[OSGeo Oceania] to PCO, or not [was: Board - sharing budget doc]

Tue Aug 20 18:08:11 PDT 2019

Hi Daniel,

Kudos for working as Conference Chair for 2019. It is a big task, so well done.

More inline below.

Kind regards,

Bruce

> On 20 Aug 2019, at 19:16, Daniel Silk <dwsilk at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Bruce

To use a PCO or not, is really up to the bidding team (LOC) when they consider the approach that they want to use.

A brief SWOT to using a PCO as I see it, based on my experience:

Strengths:

Capitalise on PCO expertise and experience to plan and run ‘events', regardless of the context.
PCO have well established supply chains, project plans, processes and procedures to help make the running of an ‘event' run smoothly.
Using a PCO allows them to handle the mundane and miriad of tasks that are required to ensure the smooth running of an ‘event’.
This frees up the LOC to concentrate on what their expertise is, the community aspects that they want to share as part of the ‘event’, e.g.
Managing finances
Marketing and event promotion
Attracting Sponsors
Community engagement
Keynotes
Presentations
Birds of a Feather
Code Sprints
Poster sessions
Social get togethers
etc
This results is less volunteer time being consumed by mundane tasks.
The use of a PCO gives those LOC teams with limited experience in running a FOSS4G event a much better chance to run a successful one. 

Weaknesses:

There is an additional cost for the PCO that must be recovered somewhere, perhaps by sponsorship, but more likely by distributing the cost amongst attendees. 
There is typically an upfront cost to engage the PCO. This money must be available.
There is a requirement to define requirements, run a procurement process to select a reputable PCO.
There is an addition relationship between the LOC and the PCO that must be managed proactively to ensure a successful event.

Opportunities:

There is an opportunity to develop a longer term relationship between a reputable POC and OSGeo-Oceania. This could potentially allow for:
lessons learned to be carried more easily forward between events.
more consistent events, without necessarily having to use the same LOC people.
new LOC teams to bid for events, while reducing the risk to a successful ‘event’.
Assuming good marketing and vibe, the ‘event’ may be able to attract more people than required to cover the costs of the POC for the ‘event’. 
This may result in a surplus that can be used to mitigate against the costs of future ‘events’, or to cover other planned OSGeo-Oceania activities.

Threats:

If the procurement process to select the PCO is not effective, there is the chance that a less experienced, or reputable PCO may be selected.
If the LOC/POC relationship is not managed effectively, then this could result in a risk to a successful ‘event’.
The cost for the POC must be spread amongst attendees. The fewer the attendees, the more the cost that must be charged. 
If there are less attendees than planned for, then there may be a cost impact to the conference where money will need to be found to address.
Allow a contigency for the unexpected. We had to deal with the affects of the GFC in 2009.

These SWOT thoughts are based in experiences from 2008 and 2009 in being a member of the FOSS4G-2009 LOC and on selecting, training and managing an effectine POC for the event. Overall I had a positive experience with the POC that we used. They certainly made our life much easier, particularly during the running of the actual conference.

> 
> Surely not a certainty that a PCO reduces the event risk - engaging a company would create a lot of new risks:
>  - will they meet the standard we've set?

This will depend on how effective the LOC’s procurement and relationship management is. See also the SWOT above.

PCO related risks can be managed, and the use of a PCO may also mitigate against other LOC risks of trying to 'go it alone’.

>  - will they know how to engage with the community to ensure that it still feels like a community run event and not a copy+paste corporate conference?

This is not a PCO task in my opinion. It is a LOC task.

>  - will we have to raise prices and cut back on things like our Good Mojo program in order to mitigate the extra expense?

See relevent comments in the brief SWOT analysis above. 

Yes there will be costs, but most attendees will probably have their attendance paid for by their employers as a professional development activity.

There is also a good chance of a surplus that can be applied to future events.

>  - we would absolutely need to meet sponsorship and registration targets, rather than enjoying some elasticity because of our lean expenses

Yes. But that will be required regardless of whether a PCO is used or not.

The most important aspects here are to know the market; have effective marketing; set realistic targets and budget; and manage expenses. 

This doesn’t change just because a PCO is engaged. 

> 
> There has certainly been a lot of volunteer effort going into these events but that's an absolutely fantastic aspect to them. It's a time consuming experience but a rewarding one. I hope that all of the organisations that have been so willing to support this effort will also (continue) to provide in-kind employee time so that it's less dependent on volunteer time.

Agreed. 

Volunteer time is a very scarce and valuable resource.

My opinion is that we don’t waste in on the more mundane aspects of the planning and running of the ‘event’.

> 
> Regardless, I don't understand why we would struggle to obtain a competitive quote from a PCO if we released this information.

I haven’t read the resource below and don’t intend to.

If there are expected costs for items listed in the documentation and these are made public, then an organisation who is bidding for the work can adjust proposals accordingly.

> 
> Cheers
> Daniel
> Conference Chair - FOSS4G SotM Oceania 2019
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:47 PM Bruce Bannerman <bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com <mailto:bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi John,
> 
> For FOSS4G-2009 we used a Professional Conference Organising (PCO) company to help us put the event together.
> 
> This proved to be very helpful to the LOC in getting the event organised and run smoothly.
> 
> I would recommend this approach in future events as it reduces the event risk and the LOC volunteer load considerably.
> 
> There are of course costs involved...
> 
> I don’t know if this factor is included in the information that you have below.
> 
> I do know that PCO treat their budgets as intellectual property that must be protected. Therefore, this is a situation where we need to be careful with what is made public.
> 
> In addition, if PCO costs are not included in the budget info below, making the budget public may also be detrimental to us obtaining a suitable competitive quote should we decide to use a PCO later.
> 
> Therefore, I recommend not making this specific information publicly available.
> 
> By all means use a process that makes the budget info available to registered potential bidders via other means.
> 
> My 2c.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Bruce
> 
> 
> On 20 Aug 2019, at 17:18, John Bryant <johnwbryant at gmail.com <mailto:johnwbryant at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>> Hi OO board,
>> 
>> I think it would be helpful for those considering a proposal for 2020 to have access to the 2018 budget. I've prepared a redacted version that removes transaction data, and any specific references to people or companies, in the interest of privacy. But I still think it contains a wealth of useful information to future event organisers.
>> 
>> You can see this version here (login required): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vBpexZ4wTbpmQMENEePEj6SYWjqPbfNxOE_5EBAK9HY <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vBpexZ4wTbpmQMENEePEj6SYWjqPbfNxOE_5EBAK9HY>
>> 
>> Rather than provide it privately to those who ask, I'd rather open it up to the public... I see this as 1) more fair & transparent, and 2) significantly easier to manage. Do you see any issues with sharing this document with the public?
>> 
>> Cheers
>> John
>> _______________________________________________
>> Oceania mailing list
>> Oceania at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Oceania at lists.osgeo.org>
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania>
> _______________________________________________
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Oceania at lists.osgeo.org>
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/oceania/attachments/20190821/51270de3/attachment.html>