The USCF has great name recognition but obviously the B&E Biz is too
expensive to run in-house - why not outsource the whole operation and
support to India, Mexico, etc.?

-Scott

eepmeep (John Fernandez) wrote in message ...
Subject: B&E Biz Outsourcing
From: (Scott)
Date: 7/29/2003 6:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

The USCF has great name recognition but obviously the B&E Biz is too
expensive to run in-house - why not outsource the whole operation and
support to India, Mexico, etc.?

-Scott

Uh, shipping? John Fernandez

If it's outsourced in the middle of the country like Kansas City, then
shipping will be perfect, considering the ease of transport towards
all points.

"Scott" wrote ...
The USCF has great name recognition but obviously the B&E Biz is too
expensive to run in-house - why not outsource the whole operation and
support to India, Mexico, etc.?

It's not "obvious" to everyone that "the B&E Biz is too expensive to run
in-house." Other people in this country sell products; why can't USCF?

What's obvious is that USCF is inefficient in how it processes orders. To
address this problem, USCF needs better computer hardware and software.

Tim Hanke

Subject: B&E Biz Outsourcing
Path:
lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1!bre dband!news.t
ele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!priapus.vis i.com!news-out.visi.com!
green.readfreenews.net!news.readfreenews.net!cox.n et!news-xfer.cox.net!new
s.primus.ca!news.primus.ca!
nntp-post.primus.ca!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "Tim Hanke"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
References:
Lines: 14
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:40:12 -0400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.192.203.1
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: nntp-post.primus.ca 1059593951 209.192.203.1 (Wed, 30 Jul 2003
15:39:11 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:39:11 EDT
Organization: Primus Canada



"Scott" wrote ...
The USCF has great name recognition but obviously the B&E Biz is too
expensive to run in-house - why not outsource the whole operation and
support to India, Mexico, etc.?

It's not "obvious" to everyone that "the B&E Biz is too expensive to run
in-house." Other people in this country sell products; why can't USCF?

What's obvious is that USCF is inefficient in how it processes orders. To
address this problem, USCF needs better computer hardware and software.

Tim Hank

The process itself needs scrutiny before anything else. Technology is an
expense most of the time and not an innovation; address inneffectiveness before
inefficiency. Just my 1.9 cents worth.


"Ever since I lost a lung to cancer, I've cut my smoking in half"

Tony D.

"Tim Hanke" wrote in message ...

snip

It's not "obvious" to everyone that "the B&E Biz is too expensive to run
in-house." Other people in this country sell products; why can't USCF?

Obviously the USCF can sell products, it just can't sell them at a
profit in a competitive market. This is because the USCF is
inefficient and this is not likely change due to the way the USCF is
governed.
Other people publish chess books profitably but the USCF can't.
Other people run profitable chess servers but the USCF can't.
The USCF should stick to its monopoly markets and avoid losing
battles with more efficient organizations.

What's obvious is that USCF is inefficient in how it processes orders. To
address this problem, USCF needs better computer hardware and software.

This is the George John theory and it is wrong. The USCF is
inefficient because it is badly managed, the computer problems are a
symptom not a cause.
Also the USCF lacks the economies of scale of some competitors like
amazon.
James B. Shearer

"James B. Shearer" wrote ...

What's obvious is that USCF is inefficient in how it processes orders.
To
address this problem, USCF needs better computer hardware and software.

This is the George John theory and it is wrong. The USCF is
inefficient because it is badly managed, the computer problems are a
symptom not a cause.

I agree the USCF is inefficient because it *has been* badly managed, but I
believe it is being better managed now. The "better manager" is named Frank
Niro. One of Frank's "better" ideas is studying USCF's work processes and
determining that better technology could significantly improve USCF's
efficiency. Let's see if this plausible concept can be implemented
successfully, and not assume in advance it can't be.

Tim Hanke

Subject: B&E Biz Outsourcing
From: (James B. Shearer)
Date: 07/30/2003 9:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

"Tim Hanke" wrote in message
...

snip

It's not "obvious" to everyone that "the B&E Biz is too expensive to run
in-house." Other people in this country sell products; why can't USCF?

Obviously the USCF can sell products, it just can't sell them at a
profit in a competitive market. This is because the USCF is
inefficient and this is not likely change due to the way the USCF is
governed.

There is nothing inherent in USCF's governance structure that makes the office
inefficient. There is no reason why efficiency cannot be improved dramatically
after the move and after a software upgrade. While it is far from certain that
this will happen, it would be highly irresponsible for the Board and the ED to
just give up.

The idea (practiced by the Redman Board) that USCF can't do anything right so
it should start closing down or outsourcing everything is ridiculous. With
better management, past failures need not be repeated. I am still hopeful that
we have the management we need now, though my optimism has declined quite a bit
as a result of the Debi Sherry incident.

Other people publish chess books profitably but the USCF can't.
Other people run profitable chess servers but the USCF can't.
The USCF should stick to its monopoly markets and avoid losing
battles with more efficient organizations.

What's obvious is that USCF is inefficient in how it processes orders. To
address this problem, USCF needs better computer hardware and software.

This is the George John theory and it is wrong. The USCF is
inefficient because it is badly managed, the computer problems are a
symptom not a cause.
Also the USCF lacks the economies of scale of some competitors like
amazon.
James B. Shearer


USCF has major advantages for selling books and equipment over other vendors:

1. The prestige of being the national chess organization helps sales. Many
prefer to buy from USCF now, even though service is not nearly as good as it
could be with a software upgrade.

2. USCF can advertise in Chess Life and on uschess.org at cost. Other vendors
cannot.

3. USCF can award itself lucrative concessions at major tournaments such as
the National Scholastics, US Amateur Team East, National Open and US Open.
Other vendors cannot.

B & E is not a source of significant profit now, but neither does it lose
money. If USCF finally straightens out its computer mess, B & E sales will
become very profitable. It would be foolhardy to discard this possibility.

Bill Goichberg

Recmate wrote:

USCF has major advantages for selling books and equipment over other vendors:

1. The prestige of being the national chess organization helps sales. Many
prefer to buy from USCF now, even though service is not nearly as good as it
could be with a software upgrade.

2. USCF can advertise in Chess Life and on uschess.org at cost. Other vendors
cannot.

3. USCF can award itself lucrative concessions at major tournaments such as
the National Scholastics, US Amateur Team East, National Open and US Open.
Other vendors cannot.

B & E is not a source of significant profit now, but neither does it lose
money. If USCF finally straightens out its computer mess, B & E sales will
become very profitable. It would be foolhardy to discard this possibility.

The question is: can the USCF ever hope to successfully
compete with the *professional* businessmen who also
sell chess B&E? If not, why couldn't the USCF offer
the advantages you've just pointed out as a means to
market USCF services to such businesses? The USCF could
package any company's catalog with the magazine or the
shudder web site, taking a cut of all sales. The USCF
could sell rights to concessions at major tournaments,
also getting a cut of all sales. Companies partnered
with the USCF could advertise with the USCF imprimatur
("your official source" etc.) I can't help thinking that
the USCF B&E business, which is run by amateurs, will never
be as efficient or market-wise as those professionally run
businesses with whom we now compete. Why not let some other
group assume the risks associated with running a business,
such as inventory, advertising, warehousing, staffing and
shipping? We have a captive audience of chess players,
eager to spend money, that should give us leverage in any
deal with an outside firm. Perhaps we can make money on
B&E sales without all the overhead.

Quietly, and without autorization or approval from the PB, Niro in
fact did out-source a significant part of the USCF B&E. He brought in
Malcolm Pein from Chess & Bridge in London, England. It really is
rather outrageous when you think about it: The book and equipment
sales of America's national chess organization being run by a
foreigner. Revenue leaving the U.S. from sales in the U.S. Pein is not
well thought of in Europe (but that is really not the point). As has
been explained to me, there is at least one full-time staff member in
New Windsor who is provided by Pein and at least one full-time USCF
employee designated to work with him.

If the USCF wanted to outsource, it is hard to believe that there is
not a single chess vendor in the U.S. that could not have done it.

The PB eventually became aware of the situation and has done nothing.
The entire situation is a disgrace. And the service still sucks. The
Chess House, in Washington state, where I buy most of my chess books,
etc., has good service and a good selection. And there are several
other chess dealers out there too that make the USCF look like a bunch
of amateurs.

There is no question that Niro is much better liked and respected than
the thugs who were there before him. But things are still being done
secretly - and badly.

(Recmate) wrote in message ...
Subject: B&E Biz Outsourcing
From: (James B. Shearer)
Date: 07/30/2003 9:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

"Tim Hanke" wrote in message
...

snip

It's not "obvious" to everyone that "the B&E Biz is too expensive to run
in-house." Other people in this country sell products; why can't USCF?

Obviously the USCF can sell products, it just can't sell them at a
profit in a competitive market. This is because the USCF is
inefficient and this is not likely change due to the way the USCF is
governed.

There is nothing inherent in USCF's governance structure that makes the office
inefficient. There is no reason why efficiency cannot be improved dramatically
after the move and after a software upgrade. While it is far from certain that
this will happen, it would be highly irresponsible for the Board and the ED to
just give up.

The idea (practiced by the Redman Board) that USCF can't do anything right so
it should start closing down or outsourcing everything is ridiculous. With
better management, past failures need not be repeated. I am still hopeful that
we have the management we need now, though my optimism has declined quite a bit
as a result of the Debi Sherry incident.

Other people publish chess books profitably but the USCF can't.
Other people run profitable chess servers but the USCF can't.
The USCF should stick to its monopoly markets and avoid losing
battles with more efficient organizations.

What's obvious is that USCF is inefficient in how it processes orders. To
address this problem, USCF needs better computer hardware and software.

This is the George John theory and it is wrong. The USCF is
inefficient because it is badly managed, the computer problems are a
symptom not a cause.
Also the USCF lacks the economies of scale of some competitors like
amazon.
James B. Shearer


USCF has major advantages for selling books and equipment over other vendors:

1. The prestige of being the national chess organization helps sales. Many
prefer to buy from USCF now, even though service is not nearly as good as it
could be with a software upgrade.

2. USCF can advertise in Chess Life and on uschess.org at cost. Other vendors
cannot.

3. USCF can award itself lucrative concessions at major tournaments such as
the National Scholastics, US Amateur Team East, National Open and US Open.
Other vendors cannot.

B & E is not a source of significant profit now, but neither does it lose
money. If USCF finally straightens out its computer mess, B & E sales will
become very profitable. It would be foolhardy to discard this possibility.

Bill Goichberg

"johnnyvegas" wrote in message
om...

There is no question that Niro is much better liked and respected than
the thugs who were there before him. But things are still being done
secretly - and badly.

Hard to dispute any of your post. I've always thought people did things
secretly because they are ashamed of what they're doing.

StanB