A Synthesis of a Knowledge Management Framework for Sports

Event Management

Azizul Rahman Abdul Ghaffar

, Ghassan Beydoun

, Jun Shen

, Will Tibben

and Dongming Xu

School of Information Systems and Technology, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia

School of Business, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

Keywords: Knowledge Management, Sports Event Management, Framework, Sports Technology.

Abstract: Due to rapid social development in Asia, sports events have grown larger and many new countries are also

hosting them for their first time. In addition to required increase in expenditures and more efficient

management, various instances of inadequate planning highlighted the needs for more effective and better

sustainable structures to support knowledge transfer between organizers, from one event to the next. The

research presented in this paper aims to facilitate the deployment of systematic knowledge management

practices to sports event management, to enable sustainable planning. The research in this paper synthesizes

is carried out on the Malaysian Games as an example of a sports event management. Furthermore, we

introduce knowledge management (KM) framework that was developed based on studies and observations

of processes and activities in this organization. The focus is on knowledge that is key to the success of the

Malaysian Games and that which can be used to the development of the organization and in future games.

1 INTRODUCTION

Sports events are more than ever important on a

global scale – economically, socially, politically and

technologically. According to Fuhrer (2002) the

Olympic Games, particularly over the last 20 years,

has experienced unparalleled growth and universal

popularity. Similar expectation are placed on other

international sporting events such as the

Commonwealth Games. Applying knowledge

management (KM) practices to sports event

management can offer much needed support the

multi-billion dollar industry growth (Halbwirth,

2001). Systematic handling of knowledge following

an explicit framework underpins successful

knowledge transfer and sharing (Heisig 2009, Sadrei

et al 2007). A KM framework assumes that

knowledge is a crucial factor to production and the

sets about to improve the performance of processes,

organization and systems (Van der Spek and

Sijkervet 2005). The framework can be the basis for

enhanced performance and utilization of resources

because it can be used as a tool to leverage

organizational knowledge resources (Aidemark and

Sterner 2003). It provides a structure for a

systematic process to harness the various benefits of

KMS. We identified seven possible frameworks

(Table 1) that were potentially applicable to sports

event management areas in terms of business

process and organizational structure.

2 THE BENEFITS OF A KM

FRAMEWORK IN SPORTS

EVENTS MANAGEMENT

Whilst various sports event management

organisations are similar in goals and in scope, they

differ in a number of ways: their structures and

practices are often dependent on different staff and

budgetary constraints, different technologies,

different sports systems, different political climate,

different culture and so forth. The Malaysian Games

(MG) follows the execution format of Olympic

events. It belongs to the National Sports Council of

Malaysia (NSCM) and MG has recently seen a

drastic growth in the participation of athletes,

operating expenses and expenses for technological

information. The event size is steadily increasing.

With this increasing size, it is important to introduce

practices to ensure transfer of knowledge into the

future as long been advocated and currently being

instituted into the Olympic Games (Fuhrer, 2002).

494

Rahman Abdul Ghaffar A., Beydoun G., Shen J., Tibben W. and Xu D..

A Synthesis of a Knowledge Management Framework for Sports Event Management.

DOI: 10.5220/0004065004940499

In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Software Paradigm Trends (ICSOFT-2012), pages 494-499

ISBN: 978-989-8565-19-8

 2012 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

Table 1: KM Framework Comparison.

Framework

User Organization, Usage

Goal

Knowledge

Agents

KM/BSC

Model (Aidermark

and Sterner, 2003)

Matsushita ltd, source of

competitive intelligence for

business

Systemic, resource

oriented/technical,

organizational

European KM

Framework (Weber

et.al, 2002)

European KM Organization,

Standardization of European

KM services

Intellectual,

scientific,

technological and

economic

HA/DR KM

framework

(Dongsong, Zhou and

Nunamaker, 2002)

Humanitarian Assistance/

Disaster Relief, Knowledge

as a power to make decision

Architecture, internet

as channel,

knowledge base

KM Network (V. d.

Spek and Spijkervet,

2002)

CIBIT Consultants, KM as a

continuous learning process

Internal influences

and external

influences

KM Systems (Lacher

and Koch, 2000)

Organizations with KMIT

systems, KM support

functionalities in a distributed

environment

Shared info and team

knowledge domain

KM Support

Framework (Hahn

and Subramani 2001)

Organizations with KMS

Systems to balance info

overload and maintenance

Motivation of users

to use KM systems

KM SECI Model

(Nonaka and

Takeuchi, 1995)

Common in KM practice KM

Process (SECI) to support

knowledge creation

KM methodology

and technique

This fast growth is creating a number of challenges.

Schumakrer et al (2009) demonstrate that there is a

vast amount of knowledge associated with sports

events. This includes:

 knowledge relating to the actual sporting

happenings (for example, relating to players

and coaching); and

 knowledge about the actual organising of the

events (for example, relating to the venues and

cost (Schumaker et al., 2009).

Making sense of both types of knowledge is

important for different decision making stakeholders

such as the managers, organisers and coaches. Our

focus in this research is on the second area identified

by Shumaker et; al which is knowledge relating to

enabling more effective event organising. From a

governance perspective, this is quite significant

given the large-scale public investment made in

organising events. For example, many new facilities

and venues may be required. These may turn out to

be a financial burden on the host cities, and thus

constitute a financial risk. Previous work in this

research was directed at better defining knowledge

process failures and bottlenecks in the MG (Ghaffer

et al., 2011). We methodically applied the context

analysis templates of knowledge analysis

methodology, CommonKADS (Schreiber et al,

2000), to analyse the context of the Malaysian

Games. That analysis uncovered these key existing

problems in the MG current practices:

 Duties and responsibilities are not sustained

between events;

 The IT Unit’s overreliance on outsourcing;

and

 subsequent problems related to ownership of

games management systems.

Most sports events management problems

encountered are often unexpected and can invariably

be traced to inadequate coordination or specialized

knowledge/resources. We aim to improve the

coordination of information, the usage of resources

or identify lacking areas within the sports

organization. We pursue a KM framework which

can offer incremental improvements. KM

frameworks have been presented in many other

areas. Heisig (2009) identified 160 KM frameworks

that have been built from 1995 to 2003. None of

which however is geared towards sports events

organising. Our own research could not find any

specific sports events KM framework in (2003-

2011) other than that produced by Schumaker et.al

(2009) which has resulted in a Sports Knowledge

Framework, but its focus is on the use of data

mining and data management (via statistics analysis

and machine learning).

3 THE PROPOSED SPORTS

EVENT MANAGEMENT KM

FRAMEWORK

Rubenstein-Montano et al. (2001) distinguish three

types of KM frameworks: Prescriptive frameworks

prescribing different ways to engage in knowledge

management activities; Descriptive frameworks

identifying attributes of knowledge management

important for their influence on the success or

failure of knowledge management initiatives; or

hybrid frameworks combining both. We develop a

hybrid KM framework that can be applied to various

sports event organisational environments. It

describes a method to connect entities involved

through their perspectives of needing use of

information and improved knowledge standard. This

new KM framework, The Sports Event Management

KM framework (SEMKM Framework), aims to

overcome knowledge sharing problems related

sports event management. It focuses on core

resources of knowledge, communication enablers,

KM activities, business processes and sports

knowledge databases. The preparation of the

A Synthesis of a Knowledge Management Framework for Sports Event Management

495

SEMKM Framework will identify problems and

prescribe opportunities to resolve them through

improved KM practices. Based on the context

analysis that we carried out previously in (Ghaffer

et. Al, 2011), we intend to apply our framework to

the Malyasian Games context. The use of this new

KM framework will highlight the need of some

organisational reform actions. It will highlight the

need to add new elements to existing processes to

solve existing problems based on strengthening the

KM processes in the organization. New or modified

business processes are expected to enable positive

impact for the current operations of the sports event

management. Towards developing our SEMKM

Framework, we have identified four views of

knowledge as used with the context of sports events

organising and management:

Knowledge in People: The management must

identify those people with the necessary knowledge

(guided by the KM framework). Through a planned

strategy, staff will be directly involved in KM

initiatives conducted. Knowledge, qualifications and

experiences will be fully utilized in achieving the

goals of the organization. Staff are also encouraged

to share ideas and always use quality knowledge

with efforts to improve work performance.

Knowledge in Organization: The organization

should carry out variety of programs that can foster

the development of KM. This will involve business

process reengineering and requires thorough

analysis. Once the information is collected and

analysed, the organization must commit to undertake

KM strategic planning. Specifically for sports event

management, all elements of internal, external,

business process and operations of the whole must

be studied and understood before the introduction of

a new business process.

KM Infrastructure: KM is new in sports event

organization. Therefore, planning should be done to

enable the provision of infrastructure performed

well. In the sports event in Malaysia as an example,

it involved only a small group of sub-department

and the focus will only be given to them. In

preparing the infrastructure, the most attention are

the guidelines, financial aspects, knowledge basic

needs and appropriate technology to use. This

infrastructure will function well if all the KM

prerequisites have been met and any existing

inadequacies should be highlighted by the

framework.

KM Activities: To ensure that the principles of KM

functions properly, the sports event organization

should be cognisant of KM practices and goals as

relating to their activities and the measures that need

to be in place. This is an implementation awareness,

with emphasis on continuous knowledge creation

process, storage, efficient distribution in conformity

with the sports event requirements. In the rest of this

section, we describe this synthesis layered process,

justifying the need for each layer.

Layer 1: Knowledge Resources

Figure 1: Layer 1 (L1).

Individual Knowledge: Each individual in the

organization has the resources needed to generate

knowledge management. Individual knowledge

refers to knowledge of those who have long worked

in this field.

Organizational Knowledge: Knowledge from

several subunits or groups can be combined and

used to create new knowledge. Tacit and explicit

knowledge capabilities become a key of

organizational knowledge. Using the Games

Management Systems as a point of reference, during

and after the MG leads to lessons learned over the

events conducted.

Corporate Memory: A corporate memory for

this area focuses on the combination of a repository,

data and information that allow sports communities

to interact with the systems (Beydoun 2009;

Beydoun 2011). For example, in MG, The National

Sports Council Athletes and Coaches databases

currently facilitates the related tasks. However, there

is still much room for improvement as much

knowledge and information especially from 2000

and previous years have not managed properly.

Layer 2: Communication Enabler

Communication Channels: The sports KM systems

will offer multiple communication platforms to

connect specific knowledge, functions and sub-units

with users, as well as sharing ideas, knowledge and

understanding.

a) Internet/Intranet: The most common

problems encountered concern on the internet

infrastructure is for the preparation of the venues

which is quite distant from major cities as well as

needed technology. In Addition, there are hosting

states that do not host have a strong internet

ICSOFT 2012 - 7th International Conference on Software Paradigm Trends

496

infrastructure and requires additional work to be

done in advance .

b) Websites: A games website is the most

important source of information. It should be able to

effectively disseminate sports knowledge.

c) Sports Portals: A sports portal has been

developed by the NSCM and is being used in

everyday tasks. Nevertheless, it does not have any

direct relationship to all the systems used in MG has

been provided by external providers. Therefore,

knowledge sharing does not occur effectively.

d) Networking, Wireless, Cabling Based on

the current situation, every time MG will be held,

almost all matters relating to infrastructure will be

repeated and should be developed from scratch.

Figure 2: Layer 2 (L2).

Interconnections: The work undertaken here requires

expertise in ICT, mass communications and

engineering. There is much specialized knowledge

to be shared, especially in terms of procedures and

protocols used to ensure the event takes place

effectively and efficiently.

Layer 3: KM Activities

The task to be done in the sports event management

will be implemented in stages. Certainly it involves

processes deployed and arranged to meet the

recommendations made. KM activities carried out

are as follows:

K-Identification: Internal Analysis/Identification of

Existing Knowledge/Identification of current

steps/ Methods and tools.

K-Acquisition: Acquire knowledge –

suppliers/customers/specialists/sports

products/sports partnership.

K-Application: Ensure appropriate knowledge used

in organizations/knowledge needs/knowledge to be

created, stored and shared/Identify knowledge

gaps/representation of new knowledge.

K-Sharing: Transfer of knowledge/sharing in various

way – manual or computerized/Methods and

tools/ acceptance of knowledge provided by

colleagues, partners and suppliers.

K-Development: Compliments K-Acquisition/Build

Distinctiveness Competencies/Focus on

conceptual, behavioural and technical

abilities/overall improvement.

K-Creation: Creation of new knowledge – social

interaction/services improvement

activities/Research and development/Communities

of Practice/encourage staff to bring in their explicit

and tacit knowledge.

K-Preservation: Through Culture – Promote

knowledge sharing and Communities of

Practice/Through

Technology – store selective current/ retrieve

specialized knowledge for constant usage /Capture,

Use and Reuse and Update concept.

K-Measurement: To measure the effectiveness of

KM/Individual reactions and feelings/Individual

knowledge assessment exercise/Evaluate overall k-

base/Performance focus.

Figure 3: Layer 3 (L3).

Layer 4: KM Input/KM Output/ Business

Process/Business Focus

KM Input: This process refers to the internal and

external MG particular items, product, devices or

mechanisms that can be used for the purpose of

triggering the progression of a KM process in sports

event management. Examples are: data and

information of individual results, athletes, Officials

and contingents.

KM Output: A final product in the MG after

passing through the diversity of the KM knowledge

process in the organization and is ready for use by

sports users. An example is the daily results report.

Business Process: A collection of MG

management activities designed to produce a

specific sports managment output. It implies a strong

emphasis on how sports event management is done.

Currently, the MG Standard Procedure by the

NSCM has been used as the basis for organizing the

MG. There seems to be room to improve the

business process. KM can be included as an

additional element. Example: decision making in

A Synthesis of a Knowledge Management Framework for Sports Event Management

497

accessing athletes and contingent performance.

Business Focus: Helps in defining the MG

organization, give direction and avoid problems. It

can help motivate members by communicating what

the organization is striving for as well as providing a

basis for recognizing accomplishments and

successes. Example: Decision about the focus of the

MG and the allocation for the next organizing.

Figure 5: Layer 4 (L4).

Layer 5: Sports KM Database (SKMD)

A sports KM database is a collection of sports

knowledge that is organized so that it can easily be

accessed, managed and updated. This aspect is the

responsibility of the ICT Unit of the NSC. Currently,

the system in use is operated separately and have the

two entities that manage them, consisting of the

NSC IT Unit and developers from outside of the

organization. Improvements process should be done

to create a foundation that can support the proposed

knowledge management implementation

accordingly.

Figure 6: Layer 5 (L5).

4 DISCUSSION, VALIDATION

PLAN AND CONCLUSION

Our SEMKM framework is flexible. Its use will be

based on needs and size of the future events.

Foreseen advantages of using it are as follows:

 SEMKM Framework can be used as a tool for

decision making to provide a description of all

kinds of knowledge and information needed by the

organization. Knowledge requirements are

identified and the analysis is the basis for

systematic development.

 It can improve the quality of the organisational

processes, targeting specific characteristics of

organizational management, data management and

knowledge flow networks.

 With all aspects of processes will documented,

it aims to reduce repetition of work, provide

guidance and prepare for new changes. In addition,

it will provide updates, current guidelines and is

easily accessible by all involved in the MG.

 SEMKM Framework will provide methods of

information sharing, knowledge capture and

knowledge generation. It can also be used to

coordinate the knowledge effectively.

 SEMKM Framework can also be used to

introduce a knowledge-based decision support tool

for use in the management of the organization, and

possibly other methods aimed at cultivating a

technology based organization with methods to

strengthen the knowledge management in the

sports event management.

The framework will be initially validated and refined

through a detailed case study applying it to MG. We

have developed a detailed survey to capture the

contextual conditions, focussing is on contemporary

events, and the experience of the actors involved.

We conducted a pilot test on 35 respondents with the

aim to test the effectiveness of the validation

methods to be used for SEMKM Framework

developed. Respondents were given a set of

questionnaire containing 76 questions which are

linked directly to the problem being studied. A total

of eight categories were determined. Questions were

submitted in the categories of KM Adoption, Sports

Knowledge in MG, Knowledge in SE organizing,

Awareness KM, KM Systems, Knowledge and IT,

KM and IT Performance and others. From the

analysis, we found that all categories of questions,

showed the respondents chose agree and strongly

agree responses for each question. It indicated that

50-60% of the respondents agreed with our

assumption in strengthening knowledge

management in the sports event management. For

the next task, the number of questions is to be

increased to 84 questions, 405 respondents have

been identified, and the questionnaire has been

strengthened to ensure that the data obtained later

will be accurate.

The developed framework is a road map to

improve the sports event management. By creating

KM centric processes, it can be used in improving

the effectiveness of the organization's management.

We have been assuming that there are advantages

and disadvantages in running the sports event

management and it has been sketched in the

framework. Further validation is required. Survey

based methods have been identified as a suitable tool

for the validation process of frameworks (Tran et al,

2006; Beydoun et al 2006). They will identify

ICSOFT 2012 - 7th International Conference on Software Paradigm Trends

498

specific aspects of the review and see whether the

proposed framework can be used or not. The

proposed survey will be at the same time a tool to

apply KM in the organization after identifying the

needs of the organization and having examined all of

the assumptions made. Through the survey, data and

information required to be obtained accurately. The

questions answered by the respondents would give a

sign of an impact on the development and

implementation of this framework. After the

analysis is made, the proposed KM framework will

be reviewed and improved before it is proposed to

use the field of sports event management on a

second validation case study.

REFERENCES

Aidemark, J., and Sterner, H. 2003. “A Framework for

Strategic Balancing of Knowledge Management

Initiatives.” Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii

International Conference on System Workshop

Sciences. 6 -9 Jan 2003, Hawaii, USA.

Alavi, M., and Leidner, D. E. 2001. “Knowledge

Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and

Research Issues.” Management Information Systems

Quarterly (25:1), pp 107-136.

Benbasat I, Goldstein D and Mead M (1987) „The Case

Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems‟

MIS Quarterly Vol. 11, pp. 369-386.

Beydoun, G., Gonzalez-Perez, C., et al. (2006).

“Developing and Evaluating a Generic Metamodel for

MAS Work Products“. Software Engineering for

Multi-Agent Systems IV: Research Issues and

Practical Applications. A. Garcia, R. Choren, C.

Lucenaet al. Berlin, Springer-Verlag. LNCS 3914:

126-142.

Beydoun, G. (2009). "Formal concept analysis for an e-

learning semantic web". Expert Systems with

Applications 36(8).

Beydoun, G., Lopez-Lorca, A. et al. (2011). “How do we

measure and improve the quality of a hierarchical

ontology?” Journal of Systems and Software 84 (12):

2363-2373.

CEN (2004), European Guide to good Practice in

Knowledge Management. CWA 14924, Part 1 – 5,

European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.

Dongsong Z., Hou, L., and Nunamaker, Jr. J. F. 2002. “A

Knowledge Management Framework for The Support

of Decision Making in Humanitarian

Assistance/Disaster Relief.” Knowledge and

Information Systems Springer-Verlag (4:3) July, pp

370-385.

Eisenhardt K (1989). Building Theories from Case Study

Research‟ Academy of Management Review Vol.14,

No 4, pp. 532-550.

Fuhrer, F. 2002. Sustainable Olympic Games: a dream or

reality? Bollettino della Societa Geografica, Italiana,

Serie XII, Vol VII, 4.

Ghaffar A. R. A., Beydoun G., Shen J., Tibben W. 2011.

“Towards Knowledge Management in sports event

management: Context Analysis of Malaysian biannual

games with CommonKADS”, Proceedings of the 6

International Conference on Software and Database

Technologies (ICSOFT2011), Volume 2, pp. 377-383.

Halbwirth, S., and Toohey, K. 2001. The Olympic Games

and Knowledge Management: A Case Study of the

Sydney Organising Committee of the Olympic Games.

European Sport Management Quarterly (1:2), June,

pp. 91-111.

Heisig, P. (2009). Harmonisation of knowledge

management – comparing 160 KM frameworks around

the globe. Journal of Knowledge Management. vol. 13

no.4, pp 4-31.

Hevner, A. R, March, S. T, Park, J. and Ram, S. 2004.

‘Design science in information systems research’. MIS

Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 75–106.

Lacher, M. S., and Koch, M. 2000. “An Agent-based

Knowledge Management Framework.” American

Association for Artificial Intelligence Workshop on

Bringing Knowledge to Business Processes, 20-22

March, 2000.

Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. 1995. The Knowledge-

Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create

the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Rubenstein-Montano, B., Liebowitz, J., Buchwalter, J.,

McCaw, D., Newman, B., Rebeck, K and The

Knowledge Management Methodology Team (2001),

‘‘A systems thinking framework for knowledge

management’’, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 31, pp.

5-16.

Sadrei, E., Aurum, A., et al. “A Field Study of the

Requirements Engineering Practice in Australian

Software Industry”, International Journal

Requirements Engineering Journal 12 (2007), pp.

145–162.

Schreiber, G., Akkermans, H., Anjewierden, R., Hoog, R.,

Shadbolt, N., Velde, W.V., and Wielinga, B. 2000.

Knowledge Engineering and Management: the

CommonKADS Methodology. Boston, MA: MIT

Press.

Schumaker, R., Solieman, O., & Chen, H., (2009). Sports

Knowledge Management and Data Mining. Annual

Review of Information Science and Technology, 44.

Tran, QNN, Low, GC et. al, “A Methodological

Framework for Ontology Centric Agent Oriented

Software Engineering”, International Journal of

Computer Systems Science and Engineering, 21, 117-

132, 2006.

Weber, F., Wunram, M., Kemp, J., Pudlatz, M., and

Bredehorst, B. 2002. “Standardisation in Knowledge

management – towards a common KM framework in

Europe.” Proceedings of UNICOM Seminar. 27

February, 2002. London.

A Synthesis of a Knowledge Management Framework for Sports Event Management

499