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.
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.
Review-of-Bike-NZ-2013.docx