AKC Event Operations – Challenges and Changes

Click here to read the full article in our digital edition.

By Amy Fernandez

Show committees typically dread the work and planning for their upcoming events. The general attitude is hope for the best, but prepare for the worst – because countless glitches inevitably complicate the process. According to some show committees, an unexpected issue has become one of their biggest challenges.

Aaron Goldfinger has served as show chair for Bronx County KC for eight years. He calls AKC’s Event Operations Department, “one of the chambers of the heart of the organization. It’s essentially half of what AKC was formed to do. The articles of incorporation state that clearly.” His remarks stem from growing concerns about the department’s competence. “There have always been problems, but it’s gotten much worse over the past four years.

“I know the head of the department has changed, but it’s not as if new people are running it. My club has dealt with the same representatives for at least ten years. I always document what/when we submit anything to them because they lose so much paperwork.” To illustrate this he says, “Another show chair for one of our specialty clubs was told that their club’s file was ‘in the pile on the floor next to my desk and I have to dig it out.’”

Additionally, he complains that their show planning procedures seem to vary every year. “For instance, Rules Applying to Dog Shows simply states that host clubs must provide consent for any specialty/supported entry in conjunction with the all breed. It’s not specific about the letter. Last year I submitted a blanket letter stating that all clubs desiring to hold a supported or specialty at Bronx County KC have our permission and I had no problem. This year, all my clubs were approved on the basis of that letter except one, and they never explained why that club was singled out.”

Goldfinger eventually contacted Alan Slay, Director of AKC Event Programs for an explanation. After several months of persistent effort, he received a partial response.

“Two Mondays ago Alan Slay informed me by email that the Events Department had a meeting and changed the club consent rules. We must now provide a list of all the clubs we are giving permission to, but we can grant that permission for one year, five years, or indefinitely. I said okay, fine, but are you going to remember that rule from one year to the next?” Intensifying his exasperation is the time sacrificed from his workday to repeatedly contact them about issues stemming from bureaucratic negligence. “They are paid to do their jobs, but they seem to forget that everyone does this work for their club as a volunteer.”

He considers their failure to return phone calls among the most tiresome aspects of the situation. “I realize they prefer to communicate via email, but you often don’t get a response to those either. For instance, the Pug Dog Club of Delaware Valley submitted their application and check in August. Since their check was cashed, they assumed it was accepted. They weren’t notified about any problem until January when AKC said their application was never processed because they hadn’t provided a show chair. It’s a supported entry, there is no show chair!” Among others, he confirms that the Northern New Jersey Siberian Husky Club and the Delaware Valley Manchester Terrier Club have experienced similar problems.

Pat Hall, secretary of Delaware Valley Manchester Terrier Club, has managed their show planning for 20 years. “The quality of service in this AKC department has always been slow, but it has declined to careless in recent years. They cannot answer questions and fail to follow up. Meanwhile, letters keep coming saying they need this or that, so you are back to square one.” Like Goldfinger, she complains that they consistently lose faxed and mailed applications. “It’s beyond me how you can charge a credit card yet misplace the fax. They also request things that are not our responsibility, like filing a disaster plan. Our show is held in conjunction with an all breed show. Try as I might, I could not get the girl on the phone to understand that.”

Alan Slay responded for this story saying, “We have a deep appreciation for the club volunteers who are supporting the sport of dogs and we want to make their experience with the AKC a pleasurable one.” To that end, he notes that, “The AKC has recently taken steps to improve the event application process for clubs wishing to hold specialties at all-breed dog shows as well as other improvements to the event application process.”

He also cites a recent article in the AKCommunicates! newsletter detailing some of those changes.

It reads: If a club wants to hold a show in another club’s territory, the club with the rights to the territory must provide a Permission letter giving the visiting club permission to hold the show. If a club wants to hold a show on the same date and site as another club, the club that owns the rights to the date must provide a Permission letter to allow the other club to hold the show. If the Permission letter is for a specialty club joining an all-breed or group show, the Permission letter must list each individual specialty club as well as the type of show (designated specialty, evening specialty, concurrent specialty, or sweepstakes) they are permitted to hold. This is required because of the AKC rules, regulations, policies, and procedures associated with each type of show.

A club may designate the time period that the Permission letter is valid for. It may be indefinite, for a set period of time, or a one-time basis. Permission letters may be submitted via email (eventplans@akc.org), fax (919-816-4220) or postal mail (Event Operations, PO Box 900051, Raleigh, NC 27675-9051).

He stressed that his department is dedicated to providing excellent service to their customers. “The AKC reached out to Mr. Goldfinger directly to get a better understanding of his concerns and address them specifically. However, this is not unique; this is something that I and my team do on a daily basis. We investigate and act upon our customer’s suggestions and concerns, and beyond that, we proactively question aspects of our processes and how we can improve them for the benefit of all of our customers. We will continue to do this in the future. To emphasize this fact he notes, “In 2013 our team of six representatives processed the applications and judges panels for 4,049 conformation shows and 2,670 Obedience trials. We also processed over 800 special attractions and 800 match applications. We did this with over half of our team in training during the year. On an average week, our team sends approximately 650 emails and participates in approximately 500 phone calls. “

(Editor’s Note: On average, each representative sends 22 emails and handles 16.5 phone calls per day. Based on a five day work week, processing 8,319 events works out to 32 per day, or 5+ per representative, and most of the work is automated.)

Mr. Slay also provided an overview of improvements his department implemented during 2013. They include:

• The creation of a Conformation/Obedience Application Checklist to assist customers with the process of submitting their applications and judges panels
• The restructuring and bolstering of the Frequently Asked Conformation Questions on the website
• Eliminating the need to apply for most Special Attractions
• Allowing host clubs to grant permission for a specialty to join their event for a period of time beyond one year, including an indefinite approval
• Allowing events to co-exist within the 200 mile conflict distance if the two clubs can agree to the co-existence
• Expanded the ability for clubs to use combined catalogs
• Improvement in the navigation of the Online Event Management system
• Generating a notice to clubs twenty-one days prior to the due date for their application and judge panel if it has not been received
• An expansion of the distribution of notices to more club officials
• Accepting an email from a club officer in lieu of the requirement of a signed form
• Accepting an email from a club officer to initiate the change of a date and/or site rather than requiring the submission of a new application
• Removing competitions from a club’s event for the future so that they do not have to cancel them each year
• Internal changes to the team’s responsibilities to maximize the team’s strengths and to help reduce the time to train a new team member
• The creation and utilization of several internal reports to monitor and manage our processing
• Surveyed event chairpersons and event secretaries to get a measure of the department’s customer service
• Surveyed exhibitors to get input on what is important to them in the sport of dogs

From Goldfinger’s perspective, a better Online Event Management System should top that list. Instructions on AKC’s website seem straightforward, but his experiences prove otherwise. “They want clubs to submit applications on the web because it creates less paperwork, but the antiquated JAVA-based application often doesn’t work, especially for Mac users. You can complete online applications for Junior Showmanship and performance events, but the only function that works for conformation events is the payment module. You can pay online; you just can’t use the program!”

In response, Mr. Slay notes, “For over ten years our customers have been able to use our Online Event Management systems to manage the applications and judges panels for Conformation, Obedience, Junior Showmanship, Agility, Rally, and all but one performance competition. In 2013, over 40% of our Conformation events and judges panels were managed by our customers using our Online Event Management systems.” Specifically, that represented, “801 all-breed shows, 94 group shows, and 1,198 specialty shows.”

Although it’s been available for ten years, less than half of the clubs currently utilize a system intended to streamline the process. That suggests that it’s got some major drawbacks. Among others, Goldfinger would like to see some of the department’s annual revenue directed towards creating a more intuitive, user-friendly interface. “The last time an annual report provided a breakdown of revenue from sources like conformation events was in 2010, and AKC received approximately $4 million from recording fees. They collect approximately $24,000 from the shows that participate in my club’s weekend alone. The Tar Heel and four Texas shows are also that weekend. It adds up to almost $500,000 in $3.50 fees collected from a single weekend of shows.”

Mr. Slay did not offer a specific timeline, but confirmed that additional improvements planned for 2014. He said, “enhancements to the Online Competition Management System (OCMS) will be released that will provide customers additional features and greater flexibility in managing their applications and judges panels.

“We are actively reviewing our business processes to make additional improvements so that we can spend more time providing personal customer service and improving the experience of the club volunteers. We are questioning and justifying each step of the event application process and determining how we can make the process better for our customers and our team including the automation and elimination of processes. We are looking at reducing the burden on our customers in the areas of matches, common site applications, site permissions, and parent club approval.”

Needless to say, clubs will breathe a collective sigh of relief if these measures result in better management and efficiency at the AKC Event Operations department. “If you really complain, they handle your problem” says Hall. “But you should not need to make a pest out of yourself to get things done.”

Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=46298

Posted by Alex on Apr 10 2014. Filed under Current Articles, Featured. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.