Risk Management at Mega Events: Case of the Olympic Games

Abstract

The management of risk at mega events is the focus of this dissertation. The framework for criticality of risk areas is identified through a literature review in the chosen domain of Olympics as an instance of mega events. The study looks at different areas of risk and examines assertions made in online archived articles in the public domain. The dissertation uses web based archival resources to acquire such articles using judgmental sampling. Content analysis is the method of analyses complemented by analysis of variance and correlation analysis.

Reflecting on discussion on risk, and on the orientation of shortcomings and prescriptions in articles used as data -is the empirical basis for the study. The implications emphasize a greater role for the host city communities – the risk and benefits are central to minimizing risks in planning and implementation. The importance of such moderation in alliancing and orientation is also found to be beneficial for the organizers of mega events. The study is limited in scope due to sample size and accessibility issues but delivers to the two research questions it is based on, draws out key implications for risk management, and also, reflects on the Games themselves as sequential settings that belong to a larger set of mega events. Such events due to their sequential nature of occurrence- have tremendous opportunity to learn for performance improvement.

Preface

This study has been helped tremendously by online portals as data sources especially Highbeam.com, and also, the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts reports to do with Olympic Games. Guidance and orientation received from the University have been very helpful in organizing this study. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to friends and family for their co-operation during my busy days while conducting this study. Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1 Background

Since the decision for revival of the Olympic movement at the behest of Baron Pierre de Coubertin in Sorbonne, in Paris in 1894, the Olympic movement has come a long way. After nearly fifteen hundred years the first games in Athens were held in 1896. The chronology has come a full circle with the Athens Games on 2004. Over this time frame the Olympic movement is a signifier of prestige and also political clout. However, as with all forms of growth and maturity in a continuously changing world problems and issues have reshaped time and again to challenge the smooth execution of Olympic Games and their perception in minds of the global audience whether it be the public or the governments or also, the sportsperson and organisers. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has made sure through instruments, producers, rules and routines that it controls the aspects of these mega events – the primary focus being to maintain them not only as the top sporting event but also ‘the’ mega-event that has no comparable competitor (Hill, 1992).

This mandate of size, scope and ambition brings with it an ever more complex environment. The risk of poor performance is associated with such complexity that is difficult to understand and distil into delivery concerns. The internal facets not withstanding, constant challenges like the unpredictability but at the same time likelihood and associated concern of events such as acts of terrorism compound the interface with externalities. The impact of the socio-economic frame of reference at Game sites, the expectations of the IOC and other stakeholders on the reputation and legacy front et al., provide a platter that has a risk quotient attached to every aspect. The management of this risk is critical to carry the movement forward as a successful global phenomenon that brings together people in a fulfilling manner driven by healthy sporting camaraderie.

This dissertation examines risk areas in Olympic Games with an objective to arrive at a risk framework and then derive the relative importance of different risk areas. Using evidence from published sources it also tries to contextualize shortcomings in management of such risk and potential solutions that can help moderate risk. In this frame of reference, the dissertation makes an implicit case for contextualizing and assessing learning from past experience, and the shape of the current schema of risk management for London Olympics, 2012.

1.2 Research Questions

The central research questions that drive this study are as follows:

1. What is the relative critically of areas of risk that are associated with the Olympic Games?

2. What are the shortcomings in existing ways of managing risks? & How can these shortcomings be addressed?

1.3 Dissertation Outline

This chapter sets the mandate for the study and is followed by a literature review that looks at risk from a mega event perspective and in context of Olympic games in particular. The third chapter outlines the approach and methodology for this dissertation. Among other aspects of data and sample selection – it provides a perspective of textual analysis and other allied techniques used for interpreting the same. The fourth chapter presents the research findings under different research questions. A relative criticality of risk areas based on the risk framework /typology in the literature review section is arrived at. The orientation of shortcomings and recommendations in the sample articles is also presented.

The findings are then taken forward to a research discussion chapter where the implications of the findings are taken forward for Olympic Games as a case of mega events. The dissertation concludes by providing a snapshot of study achievements, limitations of the study, and leads for future research.

Chapter 2. Literature Review

2.1. Introduction

‘Mega-events’ are way for cities, nations and economies to further their development agendas. Olympic Games no doubt belong to this fold of events and probably the most significant of them all.

The reputational and economic effects on cities of hosting the Games have been well-documented (e.g., Andranovich, Burbank & Heying, 2001; Miyazaki & Morgan, 2001). However, there is much more work to be done in scoping the risk that is associated with these games. Aside from the fiscal debacle of the Montreal Olympics, right from the onset of the modern Olympics, critical situations have afflicted the games. Political factors have had a role to play with the Nazi bandwagon riding the 1936 Olympics, disruptions through the Wars, and also, anti-apartheid and cold war boycotts. Munich and Atlanta Olympics on the other hand encountered terrorism reshaping the security connotations forever (Burton, 2003).

Hosting the Olympic Games requires a range actors and institutions to come together and the risk of management that such diversity brings with it is also considerable. While the rewards for the community remain high e.g., like being labeled an Olympic world class city the risks of failure are equally great both in the execution of the games, and the stigma that such failure may bring to the community, management and the government. Rationalizing, motivating and organizing remain key to risk control in addition to the unpredictable externalities that may impact such events (Ansell, 1997).

In the next section I discuss the Risk from a perspective of distilling a typology that can closely approximate the numerous variables that associate with a mega event. There after I discuss Olympic risk in the specific context of Olympic Games and the games to be held in London in 2012.

2.2. Risk and Mega Events

The idea of risk is very subjective and highly contingent on the situation and area in question. The understanding of risk as the probability of loss is very macro. This probability is sometimes complex to diagnose as the involved variables are subjective and the probability itself is to make it ambiguous-uncertain. Furthermore, risk is also a matter of significance and relative consequence that various negative influences bring upon an initiative or institution (Tannert et al, 2007).

A discussion to arrive at a typology of risk that is comprehensive and suitable to be considered for mega event scenarios needs to start with Enterprise Risk Management (ERM). With its moorings in financial engineering of risk, ERM covers risk associated with all organisational and institutional silos whether insurance, financial or in general- operational issues. The detailed risk maps that inhabit the increased awareness about risk are now even more important especially in light of the externalities and unpredictable that have been re-emphasized in the aftermath of 9/11. These range from a risk typology that involves interest rates to even more subjective reputational risk aspects. Furthermore, risk is more associative and less silo-ed as the consequences ricochet for the whole organisation or institutional system that may comprise multiple organisational entities as in mega events – thus culminating into macro level strategic risk frame also (Ahlquist, 2003; Barnoff, 2004).

Risk management can be seen at several levels in the case of institutional mechanisms (Quarantelli, 19988; Horlick-Jones et al.; 2001; Kunreuther et al. 1995; Tarlow, 2002): :

Stemming from externalities with some predictability consensus associated with them. For instance, political-legal, economic, and also social

Stemming from externalities with very less or no consensus on the predictability like natural calamities and terrorism (different from perceived likelihood. For instance, an act of terrorism may be likely but cannot really be predicted as against the earlier type!)

Institutionalization and legacy risk Corporate/institutional risk that stems from integrating multiple parties into the management- decision frame. The challenge is to effectively work on negotiation and on the complex pattern of alignment of different stakeholder objectives. For instance, given multiple organisational systems that comprises institutional mechanisms for mega events. Reputational risk are a part of this risk in the main but also can stem from other types

Operational risk -that could stem from supply chain management issues, sub-contracting issues, and work efficiency problems, among others.

In the case of mega events another form of risk that has to do with the size and scope of the event, and is based on the premise that greater these are the more likely are the above likely to manifest themselves. This can be termed – ‘Event Complexity’ Risk (Ceniceros, 2001). Risk of managing information about risk is also an associated factor here. In the information age a lot of data is available on all risk related variables but this also makes the potential for complexity through multiple interpretations very likely. In the pursuit of information – intuition has lesser and lesser of a role to play. This becomes critical when the issue is of externalities with a low prediction quotient.

2.3. Risk at Olympic Games

The idea of Olympism is ingrained in an institutional mechanism that integrates a legacy and numerous organisations when the legacy has to be taken forward in the form of other games. Beyond the exchanges and relationships that are contracted out to be economically meaningful the social, legacy and reputational aspects impart a “common meaning system” (Scott, 1995: 56).

By extension the implications of risk become even more nuanced for Olympic Games. In part, because the baggage of ideology and thus the expectations being immense –more than probably any other mega event on the planet. The following snippets that emphasize this ‘expectation assertion’ and thus reflect not only on the nuanced nature of risk but also the risk of failure:

The Olympic Games are subject to a most complex web of risk variables given the scope and expectations discussed so far. The categories of risk discussed in the previous section apply, and the aspect of ‘event complexity risk’ (Ceniceros, 2001) discussed before amplifies them in the context of Olympics. The legacy of Olympics marked by manifestation of externalities, strategic and operational issues all come together to shape an ever increasing concern for ‘things that can go wrong’

The Olympic Games are staged in collaboration with a given city. The consequences of how risk is managed are thus most important for the city and its people. The ramifications of course are nationwide. The connection is depicted in the naming of the Olympic Games — Berlin 1936; Los Angeles 1984; Sydney 2000 et al.– it is the city that is associated with operationalisation of the Games, and also has its own mascot, emblem et al. The communities – both in administration and in public domain of host cities provide for the direction to the initiative in the specificities of control that are given to a city. It is this localized application of the global and time established mandate of Olympics that initiates the formation strategies, operations , delivery mechanisms and the relationships that comprise them within the host city and beyond it also. Finally, in turn, this impacts the host city and all stakeholders beyond and within its frame of reference – through the performance of the Games and the legacy the Games leave behind (Burbank, 2001).

In the run to London 2012 risk management has become a much codified and dwelled upon feature. However political lobbying and public sentiments some times take attention away from it. For instance, during the bidding evaluation process the London transport system was seen as having serious problems by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) – this was given a back seat in subsequent evaluation exercise. While provisions for risk are formally made as for the 2012 games, the provisions are but only token in light of the heightened risks of terrorism.

Athens 2004 in particular -was also marked by delayed, rather ‘dangerously just in time’ completion of facilities. The experience has resulted in the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) imposing a master schedule that supervised ongoing progress (Burbank, 2001; Jennings, 2006).

Sponsors and license fees are a key component of revenues and in light of the failure to adequately protect these in Atlanta 1996, Sydney 2000 saw innovative strategies in place and the learning has continued to shape the delivery mechanism of the London 2012. Lessons from the past improve the delivery mechanism and the risk management apparatus, changing times require innovation to be continuous- proactive and not only in response to problems and failures of the past (Hamel, 1996).

Increasingly most of the investment that is to help host the games is sold to the taxpayer as additional benefits or infrastructure improvements that would occur irrespective of winning the bid to host the games. Besides moderating most internal political and fiscal discontentment, this also contributes to ‘planning of a lasting tangible legacy’. This is one of the seven key risk areas identified by the House of Commons Committee of Public accounts (July, 2007). This list that highlights both the generic and specific concerns is adapted from the report with excerpts of comments from the House of Commons highlighting the nature of concern. It is important to note that many operational facets especially security span several of these listed areas like for instance ‘Coordination of the multiplicity of organizations and groups involved in the Games’ and ‘Delivering the Games against an immovable deadline’ among othersHouse of Commons (2007)

The delivery of the London Olympic Games 2012 has been configured around two new bodies the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA), and the London Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympics Games (LOCOG)- the former providing facilities, and the latter, staging the games.

These bodies are supervised by the Olympic Board, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that comprises the Government Olympic. The number of bodies that link up to provide services feed into a complex supply chain which is not easily comprehendible but the delivery mechanism can be seen as follows:

The complexity of the delivery mechanism and the even more nuanced supply chain has a knock on effect on the other listed factors- for example the timely delivery aspect is contingent upon the effectiveness of co-ordination.

The timescale from securing the bid to eventual hosting is quite big- the resultant inflation and unpredictable external factors affect budgetary issues. On the other hand, the contractual procedures required to say for instance, harness fresh private sector funds make it cumbersome to source then with such re-estimates. One example of changing circumstances is heightened security risks that may also require re-estimates.

The lottery money that is going into 2012 is being diverted from other just causes and such resource re-direction needs to come good in the future from surpluses created by the impetus of the games. Having a structured approach to supply chain management and recognizing the extensive processes that will be required to facilitate construction and reworks for instance- are key to effective management. Monitoring of progress via a steering group will help keep a check on the various cogs of the complex machine that also stems from the ‘master schedule’ requirement mentioned before (Jennings,2006). The lasting legacy issue is about reuse and sustainable orientation of facilities and infrastructural developments to generate a source of income over life. This is key to realizing long terms benefits from the impetus of the games.

The discussion on the above that leads from the typology provided also suggests as range of micro factors that need to be put in context. As later in this dissertation – these micro factors that lie within the ambit of the typology are crucial to examine shortcomings and recommendations from web based archived publications. These micro risk areas can be listed as follows as mainly from the above discussion:

• Scheduling (the preparation flow from award of the games to being ready comfortably and in time)
• Infrastructure Quality (the quality of facilities and how customized they are to delivering the games)
• Sponsorship (a resource bracket that is not only about monetary issues but also to a degree about sanction)
• Licensing issues (the arrangements to appropriate services and rents)
• Security (issues to do with management of crowds in the old days now primarily about terrorism)
• Legacy (the impressionistic statements the Games make on the city-nation and the Games themselves)
• Resource opportunity cost (in light of other good causes)
• Coordination (in delivery)

Extant literature that has dwelled on shortcomings and recommendations across some of these areas hints at resourcing, sanction from top and public support as driving variables towards addressing shortcomings related to the aforesaid areas. Toohey and Taylor (2007) for instance, have highlighted the role of public sentiments in shaping response to threats of terrorism. The impact of how fear, anger, optimism, and pessimism as attributes of such sentiment – translate into the public ‘buying in’ to the organisers claims about the efficacy of security, were key as per their empirical analysis.

In the risk management area the need for ‘special events to have special risk management’ mandates (Ceniceros, 2001) is propounded explicitly or implicitly in most literature. Such literature highlights the ‘event complexity’ issue that is a part of the typology propounded in this review based on literature. What such research also suggests is the need to be very explicit in fleshing out risk variables no matter how unconventional they may appear (McGee, 2006; Roche, 2006). The unconventionality is what has required me to distill a novel framework in typology and in micro areas in this literature review – to be examined and validated in the later chapters.

In the subsequent chapters I examine the Risk associated with Olympic Games. This is done in two complementary ways. I examine the perceptions about risk in recent past through a methodologically embedded analysis and then draw implications largely in context of the prospective frame London Olympics 2012. While the former provides for a perspective on relative criticality of risk areas, and how shortcomings and recommendations associated with it are tabled – the latter provides a platform to contextualize the findings. In the parts of the dissertation to follow -data sources for this analysis and a detailed methodology are provided prior to analysis and findings of the study.

Chapter 3. Approach & Methodology

3.1. Introduction

This dissertation is based on secondary data sources. Web based archival documents, and also literature that provides narratives of different Olympic Games have been used. In some cases, references to changes in the delivery mechanism in the aftermath of a critical incident in the preceding games, form basis to reflect on the genesis of approaches to risk management. In others, which are a majority, author perception and orientation are taken as an indicator of the risk and shortcomings of risk management at the mega events of Olympic Games. A detailed methodology as described and illustrated in this chapter tries to work on these in a robust manner.

The listed areas of risk in general for mega events and contextualised to London 2012 games in the literature review- are taken as the bedrock to flesh out different factors that associate with each area. There are overlapping and micro factors like private funds generation, contractual arrangement for physical assets and security- but these have been worked at in an aggregated manner under the risk typology proposed. Some specific discussion on these follows under the findings section but the focus remains to generate a holistic risk perspective as per the research questions of this dissertation.

An analysis based on web based published material using content analysis or textual analysis (as archival text is the frame of reference) informs this dissertation. This is on a sample of articles in leading newspapers and periodicals on Olympics Games. The content analysis technique will make use of phrases, concepts, and their meaning to elucidate which are prime areas relating to risk concern and how the related factors are perceived. There is an opportunity to see cultural variations not only over time but over samples that belong to different parts of the world but the lack in spread in articles has defeated this additional objective – not affecting the addressal of the research questions. Textual analysis bases itself on the extent of occurrence and also on the implied meaning as in opinions voiced and intended (Lecompte et al., 1992). The data codes generated have been processed using statistical tools as described later in the chapter. As stated, after presenting the research findings in the chapter to follow, the relative criticality of risk factors is discussed – primarily in light of London 2012 and mega events in general later in this dissertation.

3.2. Data

The sample of popular newspaper and periodical articles under content-textual analysis was expected to be about 50 over the last five years, given that we need to examine contemporary- relative importance of risk areas and factors. I have been able to locate 51 articles that are of relevance after going through nearly 200 articles to generate this shortlist. The sampling can thus be classified as judgmental. As mentioned, a regional classification was also intended but lack of articles that were comparable from the Asian and African perspective did not allow for this. The popularity weighing has also been done away with given this modification in selection criteria brought upon by access and availability issues – new criteria drawing to some degree on discourse architecture by a lead thinker in the field of semiotics- Foucault as described later is used for assigning weights. Archival information from the House of Commons Committee of Public accounts (HC) is available and updated version(s) have been used to support the comparison between content analysis findings and the risk assessment schema that exists. Though the Beijing games in 2008 were kept out of the frame of reference as material on these was rather limited, and also because the prospective frame was intended to be the London Olympics- some articles inevitably referred to the forthcoming Beijing Games as well.

3.3. Textual Analysis

Textual analysis is a form of content analysis where archival text is the platform for distilling meanings and implications. This includes online material. The analyses includes a perspective on the ‘intended’ vs. the ‘visible’ meanings and also the environment and players who enact the ‘transaction’ of the message.(Babbie, 1997). Textual analysis thus works in a frame of reference that seems to stem from ‘Semiotics’ of the study of meanings ( Bignell, 1997), is key to understanding such analytical approach. This is profiled here to draw on concepts that can be reflected in coding of the textual data.

Roland Barthes (1915-1980) is the first key thinker here of course building upon the basics of semiotics propounded by Saussure (Barthes, 1954, 1967, 1975). He speaks of certain levels at which meanings are pegged – the explicit sign actually indicates a deeper meaning or implication.

Among many others’ Michael Foucault is another important thinker – his views on the ‘context’ and the manner in which ‘discourse’ gets shaped both across time and within a given situation at a point in time have been much cited (Groden & Kreiswirth 1994).

3.4. Methods in Analyses

From the preceding discussion it can be summarised that the following are useful in setting out works for textual analysis:

• (Barthes amongst others) – looking at deeper meanings
• (Foucault) – looking at lineage and moorings support from past expressions

The characteristics of the web based published articles are as below for profiling the analysis to give a snapshot of how the analysis has been conducted

• They are a form of written text that arise both in response to previous postings and also independently in context of a phenomenon or event. To this extends the signs can be primary or secondary. For instance, critiquing claims about the efficacy of arrangements at the proposed game or just objectively stating the resource input into risk management and the claims about how these are going to affect the games
• They can be quasi –primary signs at a particular point in time as they may refer not directly to the event but follow a line of thought from previous events that had temporarily terminated in the past. So signs can manifest themselves in dormant forms till they are called into play again. For instance, semblance to arrangements in Olympic games that were held far in the past

So going back to our classification of risk in the preceding chapter:

• Stemming from externalities with some predictability associated with them. For instance, political-legal, economic, and also social
• Stemming from externalities with very less or no consensus on the predictability like natural calamities and terrorism (as argued before : a likelihood there but prediction is not possible)
• Institutionalization and legacy risk Corporate/institutional risk that stems from integrating multiple parties into the management- decision frame. The challenge is to effectively work on negotiation and on the complex pattern of alignment of different stakeholder objectives. For instance, given multiple organisational systems that comprises institutional mechanisms for mega events. Reputational risk are a part of this risk in the main but also can stem from other types
• Operational risk that could stem from supply chain management issues, sub-contracting issues, and work efficiency problems
• In the case of mega events another form of risk that has to do with the size and scope of the event, and is based on the premise that greater these are the more likely are the above likely to manifest themselves. This can be termed – ‘Event Complexity’ Risk

Demonstrating analyses for coding:

I will take snippets (some parts of articles) from the postings used and reflect on them.

From the discussion presented, in the main, I will keep in mind the base concepts of Semiotics as by Saussure, extended by Barthes and the explanation provided by Foucault that discontinuity and lineage are characteristic of every discursive statement or published text. Here I explain how the article has been looked at to draw coding for analyses. The source URL article produced here which is by Sally Jenkins in the Washington Post. Only some parts of the article are reproduced below as in quotes italics for this demonstration purpose.

“….The thing to do with the Athens Games is to believe in them until we’re absolutely forced not to. Anyone who has a chance to go to the Olympics is asking themselves a plain question: Is the trip worth it? The answer is plainly, yes, if only because of a principle best expressed in “The Greek Way,” by Edith Hamilton. She wrote something that all American athletes should take note of: “Civilization, a much abused word, stands for a high matter quite apart from telephones and electric lights…………………

…….This could be the motto of the Athens Games, given the delays in finishing stadiums, roads, and other infrastructure, and the explosion of three small bombs in the last two weeks. Nevertheless, it’s not a bad lesson, and it’s one that the more cosseted American athletes could use. In fact, maybe we could all do with some Greek culture”…….

…..Neither apparently do modern Greeks. Eighty percent of Greeks recently polled said they believe some kind of attack is “inevitable.” Fifty-two percent of Americans believe an attack is likely. U.S. Sen. Jon Kyle (R-Ariz.), the chairman of the Senate committee on terrorism, said the safest place to watch the Olympics is at home on television…..

……To date, no American athlete has withdrawn from the Games specifically because of security. But an NBA player is your best bet. “The players are definitely concerned,” Jermaine O’Neal, the Indiana Pacers forward and a member of the U.S. team, told the Associated Press. Not even the Queen Mary seems to console Ray Allen, who cited the USS Cole, the American destroyer that was attacked by al-Qaeda in October 2002 and lost 17 sailors. “The only thing I can think of,” Allen said, “is the battleship that got blown up……

……Hamilton wrote, “For a hundred years Athens was a city where the great spiritual forces that war in men’s minds flowed along together in peace; law and freedom, truth and religion, beauty and goodness, the objective and the subjective — there was a truce to their eternal warfare and the result was the balance and clarity, the harmony and completeness, the word Greek has come to stand for . . . and in all Greek art there is an absence of struggle, a reconciling power, something of calm and serenity, the world has yet to see again.” Or as an ancient poem says, “Greece and her foundations are . . . built below the tide of war”…..”

Source: When It Comes to Athens You've Got to Believe, Washington Post, By Sally Jenkins Thursday, May 20, 2004; Page D01

This article in one part expresses sympathy for the Americans to have to subscribe to the Games in particular but in the pragmatic tradition this is only one meaning levels of several in this article (Barthes, 1967). The sign of sympathy works to become an implication or signifier for a deeper level meaning: mockery of the Greeks which holds ground for the majority of the article. Beyond this it also reflects the socio-cultural ‘complex’ that stems from the- gone wrong and over amplified Greek tradition that the author seems to put on the plate. The variable at the heart of the article – that made it a sample choice remains ‘risk’ as per the guiding tenet of this dissertation.

The famous basic model extending the Saussurean concept to the second level of myth by Barthes

So the article questions the basic capability of the Greek system to deliver the games. It also puts on plate the idea that risk perception varies across cultures. The disparity in public opinion and system confidence is important as claims need to be bought by the public and participants. Overall, efficiency in management also transcends to risk management. For instance, the poor time plan and scoping of major works also made the part of management that had to do with risk come under suspicion.

We can say that the article relates to risk types 3 and 2 in that order. Though the terrorism part is explicit our use of the Barthes model has allowed us to order the risks in terms of how important they are with reference to the article. We can also put risk type 5 as the third in the order given the scepticism the author shows of the ‘Greek way’ used to implicitly justify the state of affairs. Typically this is to do in part with the architectural discussion of Foucault and also the second level interpretations posited by Barthes. Similarly 51 articles have been used to generate a risk profile over the above listed types of risks – in context of the Olympic Games. Also, as outlined in the literature review a list of micro factors is used to complement the macro typology.

From the above we have a score over different articles for each type of risk. Here though I have been unable to create a perceptual difference from assigning articles from different news article’s regional affiliations the research questions stands addressed. The additional criteria works in an implicit manner from Foucault’s work on architecture discussed before. Here when the article sites objective data to generate opinions. I assign it a weight of ‘1’ and when it cites other opinions (as in the sample above). I assign it a weight of ‘2’. This tries to account for how widespread the opinion propounded by an article is and that the article is following a stream of thought that is widely shared.

The relative risk profile provides for the first question. The second question that muses over shortcomings is addressed in where articles stretch to discuss shortcomings and provide recommendations. Of the 51 there were only 30 such articles. Again the second level of analysis under Barthes has been very useful. For instance, in the above article the signified is the ‘ignorance about public opinion’ in providing direction to risk management. Recommendations were more difficult to find but were also implicit in some articles numbering 14 of the subset of 21. These have not been scored because the nature of discussion on shortcomings and recommendations did not allow for a classification.

3.5 Statistical Techniques

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is an indicator of difference between means of two groups or categories. This has been used here to examine different risk areas in comparison with each other. A level of significance and variance is also in context to support interpretation.

Correlations as a measure of association are used to see any non-causal but significant shared trajectories between risk types. This is also likely to validate the classification of the different risk areas as a low correlation is likely to mean that the categorisation is justified i.e. they are distinct. The opposite applies for results from ANOVA.

3.6 Timetable

This study has been conducted over four quarters. The first quarter was involved formulating a basic proposal and in collection of secondary sources that provide a rich narrative of different Olympic Games. However, a modification at this stage was that articles were focused upon given that initial forays made it clear that sample size would be affected if large pieces of works like books were used in the sample. Also they were not comparative to articles.

For analyses to be conducted later, available software in the area was explored but found to be lacking in strength for analysis given the intricacies of the analysis under the Barthes model described before. The second quarter was involved in data collection and also some modifications to the literature review. In the third quarter data was be synthesized to generate a comparative perspective between the content analysis results and contemporary risk management priorities and in the final quarter dissertation write up has been the main focus.

3.7 Resources

Literature sources on the Business Source Premier (Athens access) have been useful. Also official websites and institutional sites to do with the London Olympics, Beijing Olympics, and the past Olympic games have provided valuable information. The Washington Post, The Times, The Age, The Guardian, and Daily Star are a few of the online primer publications that have been used. Online portals like ‘find-articles’, BBC sport, Christian-star, ‘new-Georgia encyclopaedia’, and ‘2010 Olympic Games Watch’, are but a few of several solely online portals that have also been useful.

The main site http://www.highbeam.com/ is a subscription site that offers access to articles from above and more portals - High Beam claims to be “an online library and research tool for individuals, students and small businesses”.

Chapter 4. Research Findings

4.1. Introduction

This chapter outlines the findings from the use of methods described in the preceding chapter and the framework distilled from the literature review. This has also been demonstrated in the previous chapter as being based on textual analysis. The approach for the same has been discussed to be built on Foucault’s and Barthes’s work.

The raw data is provided in Appendix A as coded for the 51 articles. A weight is assigned to the articles that as per the discussion in methodology draw from past published or publicly stated expressions as expressed evidence of the risk perception. The rest of the articles are not provided with a weight as they base themselves mostly on primary information (with negligible reference to other opinionated expressions) to generate an opinion. The former tend to express a wider shared belief and in architecture as implicit with what Foucault has to say have a lineage and are expressive of a larger body of thought or opinion.

Table 1 shows the nature and extent of significant difference between the risk types. A discussion on those results is also provided in this subsection. Table 2 provides correlations of the textual analysis based coding from Appendix A to show and discuss how the different factors are seen to cohabit perceptions and the extent to which they are associative. Table 3 is about micro factors that have been distilled from the surveyed articles. These are within the confines of the typology propounded but are more specific in nature. The table is followed by a discussion on how shortcomings and recommendations relating to these are presented in the web-based articles under purview as data in this dissertation. Table 4 tries to present a focused perspective of the domains from which most of the recommendations seem to have been generated. The use of keywords in analysis at this stage has been highlighted and the nature of data constraining further analyses for this part is also implicit here.

The first research question on relative efficacy of risk areas gets a robust addressal through textual analysis and then from statistical inference drawn from this analysis. The second research question relating to shortcomings and recommendations is also provided for – albeit, in a less detailed manner given the nature of such recommendations that have been based in a very subjective manner again using textual analysis but focusing on keywords rather than nuances of the ‘meaning’ as done when dealing with the first research question.

This has been necessitated due to the nature of data on shortcomings and recommendations as it appeared in the sample articles. In the next chapter, the largely objective findings as reported here are discussed to reflect upon strategizing for risk management at mega events as in the case of Olympic Games.

4.2. Findings and Research Questions

4.2.1 The relative criticality of Risk areas

An ANOVA on the data in Appendix A, gives the following results:

Table 1: Analysis of Variance of the risk areas as per the risk typology

Anova: Single Factor
SUMMARY
Groups	Count	Sum	Average	Variance
Risk from predictable externalities	51	56	1.10	2.69
Risk from (largely) unpredictable ext.	51	91	1.78	4.41
Institutionalization/legacy risk	51	116	2.27	5.48
Operational risk	51	78	1.53	2.17
Event complexity risk	51	99	1.93	6.31
ANOVA
Source of Variation	SS	df	MS	F	P-value	F crit
Between Groups	39.95	4	9.97	2.38	0.05*	2.40
Within Groups	1051.81	250	4.19
Total	1092.78	254

*two decimal places p<=0.05 significant

The results show that there is a statistically significant difference between the risk categories also providing justification for the arrived at typology as being robust. Though event complexity risk in particular is argued to be rather non-exclusive of other categories in this dissertation, the p-value results indicate that the typology is still good as in there being a significant difference between the groups.

The ANOVA table shows that Institutionalization/ Legacy risk, argued to be related to corporate-strategy risk in the context of the Olympic Games with the mean value of 2.69 is also attributed the highest variance. While this thus seems to be much focused upon and finding a mention even if the discussion is on other risk areas.

Event complexity risk looks like the second important risk area based on the mean scores from the above table. Notably most of the articles where this risk area was in the frame of reference irrespective of the order were weighted by ‘2’ themselves as clearly indicating a lineage to a body of published or expressed though. This also provides some validity to event complexity risk being rather non-exclusive.

Risk from largely unpredictable or rather ‘low’ predictable externalities like terrorism and natural calamities was third in importance. Notably most of the articles where this risk area was dominant with a score of 3 found place in the category of articles that clearly indicated a lineage to a body of published or expressed though. This is indicative of the resonating nature of such risk perceptions. One event of terrorism or Tsunami can set in motion development of risk perceptions about first world cities, or coastal sites for mega events respectively.

The fourth most critical risk area was that of operational risk associated with the delivery mechanism of the mega events like work efficiency, sub-contracting et al. These figured in articles with mid range or low range scores (20 and 12 such articles respectively). 9 articles put them as the most dominant theme. It may be important to see that in several cases they appeared to be dominant but actually given the syngmatic analysis (Barthes’s work discussed in the previous chapter: level one and deeper level two meanings) the perceptual finger seemed to be trained at deeper areas -from where such operational risks stemmed whether institutional (e.g. strategic orientation) or event complexity related risk areas.

The last area of risk in order of criticality seemed to be risk stemming from externalities with some predictability associated with them like – political-legal, and also social (as against the very low predictability category of terrorism and natural calamities). A low average score with a vast majority of articles indicating any connection to this area of risk being solitary in orientation – i.e. with hardly any lineage in expression as the expression was based on raw information without ascription to past published or stated expressions.

There is a significant difference in the areas ‘as variables’. This is given the p –value of 0.05. Across Thus in terms of relative criticality -an order in decreasing order of perceived criticality can now be given based on the scores from the ANOVA table as discussed above –

• Institutionalization/ Legacy risk
• Event complexity risk
• Risk from largely unpredictable or rather ‘low’ predictable externalities
• Operational risk
• Risk stemming from externalities with some predictability associated with them

4.2.2. The associative nature of Risk areas

Despite the classification and the typology risk areas are associative by nature. As per the prior discussions it is important to examine this further for generating validation. This will help underline the risk classification as robust and also provide a perspective on relationships if any. The non casual association between the risk categories is indicated by correlations as in the table below. A spearman rank order correlation seems most suitable at first sight given the ordinal data. However, that I have used ‘multiplicative weights’ (Appendix A) use of Pearson correlations is also acceptable.

Table 2: Correlations between the risk typology components / risk areas

	Risk from predictable externalities	Risk from (largely) unpredictable ext.	Institutionalization / legacy risk	Operational risk	Event complexity risk
Risk from predictable externalities	1.00
Risk from (largely) unpredictable ext.	-0.09	1.00
Institutionalization/legacy risk	-0.26*	-0.15	1.00
Operational risk	-0.21	-0.09	0.08	1.00
Event complexity risk	-0.23	-0.09	-0.05	0.03	1.00

* 0.21 and higher significant for ‘p’ at 0.05

Of the categories it is the risk stemming from predictable uncertainties that is very significantly and also negatively associated with the other areas. Its negative correlation (-0.26) with legacy risks that are more or less at a strategic level suggests in the first instance that- such externalities may be more tuned towards objectively codifiable operational risks. However, it is important to note that this assertion is nullified because the correlation with Operational risks is also significant and negative (-0.20). The suggestion is that such risks that were identified as political-economic or social in genesis tend to be high when institutional and legacy risks are low and also when operational risks are low. In essence -when the delivery under the strategic and operational mandates is seen to be robust it is the uncertainties like economic downturn, social activism affecting Games that get most of the perceptual attention.

The lack of correlation between four of the risk areas provides validity to the classification generated earlier in this dissertation. This typology has been taken forward as a framework for examining research questions – results from both ANOVA and correlations now seem to provide validity to a framework. The data that is used has also been analyzed based on a distilled approach of textual analysis- where a discussion on multiple strands of thought has been contextualized for validity on the methodology part in the preceding chapter.

4.3 Shortcomings and recommendations for improvement

The data in the articles on shortcomings and recommendations had two characteristics as has been implied before in this dissertation. Firstly, they were not readily codifiable and secondly they were very much focused on micro factors that lie within the ambits of the macro variables discussed before. The micro factors with a frequency of occurrence as shortcomings and also the number of times a recommendation was provided is as listed below. This is independent of the number of articles were these were observed as one article sometimes tackled more that 1 micro factor (as it did for the macro areas also at times as discussed before). The number of articles where shortcomings were cited numbered 31 of the total of 51 and of these in 14 articles specific recommendations were provided.

Table 3: Shortcomings and recommendations

Micro factors	Shortcomings cited	Recommendations provided
Scheduling	10	7
Infrastructure Quality	8	1
Sponsorship	9	2
Licensing issues	3	1
Security	11	3
Legacy	11	3
Resource opportunity cost	6	1
Coordination	12	1

It is important to note that since the articles under purview are in the last five years there is a bias in subject areas stemming from issues that surrounded recent Olympics viz. Athens Olympics in particular. A conscious effort though subjective in nature was made to not take in too many articles relating to Athens alone – a bias allowed through the modus operandi of judgmental sampling. However, the subject area bias in articles in general remained. Scheduling remained one of the key areas of concern in Athens and seems to have accordingly figured here in dominance. This is indicative the short tem nature of benchmarks in risk – poor scheduling in the recent past seems to have been put as a priority in perceptions for forthcoming games both for Beijing and for London. The same goes for legacy, coordination and security concerns. To some extent depicted in the demonstration article in the previous chapter. The last variable of security concerns of-course having a deeper lineage- given the events that have set in right at the onset of this century starting 9/11. As far as the nature of the recommendations goes - in lines with the literature and past research presented before they inherently tend to be stemming from the following three domains:

• Greater resource investment in the areas (RI)
• Greater commitment and sanction from the top(CS)
• Greater public awareness and co-option into the delivery mechanism (PS/C)

Ordinally ranking these ‘in order of’ their occurrence with reference to the different micro risk areas across the sample I generated the following table. It has not been possible to get exact counts out given that mostly two or more of these are intertwined in a given article. Keyword based search based on the above three domains has also helped generate this ordinalisation (e.g., investment, leadership, drive/ sanction, commitment, mandate, push from the top/ awareness, activists, public, et al.)

Table 4: Relative nature of recommendations

Micro Risk domains	RI	CS	PS/C
Scheduling	3	2	1
Infrastructure Quality	3	2	1
Sponsorship	1	2	3
Licensing issues	2	3	1
Security	1	2	3
Legacy	2	1	3
Resource opportunity cost	1	3	2
Coordination	3	2	1

The figure below is an expression of the above table

Greater resource investment tends to suggest more of reconfiguring the resource and capabilities investment map to give a greater share to the area of concern – rather than generating additional resources. Greater commitment and sanction from the top tends to suggest the need to highlight and put the area on a priority -from the top echelons in the IOC, government and delivery structure. Greater public awareness and co-option tends to suggest the need to moderate the risk through the great buffer of community support – this has great motivational, resource and efficiency implications aside from directly affecting aspects like those - relating to sponsorship and security

In the following chapter the assertion from the results from ANOVA and correlations will be discussed further to emphasize implications. This is in light of the research questions and for the generalisability of the results for mega events in general. The nature of shortcomings and recommendations will also be discussed in context of the delivery emphasis for the London Games in 2012 as a prime context of reflecting on Olympic Games today.

Chapter 5. Discussion

5.1. Introduction

In the earlier chapter findings have been presented in light of the research questions. The outlay in the findings chapter is fairly objective as it stems directly from analyses. In this chapter I look at the implications of the findings by juxtaposing what they have to say together by compressing the disparate threads in an opinionated discussion. I also reflect on the London Olympics delivery structure to take the implications further.

5.2. Key Implications

The findings as outlined in the previous section provide for the risks associated with legacy and institutionalization in context of the Games as the most important area that has attracted attention. This is in keeping with the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) mandate that has been emphasized upfront in this dissertation. The risk areas are not strictly orthogonal (mutually exclusive) but the typology receives some validation from the significant difference observed through ANOVA and also through evidence from correlations.

The legacy and institutionalization focus seems to drive interest away from the localized variables that are very important to the Olympic site city and community therein. This is given that political-legal and social issues at this level were of least concern. This dichotomy may in the long run bring the IOC at loggerheads with the host cities, which for now salivate to get a chance to host the games. IOC is exploiting its position as often mentioned in works that discuss the politics and power games associated with the Olympic movement (e.g. Hill, 1992). It is a give and take relationship the more the IOC drives attention on predictable socio-economic aspects of site cities the more are they going to get a sense of belongingness for the Games.

This apathy towards localized social, political and economic externalities of host cities is further validated in the negative association with other risk areas from correlation results.

The orientation towards shortcomings and recommendations is also in line with the aforesaid. While security and legacy are high up on perceived shortcomings, operational aspects like scheduling get most attention on recommendations given the objective and technical nature of schedule planning. Interestingly resource opportunity cost something that has direct relevance to the community and localized interests of the host city is not under attention is as much detail. Coordination in the delivery mechanism context does fare highly on the observations for shortcomings but by default it is also driven by the need to closely monitor the delivery mechanisms work efficiency by the IOC and is not much about public co-option.

On a philosophical plane the issue of public support and co-option is a key orientation of the recommendations. However, on the other hand the risks that afflicts them in the long run like those relating to the socio-economic aspects and also to degree micro aspects - like how the infrastructure is shaped to deliver long term value after customized application to the games take a back seat. It is taken for granted that Games are and will remain beneficial to the community and the host city community should remain obliged to the IOC to protect its mandate from the games.

In changing times of great resource opportunity cost; questions about how the infrastructure for the Games has long term alternate value; how sustainable are the economic triggers that arise as a consequence of the games; and the brunt of crisis that can be brought about by attention from terrorism – this position needs to be revisited – for greater understanding of the host city community and their co-option for delivering the Games.

5.3. Reflections: London Olympics 2012

As detailed out in the literature review section – the key concerns from the House of Commons report (2007) resonate with several of the risk areas outlined. One of these is the impact of resource diversion on other good causes. Herein this impact is proposed to be moderated which is a step forward from earlier Olympic Games orientation in being made explicit. The ‘planning for a lasting legacy’ part also seems to suggest an explicit focus on the legacy for the city as against only a successful Olympics. The interests of the city in ‘objectified measures’ as they would translate into tangible benefits for the city -community is laid out explicitly. The only thing that remains to be put more explicitly is the support and co-option of the community in this otherwise highly conscious ‘of public interest’ scheme of things. The involvement of the parliament alone does not ensure this - despite the ‘accountability aspect’ as in the figure of delivery mechanism in the literature review. Instruments such as community groups with a role description will not only help carry the Games effectively but also give a greater sense of ownership.

Chapter 6. Conclusions

6.1 Limitations

Textual analysis has some classical data sufficiency, interpretative and subjectivity biases especially in comparison with methods like interpretative phenomenological analysis that looks at latent meanings, among others. The view has the other end of spectrum in using inferential statistics more than done here each with its pros- and cons. Textual analysis has been a compromise between the qualitative and quantitative approaches though being biased towards qualitative in the first instance for coding from text using interpretative frameworks. The sampling of has been predominantly judgmental under the criteria of Olympic risk. This is one more area where more robustness is desired. However, the limited availability of sources posits it as an adequate way forward. I say ‘limited availability’ as by design also- I have gone back 5-6 years only in an Olympian frame of reference that is over 100 years. This is partly also justified as of concern are only risk issues that are being carried forward for the future games. A temporal analysis of how risk factors have evolved over the life of the Olympic movement was not really of direct concern.

While the ‘relative criticality of risk factors’ has been coded using textual analysis this has not been possible for shortcomings and recommendations. This has been because of the data in archived articles being rather ambiguous for an ‘implications’ based coding.

6.2 Suggestions for Future Research

The focus on terrorism in recent times, and the bias from performance driver of games has made research skewed towards certain risk areas. Perceptual investigation into these areas (e.g. Taylor and Toohey, 2007) has examined public opinions, while the co-option of public in host cities has been a concern that arises from this dissertation as outlined in the previous chapter. This opens up the debate on whether such empirical examination would also work to deliver to the needs to public co-option.

Olympic Games are also sequential events – learning from one games to the other are key to effective performance and moderation on risk on all fronts. The sequential settings provide for a control in conditions and agendas to some degree making learning for improving strategic and operational impetus possible- such studies have already informed learning in army across mega events of military operations (Thomas et al., 2001). However, the access in the case of Olympic Games and impacted community is likely to be easier from a confidentiality perspective, but will require better resources, researcher time and a longer time frame to conduct.

The Olympic Games are such events that affect the future of the Olympic movement and also the cities which host them. This alliancing has often been worked at by the cities but not by the IOC – that works with a largely self gratifying -control perspective. The risk quotient for the Games has risen over the years primarily due to unpredictable but likely externalities, and has placed demands on the host cities to look at localized externalities that are likely to shape the benefits for its people. The statements in the HC with reference to the London Olympics demonstrate this. To what extent will they be realized when the Games actually arrive is to be seen. It will be a test of competing mandates – where one – that of IOC promises less tangible and short term benefits for hosts (assuming that tangible benefits are there by default) while the hosts strive for long term tangible benefits. The issue will be to look at the risks in light of the contemporary settings and not traditional settings – learning from each past Olympic Game is key to keeping this alliance of mandates robust and adaptable.

Bibliography

Andranovich, G., Burbank, M.J. & Heying, C.H. (2001). Olympic Cities: Lessons learned from mega-event politics. Journal of Urban Affairs, 23: 113-131.

Ansell, C.K. (1997). Symbolic networks: The realignment of the French working class, 1887-1894. American Journal of Sociology, 2: 359-390.

Applebome, P. (1996). Despite Flawed Form, Atlanta Seems to Have Won. New York Times: August 5. http://www.nytimes.com/specials/olympics/0805/oly-atlanta-image.html [Accessed 1 November, 2007]

Taylor, T. & Toohey, K. (2007) Perceptions of Terrorism threats at the 2004 Olympic Games: Implications for sport events. Journal of Sport and Tourism, 12(2):99-114

Barthes, Roland ([1964] 1967). Elements of Semiology (trans. Annette Lavers & Colin Smith). London: Jonathan Cape

Barthes, Roland ([1957] 1987): Mythologies. New York: Hill & Wang

Barthes, Roland (1975). The Pleasure of the Text, trans. R. Howard. 1973; rptd. New York: Hill and Wang

Bignell, Jonathan (1997): Media Semiotics: An Introduction. Manchester: Manchester University Press

Bogdan, R. F., & Biklen, S. (1992). Eight common questions about qualitative research.  In Qualitative research for education: An Introduction to theory and methods (pp. 39-48). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Burbank, M.J., Andranovich, G.D. & Heying, C.H.(2001). Olympic Dreams: The Impact of Mega-Events on Local Politics. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Burton, R.(2003) Olympic Games Host City Marketing: An exploration of Expectations and Outcomes. Sport Marketing Quarterly 12(1), 37-47

Cashman, R. (2004) Athens 2004: the no show game: national forum online. Online opinion from http://wwww.onlineopinion.com.au. [Accessed 1 October, 2007]

Ceniceros, R. (2001) Special events require special risk management. Business Insurance 35(20) pp 32.

Davis, G.G., & Greve, H.R. Corporate elite networks and governance structures in the 1980s. American Journal of Sociology, 1: 1-37.

DeFillipi, R.,& Arthur, M. (1998) Paradox in Project Based Enterprise: The Case of Filmmaking. California Management Review, 40(2): 125-139

Foucault, Michel (1969) The Archaeology of Knowledge.[ Routledge, 1972]. From http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/foucault.htm [Accessed 11 November 2007]

Groden, Michael, and Martin Kreiswirth, ed. (1994) The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hamel, G. (1996), Strategy as revolution, Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp. 69-82

High Beam.com: http://www.highbeam.com/ [Accessed Sept – March 2007 ]

(Main data source)

Hill, R. (1992) Olympic politics. Manchester University Press.

House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts (2007) Preparations for the London 2012 Olympic and Para-olympic Games – Risk assessment and management. Thirty-ninth report of Session 2006-07 from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmpubacc/377/377.pdf [Accessed 1 November 2007 ]

Jennings, W. (2006) London 2012 and the Risk Management of Everything Olympic

From http://breadandcircusesblog.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/paper-olympic-risk.pdf [Accessed on 20 September 2007]

LeCompte, Millroy, & Preissle (Ed.) (1992). The handbook of qualitative research in education.

Lenskyj, H.J. (2000). Inside the Olympic Industry. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

McGee, J.A. (2006) International Special Events. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, January, 10-18

Mintzberg, H (1979), The Structuring of Organisations, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

National Audit office (2006) Delivery Structure of the 2012 Games

Roche, M. (2006). Mega Events and modernity revisited: globalization and the case of Olympics. Sociological review, 54(S2), 25-40.

Scott, W Richard. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Thomas, J.B. Sussman, S.W., & Henderson, C. (2001). Understanding Strategic Learning: Linking Organisational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Sensemaking. Organisation Science, 12(3): 331-345.

Appendix A

Coding of the articles based on risk typology as described and illustrated in the methodology section. The first 30 articles have a weighing of ‘2’ used as a multiplicative (as described in methodology)

Risk from predictable externalities	Risk from (largely) unpredictable ext.	Institutionalization/ legacy risk	Operational risk	Event Complexity risk
2	2	4	4	0
0	0	6	2	0
0	2	4	0	0
0	0	6	2	6
6	2	0	4	0
0	6	4	4	6
0	2	4	0	6
0	6	2	4	0
6	0	0	2	4
0	4	6	0	2
0	0	0	4	6
2	6	4	2	0
0	0	4	2	6
0	0	4	0	0
0	6	6	2	4
0	6	0	4	0
0	0	2	4	6
0	0	6	2	6
0	0	0	4	4
0	6	0	2	6
0	0	6	2	0
4	4	0	0	6
0	0	0	4	4
0	0	4	2	0
0	4	0	4	6
0	2	6	0	4
2	6	0	0	4
6	0	6	0	0
2	4	0	0	4
0	0	6	4	0
0	1	0	0	3
3	0	1	2	0
2	1	0	0	0
0	2	1	0	0
2	0	1	0	0
0	0	1	0	2
0	3	1	2	0
3	2	0	0	1
0	2	1	0	0