Do we even need a VATUSA1?

[Manuel Manigault]

ATC's are not the only ones having to deal with bureaucracy.  Each individual virtual airline has their own hierarchy also.  DVA for example has 6 on the senior staff, 5 handling admin services, 29 chief pilots to cover each aircraft type, one to head online events, and one to run the flight academy.

[Bryan Wollenberg]

Lack of hierarchy does not equate to one person doing it,

It might not.  So then what, you have one guy in charge on the BOG with 20 assistants underneath him to take care of everything?  I fail to see the difference.

[Ryan Geckler]

Dave Jedrejcic for VATUSA1.

[Justin A. Martin]

Dave Jedrejcic for VATUSA1.

I already have some bumper stickers if you're interested

[David Jedrejcic]

Lol, thanks guys - at least I would start off with a 1% approval rating  

Luke, I know that VATSIM is not indeed an actual government, but that doesn't mean that it is an organization that does not require governance.  And like all governments that we have ever put forth on this planet, they have hierarchies, and they have a person in charge of each of the levels in the hierarchy.  What kind of structure are you saying would work better, and why?  

I think it is clear from your statements that you think at least one of these "layers" should be abolished, so please answer the question I put forth above...If you think VATUSA should be abolished, then tell me why we do not regularly see corporations abolished by their constituents, for example.  If there were an advantage to having local rule without any centralization, then one would think that American corporations would have taken advantage of the idea, no?  Instead, it is the opposite - corporations have been able to thrive (some might say too well) due to centralized governance.  How come the idea of centralized authority seems to have lasted so long, if it is in fact flawed, and much worse than just having each individual group fend for themselves?
 
I'm not trying to push the idea of the government analogy past its usefulness, but I think it is a valid analogy - and I realize it's an analogy, but I don't see why we can't use it to discuss the topic.  The analogy of the corporations I made above is also valid as an analogy.  VATSIM is neither of these things, but it is similar to both of them, so we should be able to draw conclusions about VATSIM by studying the things which it mimics.  Since you seem to believe that the current structure is inherently broken, I would like to know (as I stated above) what other solution you have come up with in order to make things better on the network.  More testicular fortitude?  

Here is where I see this would lead, in the form of a satirical remark (there is no offense intended here, it's simply a straightforward way for me to make a point):

/SATIRE
I'll resign my position as a VATUSA Staff member, and the controllers at each of the ARTCC's I represent can just contact the BoG directly, so that there wouldn't be so many layers to go through.  The BoG already (allegedly) does not respond to the Division Directors when they ask for help, but I'm certain that each individual controller would have their voices heard loud and clear if we got rid of the ARTCC's, the Divisions, and the Regions that are keeping this more direct conversation from happening.
/satire

I think it should be clear that this situation doesn't make any sense.  The intermediaries do, in fact, serve a purpose.  And that purpose is communication.  And again, I'm not saying the system is working properly, but that just means we have to fix it - not abolish it.  It might not be easy to work through the system, but that's the only way one can create positive change - through the system.  Bashing the system because it hasn't provided you with the results you want is not going to get you the results you want.  It only results in a bashed system.

[Harold Rutila]

This is the quote:

"That's an ARTCC problem, and most of the time it has to do with short staffing. Again, we can't pay instructors and mentors, so you have to wait for whomever is available. That's how its been for almost a decade."

My memory is not quite as bad as I thought, but in fairness I think you really meant that we couldn't get enough folks to do evaluations, not behind the scopes in general. I think my overall point remains valid - VATSIM's processes are insufficient to get proper coverage and keep people moving up through the hobby and engaged. I wonder if we're ever going to try anything different.

Oh, I see now. I didn't mean that we couldn't get enough competent controllers behind the scopes, however. This was in response to a complaint (paraphrasing:) that it was VATUSA's fault one particular ARTCC didn't have the training staff to handle a large number of students.

[David Klain]

Just as an aside (and not commenting on any person's opinion in this thread), standard management/leadership theory (and practice) is that no person can effectively more than 7 direct reports...especially if each direct report does something significantly different than the others).

Even the "world is flat" authors like Friedman have generally come to the conclusion seven is about the largest group that can be effectively managed.  That is pretty close to the structure VATSIM has now:

Board of Governors each lead no more than seven people
VP Regions (member of the BOG) has six RDs under him
The Six RD's each have somewhere between three and four Divisions under them
The Diivision Directors are where the organization starts to flatten as some of them have a GREAT number of FIRs under them.

The implementation of Divisions is where things have gotten quite interesting and VATEUD and VATUSA present very different models of how things are managed.  In VATEUD, the Division chief is an interface between the FIR chiefs to the RD, handles administrative things (CERT, etc.).  In VATUSA, the Division Chief has a staff which duplicates many of the things done at the FIR/ARTCC level due to a desire to standardize things (thus the VATUSA TA, Events Manager, etc.).

I am not saying one is better than another, but they are different.  VATEUD takes on the role of primarily information dissemination and coordination.  VATUSA takes on the role of managing the ARTCCs in far greater detail than VATEUD would ever consider doing.  Different models...

In closing, there also seems to be some confusion about the EC and the RDs.  The EC IS the RDs combined with VP, Regions.  If you want to use a governmental model, I think the equivalent would be:

VATSIM President - Prime Minister
BOD - the Cabinet members (each with a different portfolio)
EC - Parliment with each EC member being an RD representing his/her regions
Division Directors would probably be something like County Managers or Town Council Presidents...

all good,
Dave

[Jeff Thomas]

Ah, now there's a BETTER question instead of elminating VATUSA1, how about just getting rid of the Staff?  (except a technology person unless the VATUSA1 has those skills).

I like the model of the interface as I don't really see the need for a duplication of everything at the VATUSA level.

[Alex Bailey]

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]The implementation of Divisions is where things have gotten quite interesting and VATEUD and VATUSA present very different models of how things are managed. In VATEUD, the Division chief is an interface between the FIR chiefs to the RD, handles administrative things (CERT, etc.). In VATUSA, the Division Chief has a staff which duplicates many of the things done at the FIR/ARTCC level due to a desire to standardize things (thus the VATUSA TA, Events Manager, etc.).[/quote]

Huh? VATEUD lists more people on its staff page than VATUSA does and most positions tend to compare to VATUSA positions as well. VATEUD also has a training director and events manager. What you described for VATEUD is also the case for VATUSA. The Division Directors act as an interface between FIR/ARTCC chiefs and the RD, we handled admin duties, and that was about it. I fail to see your point.  Did you ask any former division directors what their duties were or did I just miss the point of this paragraph being an assumption?

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]I am not saying one is better than another, but they are different. VATEUD takes on the role of primarily information dissemination and coordination. VATUSA takes on the role of managing the ARTCCs in far greater detail than VATEUD would ever consider doing. Different models...[/quote]

Again, what are you basing your opinion on? The only role VATUSA has taken in managing the ARTCCs is simply doing what you guys wanted us to do. The BoG failed entirely when I was DD to provide guidance and assistance with the VATSIM policies, specifically what ATMs had the authority to do. I assume this was also the case under Andrew's leadership. You guys consistently tell us that ATMs have no authority to do anything, then wonder why we spend so much time regulating their activities. We wouldn't be doing this if we were allowed to put trust into our staff to do their duties.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]VATSIM President - Prime Minister
BOD - the Cabinet members (each with a different portfolio)
EC - Parliment with each EC member being an RD representing his/her regions
Division Directors would probably be something like County Managers or Town Council Presidents...[/quote]

Such a huge jump from EC to Division. Is this why the ego of some upper VATSIM management is such a distraction to DD's who want to improve their division? Is this why you look down upon everyone with such ease? This exact attitude is what turns away your volunteers and sparks such hostility in these forums.

[David Klain]

I base my opinion (and it is only that...my opinion) on the interactions I've had for almost three years with the two region directors, the two division directors and (as necessary) FIR/ARTCC chiefs in the two divisions.  The conclusion I drew is that the relationship between FIR chiefs and VATEUD is fundamentally different than between ARTCC chiefs and VATUSA.

VATEUD is also different than VATUSA in that they provide for Eurocontrol -- a mechanism by which ATC services are provided that cross multiple FIRs.  The analogy would be if VATUSA had the structure in place (training, qualification, etc.) for controllers to control all of the Southeastern, Northeaster, Midwest or Western United States.  They also chose to standardize their testing system through Eurotest...one testing system supports all of the FIRS in question.  Lastly, VATEUD covers something like 38 different countries and around 25 different languages.  As a result, they have a need for some staff just to help address the language barriers...but in practice they really act as an information transmission body in a manner quite different than what I have observed in VATUSA.  

I also base that judgment on having observed VATUSA's interaction with the controllers of VATUSA since December 2003 when I first joined KZAU as a controller.  As I (and several other long time members of VATUSA) have pointed out in this thread and others, the role of VATUSA and its relationship with the ARTCCs has changed over the last few years.

As far as the need for guidance from the BOG, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but given the fact the EC (and VATNA specifically) sits between VATUSA1 and the BOG, I would expect almost NO guidance to come from the BOG except very overarching guidance that is applicable world-wide.  The same is true of pretty much any large organization in the world, be it a foundation, NGO, business or government.

Lastly, I'm not sure what the "huge jump form EC to Divisions" is that I posted.  I provided an analogy that I thought made sense because the US form of government doesn't make sense since the Legislative and Executive Branches are separate in the US unlike a Parliamentary system.  In a Parliamentary system, representatives represent districts and the next lower step in the government is typically either a county or a town council.  If we were to use a US model and call the RD's congressmen (who also represent districts), what would you call a Division Director?  Next step below a typical congressional district would be a President of the Town Council or a Mayor...but even there we have wide variability because there are congressional districts that cover multiple towns and cities that cover multiple congressional districts.  If it is your view that the analogy I used makes light of divisions, I regret that you draw that conclusion but can't find any place in the analogy that does that.  Of course people read into analogies what they want to read into them...

All that said, you are certainly entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to disagree with it.

all the best,
Dave

[J Jason Vodnansky]

Just as an aside (and not commenting on any person's opinion in this thread), standard management/leadership theory (and practice) is that no person can effectively more than 7 direct reports...especially if each direct report does something significantly different than the others).

Even the "world is flat" authors like Friedman have generally come to the conclusion seven is about the largest group that can be effectively managed.  That is pretty close to the structure VATSIM has now:

Board of Governors each lead no more than seven people
VP Regions (member of the BOG) has six RDs under him
The Six RD's each have somewhere between three and four Divisions under them
The Diivision Directors are where the organization starts to flatten as some of them have a GREAT number of FIRs under them.

The implementation of Divisions is where things have gotten quite interesting and VATEUD and VATUSA present very different models of how things are managed.  In VATEUD, the Division chief is an interface between the FIR chiefs to the RD, handles administrative things (CERT, etc.).  In VATUSA, the Division Chief has a staff which duplicates many of the things done at the FIR/ARTCC level due to a desire to standardize things (thus the VATUSA TA, Events Manager, etc.).

I am not saying one is better than another, but they are different.  VATEUD takes on the role of primarily information dissemination and coordination.  VATUSA takes on the role of managing the ARTCCs in far greater detail than VATEUD would ever consider doing.  Different models...

In closing, there also seems to be some confusion about the EC and the RDs.  The EC IS the RDs combined with VP, Regions.  If you want to use a governmental model, I think the equivalent would be:

VATSIM President - Prime Minister
BOD - the Cabinet members (each with a different portfolio)
EC - Parliment with each EC member being an RD representing his/her regions
Division Directors would probably be something like County Managers or Town Council Presidents...

all good,
Dave

This method works pretty well I am sure, when it works.  But when it fails, it fails spectacularly!

Let's try an experiment...

Take one RD, who doesn't support his staff.  Add one VP of Regions, who seems to subscribe to "why say it in 10 words, when you can say it in 1000".  Contradicting himself from forum post to forum post.  Throw in a weak EC, add a dose of an over reaching board that tends to everyone's business including attempts to impede a member's "due process".  What do you get from that?

I think the answer is in front of us.

That is why I believe a VATUSA DD is required.  Someone needs to support the ATMs!

After all, how did you say it Mr. President, [!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]...you are certainly entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to disagree with it.[/quote]

SNAFU,
Jason Vodnansky

[Scott DeWoody]

Just by reading the posts in here, and nothing else, I'm getting the sense that there's a big gap in what some are saying the lack of communication lays.  DD's work for RD's, therefore, if a DD is not getting direction/guidance, I'm thinking that would be on the RD, not the EC, or BOG.  Military or not, there is a chain of command.  DD's should be looking to RD's for guidance, not the EC or BOG, also, the same holds true going downhill, the BOG, EC, shouldn't be giving direct input, (good or bad) to the DD's but to the RD's first, but, that is just MHO

ps.  this is a very condensed version of what I really would like to say.

[Alex Bailey]

Point is, the RD could never get answers for the DD because no information was passed down. The BoG only seemed interested in the operations of VATUSA when something was going wrong. There was absolutely no support any other time.

[Scott DeWoody]

Point is, the RD could never get answers for the DD because no information was passed down. The BoG only seemed interested in the operations of VATUSA when something was going wrong. There was absolutely no support any other time.

So, one would think that the RD should then get on the BOG and tell them to funnel all correspondance directed towards the DD's thru him.  Otherwise, what's the point of having a RD, except to sit on the EC? And if that was his/her only job, then they would just be BOG "gophers"

Example:

BOG:  OK RD's go tell the DD's to do this!

RD:  Yes sir boss whatever you say.

Of course, I don't believe that is why they are there, only saying that IF that is the only reason.

Somebody, somewhere along the line has to have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for what they think is right for their people.  IMHO

[Bruce Clingan]

Somebody, somewhere along the line has to have the insestinal fortitude to stand up for what they think is right for their people.  IMHO

I believe that our recently former DD here did have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for what they thought was right for their people.  I remember a staff forum post telling us that he had stood up for a point the ATM's were having difficulty with.  But DD's have little to no influence in the upper tier leadership from what I can gather.