In the time available, it has not been possible to go into non-HP performance more deeply and to assess the impact that Bike NZ has achieved. However, some high level qualitative observations can be made: Intervention and measurement for non-HP activities is not clear, and performance has not been systematically measured and evaluated over time. To the extent that it has, the data is not readily accessible. At the same time, according to the Active NZ survey (2008), 745,000 New Zealanders had participated in cycling over a 12 month period, while Bike NZ estimates that 120,000 New Zealanders ride competitively/regularly as a sport. It is not clear what positive impact at an aggregate level Bike NZ has had on these groups if any. Themes to Emerge A number of themes emerge from examining the history of Bike NZ over the last decade: A consistent vision for Bike NZ has been supported over the last 10 years (through three strategic reviews) based on three roles: High performance Cycling development Recreational biking But, combining the three differing roles in a single organisation has led to ongoing debate about whether Bike NZ’s purpose is too vague. The ongoing confusion surrounding the role and relationship with MOs: are they unnecessary (move to a unitary structure), or are they an important network infrastructure that needs to be leveraged (the federation structure). Increasing investment in Bike NZ from Sport NZ, particularly in HP, with some limited growth in other income sources. The delivery of results in HP, but less apparent impact in other non-HP areas. The change in membership composition from 2008 and the subsequent reduction in membership income. A high level of interest in biking, suggesting membership recruitment and commercial opportunities Limited success in generating new membership and commercial income.
SWOT Analysis Strengths Core fund of goodwill towards Bike NZ model HP results Programmes and IP developed Level of interest in cycling at all levels MO networks and volunteer capacity Economies of scope Weaknesses Virtually insolvent Governance & management roles blurred Lack of clarity in Sport NZ (HPSNZ) relationship Dependence on NZ Lack of organisational capability Partner relationships strain Recent history of delivery failure Opportunities Rebuild leadership role Set modest, but realistic expectations matched to resources and capability Rebalance role with MOs Refresh organisation Move to Cambridge Growing opportunity for education/advocacy activities Grow NZ income Threats Uncertainty over Bike NZ future Fail to be decisive enough Partners turn away from Bike NZ Further non-delivery Public reputation damage Lack of adequate funding to make change Loss of key people
Commercial In Confidence Range of Potential Roles for Bike NZ Role HP Membership Development Events Recreation Education/ Advocacy Purpose Dominate targeted events on the world stage Attract and retain members directly and through MOs Develop and support bike athlete and participant pathways Develop and support a calendar of successful competitive bike events Support more quality recreational biking Improve the environment for biking Who Athletes Coaches Technical staff 6,000 members 40 junior athletes Officials Coaches 120,000 Competitive riders 745,000+ recreational riders 745,000+ recreational riders Decision-makers What HP programmes Funding Licensing Membership services Training products & services Information Event services Funding Recreation services and products Educational products and services Information How Develop programmes HPSNZ support HOC facility Offshore base Regulate IT platform Set standards Regulate Develop programmes Contract out delivery Set standards Raise funds Contract out delivery Secure commercial revenue Develop products and services Contract out delivery Win public sector contracts Develop programmes Contract out delivery Develop industry input to public policy 21