A sport program can have a sound curriculum, skilled contributors and a well-organized website, yet still be difficult to use. The problem may sit between those pieces: who interprets the curriculum, how a facilitator prepares, what a coach takes back to practice, and who responds when a question appears.
Those connections are part of the program. If we leave them until the end, we ask the people delivering it to solve problems that the design has passed on to them.
My work moves across coaching, education, program development, communications and digital delivery. I’m interested in the space between them because that is where a good intention has to become somebody else’s action.
The document is one part of the work.
In 2007, I wrote a guide to help athletes prepare to play college softball. Alongside the sporting questions were questions about education, finances and everyday life. A useful choice required the athlete to weigh those things together.
The following year, I was one of eight members of the steering committee for Softball Canada’s Long-Term Player Development guide. My national-team strength and conditioning work sat alongside a wider question: what should development look like across a player’s journey?
Today, my advisory work with the Philippine Sports Commission and Philippine Sports Institute connects national program architecture with curriculum, facilitator resources and a Coach Developer Academy. The context and scale are different. The practical challenge is related: how does the next person make sense of the work and use it?
Start with the next person’s decision.
A handoff is more than sending a file. Responsibility, interpretation and judgment move with it. The next person needs to know what they are being asked to do, what matters most, and where they have room to adapt.
Consider a facilitator preparing to teach a new module. A slide deck explains what is in the session. It may not explain which discussions to pursue, what to do when participants disagree, or how to recognize a coach who can repeat a principle but cannot yet apply it.
The design question is therefore larger than “Is the content complete?” It becomes: “What decisions will this facilitator face, and what preparation will help?” That could mean an example, practice with feedback, a discussion with a mentor, or a clearer explanation of the standard.
Four handoffs worth examining
1. From knowledge to judgment
An expert can explain what good practice looks like. A coach must decide what to do with particular people in a particular situation. In a learning session, give that judgment somewhere to appear: a decision, a comparison, an explanation of why one approach fits better than another.
This is why I ask what a coach will do with an idea before asking how many slides it needs. A well-chosen activity can reveal what another explanation would leave hidden.
2. From program design to local delivery
A shared purpose does not require identical delivery conditions. My PAISAC work brings me into English- and French-language learning with coaches from Africa and the Caribbean. A useful principle must make sense alongside their people, facilities, schedules and organizational realities.
Distinguish the parts that protect the purpose from the parts that can respond to context. Make that distinction with local partners. Otherwise, “be consistent” can become an instruction to copy an arrangement that does not fit, while “be flexible” can leave people unsure what they are allowed to change.
3. From a resource to a routine
A resource needs a route into someone’s work. Where does a volunteer encounter the current guide? What happens after a coach completes an online module? How does a facilitator find the explanation behind a changed requirement?
My digital and communications roles with USCCE, ICCE and Orienteering Canada keep these questions close. A web page, an email and a learning platform are parts of the same experience when a person moves between them.
4. From launch to continuing care
Someone has to notice that a link no longer works, a requirement has changed or a recurring question needs a better answer. Name that responsibility. Give feedback somewhere to go and make clear who can act on it.
That does not mean building a large administrative structure around every initiative. For a small program, a named owner and a manageable review routine may be enough. The aim is to remove ambiguity, not add paperwork.
Try this with one live program
- Name the next person who must use the work.
- Write the decision or action they need to take.
- Identify what they need to understand, practise or access first.
- Separate what must stay consistent from what they can adapt.
- Name where their questions go and who maintains the answer.
Then check your answers with that person. An assumed handoff and an understood handoff can look very different.
Find the kind of problem you actually have.
Try a small test: ask a facilitator who was not involved in the design to prepare a session using the materials alone. Watch where they get stuck before deciding what to add.
If the purpose of an activity is unclear, the resource may need a better explanation. If the facilitator understands it but has never led that kind of discussion, rehearsal and feedback may help more than another page. If two documents set different expectations, someone who owns the standard needs to resolve the conflict.
Those are three different problems: an explanation, a skill and an unresolved decision. More content is only one possible response. The value of tracing the handoff is finding out which response is needed.
Where technology fits
AI might help draft an explanation from approved source material or organize questions for a resource review. An AI draft does not settle who owns a requirement or replace a conversation with a local partner. Those decisions still need accountable people.
Start by defining the task and the person responsible for checking it. Adding technology to an unclear handoff can simply make the ambiguity move faster.
Keep the human in view.
I do not see coaching and systems as separate interests. Coaches work within conditions that help or hinder what they can do. Developing the person and improving those conditions belong in the same conversation.
The test is concrete: can the next person understand the purpose, make a sound decision, and find support when they need it? That is where the design has to reach.
This essay develops a perspective from my professional work. Historical anchors: 2007 authored guide (archival, not current recruiting guidance); 2008 Softball Canada guide (shared steering-committee contribution). Current role descriptions: LinkedIn . The facilitator example is illustrative.