, Eastland, Hawke's Bay Northern (including Northland, North Harbour, Waitakere) Auckland (including Auckland and Counties Manukau) Central North (including Waikato Thames Valley and Bay of Plenty) Central (including Taranaki, Wanganui, Manawatu, Oroua, Eastland, Hawkes Bay) Wellington (including Horowhenua, Kapiti, Hutt Valley, Wellington North, Wairarapa, Wellington) Mainland (including Nelson, Marlborough, West Coast, Canterbury, South Canterbury, North Otago, Otago, Southland) This structure would remove the requirement for the current three districts of Northern, Central, and Mainland therefore removing a further layer of bureaucracy and potential personality divisions. This structure would bring Badminton New Zealand into line with many other sporting codes e.g. Tennis, Bowls, Cricket, Football 28

29 7 Association Structure: Northern Mainland South Mainland North Badminton NZ Central North Central East Capital Central West Northern (including Northland, North Harbour, Waitakere, Auckland) Central North (including Counties Manukau, Waikato Thames Valley and Bay of Plenty) Central West (including Taranaki, Wanganui, Manawatu, Oroua) Central East (including Eastland, Hawkes Bay, Wairarapa) Capital (including Horowhenua, Kapiti, Hutt Valley, Wellington North, Wellington) Mainland North (including Nelson, Marlborough, West Coast, Canterbury, South Canterbury) Mainland South (North Otago, Otago, Southland) 29

30 11 Association Structure: Northland Southern North Harbour South Island Central South West Auckland South Island North Badminton NZ Auckland Wellington Waikato Central Bay of Plenty Northland North Harbour South West Auckland (including Waitakere, Counties Manukau) Auckland Waikato (including Thames Valley) Bay of Plenty Central (including Taranaki, Wanganui, Manawatu, Eastland, Hawkes Bay, Oroua) Wellington (including Horowhenua, Kapiti, Hutt Valley, Wellington North, Wairarapa, Wellington) South Island North (including Nelson, Marlborough, West Coast) South Island Central (including Canterbury, South Canterbury) Southern (including North Otago, Otago, Southland) 30

31 15 Association Structure: Southland Northland North Harbour Otago Auckland Canterbury Counties Manukau Nelson Marlborough Badminton NZ Waitakere Wellington Waikato Manawatu Bay of Plenty Taranaki East Coast Northland North Harbour Waitakere, Counties Manukau Auckland Waikato (including Thames Valley) Bay of Plenty Taranaki, Manawatu (including Wanganui, Oroua) East Coast (including Eastland, Hawkes Bay, Wairarapa) Wellington (including Horowhenua, Kapiti, Hutt Valley, Wellington North, Wellington) Tasman (including Nelson, Marlborough) Canterbury (including South Canterbury, West Coast) Otago (including North Otago) Southland 31

32 Seek Transitional Funding It is recommended that after the board agree on recommendations and rationale for the changes to the structure of associations and take these recommendations to Sport New Zealand for transitional funding to embed a new regional operational model aligned to the revised strategic plan. Incorporating Pay for Play or Casual Badminton Participants It is also of concern that, given the dramatic trend towards casual and pay-for-play participants that Badminton New Zealand is not benefitting directly. Market demands are being serviced by those larger associations who are able to provide their own facilities and services. While this is certainly contributing to More People Participating in Badminton, it may not be contributing to the general financial wellbeing of the national sporting organisation. The gap between affiliated members and casual or pay-for-play members is inhibiting the ability of Badminton New Zealand to maximise its delivery against the Strategic Plan, particularly in the area of coach, official and volunteer recruitment and development. The Regional Capability pillar is also compromised in achieving its membership growth targets. It is also compromising Badminton New Zealand and the NSOs ability to achieve a more sustainable financial model. Recommendations It is recommended that Badminton New Zealand: 1. Replace the current membership model from a population association levy to a mixed model 2. Structure a process to invest back to the effective association with clear measureable outcomes for the re-distributed money 3. Restructure associations around the number of operational clubs in a defined geographical region rather than solely around a geographical region 4. Seek transitional funding from Sport NZ to embed the new regional association structure. 5. That Badminton New Zealand review their membership model with a view to capturing non-members or at least casual participation fees. 32

33 The optimisation of the Badminton New Zealand head office location: A specific focus here will be the identification of a head office location strategy 33