Impact/legacy measurement and evaluation in mega events projects with focus on intangible assets
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Impact/legacy measurement and evaluation in mega events projects with focus on intangible assets

on

  • 285 views

Como medir o impacto e o legado de grandes eventos?

Como medir o impacto e o legado de grandes eventos?
Trabalho em andamento na tese de doutorado de Maurício Rodrigues

Statistics

Views

Total Views
285
Views on SlideShare
285
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • The mega events performance evaluation and forecasting planning is a point of continuing debate and controversy, due to the high event expectations. <br /> <br /> By tradition, the spotlight of the cost-benefit assessment has been targeted to identify the past experiences, by benchmarking approach, and to measure the socioeconomic outcomes of these events, by macro-economic indicators. <br /> <br /> But, as each event is a unique project, the comparison between different places, at different times, under different circumstances, in a fast changing economic environment, there not seems to be the best option to planning positive impacts and legacies for the future.
  • In addition, the traditional approaches do not provide relevant information for effective decision-making, neither for the strategic management of positive impacts. <br /> <br /> As in the actual knowledge economy, the value of nations, regions and organizations is directly related to their intangible capitals and depends on systems to visualize, cultivate and capitalize on value-creation interactions, <br /> <br /> We perceive a lack of reliable models and performance indicators to assess the intangible aspects in this context.
  • All these factors leed us to develop the following research question: <br /> <br /> How could we measure and evaluate the impacts generated for and by mega event projects, taking into account the intangible assets and resources, with a focus on future value creation (legacies)?
  • So, our objective is to develop a diagnostic model for measurement and evaluation of the mega event projects impacts and legacies, taking into account the intangible assets and resources
  • To persecute the general aim, we decide on conduct the research in four main phases: Concept definition, concept testing, model development and model validation. <br /> <br /> The concept definition phase will be composed by a critical literature review. <br /> <br /> The Concept Testing phase will be composed by an case study of the traditional intangible structures measurement on the FIFA World Cup Tourism intervention project on the Rio de Janeiro city. <br /> <br /> In the development phase our concern will be to identify what would be the managerially relevant intangible assets, the interdependencies between then, the success factors generated for and by the mega event projects, the variables that should be collected and taking into account, and to identify the activities related to utilizing, improving and/or capitalizing these assets. <br /> <br /> Finally, the model validation phase will be conducted by a pilot-study with the objective of to test the proposed operational version of the diagnostic model.
  • To test some concepts regarding the potential applicability of the traditional intangibles structures on the assessment of mega event projects performance we decided to run a case study. <br /> <br /> The objective of the present case study is to test an adaptation of the Intangible Capital Rating (CRIE/BNDES) model, proposed by Deutscher (2007, 2008) and Cavalcanti (2007) on the assessment and evaluation of the impacts of the Brazilian governmental interventions in the Tourism industry at Rio de Janeiro region, Brazil to host the 2014 FIFA World Cup. <br /> <br /> Among the different options of models available on the literature, we chose the CRIE/BNDES model due its focus on the identification of the assets and resources which the organizations should have to implement their future vision. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
  • We named this implementation of CRIE/COPA-Turismo <br /> <br /> The model implementation are following the methodological proposition of Deutscher (2007) with 3 additional preliminary phases <br /> <br /> The modeling phase was preceded by a documental analysis and preliminary interviews with the project decision-makers. Such analysis and preliminary interviews had the goal of identify the strategic vision for the event and to collect information regarding the planning and management of impacts and legacies. <br /> <br /> As the work is already in progress, we present in the current paper the preliminary findings based on stages one (documental analysis) to four (operational model development) and we intend to collect feedbacks to the validation of the conceptual model and indicators by the intangible assessment experts group (stage five). <br />
  • We performed the adaptation of the operational model and the CRIE/COPA-Turimo is characterized by 5 Capitals, 15 Assets and 41 Indicators. <br /> <br />
  • Indicators and questions
  • The mega event intangibles impacts model will be developed with basis on the data and findings collected from the literature review (chapter 2) and the exploratory case study (Chapter 3) and will be concerned with capturing and expressing the performance of the mega event project in achieving its goals, according to a specific strategic vision. <br /> <br /> To avoid reducing the external validity, because of its limited applicability, we will apply the concepts of the Design Thinking on the diagnostic model development phase, performed with a sample of individuals with some decision-making level in the 2016 Summer Olympic Games. <br /> <br /> The operational version of the diagnostic model will be tested following the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, 1999) for testing in program evaluation and public policy. <br />

Impact/legacy measurement and evaluation in mega events projects with focus on intangible assets Impact/legacy measurement and evaluation in mega events projects with focus on intangible assets Presentation Transcript

  • Impact/legacy measurement and evaluation in mega events projects with focus on intangible assets Mauricio Nunes Rodrigues Supervisor: Marcos Cavalcanti Co-supervisor: Ahmed Bounfour The 7th International Doctoral Consortium on Intellectual Capital Management
  • Content 1. Introduction 2. Research Question 3. Objective 4. Research Methodology 5. FIFA World Cup Tourism case study 6. Next steps - Model development and validation
  • 1. Why? • There is an increasing number of nations interested in hosting international mega events • Despite of • Why these countries place value on hosting such events (e.g. Olympic Games, Sports World Championships, Festivals, Cultural and Political summits)? the costly bidding process the costly organizing planning and operation
  • 1. Because of... • Outcomes related to local economic development • Benefits of optimism dissemination among the citizens, increase in external capital flow to host city/country, tourist attraction and, socioeconomic development acceleration (Clark, 2008; Kasimati, 2003; Preuss, 2007) Copenhagen - October 2nd, 2009
  • 1. Potential economic benefits Directs • Capital flow to host city/country • Infrastructure construction or upgrade • Lower transportation costs due improved networks • Increase in tourists spending Indirects • Advertising effect of the host city/country as a potential tourist or business destination • more local business opportunities • Improved local sense of community and in civic pride • Improved perceived abroad image of the host city/country • Citizen entertainment and welfare • Human resources skills development • Motivation to a more active life (Clark, 2008; Kasimati, 2003; Preuss, 2007; Preuss, 2010; Zimbalist, 2010)
  • 1. Potential downsides / risks • Don`t be able to deliver all positive impacts (planned or unplanned) • Socially unjust displacement and re-distributions • Poor urban land use • Underused facilities after the event • High public debts • Excessive costs • Athens 2004  more than US$ 10 bi • Beijing 2008  more than US$ 40 bi • London 2012  about US$ 15 bi (Cashman, 2010; Haußermann & Simons, 2000; Flyvbjerg et al. 2003; Zimbalist, 2010)
  • 1. Potential problems and issues (Bounfour, 2003; Bruijn & Liijten, 2008; Flyvbjerg et al., 2003; Frick, 2008; Orueta & Fainstein, 2008; Preuss, 2007; Van Marrewijk et al., 2008; Walder & Verma, 2004; Zimbalist, 2010)
  • 1. Costs x Investment - Are it worth it? • The mega projects seem to have a key role on public policies and investment (tourism and business destination attractiveness, business growth, urban regeneration, and infrastructure, image, environmental and local population quality of life improvements) (Clark, 2008; OECD, 2010; Orueta & Fainstein, 2008; Preuss, 2007; Zimbalist, 2010) • Intangible impacts are potentially the most important economic benefits, by its nature, variety and indirect influence (Preuss, 2010) • When hosted well, the mega event project can play a significant role in city/region local development, growth and competitiveness (OECD, 2010)
  • 1. Costs x Investment - Are it worth it? • The benefits do not occur by accident or without an effective action  Need strategic vision and a proper impact planning and management (Clark, 2008; IOC, 2009b; OECD, 2010) • Actual scene of poor performance in terms of public support, economic and environmental outcomes • Megaproject Paradox = incongruence between the increasing number, size and importance of mega projects and it’s poor performance Flyvbjerg et al. (2003)
  • 1. Mega events impact evaluation/forecasting • Point of continuing debate and controversy, due to the high event expectations (Cashman, 2010) • Traditionally is performed by benchmarking approach: – based on past events – through macro socioeconomic indicators – Comparison between different places, at different times, under different circumstances (Preuss, 2007) Each event is a unique project! • In a fast changing economic environment, there not seems to be the best option to planning positive future impacts and legacies
  • • Do not provide relevant information for effective decision- making, neither for the strategic management of the mega event projects positive impacts, legacies and benefits • The value of nations, regions, organizations is directly related to their intangible capitals and depends on systems to visualize, cultivate and capitalize on value-creation interactions (Edvinsson, 2003; Edvinsson & Bounfour, 2004) • There are a lack of reliable models and performance indicators to assess the intangible aspects in this context 1. Mega events impact evaluation/forecasting
  • 2. Research question How could we measure and evaluate the impacts generated for and by mega event projects, taking into account the intangible assets and resources, with a focus on future value creation (legacies)?
  • 3. Objective To develop a diagnostic model for measurement and evaluation of the mega event projects impacts and legacies, taking into account the intangible assets and resources
  • 4. Methodological approach
  • 5. The Concept testing phase • A case study of the traditional intangible structures measurement • Objective • To test an adaptation of the Intangible Capital Rating (CRIE/BNDES) model, proposed by Deutscher (2007, 2008) and Cavalcanti (2007) on the assessment and evaluation of the impacts of the Brazilian governmental 2014 FIFA World Cup interventions in the Tourism industry at Rio de Janeiro region, Brazil • Focus • Identification of the assets and resources which the organizations should have to implement their future vision
  • 5. Case study – The CRIE/COPA-Turismo Model • The model implementation are following the methodological proposition of Deutscher (2007) with 3 additional preliminary phases 1. Documental analysis 2. Stakeholder mapping matrix 3. Preliminary interviews 4. Adaptation of the operational model 5. Validation of the operational model (indicators and questions) 6. Second round of interviews 7. Data gathering evaluation 8. CI Report elaboration
  • 5. Case study – The CRIE/COPA-Turismo Model The Operational Model consist of • 5 Capitals • 15 Assets and competencies • 41 Indicators and questions
  • 5. Case study – The CRIE/COPA-Turismo Model
  • 5. Case study – The CRIE/COPA-Turismo Model
  • 5. Case study – The CRIE/COPA-Turismo Model
  • 6. Case study – Next steps • Second round of interviews with regard of to gathering information about the stakeholders perceptions on the efficiency, effectiveness and impacts related to the intervention action plan – with the project managers and decision-makers (internal stakeholders) – With the hotel, restaurant, sectors business associations (external - tourist industry stakeholders) • The data collection and evaluation procedures will consist of the narratives, notes, reports, stories, insights and impressions which will be coded and associated with concepts developed from the literature review
  • 7. Intangibles model development and validation • Based on the data and findings collected from the literature review (chapter 2) and the case study (Chapter 3) • Concerned with capturing and expressing the performance of the mega event project in achieving its goals, according to a specific strategic vision • To avoid reducing the external validity  we chose apply the concepts of the Design Thinking on the development phase (Lockwood, 2010) • The operational version of the diagnostic model will be tested following the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing for testing in program evaluation and public policy (AERA, 1999)
  • Thanks for your attention! Questions and comments?