This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]On: 21 September 2013, At: 12:41Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Sport Management QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/resm20

The Olympic Games and knowledge management: Acase study of the Sydney organising committee of theOlympic GamesSue Halbwirth a b & Kristine Toohey c da Director KnowledgeScape Pty Ltd., 3 Talgara Place, Beacon Hill, NSW, 2100, Australia E-mail:b Program Manager Knowledge Management Services, Sydney Organising Commitee for theOlympic Gamesc School of Sport and Tourism Studies, University of Technology, PO Box 222, Sydney,Lindfield, NSW, 2070, Australia E-mail:d Program Manager Communication Services, Sydney Organising Commitee for the OlympicGamesPublished online: 18 Apr 2007.

To cite this article: Sue Halbwirth & Kristine Toohey (2001) The Olympic Games and knowledge management: A case studyof the Sydney organising committee of the Olympic Games, European Sport Management Quarterly, 1:2, 91-111, DOI:10.1080/16184740108721890

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16184740108721890

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

RESEARCHEuropean Sport Management Quarterly, 2001, 1, 91-111

©2001 Meyer&Meyer Sport

The Olympic Games and Knowledge Management:a Case Study of the Sydney Organising Committee

of the Olympic Games

SUE HALBWIRTH1 AND KRISTINE TOOHEY2

SUE HALBWIRTH, Director KnowledgeScape Pty Ltd., 3 Talgara Place, BeaconHill, NSW 2100, Australia (suehalbwirth@optusnet.com.au)KRISTINE TOOHEY is with the School of Sport and Tourism Studies, Universityof Technology, Sydney, PO Box 222 Lindfield, NSW 2070, Australia(kristine.toohey@uts.edu.au)

This paper uses the context of the Sydney Organising Committee of the OlympicGames (SOCOG) as a case study. It examines how information and knowledgemanagement (KM) were utilised through a specific knowledge project (the Sydney2000 Games Information System) in an event-driven organisation with a limitedlifespan and increasing staff numbers. This project helped ensure that SOCOG'sKM processes became aligned with the corporate objective of sharing knowledgeacross the organisation, rather than it remaining in the programs or divisions whereit was created.

The article is written from personal experience and outlines SOCOG's KM growthand development from an information management approach into a widerknowledge management role, assisted by a technology solution. As a commercialknowledge legacy, there was a formal agreement signed between the IOC andSOCOG, which formalised SOCOG's selling of explicit and tacit knowledge.However we believe that the most important lesson that other event organisers canlearn from the SOCOG KM project is that accurate and accessible information canbe managed effectively throughout a growing organisation.

Sporting and event organisations, just as other businesses, need to successfullycapture, share, manage and harness their corporate knowledge to reduce uncertaintyof outcomes and to co-ordinate and facilitate strategy and policy implementation. ForOrganising Committees for the Olympic Games (OCOGs) this is critical. Every time theGames are staged there is a new OCOG, the host city is different from the last, theculture of the country the Games are being held in is different to that of previous Games1 Sue Halbwirth was formely Program Manager Knowledge Management Services, Sydney Organising

Commitee for the Olympic Games.' Kristine Toohey was formely Program Manager Communication Services, Sydney Organising

Commitee for the Olympic Games.

97

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

41 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Sue Halbwirth and Kristine Toohey

and event management, technology requirements, and many other procedures havebeen advanced. Until now there have been few standard operating methods orprecedents passed directly from one OCOG to the next. This lack of knowing howthings have been done in the past is daunting and problematic for an OCOG, which hasthe challenging goal of staging the largest sporting event in the world. In addition,creating a culture, which is conducive to transferring information throughout the OCOG(which grows from a very small number of staff when it is created, to one of thousandsin about seven years) needs to be established.

One of tools to ensure that future Organising Committees can adapt successfully tochange over their lifespan and to successfully achieve their raison d'etre is the use ofinformation and knowledge management practices that ensure they become a'learning organisation'. Central to the concept of the learning organisation is thecreation of knowledge. A learning organisation is an organisation that recognises theimportance of intellectual capital to its goals and leverages its information andknowledge assets within and outside the organisation (Liebowitz & Beckman, 1998).Liebowitz and Beckman (1998, p. 62) also note that learning organisations need to"transfer sufficient knowledge to their workforce so all can act intelligently andcompetently and perform the required... tasks proficiently, with ease and satisfaction."Using the context of the Sydney Organising Committee of the Olympic Games(SOCOG) as a case study, this paper examines how information and knowledgemanagement were utilised through a specific knowledge project. It details someaspects of how information and knowledge management (KM) principles and practicesassisted SOCOG achieve its goal of staging 'the best Olympic Games ever' andrealising its knowledge as a capital asset.

SOCOG was the corporation tasked with organising and staging the summer Gamesof the XXVII Olympiad, held in Sydney from September 15 until 1 October 2000. It didnot achieve this task in isolation. For example, the state of New South Wales (NSW)underwrote the Games and many state and federal government departments wereactively involved in Games preparations. Two of the most significant of the NSWgovernment units were the Olympic Co-ordination Authority (OCA) and the OlympicRoads and Transport Authority (ORTA). At its inception in 1993 SOCOG did not set outto actively manage 'knowledge', however it was recognised by senior managementthat a centralised information department that professionally administered its corporatelibrary, research services, codification of language and corporate records wasimportant for organisational efficiency in the planning tasks ahead.

This article outlines SOCOG's KM growth and development from this informationmanagement approach into a wider role, assisted by a technology solution, known as

92

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

41 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

The Olympic Games and Knowledge Management

the Sydney 2000 Games Information System (within SOCOG called 'Athena1 after theGreek goddess of wisdom and knowledge). SOCOG's challenge, in this regard, was todevelop a KM system that was flexible enough to grow rapidly, synchronous with andcomplementary to the growth of the organisation. The Sydney 2000 Games InformationSystem acted as a knowledge repository and it facilitated the cross-functional sharingof information and knowledge. This project assisted SOCOG's KM processes tobecome aligned to the corporate objective of sharing knowledge across theorganisation. The article is written from personal experience, the process ofdocumenting our understanding has enabled us to reflect on KM practices as utilisedwithin the context of a sport organisation.

Knowledge Management Discourses

The concept of knowledge being power is not new. What has been a recentdevelopment in both knowledge and also in management discourses is the use ofknowledge management as a business strategy. Viewpoints on what KM is, does, andshould be, vary widely and have come from the disciplines of technology,organisational behaviour, sociology, education, management, and information scienceamongst others. Many writers have sought to characterise knowledge (Machlup, 1980).Others have concentrated on defining the term 'knowledge management' (Davenport& Prusak, 1998). Ruggles (1998, p. 80) acknowledges that KM has become a genericterm "used to describe everything from organizational learning efforts to databasemanagement tools." The definition of knowledge management that we have adoptedfor this paper comes from the Gartner Group:

Knowledge Management is a discipline that promotes an Integrated approach toidentifying, managing and sharing all of an enterprise's information assets. Theseinformation assets may include databases, documents, policies and procedures aswell as previously unarticulated expertise and experience resident in individualworkers. Knowledge Management issues include developing, implementing andmaintaining the appropriate techniques and organisational infrastructures to enableknowledge sharing. (Gartner Group quoted in Butler 2000 p.32)

A more succinct definition comes from Knowledge Management: a framework forsucceeding in the knowledge era (2001, p. 67), a report from Standards Australia. Here,knowledge management is defined as "a multi-disciplined approach to achievingorganisational objectives by making the best use of knowledge." Discussions onknowledge management projects indicate a variety of activities ranging from themanagement of 'data' through to 'information' and finally to the active state of'knowledge'. On a hierarchical level 'data' is the lowest form of knowledge. One of thegoals of knowledge management in an organisation is to effectively ensure that its 'data'becomes 'information' which then becomes used as 'knowledge'. According to

93

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

41 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Sue Halbwirth and Kristine Toohey

Davenport, De Long & Beers (1998, p.45): "If the knowledge versus informationdistinction is considered a continuum instead of a dichotomy, then projects that focuson structured knowledge deal with the middle of the continuum.* This, perhaps, is themost appropriate placing of the SOCOG KM project in a knowledge hierarchy.

The discourses of knowledge management have many dimensions. Below is a set ofelements against which the following SOCOG case study will be discussed. We haveselected these elements as being important components of implementing successfulKM projects (Halbwirth, 2001).

1 Information Infrastructure2 Organisational Culture3 Designing and Implementing Knowledge Management Processes4 Creating Knowledge Assets and the Learning Organisation.Each element's importance is explained below.

Information Infrastructure

Information creation, acquisition, storage, analysis and use form the intellectuallatticework that supports growth and maintenance of intelligent organisations.Managing corporate memory is based on an effective records management systemand, in order to achieve this, organisations must establish integrated recordsmanagement and archival policies. This then enables them to begin to create, preserveand leverage their corporate memories (Choo, 1998). SOCOG, as previously noted,began with an established records management system. This system was modifiedand expanded throughout the organisation's lifespan.

Organisational Culture

One of the greatest challenges OCOGs have to face is to create and maintain apositive organisational culture. As they grow in numbers and the pressure of theunmoveable Opening Ceremony deadline gets closer, their culture continues to shift. Itis not static. McDonald (1988) noted how the Los Angles Organizing Committee usedhistory and ceremony to create common goals. SOCOG's culture was similarly createdin this way. However unique contexts create unique outcomes. For example, SOCOGcame under intense media scrutiny and public approbation on a number of issues.Most notably: the 'ticketing crisis' of 1999, when the Australian public believed that itwas not being given an equal chance to purchase tickets and that indeed the wholeticketing process was neither transparent, nor fair; the IOC Salt Lake City scandal of1998; and the Torch Relay incident in 2000, when the daughter of Kevan Gosper wasselected as the first Australian to run with the torch relay in Greece. To the Australianpress and public this smacked of nepotism. Understandably, SOCOG had difficulty insustaining a positive organisational culture in this environment.

94

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

41 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

The Olympic Games and Knowledge Management

KM has a role in developing organisational culture and visa versa. It can assist withtransmitting information that builds and sustains a culture in keeping withorganisational imperatives. On the other hand, an organisation that is implementing KMshould ideally have people with a positive attitude to knowledge and who don't fearthat sharing information will cost them their jobs (Davenport, De Long & Beers, 1998).Allee (1997) notes that a culture of learning and sharing does not happen by accidentand that there is a culture shift needed in the current organisations that are notattempting to decrease the hoarding of knowledge by individuals and units. To counterknowledge hoarding and create an environment where the right hand knew what theleft hand was doing, during at least three of the monthly, whole-of-staff communicationmeetings, Sandy Hollway, SOCOG's CEO, acknowledged that the organisationalneeded to shift from a 'silo' culture. He stressed that it was important to shareinformation throughout and across the organisation. There was an organisationalimperative to move away from 'knowledge silos' (where information is hoarded in unitswithin the organisation) to knowledge sharing. Crucial to KM initiatives is a thoroughunderstanding of the elements of organisation and its culture by those implementingknowledge projects (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Senge, 1992). Analysis of theorganisational environment and culture, married with an ongoing understanding ofchanging strategic objectives, is necessary. Tools such as knowledge mapping andinformation audits can be utilised to prepare the groundwork for development ofknowledge processes. This was undertaken at SOCOG and is described later in thisarticle. Effective leadership and support from senior management predicate successfulimplementation of KM processes. These can be achieved effectively via supportivemessages, providing resources and assisting with clarification of priorities (Davenport,De Long & Beers, 1998). This too was present.

Designing and Implementing KM Projects

KM projects are many and varied. They are the pragmatic elements of KM. The fourobjectives of KM projects identified by Davenport, De Long and Beers (1998) are to:create a knowledge repository; improve knowledge access; enhance the knowledgeenvironment; and manage knowledge as an asset. Increasingly, modern corporationssuffer from having too much information, which is often disorganised and dispersed.The development of knowledge repositories is one way of maintaining a sense of orderover this. Improved knowledge access can be achieved using techniques such ascodification, indexing, metadata, classification and taxonomy development(Davenport, De Long & Beers, 1998). Creation of knowledge sharing systems, such asa corporate intranet and collaborative workspace, can enhance communication ofknowledge and the ability of communities of workers to share in knowledge creation(Ruggles, 1998). Sieloff (1999, p. 9) highlights another issue for knowledge projects.'The central problem of knowledge management facing most of our large corporations

95

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

41 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Sue Halbwirth and Kristine Toohey

is not the creation of new knowledge or even the capture of existing knowledge, it ismanaging the flow of knowledge through and around the critical bottleneck of personalattention and learning capacity.1

Stage

Activities

Goal

Planning (inputs)

Infrastructure

Information infrastructure

Technology

Thesauri

Terminology management

Taxonomies

Organisational Context

Organisational objectives

Organisational culture

Leadership

Senior executive support

Learning organisation

Implementing (Throughputs)

The Knowledge Project

Design and implementation

of knowledge processes

Performance support

Managing change

Outcomes

(Outputs)

Knowledge

Assets

Returns on

investment

Theintelligent

organisation

Figure 1: Elements of a knowledge project

We have identified three stages and associated processes involved in the SOCOG KMproject and included them in Figure 1. Column two demonstrates the elements that wereconsidered in the planning phases, in terms of both infrastructure and organisationalculture. Column three represents the processes involved in implementation and columnfour what we consider to be the project's outcomes. Each of these stages will bediscussed in this paper.

Creating Knowledge Assets and the Learning Organisation

The processes associated with knowledge creation and capture can provideorganisations with input into innovation (Von Krogh, Ichijo & Nonaka, 2000),contributing to the notion of the intelligent organisation and a view of knowledge as acapital asset (Choo, 1998). Tacit knowledge (also known as informal knowledge) ispersonal knowledge rooted in an individual's experience and involving personal beliefs,perspective, emotions and values (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Nonaka and Takeuchi(1995) theorised that knowledge is created through four different modes; socialisation,

96

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

41 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

777e Olympic Games and Knowledge Management

externalisation, combination, and internalisation. Tacit knowledge is shared in thesocialisation process and is converted to explicit knowledge (i.e. tacit knowledge thathas been articulated and made public) in the externalisation process. It is thenconverted to organisational knowledge when it is shared throughout the organisation inthe combination phase. Lastly, it feeds back to the individual where it is internalisedand the individual grows. Thus acquiring organisational knowledge becomes a self-transcending process.

It is in the organisational knowledge stage that SOCOG sought to capture its know-how and feed it back to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and future OlympicGames Organising Committees (OCOGs). A challenge for SOCOG was how to includein the knowledge processes the capture of the valuable tacit knowledge. Once theSydney Games were over there was no value in what SOCOG had learned unless it wasable to pass on its knowledge to future OCOGs or to the IOC. This principle can beapplied to other event organisers. The IOC and other event governing bodies canbecome learning organisations 'skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferringknowledge, and ... modifying ... behaviour to reflect new knowledge and insights'(Garvin, 1993, p.90) if this process continues.

SOCOG - the Background

SOCOG was established as a statutory corporation in 1993 by an act of the NSWParliament. As such it was subject to a number of legislative requirements that hadimplications for information management. Any material defined under legislation as acorporate 'record' had to be filed, maintained and handed over to the state of NSWafter SOCOG's wind up. These legislative requirements formed the basis for theorganisation's record keeping policy and practices. Sixteen members of the SydneyBid team joined SOCOG on its formation. From this core of personnel the organisationincreased, so that by July 1995 there were 54 staff members. Six months later numbershad grown to 97. In January 1997, SOCOG staff numbered 200. One year later therewere 521 and, by January 1999, 870 people were part of the organising committee.Numbers almost doubled in the following year: in January 2000 there were 1,424 staff.The greatest period of organisational growth then occurred. At Games time there were2,971 SOCOG employees. During the Games staff were ably assisted by 46,967volunteers and an even larger number of contractors. SOCOG's Project ManagementDivision monitored 27,000 separate activities throughout the organisation in theirmilestone reporting schedule. This included the operational plans for all venues. Thesestatistics demonstrate the quantity and multiplicity of information tasks needed tomanage a Games.

97

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

41 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Sue Halbwirth and Kristine Toohey

From inception SOCOG had an information unit with professional staff. Over theseven years until Games time this unit underwent several changes in staff, orientationand reporting lines. In its last change, which occurred in January 2000, the unit wasrenamed the Knowledge Management Services (KMS) Program to reflect its expandedportfolio, which included responsibility for the corporate intranet, call centre services,channel management services for public information co-ordination, library, records andarchives. Reporting lines were also modified with the unit now reporting directly to theDeputy CEO.

The Foundation of an Information Infrastructure

SOCOG was a new and short-term organisation compared to most other sportingbodies that it dealt with, such as the IOC, the national Olympic Committees (NOCs) andinternational sporting federations (IFs). However, as previously mentioned, theorganisation began with an established knowledge culture and recognition of theimportance of information acquisition and management. A legacy of the Sydney OlympicBid Limited (SOBL) was that SOCOG had begun its existence with a well-establishedcorporate library and records management system. A research team assisted staff ininformation retrieval on topics ranging from the amount of silver in medals, Australianstandards for bed manufacture, investigation of which Australian flowers would besuitable for bouquets and many other varied requests. Information acquisition, largelyfrom external sources, was a key element during this establishment period.

From an executive mandate to break down information silos, the experiences ofAtlanta and the recognition that SOCOG's KM would soon move from informationacquisition to concentrate on information creation, a project to develop an organisationwide information sharing solution was scoped. The first step in designing a solutionwas to analyse in detail both the internal and external information environments. Theresults of this research resulted in the creation of an information technology solutionthat supported the organisation's greater KM goal. In terms of SOCOG's informationinfrastructure it was accepted early in the KM project scoping stage that the existingcentralised records management system and library/research service alone were notgoing to cope as the primary KM tool in the move towards Games time. While theyprovided an excellent foundation it was believed by senior management that thesetraditional information structures needed to be supplemented. Experience from Atlantashowed that there was loss of productivity and cohesive planning if staff needed tocontinually check the accuracy and currency of information with their colleagues.

Prior to the KM project development a database of mission critical terminology hadbeen developed in SOCOG. This managed and controlled information language througha thesaurus/glossary of the Sydney 2000 Games and was known as the Games CodesSystem. It provided the foundation of professional information management from which

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

41 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

The Olympic Games and Knowledge Management

to develop a solution to future information and communication demands. By Gamestime the Codes database had grown to hold approximately 50,000 records. For each ofthese entries a three letter code had been developed and its meaning explained. Thisensured that venues, NOCs, countries, sports etc. were each given a unique code. Itallowed the organisation and its accompanying IT systems to use standardised codesto avoid incorrect terminology and thus avoid confusion. For example 'WKF' was thecode for workforce, 'VOL' for volunteer, 'STA' for the Olympic stadium. In the case of thelatter, as other venues were also stadiums (e.g. Baseball stadium) it was essential forplanning to differentiate each location.

Organisational Culture

SOCOG staff included many individuals who had worked or observed at the Atlantaor other Olympic Games. There was respect for what previous OCOGs hadaccomplished. The tacit knowledge these staff brought to SOCOG was embraced bythe organisation. Following both the Atlanta and Nagano Games staff participated indebriefing meetings and documents from their OCOGs were placed in the corporatelibrary. There was a genuine enthusiasm by SOCOG staff to learn from the pastexperiences of other OCOG staff and this demonstrated a fundamental willingness toparticipate in the acquiring and sharing of knowledge. In the lead up to the GamesSOCOG and other Olympic agencies tested processes and procedures via a series oftest events. Analysis and learning from these were fedback into Games planning. Theconcept of learning from success (and failure) and identification of best practices is akey component of learning organisations (Marquardt, 1996; Garvin, 1993).

Supplementing the tacit knowledge of its staff, after the Atlanta Games, SOCOGpurchased paper-based files of their OCOG's documentation and incorporated theseinto the SOCOG library. These materials became the basis for much of SOCOG's earlyplanning. What was clear from Atlanta's experience was the need to share informationacross divisions of the organising committee. As mentioned earlier, this became aSOCOG executive mandate to break down functional area 'silos' and share informationacross the organisation. In large organisations it is not unusual for individuals and/ordepartments to hoard information. Individuals value 'their' information. Knowledge isperceived to be power and some equate this to job security. While the sheer scale anddeadlines of SOCOG mitigated to a degree against this, a problem for the KM teamwas that functional area staff did not necessarily appreciate the breadth ofinterrelationships between functional areas of the organisation. It was not so much anattitude of not wanting to share information but of not understanding the benefits ofsharing. The growth of staff and complexity of the issues such as these facing eventorganisations are well documented (see Goldblatt, 1997; Parks et al, 1998). Whilesenior management encouraged a sharing culture, SOCOG's size and exponential

99

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

41 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Sue Halbwirth and Kristine Toohey

growth meant that a technology solution would be the most practical way to implementthis directive in the KM context. However it was essential that each of SOCOG'sdivisions realise the utility of the technology and want to share 'their' dataappropriately. One effective strategy used to encourage initial acceptance of theinformation system was to electronically publish the weekly SOCOG newsletter, Cooee,on the KM system, rather than being sent as an email as had been done previously.This encouraged familiarity with and use of the system.

"One of the principles of organisational learning is to incorporate a variety ofperspectives in any work performed" (Leibowitz & Beckman, 1998 p. 55). This quote isparticularly pertinent for event-based organisations, where different functional areasare reliant on accurate and complete information from other areas. In SOCOG theexecutive support for the co-ordination of information was provided viacommunications to staff and also through input by the executive into the planning ofthe KM solution. Social events were an effective tool used to help SOCOG bond into asharing and cohesive unit. For example, family picnics, quiz nights, Christmas parties,entry of SOCOG teams in the Corporate Games and the City to Surf race createdopportunities for staff to interact in social situations. On a more formal level all-staffcommunication meetings were held monthly, up to July 2001. These provided a forumfor sharing of information from within and outside the organisation. Notable outsidespeakers included Juan Antonio Samaranch, President of the IOC and Sir GustavNossal, Australian of the Year 2000. After the formal proceedings at these meetingsdrinks and food were provided to encourage social interaction. The Sydney 2000Games Information System was first presented to SOCOG staff at an all-staffcommunication meeting, where senior management publicly endorsed it.

SOCOG, like many event organisations, was subject to a dynamic environment. Itwas characterised by massive changes to all facets of its operations. For example, in1999, the organisation moved from a functional area structure to a venue-basedstructure, with a matrix style reporting function for many staff. This change predicatedthe management structure of Games time, as well as the change of roles for many staffduring the event phase of the organisation. In the functional area structure, forexample, a staff member in the KM program who worked in SOCOG's corporate libraryreported to the Program Manager, Knowledge Management. At Games time, this staffmember worked in the Olympic Village library and reported to the Athlete's ServicesManager at the Village. In other words, line management changed from beingorganised around functions (e.g. KM or legal), to being organised by venues, with theVenue Manager at each venue being in charge of everyone working at that venue. Whilechange is a feature of most current organisations and corporations it is the relativelyshort life cycle/time frame in which SOCOG worked that created pressure on its

700

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

41 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

7779 Olympic Games and Knowledge Management

information tasks. This added to the challenge of co-ordinating information, especiallywhen NSW government agencies (such as OCA and ORTA) and sponsors were anintegral part of the process of delivering the Games. This changing environment hadtwo major implications for the KM team: any new processes must not add to alreadyexpanding staff workloads and they must be malleable and flexible enough to meetfuture unscoped needs.

SOCOG's data-to-information-to-knowledge cycle from gathering, creating, retrievaland then dissolution was completed within less than 10 years. In such an environmentit was imperative that knowledge dissemination had to be perceived to be expedientand immediately of value to the organisation. Information within SOCOG wasconstantly undergoing changes to status, especially in the area of public information.What was highly confidential one day was public information the next. For example, thecompetition schedule for the Games was once restricted, but once released to thepublic SOCOG was very keen to promote the information. Some of SOCOG'sinformation however needed to be maintained as restricted access.

While SOCOG's core business was to stage the Games, the diverse nature of thetasks required to do so required the specialised skill and knowledge of a range ofprofessionals and disciplinary areas, for example, law, catering, waste management,finance, publishing etc. Eventually there were over 90 different functional areas (or costcentres) within the organisation. This meant that any KM solution had to cater forinformation in varying formats and on a disparate range of subjects. The challenge wasto develop a KM solution that met the organisation's requirements while retainingelements of customisation for individuals who had a wide range of skill sets. Theexistence of a well accepted control of language and terminology within theorganisation and the framework of a taxonomy of functional areas (the Games CodesSystem) provided the KM solution with an already established shared understanding ofterminology and logical grouping of information.

Implementing a Knowledge Project:A Case Study of a Technology Based Solution

Davenport, De Long and Beers (1998, p. 44) describe knowledge managementprojects as "attempts to do 'something useful' with knowledge, to accomplishorganisational objectives through the structuring of people, technology and knowledgecontent." The following details the development of one KM project at SOCOG. In 1997the SOCOG senior executive approved the development of an organisational widesystem for the sharing and creating information. The system was to be technologicallyprovided and designed to complement the existing records management system andprocesses. The project team was lead by a professional information manager and a

707

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

41 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Sue Halbwirth and Kristine Toohey

business systems analyst from the on-site Lotus Notes Consulting team. A positiveaspect of this team was the combination of skill sets, including information technologydevelopment, content management, organisational learning, information organisationand business re-engineering. A key decision phase of a KM project relates to how andwhat technology tools can be utilised to meet KM objectives. With the development ofa KM solution at SOCOG it was essential that the technology solution be:

1. easily integrated into the existing Headquarters desktop environment2. fully supported by on site development and maintenance and training teams3. able to be customised within the internal SOCOG environment4. able to grow with the organisation5. more than merely a text management tool, but able to allow for development of

complex workflows and security of data.

Within an OCOG decisions regarding all categories of goods and services are oftenrelated to the sponsorship arrangements. Lotus Notes, was provided under the IBMsponsorship arrangements as a component of the headquarters desktop environment.Lotus Notes met all of the KM project requirements for an effective and timelyinformation management tool. Utilisation of any other KM application would havegreatly compromised the aim of integrating KM into the existing SOCOG workenvironment. It should also be noted that Lotus is one of the leaders in the knowledgemanagement market (Phelps, 2000).

Lotus Notes provided a flexible and customised solution to meet SOCOQ'simmediate information management needs, and later in the development processprovided a secure and robust platform for disseminating public information to keystakeholders and a tool for capturing know-how. The version of Notes (version 4.6, nowgreatly superseded) utilised for the KM solution was criticised by some as lackingsophisticated desktop publishing functionality. This criticism was unfounded as thegoal of the KM solution was not to produce published output but as a shared,controlled, internal collaborative workspace. It was proposed that the new systemwould provide a shared environment for the creation and dissemination of informationand knowledge and also promote the sharing and linking of existing data. Increases inproductivity and security of data and a decrease in the duplication of data collectionwere also envisaged. The concept was for a 'one stop information shop' for not justretrieval of information but also for authoring and creating information. The goal was totransform data to information. The challenge was to provide a method of codifying andorganising the information within a user-friendly desktop environment. The systemaimed to provide Sydney 2000 staff with access to consistent, up to date and approvedcorporate, operational and public information. Additionally, it needed to provide apublic information infrastructure for the call centre and other external users.

102

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

41 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

The Olympic Games and Knowledge Management

Stage one of the project (November - March 1998) was an information audit. Itsought to answer several key questions: where was the information within theorganisation, was there information not available, what information needed to beshared and what was the information seeking behaviour of the staff? Staff responsesindicated that they wanted the following as part of the IT solution:• key information to be included• groups of 'like' information to be clustered together (i.e. relevance)• breakdown of large groups of information into smaller units (i.e. chunking)• linking of data and information• ability to search for information• a system that tells me when information has been updated (push and pull)• only approved, current information "that I know is right" to be included• ease of use (consistency);• a place in which authors can work on the same document and list of who has

worked on the document (document history)• security, so at various stages of a workflow access to information is restricted.

The audit process allowed staff to have input into not just the design of the systembut also to articulate their growing difficulties of accessing accurate information. Theprocess of the audit also achieved 'buy-in' from key functional areas and formed apartnership for development and support of the project. Penfold (1999) noted thatreasons for change as well as the processes to reach the solution must be owned bystaff. The information audit also highlighted the need for a solution that provided morethan just information retrieval, but would also help to create a learning organisationenvironment, a shared workspace, that would encourage staff to actively add to theinformation base. The staff comments determined the basis of the way information wasorganised and available and processes to access it developed. For example, keydocuments such as SOCOG annual reports were available in the 'public information'section (relevance). In the 'sport' information staff could access the competitionschedule, but only certain staff were authorised to enter and change its information.When they did so, the system recorded the person, date and time of the change.

Simultaneous to the information systems development was the analysis and scopingof an outsourced call centre operation for SOCOG. Management decided that theSydney 2000 Games Information System should act as an information backbone forcall centre operators. While this additional KM function characterised the dynamicenvironment of SOCOG it presented a challenge. No longer was the informationstructure for internal use only; it now needed a purpose built designed extract and frontend for use by a different client group, with different information needs. On June 301998, the internal Sydney 2000 Games Information System and a call centre extract

103

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

41 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Sue Halbwirth and Kristine Toohey

went live. The need for immediate and accurate information for the call centre was

crucial, due to the sheer volume of calls and the centrality of the call centre to public

information dissemination. By the time the call centre closed, at the end of October

2000, it had received more than 2,000,000 calls.

A program of user support was initiated with information staff operating a help desk

function. Performance support materials were also produced. Much energy and time

were spent negotiating with middle managers to ensure that the system was

TOOLS AND PROCESSES

a record/file managementprocess and retrieval system

Games Codes system

the Sydney 2000 GamesInformation System

an information infrastructurefor call centre operations andother external providers ofpublic information such assponsors and othergovernment agencies

COMPONENTS

• records database

• database of the language of the Games• codification of key aspects of the Games organisation

• information in logical clusters• corporate portal with linkages to key corporate

information sources such as legal obligations andoperational policy/procedures and resource requirementsdatabases

• navigation screens and a point and click environment• search facility• authoring and workflow management for the approval of

document content• security• inclusion of metadata such as security level, authors,

editors and approvers and a document history of datesof modification

• versioning and archives• subscription and notification - 'push' functionality to

send updates to users

• public information only• current approved information only;• powerful search capabilities with sorted search results• function that allowed 'hot' issues to be communicated

immediately to all operators screens• feedback functionality to capture comments and

attitudes for the public• work flow to manage the feedback internally within

SOCOG and if required back to the call centre

Figure 2: SOCOG KM tools and processes

104

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

41 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

The Olympic Games and Knowledge Management

customised for their requirements. Key staff or change agents from several functionalareas, which were heavily responsible for authoring and adding to the knowledge base,were identified and supported by the implementation team. The change agents wereessential in acting as catalysts and leading the change in work practices. Therefore, 27months out from the Games, SOCOG had achieved a sophisticated level of KM toolsand processes as indicated in Figure 2. By themselves each of these tools andprocesses formed a discrete KM project. Together they allowed the organisation tomanage its information in a cohesive and systematic manner, to achieve a control andflow of information across the organisation, rather than it remaining only in theorganisation unit in which it was created.

As of September 2000 the system held approximately 38,000 documents and haddeveloped from merely a 'warehouse' of information to a corporate portal, with links toother planning databases, a repository of knowledge and a knowledge disseminationtool. SOCOG now included, to some degree, elements of the previously mentioned fourobjectives of knowledge projects identified by Davenport, De Long and Beers (1998).

Simultaneous to the growth in the electronic knowledge system was the increase inthe quantity of paper-based files and records produced by staff. The Records unit, avital component of KM, via a record management database, managed this material. InDecember 1999, there were 39,400 records in the database. By October 2000, this hadrisen to more than 120,000 records. A post Games KM challenge was to extract fromthis massive collection of paper, electronic resources and tacit understandings of staff,the pertinent knowledge that could be left as a legacy of the Sydney Games. This waspartially achieved via effective archival processes and through the Transfer of Know-How and Post Games Report projects discussed below.

At Games time the Sydney 2000 Games Information System was primarily utilised asthe public information infrastructure to manage the massive flow of publiccommunications. After the Games the system and its information and knowledge storeand archive will be a valuable resource and legacy. As a component of the wind up ofSOCOG the value of the Sydney 2000 Games Information System was recognised andit was decided to extract data so that the Olympic movement, researchers and thepublic could have ongoing access. The public information component, which onceprovided the information infrastructure for the call centre and stakeholders, wasextracted from the Notes solution and converted to HTML format. This content wasintegrated with other Sydney 2000 information and from September 2001 will beavailable as a legacy web site of archival material at www.gamesinfo.com.au.Additionally, content from the internal SOCOG knowledge base has been convertedinto two products in HTML format. Content from the Transfer of Know How knowledge

705

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

41 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Sue Halbwirth and Kristine Toohey

database has been provided on CD in HTML format to the IOC. This is a valuablelegacy for the Olympic movement. Relevant content from the SOCOG planning anddocument databases within the Sydney 2000 Games Information System has beenconverted into stand-alone information products in CD format that will available throughthe State Library of NSW. These projects provide recognition that the role of informationand knowledge management was not merely an operational tool but also a legacycomponent of the Games. The technology products, listed above, complement the formalarchive of the Sydney 2000 Games managed by the State Record Authority of NSW.

Outcomes-Knowledge Assets

The Host City contract that Sydney signed with the IOC to stage the Games of theXXVII Olympiad had, as one of its deliverables, the preparation of an Official Report,known within SOCOG as the Post Games Report (PGR). Official reports are one of theenduring legacies and reference tools about each Games for future OCOGs, researchersand sports managers. SOCOG staff were required to submit written material regardingtheir operations for the PGR, beginning two-and-a-half years before the Games andcontinuing until their last submissions were received, in November 2000.

Also, as a commercial knowledge legacy, there was a formal agreement signedbetween the IOC and SOCOG, which formalised SOCOG's selling of explicit and tacitknowledge to the IOC for $A 5 million. This material was disseminated to organisingcommittees in both Salt Lake City and Athens. This program was known as the Transferof Know How (TOK). This financial transaction confirmed the value of the knowledgetransfer and information as a corporate asset. Both the PGR and TOK projects utilisedthe shared authoring environment of the Sydney 2000 Games Information system asstaff articulated their tacit knowledge via the process of externaiisation (Nonaka &Takeuchi, 1995). Staff shared their 'story1 of Games preparation and delivery. The TOKinvolved both written and oral delivery of intellectual property from relevant SOCOGmanagers in 90 plus individual guides. The first written material was collected InJanuary 2000, with interviews conducted over the first half of 2000. The final stage inthe TOK process was a debrief of the Sydney Games by senior management, held inAthens during November 2000. This concentrated on Games time operations. One ofthe difficulties of managing the Sydney 2000 TOK project was the vast amount of data,information and knowledge collected. Additional knowledge processes of indexing,classification, contextualisation, synthesis and analysis will be required to ensuremaximum utilisation of the knowledge repository.

The knowledge provided by the Sydney TOK program has the potential to form thebasis of a generic Olympic management guide that could evolve following each

106

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

41 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

The Olympic Games and Knowledge Management

successive celebration of the Olympic Games. Previous host cities have had toreinvent the wheel for organising their Games. A KM challenge now for the IOC iscontinue this program of knowledge capture and to integrate and enhance theknowledge environment of future Olympic Games. Choo (1998) states that one of thefundamental process that creates an intelligent organisation is learning fromexperience. If the IOC is to be categorised as an intelligent organisation it mustcontinue to learn how the Games are organised and to document experience so thatfuture organisers can fully utilise the knowledge. As a step in this process the IOC hassigned a $A8 million deal with an Australian consortium to export and further increasethe TOK knowledge.

Conclusion

Davenport, De Long and Beers (1998) acknowledge that while economic returns onknowledge are difficult to quantify there are indicators of success for knowledgeprojects. These are:

• Growth in resources attached to the project

• Growth in the volume of knowledge content - (i.e. number of documents, or accessesfor repositories)

• The likelihood that the project would survive without the support of a particularindividual or two, i.e. the project is an organisational initiative, not an individual project

• Some evidence of financial return either for the knowledge management activityitself or for the larger organisation.

Figure 3 measures the effectiveness of the SOCOG knowledge project, as perceivedby this paper's authors, against Davenport, De Long and Beers' criteria of success.

At SOCOG we were able to utilise an established information infrastructure to growa knowledge project. The project was championed by senior executives and led by KMprofessionals who had a clear vision of contributing to the organisational objectives ofstaging a successful Games. Adequate resources, an effective technologyinfrastructure and a knowledge-friendly culture supported the project.

It is hoped that the IOC continues to develop and support knowledge projects withinthe Olympic movement as nowadays, just like the administration and management ofany business venture, the management of sporting organisations has to becomeprofessional and logical, with consistent processes of decisions and actions.

707

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

41 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Sue Halbwirth and Kristine Toohey

Criteria for success of aknowledge project(Davenport, De Long &Beers, 1998)

Growth in resources attachedto the project

Growth in the volume ofknowledge content andusage (number ofdocuments, or accesses forrepositories)

The likelihood that theproject would survivewithout the support of aparticular individual or two,i.e. the project is anorganisational initiative, notan individual project

Some evidence of financialreturn either for theknowledge managementactivity itself or for thelarger organisation

SOCOG knowledge project

Staff directly responsible for the administration of thesystem grew from one to three over the life of the project.Four departmental co-ordinators (change agents) werecoopted to the project.

Additional funds were provided on three occasions tomodify and expand the role of the project. ConsideringSOCOG's budget constraints this shows a belief in theoutcomes of the project.

On implementation (July 1998) the system heldapproximately 5,000 documents by August 1999 this hadrisen to 25,000 and the final count in October 2000 was39,000.

While an early attempt was made to measure 'hits' on thesystem a accurate count was never technically possible

Although the project was the initiative of one departmentand two staff were clearly identified with the developmentof the solution, by the implementation phase several keyoperational areas were reliant on its existence, for examplethe Venue Planning Program and the call centre, whichintegrated the knowledge project into their operationalprocesses. All material for the PGR and TOK was authoredon the Sydney 2000 Games Information System. Thus theproject was adopted across the organisation.

The sale of corporate know how via the TOK for $A 5 millionwas the most obvious financial return of knowledgeprocesses in SOCOG. TOK material was authored on theSydney 2000 Games Information System.

The other less tangible return (but of high organisationalsignificance) was the improvement of the flow of accurateand consistent information to the call centre. Businessintelligence gained from analysis of the moods andsubjects of calls from the public was fed back into mediaand communications programs.

Figure 3: Evaluation of the SOCOG knowledge project

108

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

41 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

777e Olympic Games and Knowledge Management

There are two corollaries to this process whereby management of sportsorganisations has moved towards greater efficiency. The first is the obligationimposed upon us to produce a know-how that is specific to a field that, although itfalls within the general framework of management sciences, cannot strictly becompared to the business worid.... The second corollary derives from the first: thisspecific know-how has to be passed on in order to optimise the action taken bysport management. Sport management in the coming years will be subject to twoobligations: first, producing knowledge that is appropriate to the special needs ofthe sports organisations; and secondly, training effective and efficient managementpersonnel (Loret, 1996, p. 133).

The infrastructure required to stage a Games in the 21st century is daunting—so isthe knowledge required of an OCOG's staff. This needs to be managed effectively sothat duplication and waste of effort are minimised. The Sydney 2000 GamesInformation System was a useful KM tool for SOCOG. Of course, not all aspects of theproject worked smoothly. Some SOCOG divisions were more receptive than others tousing it. The project required iterations to streamline its processes and iron out itsimperfections. For example the front screen was modified to make it more user friendly.Like all technology there were times when the system was 'down'.

The Olympic Games (like many other events) are organised by a new OCOG each timethey are held. So, a good KM system is vital, including one that can transfer know howfrom one Games to the next. It is part of helping the new OCOG grow and adapt— tomake it a 'learning organisation'. When a city is first awarded the Games, seven years forpreparation seems sufficient. However, it seems that for each Games there are alwayslast-minute arrangements. KM processes can expedite the flow of information andknowledge throughout the organisation, however for this to occur a receptive culturemust be created and led by the executive. SOCOG provided a guidepost for futureOCOGs through its use of KM, especially in terms of the TOK. The most important lessonthat other event organisers can learn from the SOCOG KM project is that accurate andaccessible information can be managed throughout a growing organisation.

109

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

41 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Sue Halbwlrth and Kristine Toohey

References

Allee V. (1997). The knowledge evolution: expanding organizational intelligence. BostonMA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Butler, Y. (2000) Knowledge management- if you only knew what you knew. TheAustralian Library Journal, February, 31-43.

Choo, C. (1998). Information management for the intelligent organization: the art ofscanning the environment, 2nd ed. Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Davenport, T., De Long, D. and Beers, M. (1998). Successful knowledge managementprojects. Sloane Management Review, 39(2), 43-58.

Davenport T. and Prusak L. (2000). Working knowledge: how organisations managewhat they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Garvin, D. (1993). Building a learning organisation. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 78-92.Goldblatt, J. (1997). Special events: best practice in modern event management. New

York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Halbwirth, S. (2001, April). Beyond 2000 towards knowledge: information management

and the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. Paper presented at the 11 InternationalAssociation for Sports Information Congress, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Liebowitz J. and Beckman T. (1998). Knowledge organizations; what every managershould know. Boca Raton FL: St. Lucie Press.

Loret, A. (1996). Understanding management in sport: concepts, skills, and knowledge.In J.L. Chapplet (Ed.) Sport Management: An International Approach, (pp. 133-148).Lausanne: International Olympic Committee.

Machlup, F. (1980). Knowledge and knowledge production. Princeton NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Marquardt M. (1996). Building the learning organisation. New York: McGraw Hill.McDonald, P. (1988). The Los Angeles Olympic Organising Committee: developing

organizational culture in the short run. In M. O. Jones, M. D. Moore and R. C.Snyder (Eds.) Inside Organizations. Understanding the human dimension (pp. 165-178). Newbury Park CA: Sage Publications

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. Oxford U.K.:Oxford University Press.

Parks, J. B., Zanger, B. R. K., and Quarterman, J. (Eds.), (1998). Contemporary sportmanagement. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Penfold S. (1999). Change management for information services. East Grinstead U.K.:Bowker-Saur.

Phelps, A. (2000). Knowledge Is Power Knowledge Management Turns IndividualInsight Into A Company Resource. Smart Computing, 11(2), 60-63.

Ruggles, R. (1998). The state of the notion: knowledge management in practice.California Mangement Review, 40(3), 80-89.

770

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

41 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

The Olympic Games and Knowledge Management

Sieloff, C. (1999). The sorcerer's apprentice. Knowledge Management, 2(10), 9-14.Senge, P. (1992). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization.

Sydney Australia: Random House.Standards Australia (2001). Knowledge Management: a framework for succeeding in

the knowledge era. Sydney Australia: Standards Australia.Von Krogh, G, Ichijo, K. and Nonaka I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation: how to

unlock the mystery of tacit knowledge and release the power of the innovation.Oxford U.K.: Oxford University Press.

111

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

41 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013