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

Mauricio Nunes Rodrigues

Supervisor: Marcos CavalcantiCo-supervisor: Ahmed Bounfour

The 7th International Doctoral Consortiumon Intellectual Capital Management

Content

1. Introduction2. Research Question 3. Objective4. Research Methodology 5. FIFA World Cup Tourism case study6. 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 analysis2. Stakeholder mapping matrix3. Preliminary interviews4. Adaptation of the operational model5. Validation of the operational model (indicators and questions)6. Second round of interviews7. Data gathering evaluation8. 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?