CMASA CONFERENCE IMPRESSIONS – PART 2

By Alistair Collier | The Business of Golf Magazine

CMASA CONFERENCE IMPRESSIONS – PART 2

We continue our discussion with Alistair Collier – Founder of the John Collier Golf Survey – as he offers his personal feedback on the CMASA Conference at Fancourt, which he attended as a delegate.

BG: Was day 2 more of the same in terms of areas of discussion?

AC: Mainly yes, with a couple of new approaches to leaven the mix, such as the club issues’ Knowledge Cafe session, which was interactive, and during which delegates were split up into groups of seven or more delegates.

The groups were then tasked to consider, 3 broad areas dealing with environment, assets and employment.

Each area had to be considered from the perspective of; what are the issues? – what are the measures? – what are the solutions?

It was an effective way for delegates to interact, but it was a pity, considering the ease of use of various technology, including AI, that the results were not shared, or discussed with the delegates as feedback at the conference.

This is another example where a rapporteur would have added value to the conference.

On inspiration and thought leadership, Rob Arnold spoke on the topic of responsibility to accountability to ownership.

His talk was based on what successful companies were doing to optimise the people who worked within the organisation.

The points he made included the following: One size fits one, one should enable your people to present physically and present psychologically, create a player (active) approach, rather than a passenger (passive) approach, and to ask the question: what did your team learn today about your members?

He also emphasised the point of collecting the dots, in order to be able to join the dots.

For club issues, the industry session was hosted by Paul Leishman, Robby Richardson and Dewald Cilliers, who dealt with the issue of club governance and the relationship between chairperson of the club and the club CEO.

What was quite evident, was that the relationship between club chairperson and board or management committee, and the CEO and his team, is certainly a perennial topic at the conference.

In discussing this point, regrettably there was not enough time or a skilled person to facilitate this discussion in an objective way.

A rapporteur could also have assisted here, so the debate unfortunately drifted to a close, with no real way forward being identified.

One positive feature was the making available of the USA CCMA booklet on governance.

In inspiration and thought leadership, Roger Collins’s presentation asked the question; “is it possible to be wrong and not knowing it?”

This question, and the test which the delegates participated in, illustrated to many of the delegates that their perception of the world, and world issues, certainly needed a reality check.

He asked the question; “What do we know about the world, or for that matter golf?”

His point was, that if one were to explore a little deeper, this can assist to unlock new possibilities, and transform one’s understanding both of the world and golf.

In this regard, he referred to the need to go into issues deeply enough to really understand them, by using for example independent research to assist with this process.

Back on the subject of club issues, Pierre van Vuuren – General Manager, San Lameer Golf Club – chaired a panel discussion on the issue of in-house, or outsourcing of services within a golf club.

The panel was comprised of Robby Richardson of Houghton Golf Club, David Roodt of Glendower Golf Club and Francois Swart of Atlantic Beach.
Each of the panel members discussed their own experiences, of either in-house or outsourced services, and indicated some advantages and challenges regarding this process.

Regrettably, while many issues were raised, there was no real adequate summation of the positions, or even identification of some action points to take from the discussion, which could be taken forward to the next conference.

In inspiration and thought leadership, Ryan Stramrood presentation was entitled “push past the impossible”.

This presentation was about a person whose hobby of extreme swimming has taken him to swim in areas such as the English Channel, in Siberia, South America and Antarctica.

His achievements are truly amazing and inspirational, and left the delegates with the thought of how much one can achieve by pushing beyond one’s boundaries, and outside one’s comfort zone.

This presentation concluded the formal programme, and I felt that this was a missed opportunity for CMASA to showpiece it’s education programmes, and to challenge all clubs to participate.

BG: How did the MC sum up the activities over the 2 days?

AC: In closing the conference, the master of ceremonies, Brent Lindeque (pictured left) achieved his goal of ensuring that the conference adhered to its schedule.

He gave a brief summation of the business of the two days, in which his main take-away was that change is the essence of life, and the focus areas for the conference delegates included climate change, water quality, in-house or outsources and communication.

Unfortunately, there was no rapporteur report.

BG: One of the recurring challenges, and indeed criticisms, in all conferences is often around the outcomes and follow-up, and you have mentioned the lack of carrying forward key items, to be progressed over the next year, to be re-examined at the next conference.

Was this a problem with this event, and overall would you, as a delegate / observer believe it to have been a success?

AC: One of the strengths of the game of golf is that a player is presented with a challenge, in which he or she must first consider the shot options, which include selecting a club, deciding on the club and shot type, and then hitting the ball.

From this process, the player has immediate feedback.

After the game, one you will enter one’s score into the HNA system, and it will return an individual and national measurement, on how well one is playing the game of golf.

Delegates at the CMASA Conference would be acutely aware of this constant measurement process, hence it would very reasonable, to ask the question, whether the conference was a success or not?

Measuring the success of the CMASA conference can be done through several key performance indicators (KPIs), and supporting qualitative assessments.

Here are some of the common methods:

Attendance

In terms of attendance numbers, feedback at the conference was that the number of attendees, compared to the previous year, was about the same, indicating a retained interest in the conference.

Feedback

Attendee feedback tended to be positive through social media, although it was not clear if any feedback through surveys or questionnaires, covering areas such as content quality, speaker effectiveness, venue satisfaction, and the overall experience, had been implemented.

It was also not evident, whether evaluation questionnaires were circulated to delegates during the conference on the performance of the speakers.

For example, high ratings can indicate a successful selection of topics and presenters.

Financial outcomes

Another qualitative assessment tool would be for CMASA to analyse the financial outcomes of the event, from the perspective of sponsorships and revenue, and whether the conference met or exceeded its budget targets.

It is noted that CMASA has sent out correspondence asking for feedback on the conference, and the analysis of this will also assist in understanding ongoing interest and impact, beyond the event itself.

In terms of measuring the success of the conference, the issue of learning outcomes was one area that requires attention.

In discussions with some delegates, it would seem delegates were non-committal, or ambivalent, as to whether they gained new knowledge or skills that they could apply in their work, or personal development.

This is another area where the role of a rapporteur would have added value to the programme.

Using a combination of these methods, should provide a subjective assessment of whether the conference was a success or not, and whether it achieved its objectives of “seizing the unique opportunity of networking, professional development and knowledge sharing within the industry”.

It is submitted, taking into consideration the conference venue and facilities (Fancourt), the hospitality, the weather, the golf course, and the content value of the speakers, that superficially the conference was a success, but if one were to dig a little deeper, there are gaps, which need attention, especially if one is to justify the value of attendance from a business perspective.

Yours in Sustainable Golf
JOHN COLLIER