Source: www.guardian.co.tt
Last Saturday, a large cross-section of sport leaders turned up at the Hasely Crawford Stadium, VIP Room for a Ministry of Sport and Youth Affairs (MSYA)/National Sport Organisation (NSO) capacity building workshop. NSO leaders must be congratulated for their positive response and the MSYA for putting on such an important workshop. The facilitator was Dr Packianathan Chelladurai, a recognised scholar in organisational theory and organisational behaviour in the context of sport. He is acknowledged as a pioneer in the application of general management theory and the open systems approach to sport management. Why do I feel that congratulations are in order? It is because I hold fast to the point of view that Chelladurai’s pearls of wisdom on the difference between “Outcomes and Outputs” will engender dialogue among T&T sport stakeholders.
A needed dialogue in respect of “Outcome Measurement” rather than a performance yardstick that is based on individual opinion, tainted by likes and dislikes, self-interest and an emphasis on output as the “end all and be all” of what sport administration and management is about. Am I overly optimistic or delusional? I don’t think so, as I am convinced that Dr Chelladurai insights, provocative as some may find them, can be a catalyst for reform in policy formulation and decision-making within T&T Sport. The difference between outputs and outcomes is important. Some scholars argue that output is a poor measure for performance. And that far more important are outcomes (the effects and changes that are a result of the outputs). While outputs are a good place to start, outcomes are better and impact is best.
Most NSOs prefer to look at outputs, to judge performance as they are much easier to control and monitor compared to outcomes.
However, tracking outputs, outcomes and impact are an important part of improving NSO’s work: NSO’s need to prove that what they are doing is making a difference. Since 1997, the TTOC has adopted an approach to planning and managing that demands clarity both about what its programmes are doing and changing. The modern TTOC believes it must be able to demonstrate and measure its results with an emphasis on transparency and accountability. Thus outcome measurement permits the TTOC to demonstrate accountability for the use of resources. It also helps with better planning, policy and management decisions. The TTOC has moved from a focus on what is to be done to what is the difference or change that its activities foster. However, the TTOC alone cannot make systemic or structural changes to the Olympic movement in T&T, but it should contribute to bringing it about.
The MSYA workshop with Dr Chelladurai if measured by output (large attendance of NSO leaders) can be considered a success. The outcome objective would be to shift the focus from managing for short-term results (outputs) to managing for long-term results (outcomes).
In this context if the sport leaders, who attended the workshop, give further thought and consideration to some of the ideas and perspectives that they would have heard, it may result in a different dialogue between the MSYA, Sport Company, NSOs and the TTOC. Policy, rules, guidelines are all living documents. As experience and context changes, these documents should adapt to the new environment. Sport in T&T must surmount the challenges of modern day T&T society and the rapidly changing dynamics and dimensions of sport in general. In 2007, Dr Chelladurai was the feature speaker at the TTOC annual awards ceremony. In 2008 he presented a workshop for the NSOs who were under the Sportt Company. Last Saturday’s MSYA workshop was his third visit to these shores. Why aren’t NOSs talking about output, outcome and impact?
Brian Lewis is the honorary Secretary General of the T&T Olympic Committee (TTOC) www.ttoc.org. The views expressed are not necessarily those of the TTOC.