Do we even need a VATUSA1?

[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

[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.

[Jeff Thomas]

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!

As I have never worked with those mentioned here, all of my comments are speculative at best.  Be that as it may, I'd like to chime in...yet again...for what it's worth  

I find this contradicting and a bit odd.  I find it difficult to believe that EVERYONE you mentioned above the DD has this many faults.  From your framing of the situation, the problem does not lie in the arms of the ATM and DD, but rather with the entire senior management of VATSIM.

I have heard NUMEROUS times now that the VATUSA1 does not feel "supported" from above.  This then drives them to quit.  

You state that the whole goal of the DD is to "support" {I read that as fight for, stick up for, defend, etc.} the ATMs from "above".

My question is WHY is it a us vs. them scenario?  Who is driving the wedge and conflict?  Posts like this definitely don't go towards finding a solution, but rather, further drive that wedge in.   It's rheotorical btw.  Poor communication, i.e. not being on the same page, seems to be the key premise of all the threads around this situation.  Expectation setting, accountablity, process flow, etc. etc. all seem to be at issue.

However, you win some, you loose some, and ultimately the Founders and BoG hold the keys to the castle, i.e. if they decided to stop paying for all this stuff, we'd be out a hobby.  If they want something done a certain way, then you make your case, then live with the decision....good or bad.

Just quitting out right does NOT solve the problem, and by doing so you are basically leaving the rest of us out in the wind with no "support" from the so-called terrible upper management.  

I just don't buy that.

From this post, JV, you make it sound like the RD, the VP of Regions, the President of VATSIM, and the entire EC are a bunch of idiots that should be fired out right....      Again, I don't buy that; not when the rest of the world doesn't seem to have the same problems as we do here in the U.S.

I do know this.  Whomever applies to be VATUSA1 had better KNOW this situation exists, be very careful in their decision making, and go in with the understanding that your decisions may be overturned.  Being a leader is as much about following as it is leading.  Just remember that

Again, I don't have specifics about this situation, so my comments may be off base a bit (they usually are), but I don't think the entire upper management structure of VATSIM is as evil or stupid as your post (and many others) suggest.  Are there issues?  Most definitely.  But beating the dead horse over and over and over and over again isn't going to solve them.  I'm not sure what will, although the mass-resignation-in-protest route doesn't appear to work either.....that's what led me to my original post about do we even need a DD.

(sorry if I used 1000 words).....  

[Gary Millsaps]

I apologize for the piecemeal approach to this post but I'm at work and have limited moments of access (and clarity some might say   )

I do know this.  Whomever applies to be VATUSA1 had better KNOW this situation exists, be very careful in their decision making, and go in with the understanding that your decisions may be overturned.  Being a leader is as much about following as it is leading.  Just remember that

Ahhh....a reasoned voice!

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]However, you win some, you loose some, and ultimately the Founders and BoG hold the keys to the castle, i.e. if they decided to stop paying for all this stuff, we'd be out a hobby. If they want something done a certain way, then you make your case, then live with the decision....good or bad.[/quote]

This is the point! Articulation and dissemination of the Founders requirements through the BoG et. al. takes alot of damn hard work. Appropriately wielded, the DD position can be a valued participant and as importantly, an advocate representing his constituents. That voice of advocacy is what will be lost through the elimination of the DD position. The job could be done by the RD but how effective will this be while he is also responsible to the remaining divisions and the region as a whole?

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]My question is WHY is it a us vs. them scenario? Who is driving the wedge and conflict? Posts like this definitely don't go towards finding a solution, but rather, further drive that wedge in. It's rheotorical btw. Poor communication, i.e. not being on the same page, seems to be the key premise of all the threads around this situation. Expectation setting, accountablity, process flow, etc. etc. all seem to be at issue.[/quote]

Keyword here is accountability. Most of the issues at their most basic level, are attributable to the lack of exercised accountability and holding folks responsible in times past. Most of the new policies and policy amendments reflect an effort to "codify" if-you-will actions that are expected of individuals in positions of management. For varied reasons those actions were not accomplished in recent past (say 5 years) - in essence no common sense was applied as would have been expected. Case in point, the GRP. It was originally actualized through a request from the BoG to the EC to come up with a policy that provided regulation over the widely variant and in many cases, outlandishly difficult and obtuse controller training, transfer and visiting requirements VATSIM-wide. Up to that time even with constant prodding, no positive results had been attained in answer to the identified problems. Through this "codification", a loss of some autonomy at the operational level has occurred. Many find this disconcerting to say the least. This is further exasperated by the fact that such codification has to be well-crafted, easy to understand, well focused and thorough in applicability.

Now layer on top of all this the factor of VATSIM being a volunteer organization. With the onerous burden of having to operate under more and more policies and regulations and a sense of not being able to determine one's own "destiny" as-it-were, you can quickly see where frustration can erupt and members who have all the best in mind for their efforts become any one of; frustrated, combative, reticent...(fill in the blank).