AA Review Final Report(presentation)

Report of the Review into the

Glasgow 2014 Campaign

November 2014

ContentsSlide No

Introduction 4

Executive Summary 5

Scope of Review 18

Review Terms of Reference 19

Process Undertaken 23

Terms of Reference – Issues 24

Public Domain Incidents 31

Findings 36

Key Themes 41

Key theme – Leadership 42

Key theme – Culture 46

Key theme – Stakeholder Engagement 49

Key theme – Governance 51

Key theme – Coaching 56

Key theme – Benchmarking Performance & Accountability 60

Key Theme – A shared model for high performance 69

Recommendations 73

Appendices

Slide No

Appendix 1 – Stakeholder Engagement 79

Appendix 2 – Benchmarking BMEs 82

Appendix 3 – Input into the Review 83

Appendix 4 – Possible Head Coach Role 84

Appendix 5 – Review Panel Members 85

Appendix 6 – Glossary 86

1. Title slide quote from Australia’s Winning Edge

This report was commissioned by the Board of Athletics Australia as a result of matters arising out of the Glasgow

Commonwealth Games campaign. Specifically these matters included that athletics did not meet its ACGA medal

targets, the public domain issues of camp compliance and the suspension of the Head Coach. During the review

process broader issues arose and for the sake of completeness these are taken into account in the report. The

purpose of the review was to assess Athletics Australia's performance against the terms of reference and to

recommend on future team preparation, governance structure, support structure, organisational culture and risk

mitigation.

Athletics Australia established a review panel consisting of independent chair Chris Wardlaw and board members,

Jan Swinhoe, Peter Bromley and Anne Lord to conduct the review.

The review process included face to face and phone interviews, specific online surveys directed to athletes,

personal coaches, team staff and MAs and also accepted direct submissions, both by invitation and from other

interested parties. Over 100 people contributed, including athletes, coaches, AA staff, team staff, Board members,

MAs, media and the wider athletic community.

The key themes of the report are Leadership, Culture, Stakeholder Engagement, Governance, Coaching,

Benchmarking Performance and Accountability and a shared approach to High Performance. The review presents

recommendations to continue to work on and improve AA's performance in these areas.

The process resulted in the emergence of consistent findings centered around communication, stakeholder

engagement, coaching, roles and responsibilities and leadership. The panel found that by improving two way

communication, developing and implementing more robust stakeholder engagement and by clarifying distinct roles

and responsibilities throughout the organisation, AA and its stakeholders can work together to improve outcomes for

the sport.

The Panel would like to thank all contributors to the Review for their candour and positive intent. Ultimately, the ideal

of athletics as the purest of sports remains. We sincerely believe there is a great opportunity to be tapped in both

achievement and participation and that Athletics Australia can lead in these areas.

Chris Wardlaw Jan Swinhoe

Peter Bromley Anne Lord

Introduction

5

Report of the Review into

the Glasgow 2014

Campaign

Executive Summary

The Review was established to critically examine all aspects

of the Australian Athletic team’s participation in the Glasgow

Commonwealth Games.

The Review Panel conducted interviews and on line surveys

and received direct submissions from over 100 athletes,

coaches and AA staff and Board members

Executive Summary

Intent and Process

Glasgow Performance

The Panel found that

the 2014 Glasgow Campaign did not meet all of the ACGA medal targets

there were quality medal performances with a large number of

qualified/selected athletes providing a good presence across disciplines to

inspire young and emerging athletes watching from home

sixteen athletes (18.6%) achieved PBs at the Games and a few athletes

delivered world class performances at their first BME

the inclusion of para athletes in the championship athletics team has been

successful and provides leadership to other sports

many athletes and coaches found the Glasgow a valuable experience – it

provided a supportive environment that contributed to their athletic career

Executive Summary

Key Themes and Findings

Head Coach

The Panel found that the removal from Glasgow of the Head

Coach was appropriate. The impact of this incident within the

team and on team performance was marginal.

Camp Compliance

The Panel believes there should be a high expectation, for

performance reasons, that all athletes assemble in camp within

an agreed window. However camp attendance should not be rules

bound and compulsory. Discretion for exemption should be part

of the ongoing policy.

Executive Summary


Leadership

The Panel found that leadership failures, at a range of organisational levels, contributed to the disappointing outcomes and incidents of the Glasgow campaign.

Culture

The Review Panel found that the Glasgow Games was a missed opportunity to build a vibrant and inclusive culture both organisationally (at AA) and athletically (lead up, camps and Games village)

Stakeholder engagement

The Panel found that AA could significantly improve its stakeholder engagement and communication to meet the needs and harness the potential contributions of the broader “athletics family” – member organisations, personal coaches, parents and volunteers

Governance

The Panel found issues of governance at both Board and management levels including lack of clarity around roles and responsibilities and perceived and actual conflicts of duty for AA staff.

Executive Summary


Coaching

The Panel found that coaching emerged as a central theme including:

the need to strengthen the systematic approach to supporting coaches (both experienced coaches and the development of new coaches)

the lack of engagement with coaches from AA particularly personal coaches

the role and skill set needed to carry out the head coach role

the selection and clarity of role of team coaches and the relationship between team coaches and personal coaches

Benchmarking performance/accountability

The Panel found that Australian athletics campaigns would benefit from regular and consistent benchmarking of outcomes across a range of performance measures.

A shared model for High Performance

The Panel found that AA should consider its current work against a first principles approach where support is wrapped around athlete and coach and that it should seek to further assess its current approach against world leading evidenced based approaches.

Executive Summary


Leadership (refer pages 42-45)

1. That AA invest in the leadership and management capabilities of its staff

including additional media training

2. That AA establish a clear set of KPIs for staff which covers key athletic

outcomes as well as stakeholder management and internal staff

engagement and development.

3. That AA consider the number and roles of professional staff on overseas

teams, particularly championship teams, to ensure transparency and

maintenance of productivity and future planning for AA.

Culture (refer pages 46-48)

4. That AA organise and promote the sport of athletics around the theme of it

being the pure sport – the banner sport of the Olympics and the

Commonwealth Games and the foundation of all other sports.

5. That AA strengthen the induction program for athletes and coaches, and

that a parents and supporters of athletes group be a part of AA planning for

each major campaign

Recommendations

Executive Summary

Culture (cont.)6. That as a matter of priority AA initiate processes to establish a

productive and inclusive organisational culture focused on achieving

the goals and targets determined by the Board.

7. That AA take immediate steps to strengthen and support formal

mentoring arrangements covering athlete to athlete, coach to coach

and professional staff to professional staff

8. That AA establish processes to elicit and respond to regular feedback

and input from athletes and coaches including a strengthened Athletes

Commission. This will also be an outcome of stronger stakeholder

engagement as recommended. In the short term there could be a role

for:

• an Honorary Ombudsman to receive feedback and progress the

resolution of issues through the CEO as an initial mechanism to build

trust.

• consideration of a constituted Track and Field chapter in the Australian

Recommendations

Executive Summary

Stakeholder Engagement (refer pages 49-50)

9. That AA establish and implement a detailed stakeholder relations plan that is

inclusive of the its major stakeholders and that provides a three year

engagement plan for each major stakeholder group.

Governance (refer pages 51-55)

10. That AA reconstitute the High Performance Advisory Committee (HPC) to

incorporate a broader pool of high performance expertise in the provision of

advice to the CEO and the High Performance Department (HPDept.) on AA

High Performance policies. That the AA Board give consideration to

appointing to the HPC members with high performance and coaching

expertise to complement those from the ASC and the AIS.

11. That AA review its current organisational structure and processes, particularly

as they relate to high performance, against good governance principles and

establish and publish detailed role and accountability statements for AA staff

and structures including the role of the AA Board.

Executive Summary

Recommendations

Coaching (refer pages 56-59)

12. That AA take into account the findings of this report and determine the

role and capabilities of the Head Coach and authorise the filling of that

role.

13. That AA adopt arrangements for the appointment of Team Coaches for

major campaigns that:

has a transparent and open process for appointment

prioritises early appointments where possible

allows for performance based appointments over successive campaigns

regularises remuneration for Team Coaches along the lines of other team

members

14. That AA ensure that Personal Coaches are embraced as part of AA’s

approach to high performance including consideration of:

Personal Coaches of podium athletes automatically have the highest

accreditation available if they are not on the team

appointment of a Personal Coach voluntary liaison person

Recommendations

Executive Summary

Benchmarking Performance (refer pages 60-68)

15. That AA establish an organisation wide business intelligence process

using athletes and coaches as the basic unit of measurement to

establish relevant team benchmarks, track progress over time and

build the evidence base to identify where support can be most

effective.

16. That AA establish initial targets for the 2018 Gold Coast

Commonwealth Games based on the 2006 Melbourne Commonwealth

Games across a range of measures.

High Performance (refer pages 69-72)

17. That AA assess its High Performance Strategy (policy and operational

guidelines) against evidence based frameworks such as Sports Policy

factors Leading to International Sporting Success (SPLISS) with

particular reference to relevant critical success factors and AA’s KPIs

to maximise the benefits of its support from the Winning Edge

strategy.

Executive Summary

Recommendations

High Performance (cont.)18. That AA continue its 6-8 year high performance planning and development

cycle with rigorous evaluation after each major campaign. This includes

competition, coaching support and athlete development programs noting that

the Australian team for the Gold Coast Commonwealth Games is likely to be

large.

19. That there should be a high expectation, for performance reasons, that all

athletes assemble in camp within an agreed window. The Camp policy should

have a basis for discretion, exercised by the team head coach, to allow for

athlete/event groups performance circumstances

20. That AA through its High Performance Strategy review its current risk

mitigation approach against best practice to ensure AA teams deliver optimal

performance. A focus of this review should be to further develop stakeholder

communication protocols

Panel Report21. That the Panel’s report should be published together with the Boards

response. Prior to publication briefings should be undertaken with ACGA,

MAs, the ASC review panel and athletic journalists.

Executive Summary

Recommendations

17

Report of the Review into

the Glasgow 2014

Campaign

Scope of Review

The Review’s Terms of Reference largely focused on the Glasgow Campaign and any process and policy lessons that should be considered for future campaigns.

During the Panel's process a range of related matters have been identified.

The learnings obtained through this process apply more broadly than the specific campaign

In the interests of full transparency these matters are included in the report to the AA Board for their consideration

Terms of Reference (ToR) Part 1

1. Assessment of the efficacy of the High Performance Department Policies (including team, coach and management selection, preparation, funding and pre-Games attendance) concerning the Glasgow Commonwealth Games Team including their:

implementation;

suitability;

consistency;

shortcomings;

success

2. Assessment of the level, standard and success of the communications amongst athletes, coaches, high performance department personnel and team management both prior (from time of selection) to and during the Games.

3. Assessment of the role of the AA High Performance Committee in formulating policies and procedures for and in relation to the team and the governance structure of that committee including an assessment of the alignment of the Committee’s role and processes with that of the CEO and High Performance Director and other personnel within AA.

Terms of Reference (ToR) Part

2

4. Assessment of the performance of the team at the Games as against the High Performance targets set pre-Games and assessment of team culture around the pre-Games camp and at the Games.

5. Assessment of the best method of establishing a risk register and measures to mitigate risks.

6. Assessment of the media policy including the crisis management policy established for the Games, the implementation of those policies at the Games and the awareness of the contents of these policies by key personnel including key stakeholders.

7. An assessment of the extent to which the campaign met the goals and targets of AA’s strategic plan and the High Performance Department’s strategic plan.

8. Assessment of any other aspects of the Glasgow campaign that the Review Panel considers relevant.

9. Recommendations:

for the future preparation of the teams based upon the Glasgow campaign experience;

for the future governance structure and role of the High Performance Committee;

flowing from the assessment undertaken pursuant to the above Terms of Reference.

Policy – High Performance Department

Communications – stakeholders

Governance – High Performance Committee policies and procedures

Team Performance – against targets and of team culture

Risk assessment and mitigation

Media Policy – including crisis management

Campaign performance – against AA and High Performance Department

Strategic Plans

Terms of Reference

Headlines

Recommendations

• Future Preparation

• Future governance structure

• Any others related to the Terms of Reference

Conceptual groupings of the

Terms of Reference

Operation

Strategy

Policy

ToR 1

ToR 7

ToR 3

HPD

AA

Board

HPC

Communication/

MediaToR 2 Tor 6

Performance/Ris

kToR 4 ToR 5

Other matters/ Recommendations ToR 8 ToR 9

Process

Review of documents

Interviews

Survey

Performance data

The Review process has canvassed a broad cross section of interests including:

• AA Board

• AA and team management

• Stakeholders with wide experience and engagement in athletics

• Athletes both experienced and those at the beginning of their elite careers

• Team and personal coaches covering a wide range of experience

The Panel is confident that the process provides a solid ground on which to base its

findings and recommendations.

Terms of Reference – Issues

Uneven clarity and understanding of high performance policies and the

evidence base for them

Inconsistent or inappropriate application of policies e.g. timing of

selection, team roles and appointments, camp attendance

Lack of engagement with stakeholders in development of policy

Limited leadership and genuine engagement from some AA senior staff

with the athletes and coaches at Glasgow.

A need for much clearer and explicit roles, responsibilities,

accountabilities & expectations for AA team members, personal coaches,

volunteers and athletes

Selection policy was seen as positive and transparent overall however

the timing of selection and entry to village for some athletes was an

issue.

Some difficulties confirming lead up competitions

1. Policy – High Performance Department

Instances of poor communication between AA/team officials and personal coaches

Administratively – access to venues (acknowledging expected difficulties), training times and locations

Professionally – structures to facilitate training and performance information and building a sense of belonging

Limited guidance and templates to support focused and regular communication other than email, pre, during and post Games

Communication generally impersonal and largely one way

Differences were apparent in communication across groups e.g. NASS/non NASS; experienced vs non experienced

Event group and support team meetings were often rushed and not productive – more time needed. Opportunities to use and support event groups were not always identified or taken up.

Insufficient collaboration between AA and ACGA in recognition of the athletics team being part of the wider Australian Commonwealth Games team

2. Communications – stakeholders


Lack of transparency in team (management and coaching) appointments, funding decisions - NASS

Roles and responsibilities unclear – when documented not well communicated or understood.

Input from Tours Commission not actively sought or utilised.

Internally focused (HPC/HPD) - in house planning; lack of engagement with athletes/coaches

Conflict of duty – professional staff undertaking all of policy, regulation, funding, delivery and evaluation

3. Governance – High Performance Committee

policies and procedures


Team achieved Gold Medal target but did not achieve targets in terms of overall (No 1 in the Commonwealth) and medal performance

Strong contribution from para athlete performance including gold medals

Strong feedback that there was very good team spirit and morale in the Glasgow team

However significant culture issues were identified which if better facilitated, would lead to greater positive culture in our championship teams:

Relationships between AA officials and personal coaches

Lack of trust among too many at management, coach and athlete level

Perception of lack of care for some athletes/coaches particularly for those less experienced and those whose performance was disappointing

Head coach and camp compliance issue

Potential conflict of roles – coach/manager, team coach/personal coach

Captaincy appointments - process and decision criteria

Understanding of the needs of different event groups and the amount of time spent in those groups at Games and in the lead up

4. Team Performance – against targets and of team

culture


A risk register was developed. Who was involved and

who monitored?

Did the Risk Register have a team performance (e.g.

injury, impact of culture) or organisational focus?

Well established medical monitoring processes,

proactive remediation (e.g. athletes visits to AIS for

sustained treatment)

Feedback post event was not systematic for all

athletes

5. Risk assessment and mitigation


Media Issues Management Plan had not anticipated a

scenario similar to the camp funding reduction and Head

Coach issues

Proactive monitoring and use of social media can assist

athletes and other stakeholders; mixed views on how AA is

harnessing social media; team member social media policy

is well understood

Role of media staff and levels of accreditation in the team

lacks clarity.

The Media Management Plan included the designation of an

AA Board member to address media issues back in

Australia. However the advice given significantly

underestimated the impact in Australia as media issues

6. Media Policy – including crisis management


Largest offshore team selected

Team did not achieve targets in terms of overall (No1

in the Commonwealth) and medal performance

Team performance needs to be assessed against a

broader set of measures and benchmarks

The line of sight between AA’s Strategic Plans, AA

policies and the implementation of those policies is

not sufficiently transparent to enable simple

assessments of alignment and performance

7. Campaign performance – against AA and High

Performance Department Strategic Plans


Public domain incidentsLeadership and head coach

Debate was virulent in the public domain – leading to potential brand

damage in Australia and negative impacts on stakeholders.

However impact was marginal within team with nearly all feedback

indicating it had little or no impact on team or individual performance;

indeed there was a sense of relief among some athletes. ‘The team just

got on with the job at hand’

The Panel found that the removal from Glasgow of the Head Coach was

appropriate.

Camp compliance

Need to balance extremely diverse views on camp compliance issue –

compulsory, expectation, voluntary

Consequences of non compliance should be transparent and

administratively simple

The Panel found that the handling of the issue did not pass the test of

common sense

Public domain incidents

The Panel found that it was generally acknowledged that some difficult relationships had developed over time between AA’s ex head coach and a number of athletes and coaches.

Historically the incident at the games was not a one-off. As the major Olympic sport, track and field will always be in the spotlight. Incidents can be identified over successive campaigns where Track and Field issues have progressed rapidly to the front page and the front of news bulletins

Planning should presume that this will be the case. The AA Risk Management Plan should be strengthened by establishing a crisis management protocol and by monitoring its enactment. The Risk Management Plan should:

have a proactive focus

identify who is responsible and in what circumstances

provide a clear decision tree to respond swiftly to emerging issues and ensuring it is followed

privilege key stakeholders with immediate and on-going information

Head Coach


Media and public debate was virulent. Member Associations

(MAs)thought AA judgment that the incident had little impact

back home was a serious miscalculation and diminished the

sport in the public’s eyes

Impact was generally minimal within the team

General view that team management covered the absence

smoothly and there was little disruption at the event group level

It is great credit to the organisation and the resilience and focus

of the athletes and coaches that there was very little disruption

to performance.

There was a sense of relief amongst those who have had a

difficult relationship with former head coach

Head Coach


The Panel found that there were diverse views on the camp compliance issue. Focus was on the rules driven approach to assembly rather than education around the value of camps.

Why do we have camps?There is an evidence base supporting a camp effect in achieving high performance – athletes have a common goal, and are pursuing the same end point. The camp helps to deal with and diminish daily stresses of life, provides a 100% focus on the task at hand

There are acclimation benefits – climate, time zone

It allows concentration of medical, psychology and sports science services

It provides for smooth transition of athletes into a village environment

ButCamps are for the benefit of the athletes

It is difficult to find a holding camp that matches all event’s needs particularly when managing training loads and environments. On previous occasions event groups exemptions have been given e.g. walkers, marathon

Particular performance needs of podium athletes may be relevant

Camp compliance


The Panel notes that the penalty for non attendance was not a fine but a non payment of a camp per diem allowance. Because of the rules driven approach the general perception was that three star athletes were fined and the public explanation was at best clumsy

There is a need for a clear, expert and sensitive approach to this issue. With the benefit of hindsight approval for exemption could or should have been given by the Head Coach.

Future Camps

The Panel believes there should be a high expectation that all athletes assemble in camp within an agreed window allowing for the possibility of early and late arrivals as appropriate to the length of the Track and Field program

However camp attendance should not be rules bound and compulsory. Discretion can be and should be expertly given

If athletes do not attend parts of the camp they should not be paid the preparation allowance for the relevant days unless agreed by the Head Coach

Preparation funding does take account of the opportunities some athletes have where meet promoters pay expenses. Historically AA have paid 80% in advance and then made adjustments as needed for the remainder after returning home.

There is general support for the continuation of Cologne as a European base. However there are some views that there should be more active coordination when a critical mass of athletes are there.

Camp compliance


Strategy, Policy and Operation

Terms of Reference 1,3 and 7 The Panel found that:

the 2014 Glasgow Campaign did not meet all of the ACGA medal

targets

with the exception of the selection policy and funding, the policies

governing the operation of the team including statements of roles,

responsibilities and expectations of team members lacked clarity

and were not communicated, or well understood by many team

members

the structure and operation of AA’s High Performance approach

(High Performance Committee, High Performance Department)

was too internally focused and led to perceived and actual

conflicts of duty for AA staff.

Integration of SIS support for AA’s NASS athletes is well grounded

and effective

Terms of Reference – Findings

Strategy, Policy and Operation

Terms of Reference 1,3 and 7 The Panel found that:

There was a lack of transparency, consistency and engagement of stakeholders in the development and application of team policies

There is a perceived lack of clarity regarding the roles within AA including the Board, the High Performance Department and the High Performance Committee

Games specific roles were generally not advertised, accountabilities not clear and selection for these roles perceived to be highly subjective. Further, because of the lack of transparency, roles which were indeed unpaid were seen as financially lucrative when this was not the case.

Nearly all team management positions were filled by professional staff of AA. Three issues emerge as a result:

The transparency of appointments to the positions along with other team members

The potential loss of productivity with so many professional staff off site for a significant period of the year – interruptions to forward planning etc.

A missed opportunity to harness the skills and enthusiasm of competent volunteer members of the athletics community


Communication and Media

Terms of Reference 2 and 6 The Panel found that:

internal team communications was largely administrative, impersonal and one way in nature. It did not effectively build engagement and team spirit over the campaign period: the Australian season, pre, during and post the Games.

external communications arrangements did not sufficiently take into account the needs of stakeholders especially those in Australia during the lead up and conduct of the Glasgow Games

it needed to be acknowledged that once in the village the team is an ACGA team and the only spokesperson is the Chef de Commission”

media policy and practice was generally effective with two major caveats:

the handling of the two unexpected issues relating to the camp compliance and the head coach removal on site

potential brand damage to Athletic Australia as a result of the lack of


Performance and Risk

Terms of Reference 4 and 5 The Panel found that:

the 2014 Glasgow Campaign did not meet all of the ACGA medal targetsjudgment of team success needs to be based on medium term perspective and a wider view of performance indicators and benchmarksthe risk assessment undertaken for the Glasgow games considered a range of performance and culture issues. There is wide recognition that a positive environment and mitigation of injury risk is of paramount importance as the championships approach.for most athletes the Camp and the Games were a positive experience both individually and as part of the Australian teamthe inclusion of para athletes in the championship athletics team has been successful and provides leadership to other sports the creation of a vibrant team (athletes and staff) culture was not a focus of team management and that opportunities were missed or not created to develop a team culture that fostered a sense of belongingathletes and coaches experience of the team culture depended largely on the strength of pre-existing personal relationships


Other matters

Terms of Reference 8The Panel found that:

the place of coaches and coaching within AA’s approach emerged as a critical matter to address

more consideration should be given to the meeting the needs and harnessing the potential contributions of the broader “athletics family” – parents and personal coaches and volunteers

there is an absence of a “relationship management” focus within AA to support our athletes and coaches performing at their best: administrative focus is privileged over engagement and relationships

the High Performance Strategy is not well understood, not built on wide stakeholder engagement and may not harness sufficiently the funding it receives to achieve higher levels of performance


Key ThemesA number of themes became apparent during the Panel’s review

Leadership

Culture

Stakeholder engagement - communication

Governance

Coaching

Benchmarking performance/ accountability

A shared model for high performance

The Panel found that leadership failures, at a range of

organisational levels, contributed to the disappointing

outcomes and incidents of the Glasgow campaign. This was

not just a failure during the Games period but one for which

the foundations had been laid in the years preceding the

games.

Leadership issues include:

Team culture both athletically and organisationally

Approaches to coaching

Relationships both internally and with stakeholders

Maximising the benefits and rewards from the athletics

volunteer community

Given the demands of landing a large team in Glasgow

administration and logistics was well handled.

Key themes – leadership

Leadership

The significant public profile of high performing

athletes can lead to AA spending a disproportionate

amount of time on high performance matters ahead

of a range of other important areas. On the role and

contribution of AA to the sport of athletics there is at

best a fragile agreement around high performance

matters.


Leadership

As part of expectations of leadership AA should address the

following aspects:

approaches to developing leadership skills and staff capabilities

in the medium term.

approaches to developing athlete leadership, - attributes,

specified roles and expectations of team captains, taking into

account the critical need to focus on performance

creating more opportunities within and beyond the Athlete

Career and Education (ACE) program for athletes who are

interested in widening their career and post career experiences

strengthening mentor programs through which senior athletes

and coaches can support new and/or inexperienced athletes

and coaches

skills and processes in relationship management and

engagement/re-engagement of stakeholders


Leadership Aspects

As part of expectations of leadership AA should address the

following aspects:

building the culture of the athletics team over a 6 - 8 year cycle

starting in junior ranks

developing a place for a vibrant athletes association to provide

feedback and review. The current Athletes Commission has a

minimalist role and does not have sufficient separation from AA.

The Athletes Commission should be strengthened to provide

robust feedback and review

develop a short term role for an Honorary Ombudsman to receive

feedback and progress the resolution of issues through the CEO

as an initial mechanism to build trust.

consideration of a constituted Track and Field chapter in the

Australian Athletes Alliance if appropriate


Leadership Aspects (cont.)

Track & Field teams are unique

whilst legitimate comparisons can be made with other sports the

differences are more marked than the similarities.

athletics is the foundation of all sports. It

has virtually no gender bias, includes para athletes in competition

structures

includes all body types and sizes, all psychological make ups

has a high degree of specificity of events (23)

very different demands in preparation

but there is a commonality of experience – pathways to

participation and success, competition events that provides

athletics with significant potential to build a strong supportive

culture

The Review Panel found that the Glasgow Games was a

missed opportunity to build a vibrant culture both

organisationally (at AA) and athletically (lead up, camps and

Key themes – team and organisational

culture

Culture


culture

Culture

“engaging,

uniting,

inspiring and

motivating all

Australians.”

Many athletes and coaches found the Glasgow a valuable experience

– it provided a supportive environment that contributed to their athletic

career

However management played a passive rather than active role in

relation to cultural and organisational aspects of the team. There was

not significant attention given to:developing respect and trust within the team and organisation

establishment of clear and well understood processes that were

consistently applied

building effective personal and professional relationships based on clear

behavioural expectations, two way communication and accountability for

performance

developing robust feedback processes and training staff to apply them

establishing service standards and measures of responsiveness

There are varying views of the level of reciprocity throughout the

organisation. Athletes, coaches and stakeholders tend to perceive

that they are held to account more than the professional staff and


culture

Culture

A consistent theme was that AA could improve its stakeholder engagement.

The panel suggests using a stakeholder engagement framework to signal a

real attempt to engage differently

Who are AA’s stakeholders?Athletes

Coaches (personal, team, professional)

Institutes of Sport

Member Associations

Athletics volunteer community

ACGA, AOC and APC (athletics teams are part of a wider team)

ASC/Government

IAAF and OAA

Specialist athletics journalists/media

Broader community

Appendix 1 outlines model principles for stakeholder engagement, stakeholder

engagement tool that AA might consider in assessing its approach to

stakeholders and an example of cultural aspiration that AA might aspire to as a

result of stakeholder engagement process.

Key themes – stakeholder

engagement

Who are AA’s stakeholders?

Key findings – stakeholder

engagement

Levels of Stakeholder Interaction - a framework

Inform Consult Involve Collaborate Empower

Engagement

goals

To inform and

communicate

To obtain

feedback

To work

directly with to

ensure

understanding

To partner

with in

development

and decision

making

To place

decision

making in

s’holder hands

Promise to

stakeholders

We will keep

you informed

We will listen We will work

with you

We will look

to you for

advice

We will

implement

your decisions

Methods Fact sheets

Open houses

Newsletters,

bulletins,

circulars

Websites,

external

Public

comment

Focus groups

Surveys

Public

meetings

Workshops

Deliberative

polling

Web 2.0 tools

Forums

Web 2.0 tools

Reference

groups

Facilitated

consensus

building

forums

Local

governance

Joint planning

Provision of

data

Shared

projects

Capacity

building

Transparency – of processes and outcomes

Impartiality – with respect to decision-making and engagement

with different communities of interest

Efficiency and effectiveness – in delivery of services and in

providing suitable access for athletes, coaches and other

stakeholders

Clarity and accountability – refers to the way responsibilities are

assigned and described, and decision-makers held to account

Responsiveness and reciprocity – with respect to engaging

stakeholders on policy and funding/delivery

Inclusivity – with respect to engaging stakeholders.

Key themes – Governance

Principles of good organisational governance


How did the Glasgow campaign approach fare against

these principles?

Principle Assessment

Transparency Poor. Apart from selection other processes around campaign

lacked transparency or were communicated poorly

Impartiality Questionable. AA’s organisational structure and some decisions do

not support a face value assessment of a high level of impartiality

Efficiency and

effectiveness

Mixed. Good - most of selection; Fair - organisation of roles and

responsibilities of team members. Number of professional staff on

teams raises questions of productivity.

Clarity and

Accountability

Poor. Accountability lines were not clear, on site, in Australia and

within organisation – Board, management, team officials

Responsiveness and

reciprocity

Poor. Communication was largely one way with little attempt to

check understanding. Media response underestimated impact back

in Australia. Little known or non existent procedures for athletes to

express concerns.

Inclusivity Poor. Stakeholders largely felt excluded from decision making.


How would this look in an ideal world?

Principle What does it look like for AA? What does it look like to athletes

and coaches?

Transparency Decisions are taken in accordance

with pre published criteria and

processes

Athletes and coaches would have

access to information early and often

and would not ask “How did that

happen”

Impartiality Organisational structure is free of

conflict of interest and duty issues

All information available to all. AA

decisions are initially trusted and there

is opportunity for review via separate

processes

Efficiency and

effectiveness

AA minimises double handling and

reduces red tape. Issues are handled

by the right people with the right skills.

Requests for information well founded

and relevant.

Requests are reasonable and can be

seen to be going to the right place.

Athlete and coaches respond in a

timely and useful way to interaction

with AA

Clarity and

Accountability

Shared understanding of roles and

responsibilities within AA

Athletes and coaches understand

relevant roles within AA

Responsiveness

and reciprocity

Early engagement with stakeholders in

genuine consultation

Contribution is valued

Inclusivity AA thinks broadly about who should be Athletes and coaches feel they have

Potential conflicts of duty


Policy

Funding

Team

FormationDelivery

✗

✗

✗

Conflicts of duty potentially

arise when policy and

funding roles in an

organisation overlap with

delivery roles

In AA’s case overlapping

membership of the High

Performance Committee,

NASS funding and review

decision makers, the High

Performance Department

and AA Team staff raises

the issue of a conflict of

duty when their respective

responsibilities are

considered

✗

✗

✗

Revie

w

Evaluatio

n

Potential Conflicts of Duty – an illustration

Function Who decides?

Selection Selection committee reports to board. Independent chair and members Selection policies – HPD/HPC (approved by Board/ACGA)

Funding (NASS) HPD – independent member with no voting rights

Monitoring HPD

Team appointments

HPC – membership HPD plus Board chair as member, chaired by CEO

Review HPD – independent member with no voting rights (same as funding)

Evaluation HPD – report to Board


Removal of conflicts of duty can assist professional staff to do

their job better, free of perceptions of lack of transparency and

impartiality

The question of coachingCoaching emerged as a central theme from the panel's process. Issues raised include:

support for coaches (both experienced coaches and the development of new coaches)

the role of the head coach

team coach selection and the relationship between team coaches and personal coaches

support for coaches and athletes when a change of coach occurs

the role of Athlete Performance Advisor vis a vis event/team coach

Coaches also took the opportunity to comment on the current split between the AA coaching model and ATFCA approach. AA should consider taking immediate steps to remove this damaging dysfunction and mediate a way forward to improve coach development

AA should review the balance of its high performance funding between management and administration, coaching, and athletes

Key themes – Coaching

Head CoachThe Head Coach role is of critical importance and AA should take the time to ensure the right appointment is made including consideration of:

the role and accountabilities of a head coach (see below)the capabilities to carry out the rolethe time frame of the appointment. Panel’s view is that an appointment should be made through to 2020 subject to athletic, organisational, and cultural performancethe appointment should not be rushed

AA needs to determine on the role of the head coach and ensure the athletic community understands its reach and place in Australian athletics. Three possible approaches are:

A coaching director accountable to the CEO dealing with all coaching matters with a focus on High Performance but separate to a HPDA head coach focused solely on High Performance and head coach of BMEsA head team coach who may be different from a High Performance Coaching Director

The role, capabilities and accountabilities for the head coach position need to be carefully considered prior to a transparent process for appointment


Team CoachesThe Panel found that there needed to be greater clarity and transparency around the role of team coaches including a role statement and induction process. The role should encompass

facilitation of personal coaches and athletes through a whole campaign

ensuring that the personal coach’s program is implemented if the personal coach can’t be present

Team coaches should:be provided with certainty by appointing as many as possible early where it can be done for core appointments – apply 80/20 rule to team appointments.

be retained subject to performance over successive campaigns (2-3)

where the coach is not employed by AA receive payment of a modest fee consistent with medical payment from the team assembly point onwards

Some personal coaches of podium athletes might be part of the team coach cohort but on the basis of capabilities, sound relationships and a willingness to coach across other athletes within event groups and work with personal coaches. It should not be the default position that coaches of podium athletes are


Personal CoachesThe Panel found that Personal Coaches in general feel isolated and there was little apparent concrete support for them. The Panel recognises potential support is limited and access to accreditation is not possible for all.

Personal coaches of podium athletes should automatically have the highest accreditation available if not on the team.

History shows that significant numbers of Personal Coaches get an athlete to a major meet for the first time. With little experience to help them navigate a complex and difficult situation AA needs to find ways to support these coaches in order for their athletes to perform at their best. Consideration should be given to:

Personal Coaches being treated as a segment of the team

appointing a Personal Coach liaison officer who is a volunteer outside the team

facilitating Personal Coaches involvement in team activities (dinners etc) and other issues such as accommodation deals

ensuring direct communication between Personal and Team Coaches


Assessment of Glasgow Performance

Quality medal performances – Athletics had the stars of the Games

Large number of qualified/selected athletes with a good presence across disciplines to inspire young and emerging athletes watching from home

Sixteen (18.6%) achieved PBs at the Games and a few athletes delivered world class performances at their first BME

Strong contribution from para athlete performance including gold medals

The Campaign inducted a large number of emerging elite athletes at their first BME

Three National Records in the Campaign period

Key themes – Benchmarking

Performance

Assessment of Glasgow Performance

However

Performance at the Delhi and Glasgow Commonwealth Games (taken together) is considerably below the three previous Commonwealth Games (medals and Top 8s)

AA had to moderate downwards its already modest Winning Edge targets as the Games approached.

The Glasgow teams did not meet its 10-20 (9) medal target but did meet its 5-9 (6) Gold medal target.

Consistent with recent Commonwealth Games our World Championship and Olympic Games performances since 2000, whilst maintaining our medal performance (2-4), have seen our our top eight and top sixteen results trending down.


Performance

Junior pathwaysThe Panel notes that a longer term assessment of the status of Australian athletics would need to consider the role and success of junior programs and the pathways athletes take to become part of national teams at events such as Glasgow

Early analysis indicates for instance that members of Under 17 national squads have made little or no contribution to podium points in recent major competitions (one Top 8)

However participation in World Junior Championships (Under 20s) has proved to be a pathway to medals at major competitions

Whilst not directly covered by the Terms of Reference of this Review the Panel suggests that AA review its approach to junior programs including:

development of an evidence base to support successful junior programs

determining a primary focus for junior programs and the role of MAs in their implementation – i.e. is the focus to build a broader base for fostering elite talent?


Performance

Benchmarking Performance

The Panel believes that Australian athletics campaigns would benefit from regular and consistent benchmarking of outcomes across a range of performance measures.

Benchmarking performance and establishing team targets:

promotes a positive climate of high expectations amongst coaches and athletes about our performance

helps “buy in” and support from key athletics media to promulgate valid expectations about performance

provides a variety of performance benchmarks over a number of campaigns on which to evaluate performance and base improvement targets and predict team performance


Performance

Benchmarking Performance – key

issuesHow good is our data?

How do we use it?

Who has access to it?

Benchmark against

Team goals

Other teams at the same BME

Team performance at similar BMEs

Other teams at similar BMEs

Establish a wider set of performance measures to assess

performance

AA should build on its current system to create an organisational

data base using the athletes and coaches as the basic unit of

measurement aggregating up to BME benchmarks.


Performance

Benchmarking Events


Performance

1998 2018

CG Gold

CoastCG Melb

2006

OG

Beijing

OG

LondonOG RioM

ET

RIC

S

2020

OG

Tokyo

Using benchmarksAll benchmarks need to be contextualised, but there

is still great veracity in evaluating performance

against other BMEs.


Performance

Event Context

Kuala Lumpur

• No para athletes

and W 3,000 ST

Glasgow

• No walks

Missing

Athlete

Context Kuala Lumpur

• Freeman,

Gainsford,

Marsh

Glasgow

• Frayne, Watt,

Rowe, Solomon

Location Context

• Manchester and

Glasgow similar

zones and timing

• KL and Delhi

similar

hemisphere

• Melbourne and

Gold Coast –

home games

Sample Benchmarks – Commonwealth

GamesCG 1998 CG

2002

CG

2006

CG

2010

CG 2014 WJ 2014

Qualifiers

Qualifiers (next BME) 61 (77%)

Team size (event group) 74 73 105 54 86 56

Performance >=ER (no &

%)

51 (65%) 37 (66.1%)

Performance = PB or equiv 16( 20%)

PB

32 (42%)

=PB

16 (18.6%)

PB

17 % PB

Progression through rounds 93% 65.1%

Medals (percentage of

team)

34 (45.9%)26 (35.6%) 36 (34.3%) 15 (27.8%) 9 (10.5%) 2 (3.6%)

Conversion (medals to

Gold)

38.2%34.6% 38.9% 53.3% 66.7% 0%

Conversion (top 8 to

medals)

56.7%46.4% 45.6% 50.0% 22.0% 12.5%

Top 8 (percentage of team) 60 (81.1%) 56 (76.7%) 79 (75.2%) 30 (55.6%) 41 (47.7% 16 (28.6%)

Targets


Performance

Sample Benchmarks – World and Olympic GamesOLY

2000

WC 2003 OLY

2004

WC 2007 OLY

2008

WC 2011 OLY

2012

Qualifiers

Qualifiers (next BME)

Team size (event group) 86 38 44 45 41 45 52

Performance >=ER (no & %) 64%

Performance = PB or equiv 38%

Progression through rounds 45%

Medals (percentage of team) 3 (3.5%) 1 (2.6%) 3 (6.8%) 3 (6.7%) 4 (9.8%) 3 (6.7%) 3 (5.8%)

Conversion (medals to Gold)33.3% 100% 0% 66.7% 25% 33.3% 33.3%

Conversion (top 8 to

medals)

20% 16.7% 37.5%100% 50% 27.3% 50%

Top 8 (percentage of team) 15

(17.4%)

6

(15.8%)

8

(18.2%)3 (6.7%) 8 (19.5%) 11 (24.4%) 6 (11.5%)

Top 8 (points score) 53 24 34 18 40 34 27

Top 16 (percentage of team)38 (44.2%) 16 (42.1%) 12 (27.3%) 17 (37.8%) 18 (43.9%) 18 (40.0%) 15 (28.8%)

Targets

Pathways


Performance

High Performance ModelsA number of high performance approaches are visible in the AA world.

Winning Edge – Priority Actions

Athletics’ Australia High Performance Strategy (Sept 2013)

AA Strategic Plan 2013-16

Elliott Review

High Performance Review 2005 Core Strategies

How can these be integrated together with world’s best practice into an effective means of guiding AA’s processes, decision making and programs?

Specifically AA needs to consider:The best balance of top down and bottom up to achieve high performance outcomes

How can Winning Edge be leveraged to support that approach?

The place of NASS – what important contribution can it make that is consistent with the approach to high performance: NASS should not be the only key driver but nested within a broad strategy

Key themes – A shared model for high

performance

AA should consider its

current work against a

first principles

approach where

support is wrapped

around athlete and

coach

Other Support

Coaching

Athlete

High Performance

Athlete first, coach driven high

performance


performance

A significant piece of applied research is available to AA which could provide a

useful framework for a newly constituted HPC to consider over coming months.

The Sports Policy factors Leading to International Sporting Success (SPLISS) is an

international network of research cooperation that coordinates, develops and shares

expertise in innovative high performance sport policy research in cooperation with

policy makers, National Olympic Committees (NOCs), international (sport)

organisations, and researchers worldwide.

This framework has recently been applied to athletics. A next step could be to apply

the framework to Australian athletics. Academics from Victoria University are

partners in the project and could be engaged to assist.

The diagram on the following slide outlines the pillars of this framework

Note the inclusion of a range of pillars including (inter)national competition, athlete

and post career support and coaching. We heard significant feedback of the

importance of these pillars in high performance and this could be a focus of detailed

work to benchmark our current high performance model

Using this framework as an assessment tool can allow AA to identify our current

strengths and build improvements, as well as strengthen ownership of its current

high performance strategy.

A potential approach to high performance


performance

A potential approach to high

performance

Pillar 1

Financial Support

Pillar 2

Organisation of sport policiesPillar 3

Foundation & Participation

Pillar 4

Talent identification and

development system

Pillar 5

Athletic & post career support

Pillar 6

Training Facilities

Pillar 7

Coaching provision & coach

development

Pillar 8

(Inter)national competition

Pillar 9

Scientific Research

SPLISS Model

A theoretical model of nine

pillars of sports policy

factors influencing

international success:

Pillar 10

Elite Athletics Environment

Leadership1. That AA invest in the leadership and management capabilities of its

staff including additional media training

2. That AA establish a clear set of KPIs for staff which covers key

athletic outcomes as well as stakeholder management and internal

staff engagement and development.

3. That AA consider the number and roles of professional staff on

overseas teams, particularly championship teams, to ensure

transparency and maintenance of productivity and future planning

for AA.

Culture4. That AA organise and promote the sport of athletics around the

theme of it being the pure sport – the banner sport of the Olympics

and the Commonwealth Games and the foundation of all other

sports.

5. That AA strengthen the induction program for athletes and coaches,

and that a parents and supporters of athletes group be a part of AA

Recommendations

Culture (cont.)6. That as a matter of priority AA initiate processes to establish a

productive and inclusive organisational culture focused on achieving

the goals and targets determined by the Board.

7. That AA take immediate steps to strengthen and support formal

mentoring arrangements covering athlete to athlete, coach to coach

and professional staff to professional staff

8. That AA establish processes to elicit and respond to regular feedback

and input from athletes and coaches including a strengthened Athletes

Commission. This will also be an outcome of stronger stakeholder

engagement as recommended. In the short term there could be a role

for:

• an Honorary Ombudsman to receive feedback and progress the

resolution of issues through the CEO as an initial mechanism to build

trust.

• consideration of a constituted Track and Field chapter in the Australian

Athletes Alliance if appropriate

Recommendations

Stakeholder Engagement9. That AA establish and implement a detailed stakeholder relations plan

that is inclusive of the its major stakeholders and that provides a three

year engagement plan for each major stakeholder group.

Governance10. That AA reconstitute the High Performance Advisory Committee (HPC)

to incorporate a broader pool of high performance expertise in the

provision of advice to the CEO and the High Performance Department

(HPDept.) on AA High Performance policies. That the AA Board give

consideration to appointing to the HPC members with high

performance and coaching expertise to complement those from the

ASC and the AIS.

11. That AA review its current organisational structure and processes,

particularly as they relate to high performance, against good

governance principles and establish and publish detailed role and

accountability statements for AA staff and structures including the role

of the AA Board.

Recommendations

Coaching

12. That AA take into account the findings of this report and determine the

role and capabilities of the Head Coach and authorise the filling of that

role.

13. That AA adopt arrangements for the appointment of Team Coaches for

major campaigns that:

has a transparent and open process for appointment

prioritises early appointments where possible

allows for performance based appointments over successive campaigns

regularises remuneration for Team Coaches along the lines of other team

members

14. That AA ensure that Personal Coaches are embraced as part of AA’s

approach to high performance including consideration of:

Personal Coaches of podium athletes automatically have the highest

accreditation available if they are not on the team

appointment of a Personal Coach voluntary liaison person

improving communication between Personal and Team Coaches

Recommendations

Benchmarking Performance

15. That AA establish an organisation wide business intelligence process

using athletes and coaches as the basic unit of measurement to

establish relevant team benchmarks, track progress over time and

build the evidence base to identify where support can be most

effective.

16. That AA establish initial targets for the 2018 Gold Coast

Commonwealth Games based on the 2006 Melbourne Commonwealth

Games across a range of measures.

High Performance17. That AA assess its High Performance Strategy (policy and operational

guidelines) against evidence based frameworks such as Sports Policy

factors Leading to International Sporting Success (SPLISS) with

particular reference to relevant critical success factors and AA’s KPIs

to maximise the benefits of its support from the Winning Edge

strategy.

Recommendations

High Performance (cont.)18. That AA continue its 6-8 year high performance planning and development

cycle with rigorous evaluation after each major campaign. This includes

competition, coaching support and athlete development programs noting that

the Australian team for the Gold Coast Commonwealth Games is likely to be

large.

19. That there should be a high expectation, for performance reasons, that all

athletes assemble in camp within an agreed window. The Camp policy should

have a basis for discretion, exercised by the team head coach, to allow for

athlete/event groups performance circumstances

20. That AA through its High Performance Strategy review its current risk

mitigation approach against best practice to ensure AA teams deliver optimal

performance. A focus of this review should be to further develop stakeholder

communication protocols

Panel Report21. That the Panel’s report should be published together with the Boards

response. Prior to publication briefings should be undertaken with ACGA,

MAs, the ASC review panel and athletic journalists.

Recommendations

Responsive and reciprocal

Early engagement

Inclusive

Impartial and objective

Open, transparent and trusting

Respectful

Example of principles of stakeholder

engagement1

Appendix 1 Stakeholder

Engagement

1.Drawn from Stakeholder Engagement Framework, Department of Education and Early Childhood,

Victoria

Where do AA’s stakeholders fit?

High

High

Low

Low

Level of interest

Level of in

flu

ence

Involve/Consult Collaborate/Empower

Inform Consult

Stakeholders

may be in

different

quadrants at

different times

or on different

issues

Appendix 1 Stakeholder

Engagement

(Our People) we did a great job recognising key-wins and team/individual contributions made to the strategic direction of the sport.

(Our People) AA made significant investments in growing and retaining it’s coaches and athletes– they invested in me as an individual and made me a better coach/athlete/manager

(Our Culture) AA became the place to work in sport(we work-hard, play-hard, have the most fun and win lots of medals)

(Our Processes) we made it much easier for our coaches and athletes to do business with us, we focused on operational efficiencies, communication, transparency & effectiveness and removed non (administrative) activities from our sport

(Our People) we were successful in expanding ( community, coaching, competition, junior and whole of sport)

(Our Culture) it became evident that all athletes and their support groups became an integral part of our success, allowing us to focus on new opportunities

Appendix 1 Cultural Aspirations

Following a stakeholder engagement process our cultural

aspirations might look like…

CG

1998

WC

1999

OG

2000

CG

2002

CG

2006

OG

2008

CG

2010

OG

2012

WC

2013

CG

2014

CG

2018

Qualifiers

Qualifiers (next

BME)

Team size

(event group)

Performance

>=ER (no & %)

Performance =

PB or equiv

Progression

Conversion

Top 16 (not CG)

Top 8

Medals

Targets

Pathways

PB/Qualifiers/N

R in campaign

Appropriate

benchmark years

Appendix 2 Benchmarking

BMEs

Appendix 3 Input to the Review

Athletes Coaches Team Staff Member

Associati

ons

Other

29 39 20 7 22

The Panel received input from a range of sources

including:Face to face and phone interviews

Direct submission to the review

Four online surveys tailored to key segments of the

athletics community.

The table below provides an indication of the numbers of

people/institutions providing input into the Review.

Note: there maybe some double counting as the online

surveys were anonymous and some individuals may have

completed the survey and participated in an interview.

The Head Coach of Australian Athletics will:Make a major contribution to AA HP Strategy, which is guided by an athlete first, coach driven

principle;

Lead the HP coaching strategy for AA

Lead through the SIS and the network of event group coaches to create the best possible daily

training environments for all aspiring podium athletes".

Lead the coach mentoring, coach development, succession planning and coach support for all

HP coaches, paid and voluntary.

Lead performance development and management of AA professional coaches

Contribute to the national coach accreditation framework and monitoring its delivery for HP

coaches.

By negotiation is able to coach a small number of elite and emerging athletes

Be the head team coach for some teams as determined by CEO.

Contribute as a senior member of the AA leadership team.

Be accountable for collaboration with the HPD to assist on other elements of the HP Strategy,

including competition, talent identification, funding allocation, preparation arrangements for

major teams, performance monitoring etc.

Capabilities of the person filling this role should be the demonstration of highly developed

interpersonal skills with an ability to manage complex relationships, lead and inspire individuals and

groups over whom they may not have any direct responsibility

Possible Head Coach Role Statement

Appendix 4 Head Coach Role

The Review Panel consisted of:

Chris Wardlaw, Chair

Anne Lord, AA Board

Jan Swinhoe, AA Board

Peter Bromley, AA Board

Review Panel Members

Appendix 5 Panel Members

Appendix 6 Glossary

ACE Athlete Career and Education program

ACGA Australian Commonwealth Games Association

APC Australian Paralympic Committee

AIS Australian Institute of Sport

AOC Australian Olympic Committee

ASC Australian Sports Commission

ATFCA Australian Track and Field Coaches Association

BME Benchmark Event

ER Entry Rank

HPC High Performance Committee (AA)

HPD High Performance Department (AA)

IAAF International Association of Athletic Federations

KPI Key Performance Indicator

MA Member Association (affiliated to Athletics Australia)

OAA Oceania Athletics Association

PB Personal Best

NASS National Athlete Support Structure

NOC National Olympic Committee

NR National Record

SIS State Institute of Sport

SPLISS Sports Policy factors Leading to International Sporting Success (SPLISS)

Team Coach Coach appointed by AA to support team at major event

ToR Terms of Reference

Winning Edge The Australian Sports Commission’s High Performance Strategy

Documents

AA Review Final Report(presentation)