MSPeconomist

My first reaction to this thread was honestly that this might not be the best use of our time if TB and/or general FT members haven't been asked to participate in a strategic vision discussion. Certain types of unsolicited advice can be ignored or even downright unwelcome regardless of how much time has been invested in formulating a clear statement with thoughtful recommendations.

However, after seeing the quote from our CD in post #12 above (thanks, Kagehitokiri), I'm not necessarily so skeptical about this. OTOH that was written in 2011 (before I ran for election to TB) around the time that Randy Petersen exited from FT and Carol became the newly appointed CD, in a newly created position here. At that point, not much serious followup apparently occurred; the thread in TBT containing the post is fairly short and appears to have degenerated into some comments criticizing moderation in general.

Hence, going forward now, is strategic planning an exercise that could be useful for FT? On what topics would our input be welcome? Would we want to attempt to provide input on topics where our discussion and recommendations might not be sanctioned or appreciated?

I recall various topics from TB election debates that have somewhat the flavor of suggesting mission statements and strategic visions. For example, we have been asked questions such as the following (from memory, none of which are direct quotes of the precise wording that was used):

What is FT to you? [mission statement, albeit a somewhat personal version]

What one thing would you want to do on TB to improve FT? [invites material for a strategic plan if answered in a "big picture" way]

What should be changed on FT? [a "big picture" answer would itself constitute a strategic plan]

Is there some recent TB recommendation with which you disagree? [could call for a change in direction]

For all we know, some of these questions were formulated by the CD even though everyone was invited to suggest questions for the TB election debates. I'm sure others can find additional examples of such questions--as well as answers--in the election debate archives .

Doc Savage

Might I suggest that we might be taking ourselves an FT a little too seriously if we think we have to take it upon ourselves to have a "Stategic Plan" and a "Vision Statement" and all sorts of other corporate buzzwords? They always make me chuckle a bit.

I suggest it might be more better to stick with folk wisdom like "don't fix what ain't broke." Organic growth has worked pretty well in developing a thriving FT.

Cheers,

Doc

MSPeconomist

I would generally agree with this even though big strategic plans and mission statements are the fad in many areas, for companies, divisions/departments, nonprofits, government agencies, etc. Often I want to laugh a bit, but it's obviously being taken very seriously and some of these cost a lot of time and even consulting fees.

OTOH, I can sometimes see that it might be better not to make decision about FT in a piecemeal fashion but to have some sense of how we might want FT to evolve. We especially don't want to get into a pattern of making some changes and then undoing the changes in short order if this can possibly be avoided. For example, once some fora are combined, it can be hard to undo that step because there doesn't seem to be an easy way to flag which threads and posts came from which forum originally. Separating new material reequires that someone read everything and then use their best judgment, especially if some threads might need to be broken up into several threads to be sent to different fora.

Kagehitokiri

its interesting, i tried raising/discussing some topics in the past, but i guess people were too focused (and emotionally invested) in other issues that are have been officially labeled as outside TB purview

however, manufactured spend and information desk were created, and i think those are both valuable forums and 'important' to have been created

CMK10

We're the World's Largest Frequent Flyer Community, our vision should be obvious. We're not a publicly traded company, let's be realistic here. Flyertalk shows up on so many Google searches and is referenced in enough places that the vast majority of people showing up know what it's here for.

Also, I'm a law student who likes talking about planes and food. Not only am I unqualified to decide on what our strategic plan is, I don't think it's something TB should be discussing. But that's just me.

Doc Savage

Well, I'll happily consult at my usual and customary daily rate for any entity considering vocabularily enhancing themselves. First class airfare to the consultation site, of course.

Kagehitokiri

i would not focus on buzzwords, take a look at some of the specific topics raised

JDiver

Just me, but I suspect owners Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Internet Brands management have some resources directed at these issues.

kokonutz

Right, this is what I am talking about.

I hope people don't get turned off by the buzzwords (imho, vision statements and mission statements are not buzzwords, they are highly effective management tools). Call it a 'Forum Assessment Scale' or 'Things that are important to FlyerTalk.' Something to replace the current 'Important Criteria for Forum Changes' that the TB recommends ought to be addressed in open/keep/close decisions.

Again, the impetus for this suggestion was the ongoing debate over what benchmarks the TB should measure forums by. And what I am suggesting is that the benchmarks ought to be conforming to an established purpose and direction.

For example, if one of the 'Things that are important to FlyerTalk' is (as cblaisd often argues) "Ensuring that information and knowledge is shared in a well organized and ordered manner," then that is a clear benchmark for keeping the Antarctica forum open. But if one of the 'important things' is "Adequate forum activity metrics to ensure questions and issues addressed by other posters promptly" then that is a clear benchmark for putting Antarctica issues in a forum that is likely to get more eyeballs (say, a combined 'polar adventure' forum or some such).

This is but one of several fundamental questions that would help guide the TB in making open/keep/close decisions. Another is the question of how granular travel issues should get. Another is whether how 'long' the list of forums is matters or not.

Rather than debating these questions over and over again every time a forum open/keep/close thread is posted, why not hammer it out all at once, then use those 'important things' as a measuring stick for deciding whether a forum belongs on FlyerTalk or not.

This is where the rubber meets the road. Let’s square the circle, take the 30,000 foot view and focus on our core competency. Begin with the end in mind. Plan the work and work the plan. Post a bunch of hoary management cliches and see if anyone notices!

tcook052

A binding measuring stick you mean? Otherwise what's to stop someone on TB from ignoring it like you ignore the criteria questions?

kokonutz

Definitely. As I say above, I am not interested in creating shelf-ware:

MSPeconomist

However, realistically both "Ensuring that information....." and "Adequate forum activity....." will be on the list. What then? How should TB weight these two objectives when there are tradeoffs?

Kagehitokiri

im not sure if initially focusing on forum opening/closing procedures would be most effective

MSPeconomist

I really don't see a pressing need to revisit forum opening/closing procedures and standards. This was done before my time on TB, but the current statement asking for data seems to have been well thought out and still to be working. Since different people have different views here, it seems normal to have people disagreeing from both ends.

nsx

Maybe, but they clearly recognize that FT runs itself pretty effectively. I'm sure they wish we could be Facebook, but the focus on travel prevents that even as it provides us our competitive edge.

We can do what Zuckerberg did: focus on doing what we do better than anyone else does it, and let the user community determine our level of success.