Getting a technology decision through committee

Club committees aren't famous for making quick decisions, and technology decisions tend to be among the slowest of all. Most committees meet once a month with a long agenda, the people around the table are rightly careful with members' money, and few of them feel confident judging a piece of software, so the safest course is usually to defer it to the next meeting, and then the one after that. Anyone who has sat on a club committee will recognise the pattern, and I sat on one long enough to have been part of it.

The encouraging part is that much of what slows a technology decision down is in the hands of whoever brings the proposal. Committees are far more willing to say yes when they can clearly see four things: the problem it solves, the full cost over a year, who will do the work, and how the club can stop if it doesn't work out. If you put those on a single page with a suggested minute and send it out with the papers, a decision that might otherwise drift for months can often be made in a single meeting.

Why do technology proposals stall at committee?

In my experience it's rarely because the idea itself is wrong. Far more often, the proposal falls into one of a handful of familiar traps:

• It arrives as a product rather than a problem. "We should get this system" invites a debate about the system, whereas "renewals take the membership secretary six weekends a year" invites a conversation about how to fix that.
• The cost isn't clear. A monthly price is quoted, but not the cost over a year, the VAT or the fees taken from each payment, and nobody has worked out which of the club's existing tools it could replace, which is often where the real saving and value lie.
• Nobody has been named to do the work. The committee can sense it will land on someone, and understandably nobody wants it to be them.
• It feels irreversible. Nobody knows how long the contract runs or what happens to the club's data if it doesn't work out.
• It comes up under any other business. With no papers and no time to think, the sensible response is to defer it.

What does the treasurer need to see?

The treasurer will want the full financial picture rather than a headline price:

• the cost for a full year, including VAT, and the cost in later years if it's different
• any fees taken from each payment, which can add up to more than the subscription itself
• any one-off set-up costs
• what the club will stop paying for as a result
• the length of the contract and the notice period

What does the commodore need to see?

The commodore will usually be thinking about the club as a whole:

• the problem the change solves, in a sentence
• who it affects, whether that's members, volunteers or both
• who will own it, by name
• what could go wrong, and what you'd do about it
• how you'll know it has worked

Someone has proposed a new system. How do you judge it?

A new system can be suggested by almost anyone: a committee member at the monthly meeting, a member who has seen something at another club, or a coach or member of staff who is frustrated with the current tools. Before the committee spends time on it, it's worth putting a few straightforward questions to the supplier:

1. What will it cost a club of our size over a year, including payment fees and VAT?
2. How do we get our data in, and how do we get it out again if we leave?
3. What happens to members' Direct Debits if we switch?
4. Who does the set-up, and how much help will we get?
5. Can we try it before we commit, and what is the notice period?
6. Which clubs like ours use it, and could we talk to one of them?

Then there's the question only the club can answer, which is who will actually run it. A good system with nobody to run it will serve the club worse than an average one with a keen owner.

A one-page summary the committee will read

It helps to use the same headings every time, and to keep the whole thing to a single page:

1. The problem. What isn't working, and who it affects.
2. What we propose. The change, in two or three sentences.
3. What it costs. Year one and each year after, including VAT and payment fees.
4. Who does the work. The names involved, and roughly how much of their time it needs.
5. What we stop. The tools, costs or jobs that go away as a result.
6. The risks. What could go wrong, and how the club would stop or reverse the change.
7. The decision we're asking for. Stated in one sentence.

A suggested minute

It can also help to offer the secretary a form of words for the minutes, which they can of course adapt. A minute that caps the cost, names the owner and sets a date to review the decision makes it easier for everyone to agree, because it's clear what the club is committing to and for how long:

The committee agreed to [adopt / trial] [name of tool] from [date], at a cost of up to £[amount] a year including VAT, with [name] responsible. [Name] will report back at the [month] meeting, when the committee will decide whether to continue.

A trial with a review date is often the easiest yes of all, because nobody is being asked to commit for good.

When should it go to committee?

Ideally the page goes out with the papers a week before the meeting, so that nobody is reading it for the first time around the table. A quick conversation with the treasurer beforehand is also worthwhile, because it avoids surprises on the night and often improves the proposal.

The decision itself belongs at committee rather than at the AGM, which is really the place to report what the committee has decided. The exception is anything your constitution says needs a general meeting, such as spending above a set limit, so it's worth checking.

If the person bringing the proposal is your digital officer, so much the better, because preparing exactly this kind of recommendation is part of the role.

Getting it right the first time

The Digital Review ends with a roadmap and a one-page summary written for exactly this purpose, to go in the minutes and be reported at the AGM, so that the committee can make one clear decision about the season ahead.