Evolution and Issues Framework 1 RUNNING HEAD ...

Evolution and Issues Framework 1 RUNNING HEAD: Evolution and Issues Framework

Developing a Framework of Evolution and Issue Patterns for Large-Scale Sporting Event Organizing Committees and their Stakeholders

Milena M. Parent University of Ottawa Faculty of Health Sciences School of Human Kinetics 125 University St. Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5 Canada Tel: 613.562.5800 x 2984 Fax: 613.562.5149 Email: [email protected]

February 23, 2007

Accepted for publication in the Journal of Sport Management. Available at: http://journals.humankinetics.com/jsm-backissues/JSMVolume22Issue2March/EvolutionandIssuePatternsforMajorSportEventOrgani zingCommitteesandTheirStakeholders

I would like to thank the members and stakeholders of the 1999 Pan American Games for their participation in and support of this research.

Evolution and Issues Framework 2 Developing a Framework of Evolution and Issue Patterns for Large-Scale Sporting Event Organizing Committees and their Stakeholders Abstract The purpose of this paper was to develop a framework of how organizing committees operationally evolve over time and the types of issues with which they and their stakeholders must deal. Based on a combination of stakeholder theory and issues management, a case study of the 1999 Pan American Games held in Winnipeg, Canada, was built using archival material and interviews. Three major organizing committee operational modes emerged: planning, implementation, and wrap-up. Issue categories faced by the organizing committee and its stakeholders included: politics, visibility, financial, organizing, relationships, operations, sport, infrastructure, human resources, media, interdependence, participation, and legacy. Issue category prominence depended on the operational mode and organizing committee member hierarchical level, where issues became less strategic/broad as one moved through operational modes or down the hierarchy. Issue categories also differed within stakeholder groups, whereas stakeholder interests (material, political, affiliative, informational, and symbolic) differed between stakeholder groups.

Evolution and Issues Framework 3 Over the last thirty years, large-scale sporting events have become increasingly popular vehicles for achieving political, cultural, and economic benefits for the hosting region. Political benefits can include increased international recognition of the host region and the propagation of certain political values held by the government and/or the local population. Cultural benefits can include strengthening local traditions and values. Economic benefits can include increased expenditures and employment within the region (cf. Chappelet, 2000; Ritchie, 1984; Roche, 2000; Sack & Johnson, 1996; Whitson & Macintosh, 1996). For example, the Athens 2004, Turin 2006, Beijing 2008, and Vancouver-Whistler 2010 Olympic Games bid and organizing committees all presented the Olympic Games as beneficial to their respective cities, such as to gain new facilities and increase transfer of event preparation and hosting knowledge. Organizing committees spend large amounts of time and money building and maintaining relationships with various partners in order to acquire the necessary resources to host events effectively. These “partners” or stakeholders are organizations, groups, or individuals who can affect or be affected by an organization’s actions (Freeman, 1984). Organizations, groups, and individuals included in this definition comprise both the formally recognized or “official” actors as well as the informal or often overlooked constituents such as special interest groups and local residents. For example, Lenskyj (2000) discussed the impact of a local activist group, “Bread not Circuses,” on Toronto, Canada’s two (unsuccessful) Summer Olympic Games bids. Other stakeholders include the organizing committee’s paid staff and volunteers; the various levels of government; the residents, sponsors, businesses, schools, and community groups comprising the community; the international, continental, national, and provincial sport

Evolution and Issues Framework 4 organizations; the print, radio, television, and internet media; and the athletes, coaches, Very Important People (VIPs), officials, and support staff comprising the delegations (Emery, 2001; Masterman, 2004; Ritchie, 1984). Whether or not an organizing committee’s stakeholders accept the organizing committee’s actions can positively or negatively affect present and future actions (cf. Friedman & Miles, 2002; Frooman, 1999; Rowley & Moldoveanu, 2003), and therefore impact the event’s success. However, not only should the various stakeholders be considered in examining organizing committee management but so too should the dynamic nature of the organization. Stakeholders’ expectations, needs, and interests may vary as the organizing committee evolves over time. Organizational evolution refers to the structural and operational changes that occur gradually in an organization as it interacts with its environment (cf. Greenwood & Hinings, 1996). Because of the organizing committee’s nature—a temporary organization with a fixed and predetermined life span—the different aspects of event management will be constantly changing, and any research related to events must take this dynamic dimension into account. Yet, little is known about how organizing committees change or evolve over time. Moreover, while large-scale sporting events have captivated the world, little is known about how they operate. Most books and articles on such events are intended for popular rather than academic consumption (e.g., Jennings, 2000; McGeoch, 1994; Yarbrough, 2000). The general public will know about financial troubles in Montreal (1976), transportation and security problems in Atlanta (1996), and logistical/construction problems in Athens (2004). In turn, research articles analyzing sport events tend to focus

Evolution and Issues Framework 5 on tourism, marketing, sponsorship, economic impact, and political/municipal impacts (e.g., Brown, 2002; Crompton, 1995; Whitson & Macintosh, 1996; Yoon, Spencer, Holecek, & Kim, 2000). However, a systematic determination of the evolution of organizing committees, the types of issues dealt with, and their impacts has yet to be completed. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to develop a framework of how an organizing committee operationally evolves over time and the types of issues with which it and its stakeholders must deal. This study uses a combination of stakeholder theory and issues management as the theoretical framework. Findings provide event management researchers with a strong theoretical foundation on which to build by, for example, examining the interrelationships between the various components in order to understand in greater depth the complex nature of the international large-scale sporting event. The framework presented in this paper provides a significant contribution to the literature by combining stakeholder theory and issues management, an innovative approach to event management research. This theoretical combination allows for both organizational aspects (e.g., organizational structure) and strategic aspects (e.g., understanding issue types or categories in advance so as to be more efficient in dealing with them) to be presented in the same framework, including: 1) the types of activities to be undertaken (as do other frameworks in the literature) and 2) the types of expectational gaps or issues likely to occur over time (unique to this study). Moreover, this study examined evolution and issue categories not only from the organizing committee’s perspective but also from the stakeholder’s perspective, which allows for differences in expectational gaps to emerge. Next, examining the possible differences within stakeholder sub-groups and

Evolution and Issues Framework 6 between organizing committee hierarchical levels provides this study with a greater depth of analysis than past research. Finally, examining not only issue categories but stakeholder interests shows how the level of analysis (stakeholder group versus subgroup) results in differences in finding specificity, which should be taken into account by future sport event management researchers. First, an overview of the theoretical framework (stakeholder theory and issues management) is provided, including concepts relating to organizing committee evolution and issue categories. Next, specific data collection and analysis procedures are presented. The results are then discussed, followed by concluding remarks and future directions. Theoretical Framework Organizing committees evolve as their needs change and as they face different issues. The current knowledge of organizing committee evolution and associated issues is briefly reviewed below, with special attention to the extent to which stakeholders are mentioned. However, details about the theoretical underpinnings of this study, stakeholder theory and issues management, are first provided. Stakeholder Theory Stakeholder theorists are concerned with studying the relationship between a focal organization and its stakeholders. Jones and Wicks (1999) provided four principles for stakeholder theory: 1) a focal organization has relationships with many stakeholders; 2) stakeholder theory concerns itself with the nature (process and outcome) of the relationship between the focal organization and its stakeholders; 3) “the interests of all stakeholders have intrinsic value, and no set of interests is assumed to dominate the others” (p. 207); and 4) the focus of the theory is on managerial decision-making.

Evolution and Issues Framework 7 Research in stakeholder theory can focus on three different parts of the (focal) organization-stakeholder relationship: the focal organization itself, the stakeholders, and the relationship between the focal organization and its stakeholders. This study addresses the first two parts as it examines the evolution of the organizing committee, and organizing committee and stakeholder issue types. Providing strategies for managing the organizing committee-stakeholder relationship therefore becomes an area of future research worth exploring based on the findings of this study. According to Donaldson and Preston (1995), stakeholder theorists have used three different approaches in their research: a descriptive/empirical approach, an instrumental approach, and/or a normative approach. The descriptive/empirical approach is found in descriptions of the organization’s nature and of board members’ thinking related to stakeholder interests. The instrumental approach is found when researchers attempt to identify connections (or lack thereof) between stakeholder management and the focal organization’s desired (traditional financial) objectives. The normative approach is found when researchers provide moral/philosophical guidelines for organizational operations and management (Donaldson & Preston, 1995). This study employs a mainly descriptive approach to provide a greater understanding of the organizing committee (its evolution), but also brings in an instrumental aspect through the use of issues management, so as to determine key organizing committee and stakeholder issue types. This study also answers the call by stakeholder theorists to have more practical, empirically-based stakeholder research that reflects economic, social and/or organizational realities, thereby providing data which can build and/or strengthen concepts in the literature (Friedman, Parent, & Mason, 2004; Gioia, 1999).

Evolution and Issues Framework 8 Stakeholder theory does, however, have opponents or criticisms which must be considered. More precisely, Key (1999) argued that Freeman’s (1984) stakeholder theory can be criticized in four ways: 1) it has an inadequate explanation of process; 2) it has an incomplete linkage between internal and external variables; 3) it pays insufficient attention to the actual business operating system and its levels of analysis; and 4) it has an inadequate environmental assessment. Nevertheless, stakeholder theory is still relatively young and these criticisms are being addressed and corrected. Key suggested using environmental variables, notably time, so that change and conflict—two concepts found in organizations but neglected by stakeholder theory—be included. Moreover, the author suggested using observable organizational processes, such as relationship development and maintenance, in order to increase stakeholder theory’s descriptive and predictive power. Key’s two suggestions are included within this study (i.e. the time component and using observable processes, through issues managed in this case). Issues management is added as a complementary perspective in this study to answer Key’s argument of stakeholder theory’s poor environmental assessment. Issues Management As Friedman et al. (2004) explained, issues management, like stakeholder theory, stems from corporate social performance (Wood, 1991). Issues management is seen as a proactive application of strategic business planning, of getting the (organizational) house in order by scouting the terrain, and by having a strong defense and an even stronger offence (Heath, 2002). Wartick and Heugens (2003) proposed that issues management should seek cross-fertilization with stakeholder theory in order to help preserve issues management and present it as an important managerial task.

Evolution and Issues Framework 9 Once Howard Chase coined the term “issues management” in 1976 (Wartick & Heugens, 2003), the term was embraced by the business community and adopted in both the academic and business worlds almost immediately. Wartick and Mahon (1994, p. 306) defined an issue as: (a) a controversial inconsistency based on one or more expectational gaps (b) involving management perceptions of changing legitimacy and other stakeholder perceptions of changing cost/benefit positions (c) that occur within or between views of what is and/or what ought to be corporate performance or stakeholder perceptions of corporate performance and (d) imply an actual or anticipated resolution that creates significant, identifiable present or future impact on the organization. Gaps arise because differing perceptions are formed stemming from stakeholders selecting different facts as being relevant for the issue at hand. Reichart (2003) argued that this is partly based on the stakeholder’s interests. The author provided five possible types of stakeholder interests: 1) material (gain/loss of tangible benefits); 2) political (political power and influence distribution); 3) affiliative (human relationships, needing to belong); 4) informational (knowledge-based); and 5) symbolic (associated with a symbol, e.g., an image). The stakeholder will make a judgment on an issue based on whether its interests match those of the organization (i.e., whether the organization’s behavior is desirable or undesirable) and whether the issue is judged to be morally right or wrong. While gaps can be found in environmental opportunities or threats, as well as in organizational strengths or weaknesses (Ansoff, 1980), excellence in issues management requires a manager to be proficient in three (interrelated) areas: 1)

Evolution and Issues Framework 10 environmental scanning; 2) issue interpretation; and 3) selecting an appropriate issue response (Wartick & Heugens, 2003), a process which is closely related to stakeholder analysis. Organizational Evolution A cursory review of the existing sport event management literature in relation to organizing committee issues offers the experiences of the writer or the topic under discussion in a chronological manner using day, month, and/or year concepts to describe time in organizing committees. The authors place specific actions or issues according to these time descriptors (e.g., Burbank, Andranovich, & Heying, 2001; King, 1991; McGeoch, 1994; Yarbrough, 2000). The typical descriptions, as exemplified by McGeoch (1994), are to mention a bid committee and its transformation into an organizing committee. Even academic writers have used variations of this simple chronological description. For example, Chappelet (1991) explained that Olympic Games are hosted by the organizing committee of the winning city’s bid. The only specification was that organizing committees must be formed within six months of the bid being successful and must be terminated within a year of the end of the Games, as stated by the International Olympic Committee’s regulations (Chappelet, 1991, 2000). There are a few evolution frameworks presented in the sport event management literature. Burbank et al. (2001) and Yarbrough (2000) have provided more specificity by mentioning—albeit in passing—planning, implementation of plans/pre-games activities, games time, and post-games modes. As well, Hall (1992) suggested four organizing committee phases: planning, organizing, leading, and controlling. This is, in effect, a project management approach to event management (cf. Mingus, 2002) and a variation of

Evolution and Issues Framework 11 Henri Fayol’s early work on management functions: 1) forecasting and planning; 2) organizing; 3) commanding; 4) coordinating; and 5) controlling (Pugh & Hickson, 1997). Taking a different approach, Getz (1993) suggested that the stages of an organizing committee are as follows: origin, informal organization, emergence of leadership, formal organization, and professionalism. Getz also argued that the community support, size of the organization, and resources increase as the organizing committee moves through these stages. However, exceptions to this claim are evident if one considers the typically varying support residents provide to organizing committees. Masterman (2004) offered stages for an event’s overall planning process: objectives, concept, feasibility, bid, implementation planning, handover, evaluation, and feedback. Similarly, Shone and Parry (2004) proposed the following management activities: objectives and getting started, planning, organizing and preparing the event, implementing (running the event), and divestment/legacy. Figure 1 provides a visual depiction of the various frameworks described above (and this study’s suggested framework, detailed in the results and discussion section). As can be seen, there is no consensus on whether an organizing committee goes through activities, stages, phases, or modes, and no definition for these terms to understand the frameworks. There is also no consensus on the actual evolution of an organizing committee, with little mention of when an organizing committee changes from one activity/stage/phase/mode to another, little discussion as to the types of issues and stakeholders involved at each time point, as well as little or no mention of how the authors came to these terms (i.e., little description of the research behind these terms, if any, in order to determine their validity and reliability). Moreover, most frameworks

Evolution and Issues Framework 12 focus more on a particular time period instead of the overall evolution. For example, Burbank et al. (2001) and Yarbrough (2000) focus on the games/event period, Hall (1992) and Getz (1993) focus on pre-games period, and Masterman (2004) focuses on the bid and post-event periods. Only Shone and Parry (2004) show a relative equality of time periods. However, planning, organizing, and control systems are done at separate time points, and there is no time specificity (when to move from one activity to the next). Emery (2002) cautioned that any suggested framework ought to include the bid component. As such, attention will be paid to these aspects during data analysis. --------------------------------Insert Figure 1 about here --------------------------------Organizational Issues Although listing all issues an organizing committee deals with was not the main purpose of the publications cited thus far (partly because there can be hundreds of specific issues faced), there are a variety of issues organizing committees face which are mentioned (in no particular order). Common issue categories include: power/politics, planning/organizing, financial, sponsorship, ticket sales, human resources, leadership, facilities, cultural events, tourism, weather, media, public support, relationship and/or negotiations, legacy, and local infrastructure (cf. Burbank et al., 2001; King, 1991; Yarbrough, 2000). Each issue category is of differing importance and is mentioned at varying moments of the organizing committee’s life. Some issue categories are mentioned as being stakeholder related, such as government politics (e.g., Burbank et al., 2001; Yarbrough, 2000). But, no framework is provided to place these issue categories,

Evolution and Issues Framework 13 and their relative importance and relationship to stakeholders, in a coherent manner according to the varying stages of the organizing committee’s life. This paper seeks to remedy this situation. However, Ratnatunga and Muthaly (2000) did seek to simplify the long list of issues by proposing three categories of issues in their study of the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games. First, logistical issues included traffic, street closures, garbage collection and the like during the Games. Second, business issues included forecasting, strategic planning, branding, marketing, cost control, and equipment leasing. Third, infrastructure issues included licensing, permits, and employee management. Ratnatunga and Muthaly’s categories focus solely on the organizing committee with little consideration for all the stakeholders (beyond the employees in the infrastructure issues) surrounding the organizing committee, stakeholders which most likely have differing needs, and which are essential in preparing and hosting a successful event. Thus, these categories will be considered as the starting point for issue identification and be expanded and/or modified as needed. Therefore, an appropriate organizing committee issue framework must consider the organizing committee and stakeholders, as well as the phase of preparation (or hosting) of the event. So far, no study has sought to include the stakeholder’s perspective on the present topic. This study will consider the stakeholder’s view (i.e. needs, expectations) in building an organizing committee evolution and issue framework. Methodology To answer the main research question, a descriptive case study approach (Eisenhardt, 1989a; Yin, 2003) of the Pan American Games and its organizing

Evolution and Issues Framework 14 committee, the Pan American Games Host Society (PAGS), was used. An overview of the setting, data collection and data analysis procedures is provided below. Setting The 1999 Pan American Games held in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada from July 23rd to August 8th, 1999, welcomed 4,949 athletes from 42 countries across the Americas participating in a total of 35 Olympic sports and six non-Olympic sports in 22 venues. There were 2,266 technical officials and technical support officials and over 20,000 volunteers also taking part. Some events were qualifying events for the 2000 Summer Olympics to be held in Sydney, Australia. As such, many top athletes attended the Pan American Games. These Games were the third largest Games in North America after the Los Angeles and Atlanta Olympic Games, and included 500,000 spectators and over 2,000 media (PAGS, 1999). The organizing committee, PAGS, was formed in 1994. It was led by a volunteer board of directors composed of stakeholder representatives (e.g., governments, Canadian Olympic Committee, community members). The board of directors determined the general direction of the Games (i.e., vision, mission, policies, and business plan). In order to speed up decision-making, an executive committee was established. Volunteer divisional chairs were responsible for the various functions (such as games operations, volunteers, sport, and finances). Originally, the Games were to be volunteer-driven and delivered, with minimal (paid) staff support. However, mid-way through the preparations, volunteers realized the need for staff support because of the high workload. As such, divisions composed of staff were created as mirror divisions to the volunteer divisions (e.g. a paid staff sport division was created to mirror the volunteer sport division) in order

Evolution and Issues Framework 15 to handle the day-to-day tasks allowing volunteers to be externally focused (e.g., communicating with the community). The Games’ planning became staff-driven but the Games themselves remained volunteer-delivered. PAGS had six major stakeholder groups with whom it had to deal. Following Freeman (1984), the board of directors would be considered the “organization.” So, middle and lower level managers/volunteers were the first stakeholder group. Following interviewees’ stated stakeholder maps, the second stakeholder group included all levels of government (federal, provincial, and municipal). The third stakeholder group was the community, which included the residents, sponsors, all local businesses, community groups, and schools. The fourth stakeholder group was the sport organizations at the international, continental, national, and provincial levels. The print, television, and radio media comprised the fifth stakeholder group. Finally, the sixth stakeholder group was the international delegations, which included athletes and support staff (coaches, trainers, administrators, etc.). It is possible to separate each stakeholder group into its sub-groups (e.g., the federal, provincial and municipal government stakeholder sub-groups) in order to examine variations or heterogeneity within each stakeholder group (cf. Putler & Wolfe, 1999; Wolfe & Putler, 2002). Where significant differences (e.g., differing needs) occurred within (as opposed to simply between) stakeholder groups, they are presented in the results and discussion section below. Data Collection There were two main data collection steps in this study: 1) gathering data from archival material to better understand the organizing committee structure and to draw a preliminary list of issues, as well as to support, complement and build upon the various

Evolution and Issues Framework 16 aspects raised by the interviews; and 2) semi-structured interviews to further examine PAGS, its stakeholders, their needs, the issues raised, and the general perception and management of the various stakeholders by the organizing committee. Knowledge from the literature and from the archival material allowed for semistructured face-to-face interviews to be used with a purposive sampling (e.g., representatives of different stakeholders), an approach that is common to case study research. Arksey and Knight (1999, p. 96) argued that such interviews are “designed to obtain information about people’s views”, their ideas and their experiences. Weed (2003) explained that a purposive sampling technique helps to draw knowledge from the most informed sources within the organization. Interviewees provided their informed consent prior to the interviews. Table 1 lists the PAGS and stakeholder interviewees and the interview method (in-person or by phone). All stakeholder groups were interviewed, as well as the people in the organizing committee who had to deal with the stakeholders. Interviews were carried out at three different hierarchical levels within PAGS for comparison purposes and to get a better overall sense of the structure, issues, and processes of the organization. The interview protocol is found in the Appendix. --------------------------------Insert Table 1 about here ---------------------------------A total of 99 archival documents about PAGS and its stakeholders were collected from various sources: local, national and international media (e.g., the Winnipeg Free Press, Alberta Report, Maclean’s, Amusement Business, Sports Illustrated, New York

Evolution and Issues Framework 17 Times, MediaWeek, Sporting News, Christian Science Monitor, North-South: The Magazine of the Americas, Central American & Caribbean Affairs, Xinhua News Agency); organizational websites (e.g., Canadian Olympic Committee); and organizational documents (e.g., PAGS meeting notes, venue team leader Games-time diary, PAGS final report, and PAGS and stakeholder annual reports). The 17 interviews across PAGS’ three hierarchical levels and eight stakeholder interviews (see Table 1) lasting on average between 60 and 90 minutes were transcribed, and the transcripts were returned to interviewees so that they could add, modify and/or delete any passage, thus increasing validity of the data. Data Analysis Content analysis for patterns in evolution and issues was then conducted. Pattern matching was possible through intra-interviewee/archival material coding and interinterviewee/archival material comparison (cf. Eisenhardt, 1989a; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 2003). All data were read twice to gain familiarity with the information. Given that many discoveries can occur in the process of analyzing case study data, emerging findings were listed during the coding process. Collected data were coded for all references to the evolution of the organizing committee (e.g., time—day, month, year, timeframe, timeline—mode, stage, and phase codes). Quotations were then compared to establish a timeline or chronology of what occurred (who, what, when); this chronology is available from the author. Comparisons in the timeline were undertaken to determine patterns in organizational structure, issues, or processes in order to describe the organizing committee’s evolution from beginning to end.

Evolution and Issues Framework 18 Archival material and interview transcripts of PAGS members and stakeholders were also compared in order to establish a list of issues relevant to PAGS and to each stakeholder group. To assist data analysis, tables (Miles & Huberman, 1994) consisting of interviewee quotes were created relating to changes over time of organizing committee and stakeholder activities (for the evolution component) and issues. A table was also created relating to stakeholder interests based on Reichart’s (2003) definition. As data were analyzed, trends emerged relating to issues, such as these aspects changing over time. However, issues also changed according to stakeholders and according to the organizing committee member’s hierarchical level. Issues were grouped into categories according to function, following what emerged from the data, i.e., interviewee statements and archival material such as the organizing committee’s structure (cf. Chelladurai, 2005). Findings were then discussed with peers and with other researchers, and a draft of this paper was sent to participants and three independent individuals (who are experts in the field of sport event management) for feedback to increase the validity and reliability of the findings (Creswell, 1998; Yin, 2003). Results and Discussion Findings related to the organizing committee’s issues are based on three trends that emerged during data analysis: issues changing according to the organizing committee’s evolution, issues changing according to the stakeholders dealt with, and issues changing according to organizing committee members’ hierarchical level. Each trend is described below following the presentation of the findings relating to the organizing committee’s evolution over time.

Evolution and Issues Framework 19 Organizational Evolution and Related Issue Categories Interviewees described organizational issues in relation to a specific operational mode of the organizing committee. Mode is defined as the operational state (way of thinking, working) of the organizing committee and its members. The term mode was chosen over phase and stage as it depicted more accurately the state in which members operated, and it was used more often by members. The term phase refers to (and was reserved for) the specific steps or actions which need to be accomplished within each mode. Three operational modes were identified: planning, implementation, and wrap-up. The planning mode took place during the first half of PAGS’s life, i.e., until about two years before the Games in the case of this 4-year organizing committee. Although, bidding to host the event was also considered as being part of this mode. Most plans prepared by PAGS fell within this mode, including the bid plan or bid book, the business plan, the operational plan, and the work packages (or divisional plans). These plans were seen as phases PAGS had to follow. Once the bid was won, leadership was established by hiring a Chairman: “the decision to have him as the Chair was the first, most critical decision that was made; an exceptionally competent person with great business skills and business acumen” (PAGS Volunteer). One of the key attributes this individual possessed was his extensive network of contacts, both for bringing people into PAGS and for facilitating relationships with stakeholders based on his contacts. After the organizing committee’s key leadership was established, the organizing committee prepared its business plan: “Then you do the business plan. It’s very centralized. You’re looking at how many people, how many days, where do they live,

Evolution and Issues Framework 20 how do they get there?” (PAGS Staff). PAGS documentation indicated that the business plan should include: the organizational structure, terms of reference, key deliverables, major contracts and purchase orders, major assumptions, work packages, budget, human resource requirements, marketing analysis, and timeline. PAGS then moved to the next phase, the operational plan, which provided more specific details as to the who, what, when, where, and how of the business plan and its terms of reference: These operational plans should outline, by functional area, how the responsibilities will be fulfilled. These plans should provide the following information: 

What has to be done



Who will do it and who has to assist



When will it be done



Where will it be done



How it will be done

This is an extension of the terms of reference but provides more details and must be developed with “one eye” on the budget. (PAGS Documentation) Thus, the business plan was operationalized providing organizing committee members and stakeholders with a greater handle on the magnitude of the task at hand (to prepare and host the Games). This operationalization was done with greater budget considerations, i.e. tasks were being assigned to divisions and to specific funds. Next, PAGS moved to the work packages or divisional plans phase (i.e., creating the division-

Evolution and Issues Framework 21 specific operational plans). These work packages outlined, for each division, the tasks established in the operational plan: Each division prepared work packages detailing the work to be completed, exclusions, provisional timelines, major contracts and overall costs. Although many of the projects changed over time, this format formed the base of the cost and project control system. The evolution of the work projects forced divisions to communicate, something that had to that point been missing, to pinpoint potential black holes and to question assumptions. (PAGS Documentation) As can be seen from the previous quotes, there was an increasing degree of specificity in the planning. Plans started at a broad, strategic level but moved, over two years, down the hierarchy to more specific, divisional plans. Issue categories addressed during planning related to organizing (e.g., planning, organizing committee structure), financial issues (e.g., budgets, sponsorship plans, cost control), politics (e.g., power struggles, government political “games”, government support, protocol, lobbying, inter-city competition), relationships (e.g., negotiations and discussions with stakeholders to build relationships and manage expectation, determining accountability and authority over decisions), interdependence of divisions (e.g., creating coordination and communication linkages between divisions and between upper and lower management levels, creating information management systems), and, to a lesser extent, operations (e.g., creating the initial plans for the venues/facilities, contingencies, determining technology and other operational needs such as medical and security, determining transportation and accommodations needs). An example of such issues is provided by a PAGS Volunteer: We had lots of criticism until we turned the corner… We were coming out of a

Evolution and Issues Framework 22 tougher economy, into 1995-96, we didn’t have all the money we would have liked to have had, we didn’t have any extra money for facilities, it was a struggle negotiating anything out of the federal government when it was just trying to, for the first time, get into a surplus position and start putting money towards debt…We’re in much better shape today comparing to where we were in 1995, so it was probably one of the worst times in our history to be negotiating for Games money. About halfway through PAGS’s life, “when the organizing committee switched from planning to the operational mode about 2 years out” (PAGS Volunteer), PAGS moved from the planning mode to the implementation mode—also sometimes referred to as the operational mode. In this implementation mode, the plans created during the planning mode were moved or pushed down the hierarchy to the individuals who would be working during the actual Games. This allowed plans to be translated into each venue so that lower level volunteers could ultimately deliver the Games: As the plans were handed off by the Divisional Team, the Vteam Venue team started to increase in its responsibilities, until such time as when the Divisional Teams had completed their generic planning and guidelines and the Vteams started to develop site specific plans. By Games time, the Divisional Teams were to be in the background providing limited support, and the Vteams were to deliver the Games. (PAGS Documentation) During this implementation mode, issues related to the “venuization” (PAGS Staff) of the plans and the actual running of the Games. Venue teams, or Vteams, were created with a team leader and a sport chair. Each division (Volunteers, Operations, etc.) had one

Evolution and Issues Framework 23 representative on each Vteam. The Vteams were, in effect, Games-time mini-organizing committees: “The venue team was led by the Vteam leader and the Sport Chair, where Sport was responsible for the field of play” (PAGS Documentation). In other words, the implementation mode dealt with transferring decision-making and execution power down to the individuals who would run the event and be in charge of the venues and fields of play (the competition area). Typically, Vteams had two coleaders and a representative from each division. Types of issues typically arising during this mode related to operations (e.g., all logistical issues, commissioning of venue and general setup, ceremonies, defections, medical, security, food, travel, local transportation, accommodations, and accreditations), sport (e.g., delegation size, qualification standards, sanctioning and quality of the event, field of play, technical official needs, readiness and delivery of the sports, resources and equipment needs, test events and practices, and water needs), infrastructure (e.g., traffic and street closures, city transportation, tourism, weather, municipal services, and existing facilities needs), human resources (e.g., staff and volunteer management/roles, motivation, teamwork, and leadership sharing), participation (e.g., ticket availability, involvement of different stakeholders, recognition of work done, and providing a good and fun experience full of excitement), interdependence (same as above), and politics (e.g., government support, managing “egos”, protocol requests, power and political struggles). For example, the Provincial Representative mentioned that the “issues became more focused and less general as time went on; and as time went on, we were able to identify the proper resources to deal with these specific issues.” Games time essentially became a crisis management period, as there was no more

Evolution and Issues Framework 24 time for planning, only executing. As one PAGS Staff mentioned: “my comment at that time was ‘I can’t do anything about this’. I can firefight specific problems but I can’t change it.” As well, a PAGS Volunteer mentioned a variety of issues dealt with during Games time: It wasn’t until the Games were actually going and it was going to be successful that the Federal Minister for Canadian Heritage phoned a week before and wanted to speak at the Games. And you know we had to say “well it’s too late for that, we can’t put you in.”… There were all kinds of small issues. One I can think of is drug testing. You know, we tried to have a lab here in Winnipeg… Also, the questions of how do you run it, 15,000 or 18,000 volunteers, are they really going to work? You just never know if they’re going to work 4 hours in and go to the beach or wherever. In the end, the biggest problem was that people didn’t want to go home. They wanted to stay and keep running it. Later on, this presented us with some unforeseen problems like running out of food and water for them. What a great problem to have! The final mode lasted from the day after the Games until the termination of PAGS as an organization. This wrap-up mode was comprised of writing the final report and managing the post-games legacy. The final report is the evaluation of what occurred and provides recommendations for future Pan American Games organizing committees; it is essentially a written version of a debriefing session. As PAGS Documentation noted, the final report is the post-mortem and usually summarizes by division: 

The history and area of responsibility



Divisional structure

Evolution and Issues Framework 25 

What went right



What went wrong



What should be done differently



Relevant statistics.

At the same time as the final report was being written, the post-games legacy had to be managed, where Games assets were being distributed to the various stakeholders: “As asset disposal happens post-games, there is an understandable tendency to deal with it when it happens. This however coincides with staff being terminated and the task falls on a very small group” (PAGS Documentation). Thus, types of issues dealt with during the wrap-up mode included legacy (e.g., offering new facilities to the city or other stakeholders, consolidating event know-how through writing the final report and transferring event knowledge, managing other resources, capitalizing on trade opportunities and the pride felt in having hosted the event, and networking for the future) and, to a lesser extent, operations (e.g., decommissioning of the facilities) and human resources (e.g., managing available staff and volunteers, motivating members after the exhausting Games time, and including in their roles the writing of the final report and legacy management). As the Municipal Representative noted, the main tasks the moment the Games ended were “decommissioning and managing the legacy.” A PAGS Volunteer explained that the question during the wrap-up mode becomes what are we going to do with the equipment when it’s over? Who gets it? ... There were different issues after the games like what we needed to sell for revenue and what we could pass onto other groups and the selection process

Evolution and Issues Framework 26 involved. The legacy was not only material in nature but was also expressed as members’ pride: “Staff and volunteers get to return to their normal lives and bask in the satisfaction of contributing to a very special and significant event” (PAGS Documentation). This study’s proposed organizing committee evolution framework does follow the general trend set by Emery’s (2002) call—followed by Masterman (2004) and Shone and Parry (2004)—for the bid component to be included. Yet, the evolution framework proposed here also differs from previous suggested frameworks. More precisely, unlike these previous frameworks, the modes are described according to the specific accomplishments needed (the phases) in a temporal order (what needs to be done first— as opposed to just describing the various plans which need to be accomplished by an organizing committee, as is the case with the previously cited frameworks). As well, this proposed framework is more simplified in the components of the framework than Getz’s (1993), Masterman’s (2004), and Shone and Parry’s (2004) frameworks, it does not place more emphasis on one part of the evolution than another, and it includes control systems throughout the framework (e.g., financial controls during the planning mode and operational controls during the implementation mode) instead of only after the planning is complete (cf. Figure 1). Next, this study’s framework offers specific temporal markers to delineate when modes and phases should begin/end. Finally, using a stakeholder theory approach allows for a more holistic approach for determining how an organizing committee should evolve (instead of how an organizing committee thinks it should evolve), while using an issues management approach (determining expectational gaps) allows for a more complete

Evolution and Issues Framework 27 picture of an organizing committee’s evolution by including mode- or phase-specific issues which must be faced. These findings are thus significant contributions to the literature. Comparing the various frameworks in greater depth, there was an origin and informal organizational beginning for PAGS with the bid and business plan (cf. Getz, 1993), but the leadership was found from the beginning and not as a separate stage, as was the need for professionalism. As well, there were planning and organizing (or implementing) functions but the leading and controlling functions were identified within the planning and organizing functions, not as separate functions (cf. Hall, 1992). Likewise, PAGS’s planning mode included all of Masterman’s (2004) objectives, concept, feasibility, and bid components, but PAGS members described planning and implementation as two separate modes, not one (implementation planning). The wrap-up mode was described as including both evaluation and feedback, not as being separate steps (cf. Masterman, 2004). Similarly, PAGS’s planning mode included organizing and preparing the event, but both implementing and divestment/legacy were found to be separate modes, therefore being partly consistent with Shone and Parry (2004). However, temporal descriptions by PAGS members followed more closely what other event managers have written about Games (e.g., Yarbrough, 2000). These temporal descriptions were specific (e.g., until halfway through the organizing committee’s life in the case of the planning mode) but were still explained in a manner which could be generalized to organizing committees of other sporting events. Therefore, statements made by organizing committee members in this study challenge, combine, and extend the established sport event management literature by

Evolution and Issues Framework 28 presenting a new temporally-based description for the evolution (modes and phases) of an organizing committee of a large-scale sporting event, a description which is in line with practitioners’ own descriptions (cf. McGeoch, 1994; Pound, 2004; Yarbrough, 2000), and a description which includes mode-related issue categories. This specificity is a significant contribution to the literature as it provides sport event managers and researchers with not only the types of activities needed to be undertaken (e.g., the various plans to be created), but also the types of expectational gaps which could be present between the organizing committee and its stakeholders. The general timeline established by this study is confirmed by the Vancouver Olympic Games Organizing Committee which, with just under four years to go until the 2010 Olympic Games (i.e., about halfway through its organizational life), was described as moving from the planning to the implementation mode (see Lee, 2006). Comparing interview and archival material in order to determine the categories of issues highlighted two aspects. First, Ratnatunga and Muthaly’s (2000) logistical, business, and infrastructure categories were found to be limited in scope and did not represent the full range of issues PAGS members faced in reality. They lacked specificity: the categories did not encompass the range of issue types presented in the literature or in this study when a list of issues dealt with by the organizing committee was established. Therefore, issues found in the present study (described above) were combined into the following proposed categories: politics, visibility, financial, organizing, relationships, operations, sport, infrastructure, human resources, media, interdependence, participation, and legacy (see Table 2). These categories significantly expand Ratnatunga and Muthaly’s categories to reflect the various functions and roles of

Evolution and Issues Framework 29 organizing committee members over the course of the organizing committee’s life, as described by this study’s data, not simply before the event (cf. Getz, 1993; Hall, 1992) or over the course of the two-week event (cf. Burbank et al., 2001). This study therefore provides a framework of the issues organizing committees face over the course of their existence and evolution, an important missing link in the current sport event management literature. Table 3 summarizes the modes/phases and related issue categories as they were described above. ----------------------------------------Insert Tables 2 and 3 about here ----------------------------------------Stakeholder-Specific Issue Categories In order to be effective and efficient, organizing committees need to know what stakeholders want, and interviewees described types of issues in relation to specific stakeholders. Table 4 provides a summary of the issue categories related to each external stakeholder group (and more specific stakeholders if there were differences in the subgroups). Organizing committee staff and volunteer-specific issues are discussed in the next section. The overarching concern for all stakeholder groups related to the financial issue category as “You can’t have a Games without cash” (PAGS Volunteer). Beyond this issue category, other more stakeholder-specific issue categories were found. The following describes stakeholder group-specific issue categories. --------------------------------Insert Table 4 about here ---------------------------------

Evolution and Issues Framework 30 Governments. Canadian governments’ issue categories related to the return on their investment (ROI) in various forms: participation in decision-making processes, protocol issues (who sits where, who talks first, etc.), long-term legacy, and being seen as helping this positive initiative (the Games). Municipal and provincial governments were also interested in creating international trade opportunities: “the province passed the first balanced budget in Canada, so certainly the due diligence and the financial prudence of any of the investment groups were looked at with a fine-toothed comb” (Provincial Representative). The city came up with a strategy to try and land some major events. So from about the mid-80s on, there was a process that was a cooperative effort between the city, the province and the Manitoba Sports Federation… I think the mayor of the day and the council felt that Winnipeg was suited to enter that international stage because of the international profile, the long-term economic spin-offs, tourism spin-offs, that sort of thing. (City Representative) Community. Community members’ issue categories related to the quality of the event, its accessibility, and their support for this initiative. They wanted to participate, have fun, meet new people/businesses, network, and see benefits of some kind for themselves and their community. For example, the Aboriginal community’s goal was “to improve their relationship with the corporate business community and Winnipeg so that they align themselves with the growing Aboriginal population” (Aboriginal Representative). The Aboriginal community also wanted access to leadership to request their assistance as part of a long-term strategy for the Aboriginal sport community to bid for the North American Indigenous Games

Evolution and Issues Framework 31 in 2002, get trained people, and get Aboriginal youth involved with the host society in order to get them on-the-job training for hosting the Games in 2002. (Aboriginal Representative) The main sponsor issue category was visibility (in the community): One of the other factors was to have opportunities that also had signage, visible television signage for a Games of this nature. In all other games like the Olympics, one is not allowed signage… We wanted recognition for a contribution to the community, for involvement with the community, and awareness of our long-term relationship with the Olympics. (Sponsor Representative) Sport organizations. Sport organizations’ issue categories related to all aspects of the field of play: “getting equipment moved that’s there, looking at the quality of the facilities that they’re going to be competing on, those are the things that are most concerning the stakeholders such as the sport federations” (Sport Organization Representative). As well, international and continental federations also expected to be treated as VIPs: “some of those associations wanted things another way … it was how people would be treated by having more VIP services than coffee areas, you know” (PAGS volunteer); “they were self-serving” (PAGS Staff). “The issues that usually surround Games from a sport federation’s perspective is how they can get support at the Games for things that are important to them, whether it be additional accommodation, more accreditation, and getting additional coaches involved” (Sport Organization Representative). Delegations. Participants and the support staff of delegations’ issue categories

Evolution and Issues Framework 32 related to receiving effective and very efficient services—of international quality: “our main perspective was to ensure that our athletes had the best possible experience and the best possible competitive environment to compete in” (Sport Organization and Delegation Representative). Media. The media’s issue categories related to the level of services they would have access to in order to get their job done on time. A print media representative stated they needed “excellent access to the Games for all our sports reporters and photographers to all the major events, … transportation, and whatever technology needed to be able to report directly from the various Games venues.” Therefore, stakeholder groups had different needs and wants, which PAGS had to consider. All were concerned with the financial issue (to varying degrees), followed by participation, visibility, and sport issue categories. While Table 4 provides issue categories for each external stakeholder, Table 5 provides the external stakeholder’s issues translated into interests as defined by Reichart (2003), i.e. material, political, affiliative, informational, and symbolic. As can be seen, the material and informational interests are key for an organizing committee’s stakeholders, showing the need for proper planning and stakeholder relationships before, during, and after the games (e.g., for stakeholder support and legacy purposes). Symbolic interests followed. An analysis of Table 5 would indicate that only delegations do not express symbolic (image, visibility) interests. Moreover, only the community has affiliative interests, an important interest to consider for organizing committees. PAGS understood the importance of the community in how it described itself: “The Games were something the community was doing for the community; not this is a bunch of hired guns doing this and finally having things

Evolution and Issues Framework 33 happen. This was the community doing it itself” (PAGS Volunteer). --------------------------------Insert Table 5 about here ----------------------------------Comparing Tables 4 and 5, differences in levels of analysis become clear. More precisely, while interests seem to be generally the same within stakeholder groups (Table 5)—thus allowing for a stakeholder group level analysis—issue categories seem to differ more within stakeholder groups (Table 4)—thus showing the need to analyze stakeholder issues at a sub-stakeholder group level. As such, this paper supports Putler and Wolfe’s (1999) and Wolfe and Putler’s (2002) findings of differing levels of homogeneity within and between stakeholder groups. But this study goes further by suggesting that, for organizing committees and stakeholders of large-scale sporting events, this level of homogeneity depends on whether one is examining issues or interests. As such, stakeholder theory and issues management allow for a greater understanding of the level of analysis, needs, interests, and issues of the organizing committee-external stakeholder relationship (as opposed to studying only internal stakeholders like an organizing committee's volunteers, e.g., Farrell, Johnston, & Twynam, 1998; Williams, Dossa, & Tompkins, 1995). Thus, this study provides a significant contribution to the literature: by using a stakeholder theory perspective, the issue categories dealt with by the organizing committee are not only provided from the organizing committee perspective (as compared to the literature, cf. Burbank et al., 2001; Getz, 1993; Hall, 1992; Masterman, 2004; Shone & Parry, 2004), but also from the stakeholders’ perspective, highlighting differences in expectations. It is therefore

Evolution and Issues Framework 34 imperative that the organizing committee members understand the characteristics of the stakeholder group they are dealing with in order to understand how to satisfy that specific group and facilitate the event’s preparations—instead of being hindered through stakeholder strategies (cf. Frooman, 1999) by, for example, withholding funds or creating negative press. Organizing Committee Member Hierarchically-Specific Issue Categories PAGS interviewees described issues according to their hierarchical level and role within the organizing committee. Moving down the hierarchy was like moving across modes. More precisely, top managers dealt with the major or broader issue categories that are present from the beginning of the organizing committee’s life: politics, financial, organizing, relationships, and human resources. Mid-level managers were responsible for a specific division, thereby resulting in differences in the types of issues they dealt with, issues specific to their division. However, financial issues were consistent across divisions, and human resource issues were almost as important. As time progressed, issues became about operations, implementation, and interdependence. Likewise, lowerlevel managers dealt more with operations, human resources, interdependence, relationships, and financial issues. This is consistent with the desire of top management to push decision-making down the hierarchy to the people who were to lead the actual Games, the Vteams and their volunteers. You start with the bid committee, and then you get into the structure and you begin to move along through that process. What you’re really moving from is a very centralized core planning group, ultimately to a venue model at Games time where you’ve pushed decision-making, the appropriate decision-making, down

Evolution and Issues Framework 35 the organization to the lowest possible level. (PAGS Staff) The conscious effort to push decision-making responsibility down to the individuals who were to run the Games ensured a fit between organizational processes, even if the transitions from top to lower-level management may have been difficult: “The difficult dynamic was the slow transition from Divisional-driven process to Vteam-driven Games delivery” (PAGS Documentation). The Vteam concept itself was difficult for some members to comprehend: For some reason, this Vteam concept was hard for our Board to grasp. Even once we were running, I had a Board member ask if we were going ahead with the Vteams. The 1988 Calgary Olympic Games Organizing Committee was right; it was difficult to get buy-in. (PAGS Volunteer) Table 6 provides an overview of the issue categories dealt with according to organizing committee member. An examination of Table 6 indicates that financial issues were the overarching concern for all organizing committee members, followed closely by human resources, and by relationships and operations. The visibility issue category, which includes image, identity, reputation, branding (cf. Fombrun & Shanley, 1990; Fombrun, 1996a, 1996b; Foreman & Whetten, 2002; Gioia, 1998; Gioia, Schultz, & Corley, 2000), was the least important, even though one PAGS staff member mentioned that organizing committee members have to “understand clearly what they’re all about, what their mission is, this is what we represent” (referring to organizational identity). --------------------------------Insert Table 6 about here ---------------------------------

Evolution and Issues Framework 36 A further analysis of Table 6 shows how PAGS’s second level volunteers and staff seemed to deal with a greater variety of issue categories than either the first or third levels. These mid-level individuals therefore played a key role in bridging the managerial gap between the strategic decision makers or planners of the event (i.e. the top level) and the individuals who would execute those plans during the Games (i.e., the lower level). These findings support management research relating to middle managers as being champions, synthesizers, facilitators, and implementors (Floyd & Lane, 2000; Floyd & Wooldridge, 1994), thus forming a critical link between top and lower-level managers. As such, this study highlights different managerial responsibilities for different hierarchical levels of individuals in an organizing committee, a unique contribution to the sport management literature. These findings also further point to the heterogeneity within a stakeholder group (cf. Putler & Wolfe, 1999; Wolfe & Putler, 2002); future sport event managers must therefore be careful in providing broad generalizations in their research on issues, concerns, needs, etc., for organizing committee members as the members themselves were aware of the differences in issues management between top and lowerlevel management: Lots of times, the VPs don’t really know the reality of what’s going on, or the actual day-to-day function of stuff of what’s going on. I shouldn’t say they don’t know the reality, I should say they don’t know the minute details. (PAGS LowerLevel Staff) A lot of the areas that were problematic, or might be seen by others to be sort of the small issues that sort of gravitated to really large ones, were really areas that management dealt with primarily and would not have made it to the executive

Evolution and Issues Framework 37 committee. The stuff that was dealt with at the executive committee was pretty much at the higher level of operations, and I would say operations is not even the right word, but at a higher level of consideration for how we were able to resolve some of the major concerns. (Sport Organization and PAGS Executive Committee Member) In summary, issue categories were mode (time), stakeholder, and hierarchically dependent. Differences were found between what managers discussed and what the literature proposed. In describing issues, the interviewees typically spoke of, for example, political “wheeling and dealing”, egos, and power in the same breath, or of communication, coordination, and interdependence at the same time. It therefore became easier to group issues into general categories as Ratnatunga and Muthaly (2000) attempted to do. However, their categories did not cover the range of issues discussed by PAGS managers. Consequently, Ratnatunga and Muthaly’s categories were expanded upon, based on the fundamental, operational issues highlighted by PAGS managers and the archival material. This expanded list now allows researchers and sport managers to have a common base of terminology and understanding when discussing sport event organizing committee and stakeholder issues. As mentioned earlier, when PAGS moved from one operational mode to the next, issue categories also changed. While issue categories were initially related to planning, they evolved into the venuization of those plans and the actual operations or coordination of all activities and resources by the time the Games started. When the Games ended, the pre-planned legacy was managed and the final report was written. Organizing, financial, politics, relationships, and interdependence issue categories dominated the planning

Evolution and Issues Framework 38 mode. Operations, sport, infrastructure, human resources, participation, and interdependence issue categories dominated the implementation mode. Legacy and human resources issue categories dominated the wrap-up mode. While other issue categories were present in each operational mode, they were less dominant. Types of issues also depended on the hierarchical role of organizing committee managers. More precisely, broader or larger issues with greater impact (such as creating and controlling the budget) were dealt with by top managers. Middle managers were more concerned with division-specific issues and with linking top and lower management. Lower managers dealt primarily with operational, human resources, relationship, and interdependence issues related to delivering the Games. However, financial issues were a concern for all involved, followed closely by human resources, and by relationships and operations. Advanced knowledge of the types of issues that will likely be faced will help event managers save valuable time and resources in preparing and hosting their event. Using categories instead of specific issues allows for a generalization to different types and sizes of sport events such as between an event like the Pan American Games and an event like the 2007 FINA World Championships. As such, using stakeholder theory combined with issues management in creating a framework of how an organizing committee evolves and the types of issues it must deal with allowed for the combination of organizational aspects (e.g., organizational structure) and strategic aspects (e.g., understand issues in advance so as to be more efficient in dealing with them). This is a significant contribution to the literature as other frameworks do not provide this level of integration. The combination of mode/phase and issues provides sport event researchers and managers with 1) the types of activities to be

Evolution and Issues Framework 39 undertaken (as do other frameworks in the literature) and 2) the types of expectational gaps (issue categories) likely to occur over time (unique to this study). Moreover, this study examined evolution and issues not only from the organizing committee’s perspective but also from the stakeholder’s perspective, which allows for differences in expectational gaps to emerge. Next, examining the differences within stakeholder subgroups and between organizing committee hierarchical levels provides this study with a greater depth of analysis than past research. Finally, studying not only issue categories but stakeholder interests showed how the level of analysis (stakeholder group versus subgroup) results in differences in finding specificity, which should be taken into account by future sport event management researchers. Conclusions and Future Directions This paper therefore provides an expanded list of issue categories, with details as to the specific issue categories dealt with, depending on the organizing committee’s evolution (what issues are predominant in which mode or phase), the stakeholders involved, and the organizing committee member’s hierarchical level and role. Knowing the various issues and how they change based on time, stakeholder, and organizing committee hierarchy allows event managers to understand their task and researchers to have a common foundation so as to examine in greater depth specific issues and their interrelationships. As such, this study starts linking the organizational aspects of the organizing committee (e.g., description of its structure and issues) and the strategic aspects of the organizing committee (i.e. to host an event in an effective and efficient manner).

Evolution and Issues Framework 40 This study highlights how the types of issues are time-specific. Future research should explain the specific interactions between time (mode/phase) and organizing committee member role/position. This study also proposes a range of issues that event managers can expect to face at different time points and for different stakeholder groups. Future research should examine the impact of each issue type on the successful hosting of an event such as the degree to which politics influence event hosting. Researchers should also consider how and why repeated restructurings occur within sport event organizing committees (e.g., 1999 Pan American Games, 2005 FINA World Championships, and 2006 Turin Olympic Games) given that human resources and relationships emerged as important issue categories organizing committee members had to manage. Could political influences be at the root of the need to restructure with government-imposed job placements? Are there other reasons? As well, future research should consider what the interrelationships between the various issue categories are so that a conceptual framework can be developed. These are all questions that need answers so that organizing committees may be able to operate more efficiently and effectively. An in-depth examination of each particular issue was beyond the scope of this paper. Future research should examine more closely particular issue categories or specific issues to build the sport event management literature. For example, within the organizing issue category is decision-making. For this specific issue, what is the decision-making style of an organizing committee? Are there specific strategies used over time or for different stakeholders? Does decision-making change as the velocity (speed) of the context increase (cf. Eisenhardt, 1989b)?

Evolution and Issues Framework 41 Finally, the differences between this study and the existing academic literature may indicate some of the unique features of major Games. Future research should examine the way organizing committee members and stakeholders define an organizing committee as an organization. For example, is it most similar to a corporation or a volunteer-based organization or a non-profit organization, and does the organizing committee operate as such? As well, event managers now have a general organizational evolution framework to follow. Future research could examine the implication of this framework for different types of Games (e.g., Olympic Games, Paralympic Games, and various regional Games) and different types of temporary organizations (e.g., festivals, movies, construction projects).

Evolution and Issues Framework 42 References Ansoff, H. I. (1980). Strategic issues management. Strategic Management Journal, 1, 131-148. Arksey, H., & Knight, P. (1999). Interviewing for social scientists. An introductory resource with examples. London: Sage Publications. Brown, G. (2002). Taking the pulse of Olympic sponsorship. Event Management, 7, 187-196. Burbank, M. J., Andranovich, G. D., & Heying, C. H. (2001). Olympic dreams: The impact of mega-events on local politics. London: Lynne Reiner Publishers. Chappelet, J.-L. (1991). Le système olympique. Grenoble, France: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble. Chappelet, J.-L. (2000). Le rêve inachevé ou les candidatures de Sion aux Jeux olympiques d’hiver. Chavannes-près-Renens, Switzerland: IDHEAP. Chelladurai, P. (2005). Managing organizations for sport and physical activity (2nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway, Publishers. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Crompton, J. L. (1995). Economic impact analysis of sport facilities and events: Eleven sources of misapplication. Journal of Sport Management, 9, 14-35. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65-91. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989a). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532-550. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989b). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 543-576.

Evolution and Issues Framework 43 Emery, P. R. (2001). Bidding to host a major sports event. In C. Gratton & I. P. Henry (Eds.), Sport in the city: The role of sport in economic and social regeneration. London: Routledge. Emery, P. R. (2002). Bidding to host a major sports event: The local organising committee perspective. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 15, 316-335. Farrell, M. J., Johnston, E. M., & Twynam, D. G. (1998). Volunteer motivation, satisfaction, and management at an elite sporting competition. Journal of Sport Management, 12, 288-300. Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P. J. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25, 154-177. Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (1994). Dinosaurs or dynamos? Recognizing middle management's strategic role. Academy of Management Executive, 8, 47-57. Fombrun, C. J. (1996a). Reputation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Fombrun, C. J. (1996b). Reputation : Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Fombrun, C. J., & Shanley, M. (1990). What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 233-258. Foreman, P. O., & Whetten, D. A. (2002). Members’ identification with multiple identity organizations. Organization Science, 13, 618-635. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman. Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2002). Developing stakeholder theory. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 1-21.

Evolution and Issues Framework 44 Friedman, M. T., Parent, M. M., & Mason, D. S. (2004). Building a framework for issues management in sport through stakeholder theory. European Sport Management Quarterly, 4, 170-190. Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24, 191205. Getz, D. (1993). Corporate culture and not-for-profit festival organizations: Concepts and potential applications. Festival Management & Event Tourism, 1, 11-17. Gioia, D. A. (1998). From individual identity to organizational identity. In D. A. Whetten & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations—Building theory through conversation (pp. 1731). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Gioia, D. A. (1999). Practicability, paradigms, and problems in stakeholder theorizing. Academy of Management Review, 24, 228-232. Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., & Corley, K. G. (2000). Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review, 25, 63-81. Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21, 10221054. Hall, C. M. (1992). Hallmark tourist events: Impacts, management and planning. London: Belhaven Press. Heath, R. L. (2002). Issues management: Its past, present and future. Journal of Public Affairs, 2, 209-214. Jennings, A. (2000). The great Olympic swindle: When the world wanted its games back. London: Simon & Schuster.

Evolution and Issues Framework 45 Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24, 206-221. Key, S. (1999). Toward a new theory of the firm: A critique of stakeholder “theory”. Management Decision, 37, 317-328. King, F. W. (1991). It’s how you play the game: The inside story of the Calgary Olympics. Calgary, Canada: Script: the writers’ group, Inc. Lee, J. (2006, January 3). Crucial year will shape 2010 Games. The Vancouver Sun, pp. A1-A2. Lenskyj, H. J. (2000). Inside the Olympic industry: Power, politics and activism. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Masterman, G. (2004). Strategic sports event management: An international approach. Oxford, UK: Elsevier. McGeoch, R. (1994). The bid: How Australia won the 2000 Games. Port Melbourne, Australia: William Heinemann Australia. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Mingus, N. (2002). Project management in 24 hours. Madison, WI: CWL Publishing. PAGS. (1999). XIII Pan American Games: PASO report. Winnipeg, Canada: PAGS. Pound, R. W. (2004). Inside the Olympics: A behind-the-scenes look at the politics, the scandals, and the glory of the games. Mississauga, Canada: John Wiley & Sons Canada Ltd. Pugh, D. S., & Hickson, D. J. (1997). Writers on Organizations (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Putler, D. S., & Wolfe, R. A. (1999). Perceptions of intercollegiate athletic programs: Priorities and tradeoffs. Sociology of Sport Journal, 16, 301-325.

Evolution and Issues Framework 46 Ratnatunga, J., & Muthaly, S. K. (2000). Lessons from the Atlanta Olympics: Marketing and organizational considerations for Sydney 2000. International Journal of Sport Marketing & Sponsorship, 2, 239-257. Reichart, J. (2003). A theoretical exploration of expectational gaps in the corporate issue construct. Corporate Reputation Review, 6, 58-69. Ritchie, J. R. B. (1984). Assessing the impact of hallmark events: Conceptual and research issues. Journal of Travel Research, 23(1), 2-11. Roche, M. (2000). Mega-events & modernity: Olympics and expos in the growth of global culture. London: Routledge. Rowley, T. J., & Moldoveanu, M. (2003). When will stakeholder groups act? An interest- and identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Academy of Management Review, 28, 204-219. Sack, A. L., & Johnson, A. T. (1996). Politics, economic development, and the Volvo International Tennis Tournament. Journal of Sport Management, 10, 1-14. Shone, A., & Parry, B. (2004). Successful event management (2nd ed.). London, UK: Thomson. Wartick, S. L., & Heugens, P. P. M. A. R. (2003). Guest editorial: Future directions for issues management. Corporate Reputation Review, 6, 7-18. Wartick, S. L., & Mahon, J. F. (1994). Toward a substansive definition of the corporate issue construct. Business & Society, 33, 293-311. Weed, M. E. (2003). Why the two won’t tango! Explaining the lack of integrated policies for sport and tourism in the UK. Journal of Sport Management, 17, 258-283. Whitson, D., & Macintosh, D. (1996). The global circus: International sport, tourism, and the marketing of cities. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 20, 278-295.

Evolution and Issues Framework 47 Williams, P. W., Dossa, K. B., & Tompkins, L. (1995). Volunteerism and special event management: A case study of Whistler's Men's World Cup of Skiing. Festival Management & Event Tourism, 3, 83-95. Wolfe, R. A., & Putler, D. S. (2002). How tight are the ties that bind stakeholder groups? Organization Science, 13, 64-80. Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 691-718. Yarbrough, C. R. (2000). And they call them games: An inside view of the 1996 Olympics. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Yoon, S., Spencer, D. M., Holecek, D. F., & Kim, D.-K. (2000). A profile of Michigan’s festival and special event tourism market. Event Management, 6, 33-44.

Evolution and Issues Framework 48 Appendix Interview Guides Organizing Committee Interview Guide 1. Please describe the organizing committee? Prompt for goals/objectives, strengths/weaknesses, obstacles, its internal/external images 2. How would you define the organizing committee? (Not-for-profit, corporation/business, network of alliances, project, temporary, etc.) 3. What was your role within the organizing committee? 4. Which organizations do you think were particularly important for the preparation and hosting of the Games? a. How would you describe each individual/organization? How did they act toward the organizing committee in general? b. What were the reasons for collaborating with this individual/organization? c. In your opinion, what were the initial desired results of this partnership? i. Were they realistic? ii. Did these expectations change over the course of the partnership? iii. Did these expectations have to be met all the time? Some of the time? Almost never? iv. Were the desired results reached? d. How was the partnership managed? i. Who was responsible for managing the relationship? ii. What issues or problems arose during the partnership? 1. Which ones were more important

Evolution and Issues Framework 49 2. How did the stakeholder behave (tactics) for the issue, if they acted at all? iii. How were they resolved? What strategy was used? By whom? How long did it take? What was the issue’s impact on the organization? Was the issue seen as legitimate? e. Were there needs that could not be met because other stakeholders’ needs were deemed more important? Give examples. Why? How was this decision made? By whom? 5. How did you know what to do? 6. What main tip would you give to future organizing committees? 7. Is there anything else that you would like to mention in relation to the Games? Stakeholder Interview Guide 1. What is your role within your organization at the time of the Games? 2. What was your role during the Games? 3. How did you learn about the Games and its organizing committee? Who initiated contact? 4. Which department or individual managed the collaboration between the two organizations? Was the collaboration with headquarters, with the organization in general, or with a department/affiliated organization? 5. Why did your organization affiliate itself with the organizing committee? a. What factors led to this decision? b. How was this partnership related to your needs? 6. Initially, what were the desired results for the partnership?

Evolution and Issues Framework 50 a. Did these expectations change over the course of the partnership? 7. How did the partnership develop? How did it change over time? 8. How did you communicate with the organizing committee? How did you have access to the organizing committee? 9. How was the relationship with the organizing committee managed? a. Who managed the relationship? b. What issues/problems developed over the course of the partnership? i. How did you behave (tactics used) for this issue? ii. Was the issue seen as legitimate? iii. What was the issue’s impact on the organization? c. How did you ensure that your needs were met? d. How were the issues/problems resolved? e. Were there times when you thought that your needs were pushed aside by the organizing committee in favor of another individual/organization? 10. What is your opinion of the results of the partnership? a. Were the desired outcomes achieved? How? 11. To what extent was the relationship with the organizing committee and its Games important for your organization? 12. Can you describe your relationship with the other organizations affiliated with the Games? 13. How did you/your organization know what needed to be done? 14. Is there anything else that you would like to mention in relation to the Games?

Evolution and Issues Framework 51 Table 1 List of Interviewees Hierarchical Level Top Managers

Middle Managers

Lower Managers

Stakeholders

Position Chairman of the Board President and Chief Executive Officer Chief Operating Officer Senior Vice-President Chair Communications, Promotions, and Media (CPM) Chair Games Operations Chair Marketing Chair Sport Chair Volunteers Vice-President (VP) CPM VP Sport VP Games Operations Manager Sport Operations Co-chair Volunteer Recruitment, Interviewing, and Placement Manager Volunteers Venue Team Leader 1 Venue Team Leader 2 Government of Canada Government of Manitoba City of Winnipeg Aboriginal Community Sponsoring Company Local Newspaper Host Broadcaster National Sport Organization

Member Type Volunteer Staff

Interview Method In-person In-person

Staff Staff Volunteer

In-person In-person In-person

Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Staff Staff Staff Staff Volunteer

In-person In-person Phone In-person Phone In-person Phone In-person Phone

Staff Volunteer Volunteer N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Phone In-person Phone In-person In-person In-person Phone Phone In-person Phone Phone

Evolution and Issues Framework 52 Table 2 Description of Issue Categories Faced by an Organizing Committee Issue Category Politics Visibility Financial Organizing Relationships Operations

Sport

Infrastructure Human Resources Media Interdependence Participation Legacy

Specific Issues Power & politics, lobbying, government support, inter-city competition, egos, protocol Reputation, image, public/corporate support Cost control, budget management, sponsorship, ticket sales, marketing, licensing Planning, decision-making, structure, management activities, team composition, deadlines, effectiveness Negotiation, discussion with stakeholders, managing expectations, building/maintaining relationships, accountability, authority Venues/facilities, technology, ceremonies/cultural events, defections, medical, security, contingencies, food, travel, games transportation, accommodations, accreditations, logistics, commissioning & decommissioning Delegation size, qualification standards, sanctions, fields of play, officials, readiness, delivery, event quality, resources & equipment, test events, practices, water Traffic, streets, existing facilities, city/public transportation, tourism, weather, municipal services (e.g., garbage collection) Staff/volunteer management & roles, leadership, motivation, teamwork Media coverage, broadcasting rights Coordination, communication, divisional & hierarchical linkages, information management Involvement, recognition, experience, fun, excitement, ticket availability New facilities, know-how, final report & knowledge transfer, resource management, trade opportunities, pride, benefits, networking

Evolution and Issues Framework 53 Table 3 Evolution Modes/Phases and Related Issue Categories of an Organizing Committee Mode Planning

Phase Bid

Issue Categories Faced Politics, relationships, financial, organizing, infrastructure, visibility Business Plan Politics, organizing, interdependence, financial, relationships Operational Plan Politics, organizing, financial, interdependence, human resources, operations, infrastructure Work Packages Politics, interdependence, financial, operations, infrastructure, relationships Implementation Venue Plans Politics, interdependence, operations, infrastructure, human resources, sport, participation Games Time Sport, operations, interdependence, human resources, participation, infrastructure, media, politics Wrap-Up Final Report & Legacy, operations, human resources Post-Games

Evolution and Issues Framework 54 Table 4 Issue Categories by External Stakeholder Group Stakeholder Group Canadian Governments Community

Stakeholder Federal government Provincial government Municipal government Residents Sponsors Aboriginal community Other community groups

Sport Organizations

International National and provincial

Delegations

Delegations

Media

Television & host broadcaster Print Radio

Issue Categories Financial, visibility, politics, participation Financial, visibility, politics, legacy Financial, visibility, participation, legacy Sport, legacy, participation, financial Visibility, financial, relationships, participation Legacy, participation, relationships, financial Participation, legacy, visibility, relationships, financial Politics, sport, visibility participation, financial Legacy, sport, operations, politics, visibility, participation, financial Operations, sport, interdependence, participation, financial Visibility, financial, operations, interdependence, relationships, sport Financial, visibility, operations Operations, financial

Evolution and Issues Framework 55 Table 5 Organizing Committee External Stakeholder Interests Stakeholder Group Governments Community Sport Organizations Media Delegations

Stakeholder Federal, provincial, & municipal Residents, sponsors, & community groups International National & provincial Television, print & radio Participants & support staff

Material      

Political  

Interests Affiliative Informational       

Symbolic     

Evolution and Issues Framework 56 Table 6 Issue Categories Faced by Organizing Committee Members (by Importance)

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X

Visibility

X X X

X X

X

X X X X

Legacy

X

X

X X X

X X X

X

X X X X

X X X X

Media

X

X

X X X

Infrastructure

X X X

X

Sport

X X

Participation

X X X

Politics

X X X

Organizing

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Interdependence

Operations

3

Relationships

2

Human Resources

1

Member type Member Volunteer Chairman Staff President-CEO COO Volunteer Marketing Volunteers Games Operations Sports CPM Staff Senior Vice-President Games Operations Sports CPM Volunteer Vteam Leader 1 Vteam Leader 2 Volunteers Staff Sport Operations Volunteers

Financial

Hierarchical Level

Issue Categories

X

Evolution and Issues Framework 57 Figure Captions Figure 1. Comparing Sport Event Management Frameworks.

Evolution and Issues Framework 58 Time Perio

Burbank et al. (2001) Yarbrough (2000)

Hall (1992)

Getz (1993)

Masterman (2004)

Shone & Parry (2004)

Proposed Framework

Bid

Planning

Planning

Origin

Objectives Concept Feasibility Bid

Objectives

Planning: Bid

Implementation planning

Organizing and preparing the

PreGames

Organizing

Leading

Informal organization

Planning

Emergence of leadership Formal organization

Implementation of plans

Controlling

Implementation

Professionalism

Games Time

Games time

Implement event

PostGames

Post-games

Handover Evaluation Feedback Stages

Modes

Phases

Planning: Business plan, Operational plan,

Stages

Implementing

Divestment/ Legacy Activities

Wrap-up Modes: Ph