Paper presented at The 5th International Doctoral Consortium on Intellectual Capital Management / World Conference on Intellectual Capital for Communities - Eight Edition Co-organised by: - European Chair on Intellectual Capital Management - University Paris-Sud - World Bank World Bank Paris Office - 2012

1. 21/09/2012
Impact / legacy evaluation and management
in mega events projects with focus on
intangible assets
Mauricio Rodrigues, MSc
The 5th International Doctoral Consortium
on Intellectual Capital Management
Content
1. Introduction
2. Research Question
3. Objective
4. Research Methodology
5. Theoretical Framework
1

2. 21/09/2012
1. Why?
• There is an increasing number of nations interested in hosting
international mega events
the costly bidding process
• Despite of
the costly organizing planning and operation
• Why these countries place value on hosting such events (e.g.
Olympic Games, Sports World Championships, Festivals,
Cultural and Political summits)?
1. Because of...
• Aspects related to local economic development
(Haußermann & Siebel, 1993 apud Preuss, 2007)
• Benefits of optimism dissemination among the citizens,
increase in external capital flow to host city/country,
tourist attraction and, social and economic
development acceleration
(Clark, 2008; Kasimati, 2003; Preuss, 2007)
Copenhagen - October 2nd, 2009
2

3. 21/09/2012
1. Where goes the investments?
1. Potential economic benefits
Directs Indirects
• Capital flow to host city/country • Advertising effect of the host
• Infrastructure construction or city/country as a potential
upgrade tourist or business destination
• Lower transportation costs due • Increase in civic pride
improved networks • Improved local sense of
• Increase in tourists spending community
• Improved perceived abroad
image of the host city/country
• Happiness of the host citizens
• Citizen entertainment and
welfare
• Human resources skills
development
• Motivation to a more active life
(Preuss, 2010; Zimbalist, 2010)
3

4. 21/09/2012
1. Potential downsides / risks
• Don`t be able to deliver all positive impacts
(planned or unplanned)
• Poor urban land use
• Underused facilities after the event
• High public debts
• Costs overrun
• Athens 2004  more than US$ 10 bi
• Beijing 2008  more than US$ 40 bi
• London 2012  estimate in US$ 19 bi (in 2009 terms)
(Haußermann & Simons, 2000; Zimbalist, 2010)
1. Costs x Investment
• Infrastructure improvements and/or upgrades
• Catalyst effect of public investment on:
• Transport
• Security
• ICTs
• Urban Planning
4

5. 21/09/2012
1. Mega events planning and the intangibles
• The benefits do not occur by accident or without an effective
action
 Need strategic vision and a proper impact planning and
management (Clark, 2008; IOC, 2009b)
• Intangible impacts are potentially the most important economic
benefits, by its nature, variety and indirect influence
(Preuss, 2010)
• The management of intangible assets is an essential task for
business and institutions that want to succeed in Knowledge
Economy (Bounfour, 2003; Cavalcanti & Gomes, 2000; OECD, 2008)
1. Literature gaps
• Are there positive, broader, long-term and less tangible
economic impacts from hosting mega events to justify its
spending?
• How the mega events managers assess the intangible impacts
of the mega events in the host city/country?
• What performance indicators should be used to evaluate the
mega events overall impact, not only the macroeconomic
outcomes?
5

6. 21/09/2012
2. Research question
How can we evaluate and manage intangible assets
generated by mega events projects, with focus on
future value creation (legacy), to improve local
development and competitiveness in the host
city/country?
3. Objective
To develop a diagnostic model for investment decision-
making and strategic management of mega events
projects based on tangible and intangible assets and
resources
6

7. 21/09/2012
4. Methodology
5. Mega events impacts evaluation
• Point of continuing debate and controversy, due to the high
event expectations (Cashman, 2010)
• Traditionally is performed by benchmarking:
– based on past events
– through macroeconomic indicators
– Comparison between different places, at different times,
under different circumstances (Preuss, 2007)
Each event is a unique project!
• In a fast changing economic environment, there not seems to
be the best option to planning positive impacts for future
events
7

8. 21/09/2012
5. Mega events impacts evaluation
• Impact measurement is a complex action 
– Difficulty in measuring the ‘net’ legacy rather than ‘gross’
legacy
– Difficulty in judging whether a particular legacy has positive
or negative value
– Difficulty of assessing the effect of the legacy over time
(Bidding, Pre-Event, Event-Time, Post-Event)
– Easier to focus only on the socio-economic tangible
outcomes (Preuss, 2007)
• These obstacles “... does not affect the measurement of a
legacy itself, but is concerned with a judgment of its value”
(Preuss, 2007)
5. OG Evaluation models
(Preuss, 2007)
(IOC, 2009a)
8

9. 21/09/2012
5. OGI – International Olympic Committee
(PwC, 2005)
• Embeds the concept of sustainable development (triple bottom
line)
• Focus on macroeconomic indicators
• Do not contribute to a proper impact planning and management
• Indicators  41 economic / 56 socio-cultural / 38 environmental
5. Location factors model
• Conceptual model
• Based on the long-term development plan for the host city/country
• Tangible and intangible dimensions
(Preuss, 2007)
9

10. 21/09/2012
5. Intangible assets and resources
• Increasing aware of the importance of intangibles measurement
and management
• The knowledge will only generate the expected results if it is
managed throughout its value chain (Cavalcanti & Gomes, 2000)
• Value creation and competitive advantage have relation with the
quality of their usage (Sveiby, 2000)
• The issue of how to measure the accumulation and the usage of
intangible assets and resources should become a major concern
of managers and decision makers!
5. Intangible measurement
42 Methods for Measuring
Intangibles!!
10

11. 21/09/2012
5. Proposed taxionomy
Brief model Purpose and
presentation applicability
Key assumptions
Main technical
and expected
details
results
Fertility
• Intangible Capital Rating (Deutscher, 2008)
• Model IC-dVAL™ (Intellectual Capital dynamic Value) (Bounfour, 2003)
• IC Rating™ (Edvinsson, 2002)
• Meritum Guidelines (2002)
• ...
Thanks for your attention!!!
Questions and comments?
Mauricio Rodrigues rodriguesm1@gmail.com www.crie.ufrj.br
@rodriguesm1
11