{"resourceId":"brewer-collegiate-coaching-sports-tech-2025","versions":[{"version":"external-955bb37899dd3f108268f07a1f3d7c476cae8193979f016cf4a811fe642e4d5a","resource":{"id":"brewer-collegiate-coaching-sports-tech-2025","title":"Brewer et al.: DI coaching staffs use sports tech amid workload and 24-h monitoring privacy concerns","organization":"University of Florida / Frontiers in Sports and Active Living","sector":"College athletics / coaching practice and performance technology","geography":"United States (single NCAA Division I university)","publishedAt":"September 1, 2025","publicationDate":"2025-09-01","eventDate":null,"sourceName":"Frontiers in Sports and Active Living (PMC full text)","sourceLabel":"Academic research — qualitative coaching technology adoption","sourceUrl":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12434470/","evidenceClass":"academic-research","outcomeClass":"mixed","topics":["operating-model","accessibility-workforce","data-security","governance-procurement"],"finding":"Five focus groups with 17 DI coaching-staff members show GPS/IMU, force plates, and motion tools are embedded in practice when aligned with coaching goals, supporting decisions, individualized athlete management, and communication. Staff also face growing technology demands; privacy concerns about continuous or 24-hour monitoring appeared in three groups. Study is coach-side qualitative evidence, not an AI accuracy benchmark.","sledRelevance":"Explains the operating reality athletic departments face when layering AI/analytics on wearables and force-plate stacks—capacity, relational trust, and monitoring-scope limits—complementing archived athlete-interview CHI work with coach perspectives.","evidence":"PMC/Frontiers full text: methods (five focus groups; 17 staff; team sports listed), technology inventory categories, findings on decision support and communication, privacy concern count (n=3 groups), and limitations (single well-resourced DI site; no athlete voices).","architectureImplications":"Interpretation: prioritize integrations that reduce duplicate data entry and surface role-appropriate views; avoid always-on athlete telemetry defaults without purpose binding.","governanceImplications":"Interpretation: written purpose limits for continuous monitoring, coach access tiers, and workload budgeting for sports-science support should accompany any new AI feature on existing sensors.","securityPrivacyImplications":"Interpretation: continuous/24-h monitoring raises consent and surveillance risk even when tools are performance-labeled; separate optional recovery tracking from mandatory practice load capture.","caveats":"Single DI university; team sports only; coach perspectives only; qualitative themes are not measured injury or performance outcomes.","streamIds":["college-athletics"],"roles":{"sales":"Lead with coaching workflow pain: too many dashboards, unclear who interprets GPS/force-plate outputs, and athlete trust when monitoring becomes 24/7. Discovery should map which tools are mandatory versus optional and where privacy pushback already exists. Value is reducing noise and clarifying decision rights—not promising championship edges from another sensor. Unsupported: claiming this qualitative study proves any vendor's ROI.","engineering":"Fit is integration and access-control work across GPS/IMU, force plates, and video—not a greenfield model. Prerequisites include a technology inventory, role-based views for coaches vs ATs, and purpose tags on continuous streams. Constraints: single-site qualitative evidence; individual sports may differ. Security: default-deny after-hours telemetry. Proof of value: reduced duplicate entry and documented consent coverage, not accuracy benchmarks.","delivery":"Start with a coaching-staff workload and privacy review across GPS, force-plate, and video tools, then retire redundant dashboards and define on/off rules for continuous monitoring. Train interpreters so junior staff are not buried in alerts, and publish an access matrix separating medical and coach views. Ownership sits with the performance director alongside sport coaches and compliance. Acceptance means written monitoring purposes, named owners per platform, and an explicit staff time budget for each active tool before any new AI feature is layered on."},"roleDetails":{"sales":{"customerProblem":"DI staff juggle overlapping performance technologies while worrying that continuous monitoring erodes athlete trust and burns coaching time.","stakeholders":["Sport coaches","Sports performance / sports science","Athletic trainers","Student-athlete representatives","Compliance/privacy"],"discoveryQuestions":["Which sensors are mandatory for practice versus optional recovery?","Who interprets GPS and force-plate outputs day to day?","Where have athletes or staff raised 24-hour monitoring concerns?","How much staff time is spent wrangling dashboards weekly?"],"valueHypothesis":"Consolidating tools and clarifying purpose limits can improve decision support without adding surveillance load—consistent with coaches' reported benefits when tech aligns to goals.","potentialEngagement":"Three-week technology inventory and privacy/purpose workshop with coaching staff and compliance.","unsupportedClaims":["That qualitative themes prove injury reduction","Vendor-specific accuracy claims","Generalizability from one well-resourced DI site to all divisions"]},"engineering":{"fit":"Integration, role-based access, and purpose-bound telemetry across existing performance stack.","architectureIntegration":"Unify GPS/IMU, force-plate, and video metadata under shared athlete IDs with coach vs medical views and retention schedules.","prerequisites":["Current tool inventory","Identity mapping for athletes/staff","Consent and purpose registry"],"constraints":["Evidence is qualitative and single-site","Team-sport bias in the sample","Vendor lock-in on proprietary exports"],"security":"Disable continuous/24-h collection by default; encrypt exports; audit coach downloads of wellness streams.","proofOfValue":["Percent of tools with documented purpose and owner","Reduction in duplicate manual entry steps","Consent coverage for continuous monitoring"]},"delivery":{"work":"Inventory, retire/redundant tools, draft monitoring purpose policy, train interpreters, and set staffing budgets per platform.","dependencies":["Coach availability for focus workshops","Vendor export access","Compliance review"],"ownership":"Director of sports performance owns stack rationalization; compliance owns monitoring purpose policy.","skillsAdoption":"Coaches learn what each metric is for; analysts learn communication limits with athletes.","governanceCheckpoints":["Purpose review before enabling 24-h modes","Quarterly stack rationalization","Athlete feedback channel"],"acceptanceCriteria":["Published access matrix","No undocumented continuous monitoring","Staff time budget assigned per active tool"],"risks":["Surveillance creep","Coach overload","Ignoring athlete perspectives not sampled in the study"]}},"retrievedAt":"2026-09-20T03:13:06Z","enrichedAt":"2026-09-20T03:15:40Z","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"Interpretation: budget analyst/AT interpreter time explicitly; otherwise technology shifts unpaid cognitive load onto coaches and athletes.","procurementImplications":"Interpretation: require interoperability and purpose-limiting configuration in RFPs; avoid buying always-on monitoring packs by default.","operatingModelImplications":"Interpretation: treat sports tech as coached practice infrastructure with clear owners, not as ambient surveillance.","sourceVerification":{"openedUrl":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12434470/","referenceExcerpt":"Coaching staff also expressed privacy concerns around continuous or 24-h monitoring","promptVersion":"sled-research-v4.0","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}