European Sport Management Quarterly

ISSN: 1618-4742 (Print) 1746-031X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/resm20

The evolution of knowledge management and

transfer processes from domestic to international
multi-sport events

Jessie Schenk, Milena M. Parent, Darlene MacDonald & Laurence Proulx

Therrien

To cite this article: Jessie Schenk, Milena M. Parent, Darlene MacDonald & Laurence Proulx
Therrien (2015) The evolution of knowledge management and transfer processes from
domestic to international multi-sport events, European Sport Management Quarterly, 15:5,
535-554, DOI: 10.1080/16184742.2015.1091022

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2015.1091022

Published online: 07 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 20

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=resm20

Download by: [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] Date: 16 December 2015, At: 13:21
 EUROPEAN SPORT MANAGEMENT QUARTERLY, 2015
VOL. 15, NO. 5, 535–554
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2015.1091022

The evolution of knowledge management and transfer

processes from domestic to international multi-sport events
Jessie Schenka, Milena M. Parenta,b , Darlene MacDonalda and Laurence Proulx
Therriena
a
Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Human Kinetics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada;
b
Department of Cultural and Social Studies, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, Norway
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:21 16 December 2015

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Research question: We examined the knowledge management and Received 11 December 2014
transfer (KM/KT) process within two domestic and two Accepted 2 September 2015
international sports events, and determined whether the
KEYWORDS
similarities and differences between these four KM/KT processes Knowledge management;
could lend themselves to a single, overall sport event KM/KT knowledge transfer; sports
process. events; stakeholders
Research methods: Four case studies were built by means of an
analysis of 58 interviews and 598 document pages: 2012 Ontario
Summer Games (OSG), 2013 Canada Games (CG), 2014
Commonwealth Games, and 2015 Pan American Games.
Results and findings: Findings highlight the importance of internal
and external knowledge tailoring, as well as individuals’ tacit
knowledge. KM/KT processes evolved in sophistication from the
OSG (rather linear), through the CG, which includes a feedback
loop due to the test event aspect, then to a continual feedback
loop for the international events. A generic KM/KT process was
therefore developed for domestic events through to the Olympic
Games.
Implications: The organizing committee’s lifespan may influence the
effectiveness of the KM/KT process and its benefits. Rights holders
should manage the process themselves and include stakeholders
in the process. From a theoretical standpoint, the similar KM/KT
process undertaken by event stakeholders for small through
Olympic-level events, regardless of the existence of a formal event
KM/KT process, demonstrates the transferability potential of KM/
KT findings between event levels.

Cities and countries new to the mega-event bidding world face a steep learning curve.
Some have sought to host smaller events and/or single-sport events (e.g. provincial,
national, or international championships) to gain the necessary infrastructure and knowl-
edge before trying for a mega event (cf. Chappelet, 2005). Hosting major sports requires
organizers to learn from past events in the region, as well as from past organizing commit-
tees of the same event, to not repeat mistakes (Parent, MacDonald, & Goulet, 2014; Parent
& Smith-Swan, 2013). It is therefore not surprising that the International Olympic Com-
mittee (IOC) acknowledged the importance of knowledge transfer (KT) when creating the

CONTACT Milena M. Parent milena.parent@uottawa.ca

© 2015 European Association for Sport Management
 536 J. SCHENK ET AL.

Olympic Games Knowledge Management (OGKM) program (see Halbwirth & Toohey,
2001).
Although Parent et al. (2014) examined knowledge management (KM) in an Olympic
context, proportionally fewer cities host the Olympic Games than lower-tier international
sports events, and even fewer than domestic sports events. Many, if not most, of these
smaller events do not have a KM process; if they do, it is likely not as extensive as the
OGKM. Yet, small and large events are thought to be mechanisms for regions to leverage
potential outcomes and legacies, such as social, economic, health, and other types of
impacts (Chalip, 2004, 2006; Chalip & Leyns, 2002).
Regardless of the sophistication of an event’s KM process, sports events require the
coordination of a multitude of stakeholders who impact or are affected by the actions
of the organizing committee: different levels of government, the community, sponsors,
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:21 16 December 2015

the media organizations, the various levels and types of sport organizations involved
and/or holding the rights to the event, and the delegations (i.e. the actual athletes, their
coaches/trainers, and support staff) (Emery, 2010; Halbwirth & Toohey, 2013; Parent,
2008). These stakeholders are therefore involved in exchanging knowledge, and thus, in
the event’s KM process, whatever that may be. However, as the Olympic Games are a
unique, global phenomenon at the top of the mega-event hierarchy, there is a need to
examine KM processes occurring in other events of all levels. By doing so, best practices,
experiences, and areas for improvement for the various event levels can be elucidated.
The purpose of this study is therefore to examine the KM/KT process in four different
events, two domestic and two international sports events, respectively: 2012 Ontario
Summer Games (OSG), 2013 Canada Games (CG), 2014 Commonwealth Games
(CWG), and 2015 Pan American Games (PAG), so as to determine: (1) the KM/KT
process within each event and (2) whether the similarities and differences between these
KM/KT processes lend themselves to a single, overall KM process. We contribute to the lit-
erature by examining different levels of sports events, by providing a generic KM/KT process
for sports events, and by suggesting that a key aspect is knowledge tailoring both internally,
upon acquisition of the knowledge, and externally for subsequent transfer.

Overview of the literature

In 1999, the IOC began its Transfer of Knowledge program with the 2000 Sydney Olympic
Games in order to assist future organizing committees of Olympic Games or OCOGs
(Chappelet, 2001). However, such KT capacities/processes do not necessarily exist for
other events, as well as stakeholder groups – notably for host cities/governments, for spon-
sors, and for the National Olympic Committees who see their (sponsorship) rights trans-
ferred to the OCOG for seven years if they are the host country. The strategic and
procedural/organizational importance of prior (contextual and event hosting) knowledge
has been highlighted by various researchers, who have called for further research on KM/
KT processes (e.g. Frawley & Toohey, 2009; Getz, 2007; Halbwirth & Toohey, 2001; Parent
& Smith-Swan, 2013; Toohey & Halbwirth, 2005).
Knowledge can be explicit or tacit, where explicit knowledge is more easily written or
codified, while tacit knowledge is unstated and developed through experience and hands-
on activities (Nonaka, 1994). Nonaka (1994) argued tacit and explicit knowledge can be
transferred and converted in the following way:
 EUROPEAN SPORT MANAGEMENT QUARTERLY 537

. Tacit knowledge can be converted to new tacit knowledge through socialization;

. Explicit knowledge can be converted to new explicit knowledge through combination;
. Tacit knowledge can be converted to explicit knowledge through externalization; and
. Explicit knowledge can be converted to tacit knowledge through internalization
(learning).
Knowledge creation in an organization is thought to rely on the interplay between these
four processes, and especially ‘on the interchange between these two aspects of knowledge
through internalization and externalization’ (Nonaka, 1994, p. 20). Additionally, for an
organization, knowledge creation can also be enhanced by the organization through a sup-
portive environment for individuals to create knowledge and ensure the knowledge
created becomes a part of the organization’s knowledge system (Nonaka, 1994). This
may be accomplished by (1) supporting informal social interaction between organizational
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:21 16 December 2015

members and placing value on informal groups that may include external sources; (2)
ensuring there is a system to integrate appropriate knowledge that may be gained by
these interactions; and (3) establishing formal interactions with stakeholders. These differ-
ent levels (individuals, groups, and the organization) may interact to increase knowledge
resources and engage the knowledge creation process known as the knowledge creation
spiral (Nonaka, 1994), which constitutes the theoretical foundation for this paper.
Heisig (2009) reviewed 160 KM frameworks worldwide and found the most frequently
discussed KM activities to be knowledge acquisition, application, creation, identification,
storage, and transfer. The knowledge involved in these activities may be considered as
falling somewhere within the information–knowledge continuum (see Parent et al.,
2014, for more information). This continuum highlights that information and knowledge
are related and can be considered based on the tacit/explicit nature of the knowledge
involved in these activities. Thus, both content and process can be examined in regard
to knowledge and KT within and between sport events stakeholders.
Although KM’s components, impacts, and positive effects have been widely documen-
ted within the business and management field (e.g., Arling & Chun, 2011; Assundani,
2005; Edvardsson & Durst, 2013; Evanschitzky, Ahlert, Blaich, & Kenning, 2007; Haghir-
ian, 2010; Hoe & McShane, 2010; Liyanage, Elhag, Ballal, & Li, 2009; Yang, 2007), there is
little research on knowledge, KM, and related processes in the sport management domain
(Byers, Slack, & Parent, 2012). Exceptions include research on national sport organizations
(O’Reilly & Knight, 2007), regional tourism networks (Werner, Dickson, & Hyde, 2015),
and the Olympic Games (Frawley & Toohey, 2009; Halbwirth & Toohey, 2001; Singh &
Hu, 2008; Toohey & Halbwirth, 2005). Of interest for the present study is the recent devel-
opment of a KM/KT model for the Olympic Games by Parent et al. (2014), which included
(1) knowledge needs identification and looking to individuals’ past-Games experiences; (2)
knowledge adoption through acquiring knowledge using various tools and storage mech-
anisms; (3) internal KT that fostered knowledge creation and learning; (4) knowledge
application through the use of best practices and training individuals; and (5) knowledge
tailoring for external KT to the next organizing committee as well as other stakeholders.
This study can be seen as an extension of Parent et al.’s work, as it examined the same KM
processes, but at lower-level events (i.e. domestic and lower-tier international events). As
Werner et al. (2015) expressed, ‘the specific forms of knowledge acquired in the context of
hosting mega-events, as well as the transfer channels through which knowledge flows,
remain unclear’ (p. 174). For some events, it is an informal system that is not overly
 538 J. SCHENK ET AL.

detailed. This may be the case for the lower-level events, such as the OSG, which do not
have a formal KM system. Thus, the complexity and unique context of sports events war-
rants the need for additional research that examines the potential benefits of prior experi-
ences and KT for the delivery of a successful sport event (Parent & Smith-Swan, 2013). As
Toohey and Halbwirth (2005) explained, the KM approach offers the potential to take the
insights, identify best practices and knowledge outcomes from specific events, and disse-
minate these for the use and development by future event organizing committees and
stakeholders.

Method
Four cases were examined: one provincial-level event and one national-level event (OSG
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:21 16 December 2015

and CG, respectively) and two international events (CWG and PAG). Case studies have
been shown to be valuable for providing in-depth knowledge of complex events as they
unfold over time, particularly for under-examined issues and when researchers plan to
develop new theoretical models about these issues (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007;
Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Yin, 2009). The embedded, multiple-case approach taken here
(see Yin, 2009) allowed us to draw conclusions across cases and event levels, so as to
increase findings transferability, while the stakeholder group-level (see Parent & Smith-
Swan, 2013) as primary level of analysis allowed us to examine group/organizational
aspects, with the stakeholder representative interviews allowing us to consider the individ-
ual level while analyzing the data. The case study settings are first described followed by
the data collection and analysis techniques.

Case study settings

All four cases were summer, multi-sport events. Their choice was a combination of con-
venience (access, location, and timing) and purposive sampling (variety/level of events and
events of potential interest to the funding agency). This study was part of a larger project
examining stakeholder coordination and KM in different sports events.

Ontario Summer Games

The 2012 OSG occurred on 16–19 August 2012, with athletes from cities across the pro-
vince of Ontario (Canada) participating in 28 sports. The 2012 OSG were mainly held in
Toronto, although some events took place in two surrounding municipalities. The event
involved 3086 participants, which included athletes aged 13–18, coaches, managers, and
officials. The Games organizing committee existed for 15 months, had 35 members,
and included an executive committee and 13 sub-committees. Approximately 150 volun-
teers played an active role either participating in the organizing committee or assisting in
sub-committees. In total, there were 2000 volunteers. The event’s rights holder was the
Sport Alliance of Ontario, and it did not have a formal KM/KT system in place.

Canada Games
The 2013 CG took place in Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada, 2–17 August 2013, and show-
cased 4200 athletes aged 15–21 from across Canada, competing in 20 sports. The organiz-
ing committee was incorporated in August 2009 and was still in existence as of the time of
 EUROPEAN SPORT MANAGEMENT QUARTERLY 539

writing, with only two part-time employees left until the final audit of the financial state-
ments is completed. The event was organized with the help of 100 staff and over 6000 vol-
unteers. In 2009, the rights holder, the Canada Games Council, instituted a formal KT
system to create efficiencies within organizing committees by reducing organizing com-
mittees’ human resource and/or operating costs throughout all CG operational areas.
The Canada Games Council manages all CG KT including bid development, overseeing
organizing committees throughout planning and organizing stages, successful Games
delivery, and drafting final results and reports (Canada Games Council, 2010).

Commonwealth Games
The 2014 CWG occurred on 23 July to 3 August 2014, in Glasgow, Scotland. There were
4929 athletes from 71 nations/territories competing in 17 sports (Commonwealth Games
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:21 16 December 2015

Federation (CGF), 2014). The organizing committee was incorporated in 2007 and was
still in existence (as of the time of writing). The event involved 1400 employees and
15,000 volunteers. The event’s rights holder was the CGF. The CGF retained Event Knowl-
edge Services (EKS) to manage the CWG KM program. EKS was a commercial organiz-
ation that evolved out of the KM program from the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games. EKS
operated independently of the CGF, was responsible for developing the CWG KM
program, and provided an extranet with manuals and other documentation for approved
users to access (Commonwealth Games Federation, 2011).

Pan American Games

The 2015 PAG took place on 10–26 July 2015, in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and 15 other
municipalities in Southern Ontario. The event was hosted by 400 paid staff and 20,000 vol-
unteers, and included over 6000 athletes from 41 nations competing in 36 sports. The
organizing committee was incorporated on 21 January 2010. The event’s rights holder
is the Pan American Sports Organization. The event does not have a formal KM/KT
system in place; however, the organizing committee intended to include KT as a legacy
for future organizers, stakeholders, and the host region.

Data collection
At the time of data collection, two events had occurred (the OSG and CG), one was in the
implementation mode (CWG) and one was in the planning mode (PAG). Comparing
these events at different lifecycle modes allowed us to consider the temporal element in
the analysis. Data were collected primarily from semi-structured interviews and supported
by archival material (cf. Yin, 2009). Interviewees were recruited from each organizing
committee and stakeholder group identified by Parent (2008). We conducted telephone,
Skype, or in-person interviews with 10 OSG participants; 17 CG participants; 10 CWG
participants, plus archival material in lieu of an interview for one stakeholder (due to
the participant’s preference, for a total of 11 participants); and 20 PAG participants
(14 interviews and 6 online questionnaires due to the participants’ preference/request).
We acknowledge the archival material and online questionnaire options were not ideal,
as they provided more succinct answers, but they ensured stakeholder group
representation. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the participants by stakeholder group.
The interview guide can be found in the Appendix. Interviewing stopped once all
 540 J. SCHENK ET AL.

Table 1. Number of participants by event and stakeholder group.

Stakeholder
group 2012 OSG 2013 CG 2014 CWG 2015 PAG
Organizing (1) General Manager (4) Venue Director; (1) Director of (2) Director, Project
Committee of Games Volunteer Coordinators (2); Technology Management; Sr. VP
CEO Games Operations
Host (1) Provincial (4) Federal – Program (1) Documentation (5) Manager Games
governments Government Director; Federal – Senior submission Coordination; Director,
Representative Program Officer; Provincial Social Engagement;
– Ministry of Education, Assistant Deputy
Leisure Manager; Provincial Minister; Manager, Pan
– Ministry of Education, Am Initiative; Acting
Leisure Sport Analyst Director for Recreation
and Culture
Delegations (1) National Sport (1) Acting Director of Sport (2) Chief Executive (1) International and
Organization Coach Officers (2) National Sport Event
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:21 16 December 2015

Organizer
Media (1) Print News (1) Marketing and (2) Editor Olympics; (2) Executive Director;
Representative Advertising Specialist Commonwealth Sports editor
Games, Sportswriter
Sport (4) Provincial Sport (3) Canada Games Council (2) Technical (7) Media Operations
Organizations Organization – Manager of Sports and Delegate; Chief Officer; Chief Operating
Technical Games; Canada Games Executive Officer Officer; President; CEO;
Representative; Council – Director of CEO/National Coach;
Provincial Sport Marketing and Executive Director;
Organization Communications; Provincial Founder and Vice
President; Sport Representative President
Sport Alliance of National Sport
Ontario Games Organization – Manager of
Consultant; Toronto Operations
Sports Council
Representative
Sponsors (1) Sponsor PR (1) Sponsorship Advisor (1) Commercial (1) Chief Technology
Representative Project Controller Officer
Community (1) Tourism (3) University Athletic (2) Senior Manager; (2) Dean and Professor;
Organization Client Director; Director Dean
Services Manager Sport Tourism and Events
Representative;
Venue Director
Total number 10 17 11 20
of participants

stakeholders groups were represented and saturation was reached. Interviews were tran-
scribed verbatim and verified by the participants to increase trustworthiness.
Next, acquiring and reviewing relevant documents facilitated the examination of
planned and ongoing KM activities. Documents serving to support interviewee statements
and explain processes (e.g. content of a rights holder’s official KM/KT system) were
reviewed, including organizing committee, rights holder and other stakeholders’ websites
(76), press releases (36), newspaper articles (97), administrative documents (166), and
final reports (223) with references to KM/KT. In total, 598 pages were examined.

Data analysis
Data were inputted into ATLAS.ti 7 and content analyzed using the guidelines set out by
Miles and Huberman (1994) and compared through the comparison techniques of Glaser
and Strauss (1967). The data were first deductively coded based on the literature (notably
Heisig’s (2009) six KM activities); and, next, they were inductively coded for other
 EUROPEAN SPORT MANAGEMENT QUARTERLY 541

activities related to KM. Examples of deductive codes used included knowledge identifi-
cation and transfer, whereas, some emerging inductive codes included ‘importance of
people’, ‘use of experience’, and “knowledge adaptation”. The coded passages were then
placed in a table (Miles & Huberman, 1994) to search for relationships between and
among the established categories, facilitating the creation of higher-order themes
(Corley & Gioia, 2004). The KM concepts and definitions, as the respondents perceived
them, provided the basis for collapsing the main categories into themes. Similar themes
were then grouped into multiple overarching dimensions providing the foundation for
the emergent models (Corley & Gioia, 2004). Similar patterns were achieved by comparing
codes from interview transcripts with the codes from the archival data (cf. Miles & Huber-
man, 1994). For instance, two themes that emerged from the data were (a) the importance
of people and (b) tacit knowledge crucial in the KM process. These themes were found to
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:21 16 December 2015

be linked, as tacit knowledge is a key component to a successful Games KM system and

this knowledge does not exist without people. Supporting quotations include: “I think
with the departure of those [knowledgeable] people, that knowledge is lost, and well the
new people who replace them would not gain or acquire that knowledge” (CG Provincial
Government Representative 2) and OSG Provincial Sport Organization Representative 3:
I think that with each Games you learn things and it’s important to summarize those learn-
ings and pass along to your organization. Because [the event] is only every two years and
sports organizations are made up of volunteers, so that knowledge transfer for anything is
always a problem, year after year or down the [road]. Volunteers leave and they take that
knowledge with them.

This relationship then links back to the idea that internally held knowledge poses a
challenge for effective storage and transfer; hence, tacit knowledge is critical for an effec-
tive KM system. These two themes (the importance of people and the value of tacit knowl-
edge) therefore became two key pieces of the KM model.
Next, an initial draft of the models outlining the KM process that occurred in each
event was created. To enhance trustworthiness, the models underwent multiple revisions
as they were compared back to the data (constant comparison technique) and were dis-
cussed with independent colleagues (e.g. at an international conference). The models
were adjusted following these peer feedback sessions and compared to each other, as
well as to Parent et al. (2014), to build the overall model.

Results
Only the CG and CWG had formal KM programs in place. For the OSG and PAG, KM
implementation was left up to the organizing committee’s discretion. For the CG and
CWG, not all stakeholders were aware a KM program existed, indicating these events
may not be optimally engaging with their stakeholders. Additionally, some stakeholders
either did not have access to the event’s KM program or did not see the need to access
it, demonstrating there may be barriers either in knowledge sharing or communication
and trust between stakeholders. This was noted by a CWG Organizing Committee
Representative:
It’s predominantly for the organizing committee. Although, in our case, the Glasgow city
council, the local authority, is responsible for planning some elements and they do have
 542 J. SCHENK ET AL.

access to transfer information, and those things that may be of interest to them. But generally,
it is available only to organizing committees.

No temporal difference was noted amongst the event datasets, other than the PAG sta-
keholders noting they wished for more information but the organizing committee stating
it was not ready yet (too early in the planning process). Thus, the temporal aspect was not
pursued further.
Despite differences in the existence (or not) of a formalized KM/KT process, we found
negligible differences between the domestic events (CG and OSG), and no significant
differences between the international events (CWG and PAG). The international events
had a more sophisticated knowledge spiral occurring, compared to domestic events. As
such, the findings are presented for the domestic events jointly, followed by the inter-
national events jointly. Within each sub-section, we present the findings as they can be
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:21 16 December 2015

read (generally) from left to right in the model, as they were developed based on the
theory and empirics driven.

Domestic events
The only difference found between the two domestic events was a feedback loop for the
CG due to it hosting test events prior to the Games, which provided an opportunity to
learn and tailor and/or create new knowledge. As such, the key processes will be described
jointly. Figure 1 illustrates the KM process in domestic events.

Knowledge identification
The first step was knowledge identification. Respondents described this process as identi-
fying what knowledge was needed and where to find it. The possible knowledge sources
varied (e.g. documents, people, previous Games, past experience), but strong emphasis
was placed on identifying the people with the appropriate knowledge, rather than
simply looking for explicit information. This showed the desire for the individual to
engage in the knowledge creation spiral by targeting the most appropriate source. OSG

Figure 1. Domestic sport event stakeholder KM process.

 EUROPEAN SPORT MANAGEMENT QUARTERLY 543

Rights Holder Representative 1 noted “you identify that a knowledge source exists or you
identify that you, yourself, have the knowledge to be able to deliver your responsibilities
within your portfolio”. CG Rights Holder Representative 2 highlighted the benefit this
offered to the organization and its external stakeholders, “There is an ongoing database
in terms of best practices, information, and resources that are then able to be identified
and used by stakeholder groups.”

Knowledge acquisition, creation and adaptation

Once the necessary knowledge and respective source(s) were identified, one of two things
happened. First, if the identified knowledge already existed, it was simply acquired from
the source. Acquisition was usually obtained from an expert (individual), a lived experi-
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:21 16 December 2015

ence, or a document. OSG Provincial Sport Organization Representative 1 explained,

“If we had any questions, we would acquire that information from the Summer Games
people”. This highlighted the importance of external links in the knowledge creation
spiral. CG Rights Holder Representative 1 highlighted the importance of people as a
knowledge source:
Knowledge acquisition is the utilization of experts; people who have that knowledge, who, it’s
not a book, it’s not a document, it’s not a policy, it’s a person, and being able to connect those
knowledge experts with the appropriate people in Host Societies. So, it’s the [rights holders’]
and the benefit to the Host Society of acquiring that expertise in a person.

Second, if the necessary knowledge did not exist, then it was created. Knowledge cre-
ation meant new knowledge was built, above and beyond what was already known. As
CG Rights Holder Representative 1 explained,
… either due to unique or local circumstances, or for that matter gaps in what we already
have with past knowledge, is where a Host Society has to create from scratch, some pro-
cedure, policy, or any documentation that is brand new, but did not exist in the past.

Another form of knowledge creation occurred where new knowledge was created out of
existing knowledge or by incorporating previous experience or other existing knowledge as
a foundation to build upon. That is, existing knowledge could be adapted through an
internal knowledge tailoring process for application to the current Games context. As
the CG Rights Holder Representative commented,
There is a lot of knowledge in what’s created. Even in the fine-tuning. If it’s a best practice in
2011, and 2013 uses it, I guarantee you they’ve tweaked it a bit, and nine times out of ten,
made it even better.

The need for inclusion of previous experience highlights the value external sources may
play, for example Games gypsies or stakeholders with enduring relationships with another
Games.

Knowledge storage (I)

Once knowledge was acquired or created, it had to be stored in some form for use by the
organizers or stakeholders, as the following quote highlights:
Whether it’s through creation, through transfer of knowledge, that you may not need at
this time, but, you are putting into a resource or putting away in a file that you may
 544 J. SCHENK ET AL.

use in the future, that can help benefit the work that you’re doing. (OSG Rights Holder
Representative 1)

The resource the interviewee referred to can be an individual holding knowledge for the
benefit of the organization, as that knowledge is needed for the organization to undertake
its tasks. However, storing knowledge held in individuals was perceived as being difficult
for many stakeholders: “It’s a problem in all organizations because people are retiring and
taking all their knowledge with them because nobody found a solution to store their
knowledge” (CG Sponsor Representative). This problem exemplifies the need for individ-
ual knowledge to be shared with the group or organization so that, should the individual
depart, the knowledge is not lost and no additional knowledge acquisition is required.
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:21 16 December 2015

Knowledge application
The next KM process that occurred at both events was knowledge application, where
learnings were put into action and knowledge was applied practically. OSG Organizing
Committee Representative 1 described the knowledge application process as “Taking
what we’ve asked them to do and actually doing it”. The example CG Organizing Com-
mittee Representative 2 provided was “to see every training session that we did … to see
it in action”. Therefore, a key instance of knowledge application was to witness event
workforce (e.g. volunteers) applying their learnings as a group come Games-time.
Although the knowledge application process was almost identical between the two
domestic events, there was the presence of a test event at the CG, which introduced a feed-
back loop into the CG KM system. Test events, which were opportunities for various
groups and organizations to formally interact, often for the first time, happened one
year out from the Games, and were described in the following way:
… test events are sports competitions highlighting several of the disciplines that will be part
of the Games. The organization and holding of these test events are the responsibility of the
local sports clubs that oversee the disciplines concerned. These events … enable the Canada
Games organization to do a test run of its various services including health, information tech-
nologies, and accommodations. Staff and volunteers … become familiar with the new com-
petition venues, devices, and equipment. This [provides] an ideal opportunity to recruit and
train volunteers. (Sherbrooke 2013, 2012, para. 4)

CG National Sport Organization Representative 1 discussed the value of the test event
for the CG:
I think most sports are using [test events]. I think it’s important to do it if you are using the
field for the first time. I think it gives you good feedback in order to make appropriate
changes as needed [i.e., knowledge tailoring and/or creation]. In some cases, if the facility
has been used before for an international or national event, maybe there is no need. Then
it becomes more of a good practice for volunteers and for testing the fields.

This participant noted the importance of feedback in order to make “appropriate

changes” for the actual event, thus tailoring and/or creating knowledge for more effective
application come Games-time.

Knowledge storage (II)

After knowledge was applied during the event, it was stored for future use by external sta-
keholders, event owners, or future organizing committees, for instance. Respondents
 EUROPEAN SPORT MANAGEMENT QUARTERLY 545

specified knowledge storage was to ensure knowledge is retained for later transfer and use
for learnings and best practices:
It’s making sure the knowledge isn’t lost. For example, for an event like this, it’s going to
happen in the future. So, make sure whatever knowledge you gain from this experience is
around for the next group that needs that knowledge. (OSG Provincial Government Repre-
sentative 1)

Knowledge storage was achieved through tacit (i.e. individuals) or explicit (i.e. docu-
ments) means. OSG Organizing Committee Representative 2 listed items stored for
future use:
All [Games] information is stored on the back end. So, any tools that would be provided,
including all of the operation manuals, past samples from Games, for instance a sample
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:21 16 December 2015

press release, past budgets, registration forms, all that stuff, would be stored on the back
end. So, … let’s say a registration volunteer, any policy around registration, she could go
in and look at past ones, as well as [those from] these Games.

For the CG, the knowledge storage process was quite similar, though perhaps more
sophisticated or formal. As CG Rights Holder Representative 1 boasted, “The system
we’ve created to store knowledge allows us to actually directly say, ‘Okay, I want to
send this document to this person’s e-mail, cause they need to have it now’ kind of
thing”. He pointed out how important it is for the rights holder to
[Make] sure we’re collecting from the Host Society what they’re producing in terms of knowl-
edge, in terms of physical documentation, and then finding a way to categorize that infor-
mation and then preparing that information for the next phase being the actual transfer of
that knowledge.

Thus, knowledge is stored for the organization’s immediate use or for future transfer/
use by internal or external stakeholders. Determining what knowledge to store, that is,
what knowledge would be of value for the next Games or for the next person in the
same role, should be considered.

Knowledge transfer
Ultimately, these knowledge processes lead to KT. The KT process included information
and knowledge sharing, passing on personal knowledge, and transferring best practices
and recommendations. For example, the 2012 Ontario Summer Games Review and
Legacy Update (City of Toronto, 2013, p.6) outlined, “Through the pilot use of Volunteer2
[volunteer management software] during the 2012 Games, the City of Toronto is now
using Volunteer2 software for managing event volunteers”. This quote indicates best prac-
tices are not only transferred from one Games organizing committee to the next, but also
amongst Games stakeholders.
Most respondents felt KT was the responsibility of the Games rights holder, such as CG
Community Representative 3: “The Canada Games Council is storing – that’s what their
job is – their job is to store [knowledge] and to transfer it”. It was important to identify
what knowledge was worth passing on (e.g. best practices). CG Organizing Committee
Representative 2 suggested a part of KT was for “the Host Society and the Canada
Games Council … to be able to identify what has come out of a Host Society is a best prac-
tice”, so that it can be transferred to the next Games. Thus, knowledge tailoring during KT
should occur, perhaps with the assistance of the rights holder.
 546 J. SCHENK ET AL.

One common theme that emerged was the difficulty in transferring knowledge strictly
through documents and reports. Participants indicated a desire for more meaningful KT,
which meant more tacit knowledge components, rather than explicit knowledge or knowl-
edge that was closer to the information end of the continuum. OSG Organizing Commit-
tee Representative 2 acknowledged this desire and suggested video-based transfers be
considered, as they contain more tacit aspects compared to documents:
I think the transfer of knowledge if that’s what you want to call it, from one to another could
be done in perhaps a more meaningful way with visuals. That’s why we taped our [volunteer]
training. So, maybe, it will be of help to someone to actually visualize the training, to see what
the sporting event looks like, and to actually have a kind of a debrief with the committee in
person as opposed to just reading a document.
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:21 16 December 2015

Thus, findings indicated people should be seen as a knowledge asset, in terms of storing
and transferring knowledge effectively, and should be encouraged and supported in the
knowledge creation spiral in order to increase the knowledge resources for the group
and the organization.

International events
The international events’ KM/KT processes seemed located in the middle of a continuum
between the domestic events’ and the Olympic Games’ processes. Figure 2 illustrates the
KM process for international events, with the key aspects described below.

Knowledge identification
The first step was to identify knowledge needs and sources. Needs were organization-
specific; more generally, however, needs identified were associated with better knowing
each person/organization’s roles and responsibilities (especially those of the organizing
committee), decision-making structures, and operational information (e.g. budget, secur-
ity, stakeholder relationships). The CWG’s formal KM/KT system helped access such
information, as one Organizing Committee Representative noted:

Figure 2. International sport event stakeholder KM process.

 EUROPEAN SPORT MANAGEMENT QUARTERLY 547

The other important resource is what is called the transfer of knowledge program, which is
their library, their repository of information that’s been collected from previous
Commonwealth Games, and also an element of support to that by holding workshops on
very specific things.

Knowledge acquisition, creation, tailoring and storage (I)

Similar to the domestic events, if knowledge existed, it was acquired; if it did not, it was
created. Once acquired/created, it was stored. Knowledge acquisition was often personi-
fied, meaning hiring individuals – and their experiences (tacit knowledge) – was a key
element of the process, in addition to the information taken from documents. As one
of the CWG documents indicated, “The team at Glasgow 2014 is drawn from a number
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:21 16 December 2015

of backgrounds, which brings an effective mix of skills and knowledge from the agency,
sports, and business worlds. Different experiences and expertise, one common goal”
(Glasgow, 2014 Ltd., 2014, para 1). Just as for the domestic events, individuals were
central to the KM/KT process and important for bringing in knowledge valuable to the
organization.
If the appropriate knowledge did not exist, it had to be created. A PAG national sport
organization representative highlighted the importance of being proactive in creating new
knowledge and addressing remaining knowledge needs before the event occurs: “Creation
to me is being more proactive in terms of creating or seeking knowledge that’s required
versus application is receiving and applying”. A CWG municipal representative added
“You learn from the past, but you also try to tailor it as to how it can best work in your
own community”. Once the knowledge was acquired, tailored and/or created, it was
stored for subsequent use. Here, storage meant “The ability to know where things …
not only to keep them, but know where they are, and find them very easily” (PAG
Media Representative 1).

Knowledge application
In order to apply acquired knowledge in a way that would be relevant for the
event’s context, findings indicated it may first have to be adapted or tailored by the
receiver:
It’s how people would eventually apply the knowledge, if they have it. One, is it in a form
that can be applied easily? Or do they have to somehow translate that into something
because sometimes, you have elements and jurisdictions that might work for that particular
jurisdiction but may not work for others, so you have to figure out how you might apply this.
(PAG Provincial Government Representative)

Given a relatively longer life span, international event organizing committees had the
opportunity to undertake test events and other activities, from which they learned and
created new knowledge to fill needs for the main event. A PAG Provincial Sport Organ-
ization Representative noted:
So the door is open in July of 2014. That’s one year out of the games. Test events have to be
delivered to test the facility, test the various venues of all the various sports. And I’m expect-
ing that that’s where a lot of knowledge ramp-up is going to occur.

This feedback loop continued until the end of the event.

 548 J. SCHENK ET AL.

Knowledge storage (II)

International event organizing committees stored knowledge post-Games for potential
future use, whether this was mandated by the rights holder or not. A CWG Organizing
Committee Representative noted: “ … the transfer of knowledge program which is their
[CWG] library, their repository of information that’s been collected from previous Com-
monwealth Games … That’s a useful resource”.

Knowledge transfer
Throughout the feedback loop, as well as post-Games, external KT can occur. As PAG
Media Representative 1 noted, “I think that it’s a constantly evolving process. So what
is important is that this knowledge sharing and transfer and acquisition is ongoing at
all stages of development: pre, during, and post”. KT itself can be both formal (e.g.
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:21 16 December 2015

reports, evaluations) and informal (e.g. discussions, exchanges). Throughout the whole
process, a recurring theme seemed to be the importance of not re-inventing the proverbial
wheel. As a CWG Municipal Government Representative noted: “Every country has differ-
ent challenges and has different advantages and every time you host the Games in a differ-
ent place, you don’t reinvent the wheel”.

Discussion and conclusions

In examining the KM/KT processes of two domestic and two international events, and
comparing these with Parent et al.’s (2014) Olympic Games process, we find an evolution
in KM/KT process sophistication from the OSG that is rather linear (no feedback learning
loop), through the CG, which includes a feedback loop thanks to the test event aspect, then
to a continual feedback loop for the international events. This could in part be due to the
longer international event organizing committees’ lifecycles, affording these organizing
committees with time to “test” their assumptions and adjust their plans as needed. Accord-
ing to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), engaging in a knowledge feedback loop is necessary
for an organization to complete their knowledge creation spiral, which can result in
enhanced performance and innovation. Additionally, the feedback loop (test event) pro-
vided more opportunity for increased interaction with external groups and organizations.
According to Nonaka (1994), external interactions are important for the individual to
more effectively engage in the knowledge creation spiral, ultimately benefitting the organ-
ization through increased knowledge resources. The longevity of the event’s planning
period (cf. Parent, 2008), then, may be a necessary indicator as to the organizing commit-
tee’s ability to establish and develop an effective KM/KT process, to allow time for the
knowledge spiral to occur, and to ensure the KM/KT process can mature to benefit the
event. For smaller events or short-lived organizing committees, we suggest rights
holders be the organizations where KM/KT processes should reside as they are the endur-
ing entities associated with the events. Due to their longevity, rights holders should take
the lead in the KM/KT process to ensure that valuable knowledge resources are main-
tained and passed along for effective operations and innovations in the future.
Whether or not a formal KM/KT system was in place, event stakeholders seemed to use
the knowledge activities outlined by Heisig (2009), thereby following KM/KT processes in
other industries and fields. The KM/KT process also seemed linked to the level of the event
(domestic/international) and the organizing committee’s length of existence. This paper
 EUROPEAN SPORT MANAGEMENT QUARTERLY 549

therefore contributes to the literature by providing domestic- and international-level KM/

KT processes that should be applicable to other similar events.
This paper also demonstrates the importance of the individual in all KM stages for
domestic and international events. Results showed that “personified” KM/KT is preferable
and indicates the value of tacit knowledge over explicit knowledge. One problem high-
lighted was the challenge of rendering explicit individuals’ tacit knowledge (i.e. externali-
zation; Nonaka, 1994). Although technology may aid in the KT process (e.g. using videos
or electronic storage by the rights holders), the importance of people seems to prevail and
outweigh the use of technology. The difficulty lies in organizers and stakeholders being
aware of the value of the individuals’ experiences, not wanting to lose or use this knowl-
edge, and transforming this tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. This is notably found
in the tension between event owners wanting the organizing committee to explicitly hand
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:21 16 December 2015

over all knowledge and individuals realizing they now have increased value in the event
marketplace because of their (tacit) knowledge. Thus, it becomes important for event sta-
keholders to capture that knowledge to render it available for future organizers and their
stakeholders. As such, this study highlights the importance of, and need for, including
voluntary (cf. Winter, 1987) or purposeful storage mechanisms to assist in effective
KM/KT and ensure stakeholders are aware of these mechanisms. We therefore argue
that the IOC OGKM’s tacit/experiential elements (e.g. observations, secondments,
debriefs) are the most valuable components of that KM/KT system. Though the data
from our events would point to this importance as holding true throughout the event life-
cycle (see Parent, 2008), and Halbwirth and Toohey’s (2013) study would support this, we
believe further research is required in non-Western, Global North countries to determine
whether this holds in different geopolitical and cultural context. Nevertheless, a KM
system focused only on storing knowledge in an online database may not be an effective
way to maximize KT. On the contrary, more attention should be paid to determining how
personal knowledge can be effectively transferred from one person to the next (i.e. socia-
lization, Nonaka, 1994). Additionally, it may be worthwhile to determine how human
resources can be best transferred from one event to the next to ensure that those who
hold the most valuable tacit knowledge can transfer that knowledge to the next event.
Cashman and Harris (2012) highlighted the importance of the Australian Olympic
Caravan, also known as Games Gypsies, for subsequent Games; we suggest that this
form of knowledge storage (past-Games experience/tacit knowledge held by individuals)
along with unique types of tacit and explicit KT would also be valuable for lower tiered
events. It may be beneficial for rights holders to manage this type of knowledge, as they
are the central stakeholder group repeatedly involved in staging events, affording them
the opportunity to interact with the workforce and evaluate the value of the knowledge
held by each individual.
Next, it seems that inter-stakeholder communication regarding knowledge is weaker in
these four events as compared to the findings at the Olympic Games (cf. Parent et al.,
2014). Even with a formal KM/KT system in place, few stakeholders in our study referred
to it when looking for specific information from past events. However, those events with
formal rights holder-based KM/KT processes had representatives from previous Games sit
on committees and would have regular exchanges during event planning to avoid “rein-
venting the wheel”. Perhaps organizing committees need to engage stakeholders earlier
to foster communication, sharing, and learning through increasing trust among those
 550 J. SCHENK ET AL.
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:21 16 December 2015

Figure 3. Generic sport event stakeholder KM process.

involved (cf. Lee & Choi, 2003). This could improve the quality and delivery of events of all
levels.
Finally, this paper highlighted common elements found in the KM/KT processes of
domestic and international events, as well as with the Olympic model. As such, we com-
bined these elements into an overall event KM/KT process, a contribution of this article.
As illustrated in Figure 3, the process is initiated by the identification of knowledge needs
and the potential knowledge sources. If the needed knowledge exists, it is acquired, stored,
and applied as required; if the knowledge is not directly applicable for the current context,
the receiver may have to internally tailor the knowledge and/or create new knowledge. The
knowledge is then either stored and passed along for external KT or updated through a
learning process (internal tailoring), the latter initiating a feedback loop involving internal
tailoring, creation, storage, and application, as needed. The loop may continue until
knowledge is externally transferred to the next recipient. At this point, the knowledge
may be sent as is, or it may be tailored to fit the needs of the external receiver.

Practical implications
Based on our findings, and those from previous studies (e.g., Bhardwaj & Monin, 2006;
Halbwirth & Toohey, 2001; Singh & Hu, 2008), it seems clear that the tacit knowledge
held by individuals is the key to an effective event KM/KT system. Fostering increased
experiential activities to acquire knowledge seems to be an important aspect of an effective
KM/KT process. As online databases may not be the most effective means to transfer
knowledge, it may be worthwhile for rights holders of smaller events to facilitate in-
person exchanges (e.g. site visits pre-Games, Games-time shadowing, post-Games
debriefs) between organizers and stakeholders of different editions. Additionally, it
seems the lifespan of the organizing committee may influence KM/KT process effective-
ness, and thus, the benefits derived from that process. As the knowledge creation spiral
seems important but difficult for events with short lifespans, perhaps host communities
should foster this spiral internally to assist future event organizers and stakeholders of
different events so as to build local event management and hosting knowledge.
 EUROPEAN SPORT MANAGEMENT QUARTERLY 551

At a minimum, knowledge tailoring by the sender should occur once the event is over
and stored in an effective, accessible place for subsequent KT. However, rights holders may
need to widen their scope when developing a KM/KT process to not focus solely on the
organizing committee, but also include stakeholders. The latter do seem to undertake
their own KM/KT processes; however, event hosting success could be enhanced by
incorporating their learnings and knowledge into a more comprehensive KM/KT
system. Finally, to be effective, it is not enough to be aware of the KM/KT system,
acquire and store knowledge; event managers must also apply knowledge and transfer it
to others.

Theoretical implications, limitations and future directions

Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:21 16 December 2015

From a theoretical perspective, there seems to be an evolutionary nature to the KM/KT

process, when one moves from the domestic to the international levels. The events exam-
ined in this study seemed to have enough in common for us to develop a general event
stakeholder KM/KT process which can be tested empirically; thus, it seems results
drawn from a larger event can be transferred to smaller events. As well, our findings
support the importance of external knowledge tailoring (Parent et al., 2014), but add
internal knowledge tailoring as key to an effective KM/KT process. The absence of a
knowledge loop in the organizing committee with the shortest lifespan seems to point
to a relationship between organizing committee lifespan and KM/KT process sophisti-
cation. It may also be the case that international events, which take place in different cul-
tural contexts, require a higher degree of internal and external knowledge tailoring;
therefore, individuals may be more conscious of the need to tailor knowledge for their
own use. This hypothesis, however, remains to be empirically tested.
This study has some limitations to note. All events were conducted in Global North
countries, where access to documents may be easier due to better technological infrastruc-
ture and access to information. The events examined occurred in English-speaking
countries of similar cultures, with three of the four events being held in the same
country. It would be worth examining KM/KT processes in other countries, where the
event management systems (KM/KT, technology, history of hosting, etc.) are at various
stages of development. Furthermore, we compared the two sets of events with Parent
et al.’s (2014) model and suggested a generic KM/KT process model. This model
should be tested with events in different cultures and countries to determine the degree
of transferability and applicability across contexts.
In line with past research (e.g. Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Halbwirth & Toohey, 2001; Singh
& Hu, 2008; Thompson & Walsham, 2004; Van den Hooff & Huysman, 2009), we found
individuals, or rather the tacit knowledge they hold, to be a critical component of the KM/
KT process, despite the difficulty in building and transferring this type of knowledge.
Future studies may address this issue by examining the influence a rights holder has
with the workforce available for transfer to subsequent organizing committees (e.g.
Games gypsies).

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
 552 J. SCHENK ET AL.

Funding
This work was supported by the Government of Ontario’s Ministry of Research and Innovation and
its Early Researcher Award program [grant file number ER09-06-164].

ORCID
Milena M. Parent http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8789-3523

References
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:21 16 December 2015

systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25, 107–136.
Arling, P. A., & Chun, M. W. S. (2011). Facilitating new knowledge creation and obtaining KM
maturity. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15, 231–250.
Assundani, R. H. (2005). Catching the chameleon: Understanding the elusive term “knowledge”.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(2), 31–44.
Bhardwaj, M., & Monin, J. (2006). Tacit to explicit: An interplay shaping organization knowledge.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(3), 72–85.
Byers, T., Slack, T., & Parent, M. M. (2012). Key concepts in sport management. London: Sage.
Canada Games Council. (2010, November). Request for proposal – transfer of knowledge. Retrieved
from http://canadagames.ca/Groups/News/RFP%20IT%20Turnkey%20Solution_FINAL.pdf
Cashman, R., & Harris, R. (2012). The Australian Olympic caravan from 2000 to 2012: A unique
Olympic events industry. Sydney: Walla Walla Press.
Chalip, L. (2004). Beyond impact: A general model for sport event leverage. In B. W. Ritchie & D.
Adair (Eds.), Sport tourism: Interrelationships, impacts and issues (pp. 226–252). Clevedon:
Channel View.
Chalip, L. (2006). Towards social leverage of sport events. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 11, 109–127.
Chalip, L., & Leyns, A. (2002). Local business leveraging of a sport event: Managing an event for
economic benefit. Journal of Sport Management, 16, 132–158.
Chappelet, J.-L. (2001). Risk management for large-scale events: The case of the Olympic winter
games. European Journal For Sport Management, 8(Special Issue), 6–21.
Chappelet, J.-L. (Ed.). (2005). From initial idea to success: A guide to bidding for sports events for
politicians and administrators. Lausanne: IDHEAP.
City of Toronto. (2013, May). 2012 Ontario Summer Games review and legacy update. Retrieved
from http://toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/cd/bgrd/backgroundfile-58321.pdf
Commonwealth Games Federation. (2011). Candidate city manual 2018 commonwealth games
(revised). London: Commonwealth Games Federation.
Commonwealth Games Federation. (2014). Growth of the Commonwealth Games. Retrieved from
http://www.thecgf.com/games/growth.asp
Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-
off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 173–208.
Edvardsson, I. R., & Durst, S. (2013). The benefits of knowledge management in small and medium-
sized enterprises. Social and Behavioural Sciences, 81, 351–354.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and chal-
lenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 25–32.
Emery, P. (2010). Past, present, future major sport event management practice: The practitioner
perspective. Sport Management Review, 13, 158–170.
Evanschitzky, H., Ahlert, D., Blaich, G., & Kenning, P. (2007). Knowledge management in knowl-
edge-intensive service networks: A strategic management approach. Management Decision, 45,
265–283.
Frawley, S., & Toohey, K. (2009). The importance of prior knowledge: The Australian Olympic
committee and the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. Sport in Society, 12, 947–966.
 EUROPEAN SPORT MANAGEMENT QUARTERLY 553

Getz, D. (2007). Event studies: Theory, research and policy for planned events. Burlington, MA:
Elsevier.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. M. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. New York: Dr Gruyter.
Glasgow 2014 Ltd. (2014). The executive team. Retrieved from http://glasgow2014.com/about-us/
team/executive-team
Haghirian, P. (2010). Multinationals and cross-cultural management: The transfer of knowledge
within multinational corporations. New York, NY: Routledge.
Halbwirth, S., & 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, 91–111.
Halbwirth, S., & Toohey, K. M. (2013). Information, knowledge and the organization of the
Olympic games. In S. Frawley & D. Adair (Eds.), Managing the Olympics (pp. 33–49).
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:21 16 December 2015

Heisig, P. (2009). Harmonisation of knowledge management – comparing 160 KM frameworks

around the globe. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4), 4–31.
Hoe, S. L., & McShane, S. (2010). Structural and informal knowledge acquisition and dissemination
in organizational learning: An exploratory analysis. The Learning Organization, 17, 364–386.
Lee, H., & Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational
performance: An integrative view and empirical examination. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 20, 179–228.
Liyanage, C., Elhag, T., Ballal, T., & Li, Q. (2009). Knowledge communication and translation: A
knowledge transfer model. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13, 118–131.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5,
14–37.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York: Oxford University
Press.
O’Reilly, N. J., & Knight, P. (2007). Knowledge management best practices in national sport organ-
isations. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 2, 264–280.
Parent, M. M. (2008). Evolution and issue patterns for major-sport-event organizing committees
and their stakeholders. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 135–164.
Parent, M. M., MacDonald, D., & Goulet, G. (2014). The theory and practice of knowledge manage-
ment and transfer: The case of the Olympic Games. Sport Management Review, 17, 205–218.
Parent, M. M., & Smith-Swan, S. (2013). Managing major sports events: Theory and practice.
London: Routledge.
Sherbrooke 2013. (2012, July 13). Test events begin. Retrieved from http://jeuxducanada2013.ca/en/
test-events-begin/
Singh, N., & Hu, C. (2008). Understanding strategic alignment for destination marketing and the
2004 Athens Olympic Games: Implications from extracted tacit knowledge. Tourism
Management, 29, 929–939.
Thompson, M., & Walsham, G. (2004). Placing knowledge management in context. Journal of
Management Studies, 41, 725–747.
Toohey, K., & Halbwirth, S. (2005). Sport event management and knowledge management: A useful
partnership. Paper presented at the Event Management Research Conference, Sydney, Australia.
Retrieved from http://www.uts.edu.au/research-and-teaching/our-research/australian-centre-
event-management
Van den Hooff, B., & Huysman, M. (2009). Knowledge sharing: Emergent and engineering
approaches. Information and Management, 46(1), 1–8.
Werner, K., Dickson, G., & Hyde, K. F. (2015). Learning and knowledge transfer processes in a
mega-event context: The case of the 2011 rugby world cup. Tourism Management, 48, 174–187.
Winter, S. G. (1987). Knowledge and competence as strategic assets. In D. J. Teece (Ed.), The com-
petitive challenge (pp. 159–184). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
 554 J. SCHENK ET AL.

Yang, J. T. (2007). The impact of knowledge sharing on organizational learning and effectiveness.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2), 83–90.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Appendix
Semi-structured Interview Guide for KM Questions
(1) What does Games knowledge mean to you?
(2) What does knowledge transfer mean to you?
(3) For each question below, probe for tacit/explicit and voluntary/involuntary
(a) What kind of knowledge is needed for your organization to undertake its
responsibilities in relation to the event? Why?
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:21 16 December 2015

(b) Where did you obtain this knowledge?

(c) From whom was this knowledge obtained?
(d) When did you obtain this knowledge?
(e) How was this knowledge obtained?
(f) How was this knowledge used in your organization? By whom?
(g) Do you share knowledge with any individual or organization?
(i) If so, with whom? What kind? Why? How? When? Where?
(4) Did you obtain knowledge from an unlikely or unforeseen source? If so, explain.
(5) Do these preceding answers differ based on the target group?
(6) Is there any other information which should be noted?