Cinética de crecimiento celular y consumo de sustrato de Lactobacillus

The event planning process model consists of up to 10 different stages.

There is justification for a staged process where progression through the planning process is made step by step. Manchester for example decided on urban regeneration objectives before it decided to bid for both the 2000 Olympics and the 2002 Common- wealth Games (Bernstein, 2002; Department of Environment,

Objectives

Concept

Feasibility

Implementation planning

Short, medium and long term Implement event Handover Evaluation Feedback Continuous evaluation feedback and alignment

with objectives

Proceed? Bid

procedure No

The event planning process

Figure 3.1

The event planning process

Source: Masterman (2003a;

The event planning process – in progression

Event management 3.1 Objectives

Determine why the event is to be held, what it is to achieve, who is to benefit, and how they are going to benefit; are there political, social, cul- tural, environmental and/or economic benefits and over what timespan?

Any briefs or bidding processes should be con- sidered as early as this stage.

Concept

Determine what the event is and what it looks like? Design the outline by completing a situ- ational analysis, and a competitor analysis (par- ticularly if there is a bid involved).

Consider scales of event and operation, timings, locations and venues, facilities required and available, target markets, etc.

Identify strategic partners: local and national government, national and international govern- ing bodies, event owners and promoters, char- ities, sponsors, participants and after-users. Identify all internal and external decision-makers. Identify the stakeholders and organizers: deter- mine if there is to be limited company status, the after-use for any facilities and infrastructure, and the publics that are affected?

Ensure the design is in alignment with the objectives – short to long term.

Feasibility

At the feasibility stage the event design is tested: • Identify who is responsible for the delivery

of the shorter- and longer-term objectives. • Identify resources required: human resources

(HR), facilities, equipment, marketing, ser- vices, etc.

• Consider the co-ordination of any bidding process, the event’s implementation and the handover of legacies and returned facilities/ venues/equipments.

• Specifically consider long-term usage of facilities and the continued management of such.

• Determine the nature and timing of partner- ships to be involved including those required at this stage of the process, that is, bidding finance if applicable, any finance required to underwrite the event, any handover agree- ments or operational strategies required for the long-term usage of the facilities used for the event.

• Identify any partners not previously identi- fied, particularly those that can provide finan- cial support.

• Budget according to these requirements. • Perform a costs versus benefits analysis not

just for the event but also for any long-term legacies.

• Determine the critical path required – shorter and longer term, see Event management 8.1. • Ensure alignment with shorter- and longer-

term objectives.

Proceed?

All of the identified decision-makers are involved in deciding if the event is feasible and will achieve the objectives …

If the answer is no then evaluate and feedback to the concept stage to reshape and begin the process again and/or abort the project … If the decision is to proceed

… and if there is a bid procedure … prepare, market and present the bid,

… if the bid is not won abort the project but evaluate the process and feedback for future use, … if the bid is won or there is no bid procedure then move onto the next key stage …

Implementation planning

It is at this stage where often only the short-term requirements of the event are considered. Determine all the operational strategies: finan- cial, HR, partnerships, suppliers, services, facil- ities, equipment, sales and marketing – include in those: the requirements for after-use, the iden- tification of after-users and their requirements

(gained by involving them in the process), and what the handover arrangements will be, including how the evaluation over the long term will be completed.

Develop the critical path and the performance indicators to incorporate all the fine detail involved in executing the event in the shorter term and for realizing the benefits in the longer term.

Alignment with the short- and long-term object- ives can then be made.

Implement event

The implementation plans are then executed and the event staged. Having completed this implementation there are still key stages of the event planning process remaining.

Handover

The handover of facilities or even equipment is key for all scales of event. The planning for this has already been conducted in previous stages and now managers implement the handover of facilities to the identified or contracted organ- izations for their continued operation and/or development.

In addition there is the handover of the respon- sibility for the evaluation of the legacies/facil- ities over the long term – to determine the level of success according to the long-term objectives.

Evaluation

Post-event evaluation is performed against original objectives, short and long term: • Short-term evaluation: of the costs, benefits,

impacts of the event itself and performed immediately after the event.

• Medium- and long-term evaluations: of the costs, benefits and impacts after a predeter- mined time and in particular of the legacies to see if they are achieving the objectives set for them.

Continuous evaluation

By using performance indicators (budget tar- gets, deadlines for contracts to be achieved, etc.) in evaluation at all stages of the process, continu- ous alignment with the objectives is achieved.

Feedback

The evaluation is not complete without feedback: • The process is iterative by conducting evalu- ation at all stages thus ensuring feedback is continuous throughout the life cycle of the event.

• Post-event feedback following the evaluation, short or long term, includes recommendations that feed into the process for the next event whenever or whatever it is.

Source: Masterman (2003a; 2003b; 2004)

1993). It then looked at the feasibility of the latter being able to successfully deliver the objectives over the long term. On decid- ing to proceed the city then went to bid for the event. There was then the development of strategies prior to the event, so that the event would deliver over the long term: for example, the building of the venues and the ensuring of their after-use prior to construc- tion. The policy to only build permanent facilities when after-use and users were secure demonstrates that the city was not only planning for the long term at a pre-event stage but it was also not prepared to progress to the next stage in its planning until these requirements had been met (Bernstein, 2002).

Sydney also decided on its long-term objectives first and then developed the concept for the 2000 Olympic Games (Adby, 2002). Feasibility was next assessed, albeit not to the same level as in Manchester, prior to submitting a bid. Sydney did not, for example,

have secured after-use for its new facilities in place prior to the construction of building.

A handover stage followed the implementation of each event and then similarly evaluation and feedback followed as the final stage.

A review of literature pertaining to the event planning process also supports a staged model (Allen et al., 2002; Bowdin et al., 2001; Getz, 1997; Hall, 1997; Smith and Stewart, 1999; Shone and Parry, 2001; Torkildsen, 1999; Watt, 1998) with the remainder of the literature demonstrating no arguments against such (American Sport Education Programme, 1996; Cashman and Hughes, 1999; Catherwood and Van Kirk, 1992; Goldblatt, 1997; Graham et al., 1995). The main advantage of a staged process being that it is an efficient way of not advancing too quickly and finding out that effort and budgets have been committed unnecessarily.

There is also justification for each stage to be completed prior to progression to the next in order to maintain efficiency in both time and finance. This is also advocated by Allen et al. (2002), Bowdin et al. (2001), Getz (1997) and Shone and Parry (2001).

A description of each stage in the process now follows with the 2000 Olympics in Sydney, the 2002 Commonwealth Games in Manchester and the 1991 World Student Games in Sheffield used to exemplify key points.