Although the discussion on the use of medals to measure Olympic success remains dominant within sports literature, the use of other approaches to measure the performance and success of nations in the Games is a possibility that can be explored further. For example, De Bosscher et al. (2008) states, “…it is quite possible for Performance Directors in individual sports to make considerable progress in
30
developing a sport without this progress being translated into medals in elite competition”. This statement provides an opportunity to introduce other measures of evaluating Olympic performance of nations in order to give a better reflection of their overall performance.
One popular way of evaluating success in project management is through a project’s set objectives (Cooke-Davies, 2002). Baccarini (1999) consider the objectives of a project to generally represent the project’s intended outcome, which may be achievable within the short, medium or long term of the life cycle of the project. De Wit (1988) also argues that the degree to which these objectives have been met reflects the project’s success or failure. In a similar fashion to projects, it is traditional for nations participating in the Olympics to set their targets (objectives) of what outcomes they intend to achieve in the Games prior to their participation. Usually, the objectives of nations in participating in international sporting events such as the Olympics are often developed in line with their overall sports policy and will differ from one nation to another (Green and Collins, 2008), and achieving these objectives could be considered as success by some stakeholders. For example, De Bosscher et al. (2009) express the view that it is a valid approach to measure a country’s performance in the Olympics in light of the overall impact it makes to a country’s sport policy, regardless of whether such performance translates to medal wins or not. For instance, against the political rhetoric surrounding suggestions that a nation’s physical activity levels can be increased following the putting together of a ‘successful’ Olympic team (Coalter, 2004), many nations today, especially those hosting the Games, now include this as part of their policy objectives and usually anticipate that their constant participation in the Olympics will lead to an increase in physical activity levels across the nation. Achieving this objective is not necessarily measured by medal wins. Some examples of countries that, apart from their desire to win more medals, have the vision of promoting a nation-wide participation in sport and physical activities through Olympic participation are Australia (Green and Collins, 2008), United Kingdom (Green, 2009), Canada (Bloyce and Smith, 2010) and the USA (Newland and Kellett, 2012). Although Bloyce and Smith (2010) acknowledge that the development of an effective and robust sport policy is a product of a long-term strategic planning process, Jugdev and Muller (2005) argue that achieving short-term objectives is what translates into overall success.
One of the dimensions of measuring the performance and success of a project as suggested in the study conducted by Kuen et al. (2009) is to measure it against the impact on the organisation which could be in the form of improved organisational performance and decision making process at organisational level, or the project’s ability to prepare the organisation for the future. This view also supports a previous study carried out by Tukel and Rom (2001) who agree that the metrics for measuring project success have expanded beyond the traditional measures of time, budget and quality to include other considerations such as clients, stakeholders and the project’s legacy impact on the organisation. In relating this view to sports performance and success, many nations use their performance in the Olympic Games as a backdrop to build up for future Games. Apart from winning medals, Churilov and Flitman (2000) agree that the experiences and learning gained by athletes in participating in the Olympics puts them in a better position to achieve better results in the future. Similarly, coaches, performance directors and sport administrators are better informed in making improved decisions through their experiences and any lessons learnt from their participation and performance and that of their athletes in previous competitions (De Bosscher et al., 2008; De Bosscher et al., 2009 and Peachey et al., 2014).
While the propositions on the use of non-medal based measures in evaluating success are plausible, the primary desire of countries participating in the Olympic Games is to win medals. As such, although the literature from a PM perspective, has discussed other possible approaches to view and evaluate Olympic performance, the view of medals as a parameter for success remains central to this research as will become evident from the research findings discussed later in the thesis. The next section again adopts a PM perspective to explore the issues and challenges critical to performance and success of projects and to identify the overlap, if any, to issues of performance and success in Olympic Games.
2.4.1 Issues and challenges critical to performance and success from a PM perspective
The approach to adopt in evaluating the issues and challenges critical to success will largely depend on the nature of objectives to be achieved. To provide guidance with managing the discrete packages of work, the Association for Project Management in their Body of Knowledge classifies the nature of objectives into three domains:
32
behind this classification lies in the premise that the way work is managed depends upon the scale, significance and complexity of the work including a wide variety of other factors. According to the APMBoK (2012), project management is “the application of processes, methods, knowledge, skills and experience to achieve the project obejectives”, while programme management is “the coordinated management of projects and change management activities to achieve beneficial change”. Portfolio management on the other hand is “the selection, prioritisation and control of an organisation’s projects and programmes in line with its strategic objectives and capacity to deliver. The goal is to balance change initiatives and business-as-usual while optimising return on investment” (APMBoK, 2012). In other words, work of a lesser scale and complexity, leading to an output, characterises a project. A programme however, combines projects with change management to deliver benefits, while a combination of projects and programmes designed to achieve strategic objectives typifies a portfolio.
The idea of preparing a country’s Olympic contingent to participate in the Olympic Games is an objective that can be viewed from the perspective of project and programme management. It is a task very similar in many ways to managing a project, and carrying this out with the aim of achieving wider national sport policy objectives is a phenomenon similar to programme management. A look at some PM definitions of a project and a programme puts this similarity into perspective:
First, a project, according to the Project Management Institute’s 2013 Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) is, “…a temporary group activity designed to produce a unique product or service…Temporary in that it has a defined beginning and end in time, and therefore defined scope and resources…Unique in that it is not a routine operation, but a specific set of operations designed to accomplish a singular goal”. Another definition of a project states that a project is “…an endeavour in which human, (or machine), material and financial resources are organised in a novel way, to undertake a unique scope of work, of given specification, within constraints of cost and time, so as to deliver beneficial change defined by quantitative and qualitative objectives” (Turner, 1993).
On the other hand, a programme according to the PMBOK (1996) is defined as “a group of related projects managed in a co-ordinated way”. The UK Association for
Project Management’s Body of Knowledge (APM BoK) considers it as “a collection of projects related to some common objective” (APM, 2000, p. 15). Consequently, programme management is considered to be “…the integration and management of a group of related projects with the intent of achieving benefits that would not be realised if they were managed independently” (Lycett et al., 2004).
Applying these definitions in the context of this study would suggest that a country’s participation in the Olympics could be viewed as a single project within the overall programme of the national sports policy and development of that country. Though there is a scarcity of theoretical analysis within literature that evaluates the participation and performance of nations in international sporting events in the light of project management and programme management, the adoption of a ‘programme – project’ approach in sports policy and development is becoming more practical in many countries today (Green and Collins, 2008). Some examples of countries with robust sports development programmes include USA, UK, Australia, Canada and China (Green and Houlihan, 2005, De Bosscher et al., 2008; Newland and Kellett, 2012). It becomes logical therefore, to explore some of the PM issues and challenges or in other words, critical success factors, in programme and project management and to compare these to the challenges faced by countries participating in international sports, particularly the Olympics, in order to provide a more in-depth qualitative analysis on the subject, as this comparison is currently lacking within the literature.
Several researchers such as Pinto (1986), Kerzner (1987), Pinto and Prescott (1988), Cook-Davies (2002) and Muller and Turner (2005) have attempted to develop models that highlight certain ingredients capable of influencing the outcome of a project, otherwise referred to as critical success factors (CSFs). Researchers such as Kuen et al. (2009) believe that, if addressed, CSFs can improve the likelihood of successful implementation of a project, but if not taken seriously, might lead to the failure of the project. The most popular empirical studies on CSFs in project success are those carried out by Pinto, co-authoring with Slevin (Pinto and Slevin, 1988), Prescott (Pinto and Prescott, 1988), Covin (Pinto and Covin, 1989), and Mantel (Pinto and Mantel, 1990). Table 2 shows ten CSFs identified by Pinto and Prescott
34
Table 2: Pinto and Prescott's ten success factors
Critical Success Factor (CSF) Definition
Project Mission Initial clarity of goals and general directions
Top Management Support Willingness of top management to provide the necessary resources and authority/power for project success
Project Schedule/Plan
A detailed specification of the individual action steps required for project implementation
Client Consultation Communication, consultation, and action listening to all impacted parties
Personnel Recruitment, selection, and training of the necessary personnel for the project team
Technical Tasks Availability of the required technology and expertise to accomplish the specific technical action steps
Client Acceptance The act of “selling” the final project to its
ultimate intended users
Monitoring and feedback Timely provision of comprehensive control information at each stage in the implementation process
Communication The provision of an appropriate network and necessary data to all key actors in the project implementation
Trouble-Shooting Ability to handle unexpected crises and deviations from plan
Although the authors (Pinto and Prescott, 1988) acknowledge that “…it is possible, and indeed likely, that the relative impact or emphasis of the various critical factors on project success are subject to change at different points in the project”, their study however provides empirical justifications for the various critical success factors identified and highlights their relative importance at different phases of the project’s life cycle. While Pinto and Prescott’s (1988) list of ten success factors is very popular and quite widely cited in project management literature, emerging research suggests that this list is inconclusive as there are other factors that are critical to a project’s outcome. Table 3 shows a brief summary of an extended list of critical success factors for project success highlighted in PM literature. The table also shows the different studies within the literature that have recognised each of these factors as being critical to success in order to give an indication of which factors are more popular.
36
Table 3 CSFs identified in PM literature
Critical Success Factors Literature Sources # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Total Project mission/common goal/direction + + + + + + 6 Project requirement and objectives + + + + + + 6 Project plan + + + + + + + + 8 Commitment to
planning and control + + + 3
Project strategy + + 2 Realistic expectations + + + + + 5 Smaller project milestones + 1 Top management support + + + + + + + + 8 Personnel/teamwork + + + + + + + + + + + 11 On-site project manager + 1 Executive commitment + + 2 Goal commitment of project team + 1 Adequate funding + + + + 4 Trouble- shooting/risk + + + + 4
management Technical tasks ability + + + + 4 Communication + + + + + 5 Performance monitoring and feedback + + + + + + + + 8 Environment + 1 Ownership + + + 3 Logistics requirements + 1 Client involvement and acceptance + + + + + + + 7
Duration and project
size + + 2 Urgency of project + + 2 Corporate understanding + + 2 High-quality Processes + + 2 Politics + 1
Selection criteria for
project manager role + + + 3
Leadership style of
project manager + + + 3
Source: (1) Sayles and Chandler (1971); (2) Martin (1976); (3) Baker et al. (1983); (4) Cleland and King (1983); (5) Pinto (1986); (6) Morris and Hough (1987); (7) Pinto and Slevin (1988); (8) Wateridge (1995); (9) Cooper and Kleinschmidt (1995); (10) Belassi and Tukel (1996); (11) Belout (1998); (12) Clarke (1999); (13) Johnson et al. (2001); (14) Cooke-Davies (2002); (15) Muller and Turner (2005); (16) Zwikael and Globerson (2006); (17) Kuen et al.
38
Although the studies on CSFs shown in table 3 are mainly products of project management research, a few studies on sport performance have identified some of these factors as critical to performance and success in sports. For instance, De Bosscher (2007) and Bloyce and Smith (2010) acknowledge that the lack of a strategic planning process can often have a negative impact on the performance of elite athletes, thereby minimising chances of achieving success in major competitions. Also, Oakley and Green (2001), in their framework for sports performance improvement, highlight the need for countries participating in international competitions to have a comprehensive plan for each sport’s needs. The importance of strategic planning in Olympic sports today is taking priority in the development of sport policy. In Great Britain for example, the ambition to achieve and maintain international sporting success and the increasing stabilisation of sports policy was fortified in 2002 with the Department for Culture, Media and Sports (DCMS) publishing the ‘Game plan’ – “…a wide-ranging sport strategy that reiterated the commitment to elite success, set out an ambitious aim of increasing grassroots participation for health benefits…and clearly articulated a strong message that a results-driven and evidence-based approach to the achievement of strategic aims was now essential” (Green, 2009; DCMS/Stategy Unit, 2002; Coalter, 2007). Drawing up a strategic plan such as this also creates an awareness of the increasing competitive abilities of other nations at elite level (Houlihan and Green, 2008; De Bosscher et al., 2008).
Another CSF that is also identified as capable of impacting on sport performance and success of countries is the lack of a clear ‘project’ mission, which denotes a lack of vision and clarity of sport policy (Green and Collins, 2008). The absence of a clear policy vision makes planning difficult, if not impossible, and often results in setting of unrealistic goals and targets (Green, 2009), and makes it difficult for a country to identify its actual sporting objectives, which result in unachievable objectives being drawn (Bloyce and Smith, 2010). The need to have a clear policy vision has been strongly exemplified by most countries that have achieved Olympic success in recent times. For instance, Great Britain, one of the most recent adopters of this principle, has witnessed tremendous improvements across their overall sporting landscape as a result of reforms to their sports policy and systems following poor sporting performance and failures at the Olympic Games, as illustrated in table 4.
Table 4: Improvements across the sporting landscape of England
1997 2007 Vision for 2017
School sport and PE
Community Sport
Elite sport
No centrally coordinated school
sport system
Poor school-club links
In 2002 an estimated 25% of 5 -
16s were doing 2 hours of PE and sport each week
Limited targeted investment
No organisation with clear remit
for school sport and PE
Little or no system of coaching linked to schools
£32 million annual funding to
sport England
Dilapidated sports facilities
No organisation with clear remit
for community Sport
Fragmented and undervalued
coaching system
36th in 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games medal table; 4th in Paralympic Games
Funding of £70.7 million
Emerging elite facilities network – United Kingdom Sports Institute
UK Sport created as the lead
organisation for elite sport
Limited systematic approach to
elite coaching
86% of 5 – 16s doing 2 hours of PE and sport each week
3000 Community Sports Coaches
450 School Sport Partnerships
90 competition managers
Over 3200 Secondary School Sport Coordinators and
over 18,000 primary link teachers
c. 400 Specialist Sports Colleges
Over £1.5 billion invested over last 5 years
Youth Sport Trust established as the lead organisation for school sport and PE
Performance targets underpin the system
Over £125 million annual exchequer funding to Sport
England
4000 facilities built or renovated
Over £1 billion of investment in facilities since 2001
Sport England now the lead organisation for
Community sport – and the link between school and elite levels
County Sports Partnerships and local delivery networks for sport established at regional and local levels
Performance targets established for participation rates
10th in 2004 Athens Olympic Games medal table; 2nd in Paralympic Games
Funding of £216.4 million
UKSI network operational in all 4 home countries
Sport Coach UK established as lead coaching
organisation
Performance targets drive the quest for medals
A world-leading system for
school sport and PE
All 5 – 16s offered 5 hours of school sport and PE each week
All 16 – 19s offered 3 hours of sport each week
Competition and coaching at the
heart of the school sport system
A world-leading community sport
system, continuing to increase participation year on year
Significantly reduced drop off at 16 years
High quality clubs encouraging
talent development
World-leading coaching
infrastructure
Ultimate goal for 4th place in 2012 London Olympic Games medal table (remarkably finished 3rd) and 2nd in Paralympic Games (finished 3rd) and sustaining that to 2016
Over £400 million available for London 2012 Olympic cycle
A legacy of world-leading elite sport infrastructure including high quality coaching Source: Green, (2009); Green and Houlihan (2005); DCMS (2008b); Sport England (2008a, 2008c).
40
The table shows the progress being made across three policy areas - a. school sport and PE b. community sport and c. elite sport. This progress is shown over different periods of time, with a clear vision and projection of future progress expected to be made in these policy areas. For example, in the area of elite sport, Great Britain ranked 36th in the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games medal table and 4th in the Paralympic
Games as shown in the 1997 timeline. By the 2007 timeline, these performances had improved dramatically as the country finished 10th in the 2004 Athens Olympic
Games medal table and 2nd in the Paralympic Games. The vision and future
projections for the 2017 timeline was to reach 4th place in the 2012 London Olympic Games medal table and 2nd in Paralympic Games, and sustaining that performance
through to 2016. However, quite remarkably, Team GB finished 3rd in the 2012 Olympics, one place ahead of its projections. Again in the area of coaching for example, there was limited systematic approach to elite coaching in 1997. However, by 2007, this had improved with the establishment of Sport Coach UK as lead coaching organisation. The country’s vision for 2017 is to possess a legacy of world- leading elite sport infrastructure including high quality coaching. Progress is also seen in the areas of funding and investment, sports facilities, talent identification and development, and the building of sport systems, particularly in schools and colleges. The progress made by Great Britain over the years, and their projections for the future