A clear understanding of the attitudes and interests of stakeholders were found to be a necessary antecedent to the planning and management of sustainable tourism developments (Gunn 1994; Jamal and Getz 1995; Sautter and Leisen 1999).
Researchers have argued that tourism planners should consider the interests of all stakeholders before proceeding with development efforts (Sautter and Leisen 1999;
Hardy and Beeton 2001). Gunn (1994) also suggested that the success of a tourism development is often based on the support of stakeholders. Therefore, tourism development strategies require the inclusion of stakeholders’ views and interests.
However, tourism researchers, recognizing the important role of stakeholders, tend to explore perceptions of individual tourism stakeholders to better understand them.
Differences were identified between the stakeholder groups’ perceptions and attitudes, such as between entrepreneurs and government officials, residents and governmental officials, residents and entrepreneurs, and residents and tourists (Byrd et al. 2009). Although studies that investigated the multiple tourism stakeholders’
groups revealed differences in their attitudes and perceptions (e.g. Kavallinis and Pizam 1994; Byrd 1997; Byrd et al 2009), much of the research investigating the complex relationship between stakeholders and tourism has focused on the
135 perception of individual stakeholder groups such as residents, visitors, business owners, and government officials. Therefore, researchers such as Byrd et al (2009), Byrd and Gustke (2007), and Hardy and Beeton (2001) asserted the need for studies that look at multiple stakeholder groups and compare their interests.
Hence, seeking a better understanding of what constitutes DMS effectiveness, this study seeks to interpret and compare the various stakeholder groups’ perceptions and attitudes (see Chapter 5). This comprehensive view in identifying DMS stakeholders comes consistent with the overall interpretive and qualitative approach adopted by this study (see Section 5.1.1.). The following discussion will reveal and justify the approach used to identify the Egyptian DMS stakeholder groups. Generally, there are two different approaches in identifying destination stakeholders; narrow and broad views, an explanation of each of which is presented below.
In his classic work, Freeman (1984) defined stakeholders as ‘‘any group or individual who can affect, or is affected by, the achievement of a corporation’s purpose’’ (1984, p.
46). This definition implies a broad view that goes beyond those stakeholders that have purely formal ties with a corporation (Sheehan and Richie 2005). Many researchers believe that this is a wide definition and needs further classification.
Clarkson (1995), for example, categorized stakeholders into primary and secondary groups. According to Clarkson (1995), a primary stakeholder group is “one without whose continuing participation the corporation cannot survive as a going concern”, while secondary groups of stakeholders are defined as those groups “who influence or affect, or are influenced or affected by, the corporation, but they are not engaged in transactions with the corporation and are not essential for its survival” (1995, p. 106).
Generally, researchers who adopt a narrow view in identifying stakeholders tend to focus on the primary groups of stakeholders, while researchers who adopt a wide view usually investigate both primary and secondary stakeholder perspectives.
Informed by Clarkson’s (1995) classification, this study divides the Egyptian DMS stakeholders into primary and secondary groups, and both groups’ perspectives on effectiveness are investigated (see Section 6.2). This study argues that exploring both the primary and secondary stakeholder groups is important for understanding DMS effectiveness. Although they do not affect the immediate survival of the system,
136 secondary stakeholders’ perceptions – as well as the primary group – on effectiveness are important to be explored. As stated by Freeman (2010):
“To be an effective strategist you must deal with those groups that can affect you, while to be responsive (and effective in the long run) you must deal with those groups that you can affect” (2010, p. 46).
Additionally, Sautter and Leisen (1999) asserted that:
“If *tourism+ players proactively consider the interests of all other stakeholders, the industry as a whole stands to gain significant returns in the long term” (1999, p.326).
Clarkson (1995) argued that although the secondary stakeholders may not influence the immediate survivor of the corporation (the DMS in this study), they can cause significant negative influences and affect the long-term success. He added that secondary stakeholders may be opposed to the policies or programmes that a corporation has adopted to realize its responsibilities to, or to satisfy the needs and expectations of, its primary stakeholder groups (Clarkson 1995). The following sub-sections demonstrates the Egyptian DMS stakeholder groups and contains some examples of the likely influence of some DMS secondary stakeholders on the effectiveness of DMS implementation.
137 Tour operators
Figure 10: The Egyptian Destination Management System (DMS) stakeholders’ map
The general authority of the conference centre.
138 Drawing on the stakeholders map (Figure 10) the following subsections demonstrate the primary and secondary groups of Egyptian DMS stakeholders (see Section 6.2 on how the following stakeholders’ perspectives are investigated in this study).
6.1.3.1. Primary stakeholder groups
Following Clarkson (1995), this study defines a primary DMS stakeholders group as the one without whose continuing participation the DMS cannot survive as a going concern. The primary group of stakeholders “bear some form of risk as a result of having invested some form of capital, human or financial, something of value” in a DMS (Clarkson 1995, p. 5). DMS is an online distribution system that connects tourists with the local tourist businesses in a destination. It is usually managed by a Destination Management Organizations (DMOs) (which is responsible for managing and marketing the tourism sector in a country), whether it is a completely public sector or a public and private sector partnership. Accordingly the following are the primary DMS stakeholder groups:
- Tourists: the online tourists that use the system, whether they are local, national or international.
- The local tourism businesses (or tourist suppliers): they are divided into producers (e.g. hotels) as well as intermediaries; travel agencies and tour operators (Buhalis 2003).
- The Egyptian Tourism Ministry and the current Management Organization of Touregypt project: the Touregypt project was managed by the Egyptian DMO (the Tourism Ministry) as well as a private IT company. After the Tourism Ministry cut off its responsibilities with the project, Touregypt project is now owned and managed by a private IT company (return to Section 6.1 for more information). Therefore, this study considers the Tourism Ministry (as the Egyptian DMO and the ex-owner of Touregypt) as well as the current owner and manager of Touregypt project as primary stakeholders.
6.1.3.2. Secondary stakeholder groups
The secondary stakeholders groups of the Egyptian DMS are defined – informed by Clarkson’s (1995) definition – as groups who influence or affect, or are influenced or
139 affected by, the DMS, but are not engaged in transactions with the system and are not essential for its immediate survival. These are:
- International tourist organizations, which are interested in the development of e-tourism (e.g. DMS applications and online destinations competitiveness), such as the UNCTAD and the UNWTO. These two popular international tourist organizations participate in setting the standards of DMS application success or effectiveness by their reports, such as UNCTAD (2005a and b), and UNWTO (2001).
- National and international tourist countries: DMS applications of other national and international tourist countries are important to be investigated as competitive case studies in the e-market place (e.g. Tiscover project).
- The general population of Egypt: the residents of the tourist destinations were considered as one of the most important stakeholders in tourism studies (e.g.
Kavallinis and Pizam 1994; Byrd 1997; Sheehan and Richie 2005; Byrd et al.
2009). Some studies have even argued the need to prioritize the resident’
needs and wants over developments for tourists (Byrd et al. 2009). However, while this study considers the perspectives and needs of the general population of Egypt, it does not consider them to be among the primary stakeholder groups, since the residents do not have an immediate influence on the survived or the effectiveness of the DMS; rather, their influence can be seen in the long run.
- Others: These can be any other groups of stakeholders, in either the internal or the external context of Egypt, such as academics, tourism consultants, or experts.