Balancing value and risk within a city's event portfolio: an explorative study of DMO professionals' assessments
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose This study aims to advance both theory and praxis for event portfolio management in cities and destinations. An experiment has been conducted with professional event practitioners in a city to determine their opinions and strategies for balancing value and risk within their event portfolio. The first objective is to rank 14 of the city's recurring events in terms of both value and risk. Second, the events are plotted in a two-dimensional chart of value versus risk with the objective to differentiate between the 14 events. The third objective is to describe the event characteristics that event professionals associate with value and risk. Design/methodology/approach Results derive from an experiment involving the forced Q-sort procedure and professional event managers from a city renowned as an “event capital”. Empirical evidence is analysed by the constant comparative method of how events are being evaluated by ten professionals working for a DMO. Findings Economic impact and image effects are characteristics of high-value events as is an opportunity to create relations with event owners for future collaboration. Local community involvement is important for all events. The issue of portfolio fit was a common argument for weak-value events. Research limitations/implications Results are based on the opinions of ten DMO employees in one large city. Conclusions help build event portfolio theory. Practical implications The results and methods are useful for event strategists and evaluators. In particular, the management of event portfolios and policies covering events in cities and destinations can benefit from the documented method for explicitly balancing risks with perceived value. Social implications A portfolio perspective is also suggested as an approach to analyse the total tourist attractions portfolio of a destination. Originality/value Opinions regarding public value and risk by civil servants who work with events have not been studied before. The constant comparative method produces results that can be applied to policies governing events. In terms of theory development, concepts from financial portfolio management, product portfolio management and risk management are used to develop event portfolio design and management, and insights are gained on trade-offs in the process. The plot of the events in a two-dimensional chart of value versus risk clearly differentiated the 14 events and is an original contribution.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».