Advertisement

Barcelona 92 pp 135-160 | Cite as

Conclusions

  • Francesc SolanellasEmail author
  • Alain Ferrand
  • Andreu Camps
Chapter
  • 69 Downloads
Part of the Mega Event Planning book series (MEGAEP)

Abstract

The conclusion underlines the most important elements of this book. Based on the experience of the Barcelona Games, as well as the analyses carried out in this case study, we are suggesting indicators for each dimension as part of a top-down approach. Our proposal consists of thirty-seven sports indicators, thirty-two economic indicators and twenty social indicators. Our final objective would be that these indicators would be used in different mega-events in order to have the possibility to be compared over the years. From a general point of view, bottom-up approaches are based on the idea that an evaluation must take into account the diversity of stakeholders’ points of view. The consultation we conducted with the twenty-six Catalan politicians and managers is part of this approach. The interviewees spontaneously expressed the dimensions for which the legacy had been significant.

Keywords

Legacy Stakeholders Value Indicators Management Delivery 

References

  1. Akrich, M., Callon, M., & Latour, B. (1988). A quoi tient le succès des innovations? Premier épisode: l’art de l’intéressement. Gérer et comprendre, 11, 4–17.Google Scholar
  2. Allee, V. (2002). The future of knowledge: Increasing prosperity through value networks. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  3. Bouni, C. (1998). Sustainable development indicators: Theory and methodology. Nature Sciences Sociétés, 6(3), 18–26.Google Scholar
  4. Callon, M. (1986). Éléments pour une sociologie de la traduction: La domestication des coquilles Saint-Jacques et des marins-pêcheurs dans la baie de Saint-Brieuc. L’Année Sociologique, 36, 169–208.Google Scholar
  5. Callon, M., & Latour, B. (1981). Unscrewing the big Leviathan: How actors macrostructure reality and how sociologists help them to do so. In D. Knorr Cetina & A. Cicourel (Eds.), Advances in social theory and methodology: Toward an integration of micro- and macro-sociologies (pp. 277–303). Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  6. Davenport, T. H. (1993). Need radical innovation and continuous improvement? Integrate process reengineering and TQM. Planning Review, 21(3), 6–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Detchessahar, M., & Journé, B. (2007). Une approche narrative des outils de gestion. Revue Française de Gestion, 174, 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dreveton, B. (2011). Construire un outil de contrôle au sein des organisations publiques: Une opportunité au développement d’un nouveau mode d’action. Management International, 15(4), 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Faucheux, S., & Nicolaï, I. (2004). La responsabilité sociétale dans la construction d’indicateurs: l’expérience de l’industrie européenne de l’aluminium. Nature Sciences Sociétés, 12, 30–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feng, W., Crawley, E. F., & de Weck, O. L. (2012). Design structure matrix method and applications. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Ferrand, A. (2018). Processus de construction d’un dispositif de gestion innovant pour créer l’héritage social durable souhaité dans le contexte de l’organisation des Jeux Olympiques et Paralympiques. In P. Chaix (Ed.), Les Jeux Olympiques de 1924 à 2024: Impacts, retombées économiques et héritage. Paris: L’harmattan.Google Scholar
  12. Fraser, E. D. G., Dougill, A. J., Mabee, W. E., Reed, M., & McAlpine, P. (2006). Bottom up and top down: Analysis of par-ticipatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable en-vironmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 78, 114–127.Google Scholar
  13. Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hatchuel, A. (1996). Coopération et conception collective. Variété et crise des rapports de prescription. In G. de Terssac & E. Friedberg (Eds.), Coopération et conception (pp. 2–121). Toulouse: Editions Octarès.Google Scholar
  15. Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (1992). L’expert et le système. Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
  16. IOC. (2017). IOC legacy strategic approach: Moving forward. Lausanne: IOC.Google Scholar
  17. Kennett, C., & de Moragas, M. (2006). Barcelona 1992: Evaluating the Olympic legacy. In A. Tomlinson & C. Young (Eds.), National identity and global sports events (pp. 177–219). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  18. Leloup, F., & Moyart, L. (2005). La gouvernance territoriale comme nouveau mode de coordination territoriale? Géographie, économie, société, 7(4), 321–332.Google Scholar
  19. Leloup, F., Moyart, L., & Pecqueur, B. (2005). La Gouvernance territoriale comme nouveau mode de coordination territoriale. Géographie, Économie et Sociétés, 7(4), 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moine, A. (2006). Le territoire comme un système complexe: un concept opératoire pour l’aménagement et la géographie. L’Espace géographique, 2(6), 115–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nobre, T., & Zawadzki, C. (2015). Analyse par la théorie de la traduction de l’abandon et du détournement d’outils lors de l’introduction d’un contrôle de gestion en PME. Finance Contrôle Stratégie, 18(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  22. Oiry, E. (2012). La conception des instrumentations de gestion RH: L’apport du concept de rapport de prescription. @GRH, 5, 11–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Preuss, H. (2007). The conceptualisation and measurement of mega sport event legacies. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 12(3–4), 207–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Preuss, H. (2018). Event legacy framework and measurement. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 9(2), 203–218.Google Scholar
  25. Reed, M., Fraser, E., & Dougill, A. (2006). An adaptive learning process for developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities. Ecological Economics, 59(4), 406–418.Google Scholar
  26. Rosenstrom, U., & Kyllonen, S. (2006). Impacts of a participatory approach to developing national level sustainable development indicators in Finland. Journal of Environmental Management, 84(3), 282–298.Google Scholar
  27. Shields, D. J., Solar, S. V., & Martin, W. E. (2002). The role of values and objectives in communicating indicators of sustainability. Ecological Indicators, 2(1–2), 149–160.Google Scholar
  28. Siebenhüner, B., & Barth, V. (2005). The role of computer modelling in participatory integrated assessments. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25(4), 367–389.Google Scholar
  29. Truñó, R. (1995). Barcelona, city of sport. In M. de Moragas & M. Botella (Eds.), The keys to success: The social, sporting, economic and communication impact of Barcelona’92 (pp. 43–56). Barcelona: Centre of Olympic & Studies of Sports and Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
  30. Weske, M. (2012). Business process management. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesc Solanellas
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alain Ferrand
    • 2
  • Andreu Camps
    • 3
  1. 1.GISEAFE-Research Group on Social and Educational Research on Physical Education and SportINEFC-Institute of Physical Education of CataloniaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Faculty of Sport Sciences-CEREGE (EA 1722)University of PoitiersPoitiersFrance
  3. 3.GISEAFE-Research Group on Social and Educational Research on Physical Education and SportINEFC-Institute of Physical Education of CataloniaLleidaSpain

Personalised recommendations