Modelling welsh cultural events

Cronfa - Swansea University Open Access Repository _____________________________________________________________ This is an author produced version of a paper published in : Tourism Management Perspectives Cronfa URL for this paper: http://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa32688 _____________________________________________________________ Paper: Afifi, G., Jones, E. & Morgan, N. (2016). Modelling welsh cultural events. Tourism Management Perspectives, 19, 8089. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2016.04.006 _____________________________________________________________ This article is brought to you by Swansea University. Any person downloading material is agreeing to abide by the terms of the repository licence. Authors are personally responsible for adhering to publisher restrictions or conditions. When uploading content they are required to comply with their publisher agreement and the SHERPA RoMEO database to judge whether or not it is copyright safe to add this version of the paper to this repository. http://www.swansea.ac.uk/iss/researchsupport/cronfa-support/ Modelling Welsh Cultural Events Dr. Galal M. H. Afifi Assistant professor, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Eleri Jones Professor, University of Wales, UK E-mail: [email protected] Prof. Nigel Morgan Professor, University of Surrey, UK E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT This paper describes the development of a best practice managerial model for Welsh cultural events. A theoretical model, comprising four stages: decision; planning; implementation; evaluation, was synthesized from an extensive review of the literature. The theoretical model was then used as a projective instrument for in-depth interviews with managers of three Welsh cultural events: Llangollen International Music Festival, the May Fair at the Museum of Welsh Life, and the Urdd Eisteddfod. From the interviews, three reasonably similar practical models were developed. These late models were then unified in a single best practice model, through the use of Delphi technique. The initial decision phase for the first year of each event differed markedly between events. However, the event managers were able to achieve consensus on a best practice annual managerial model for cultural events. Key words: Event tourism, cultural events, event management models, project instrument. INTRODUCTION The phenomenal growth of interest in special events - as evidenced through the plethora of annual events calendars produced by many tourism authorities and professional entities as well as the abundance of specialised texts, journals, and research studies - has been examined and commented on by many authors (e.g. Allen et al 2012; Ferdinand & Kitchin 2012; Getz 2012; Salem et al 2012; Jago & Shaw 1998). This expansion of interest can also be witnessed in the escalating willingness of destinations to host major and mega events. In this regard, researchers believe that this can be ascribed to the flexibility of special events as a tool for achieving a wide range of economic, political, cultural and social aims. In economic terms, special events can be employed for promoting tourist products, attractions or even entire destinations (Walker et al 2013), heightening an area’s profile, encouraging long-term investment, creating new permanent and/or temporary jobs, generating direct economic benefits for hosting communities through increasing visits, improving levels of visitor expenditure or minimising leakage of residents' money from the economy (Getz 2012; Bull and Lovell 2007; Dwyer 2006; Long & Perdue 1990). Events can also be used at both macro and micro-political level to enhance a county or a regime image (Gursoy and Kendall 2006, Hall 1992). Socially, events can also help promote cultural development, reduce social tensions, conserve local traditions (Getz, 2005), encourage participation, increase awareness of a venue, occasion, or a socio-cultural value, increase civic pride, satisfy the needs of special interest groups, galvanize particular segments of society, or strengthen volunteerism, cooperation and intercultural interaction (Fredline et al, 2003). -1- RESEARCH AIM A survey of the literature revealed that whilst particular aspects of events management (e.g. volunteerism, sponsorships, and logistics) have been explored in great depth, there are few holistic models of event management to provide an overview of cultural event management practices; and that despite the plethora of studies, which have discussed special events from different approaches, there is less work on understanding the practical procedures of managing cultural events and whether a unified model could be followed. On the other hand, UK could be described as one of the leading countries regarding hosting and organizing events with different themes, scales, and for different purposes. Accordingly, this research aims to develop a best practice model for managing cultural events, which is firstly built upon literature, then modified and adjusted according to the practical experiences provided by practitioners in the field. Such best practice model could then be used as a benchmarking model which should facilitate directing and monitoring managerial procedures of organizing cultural events. METHODOLOGY The research methodology consists of three phases: constructing the theoretical model (the projective instrument), establishing the practical models, and establishing the best practice model. Three different research methods were utilized for accomplishing these three phases: content analysis, depth interviews, and Delphi Technique. Phase one: Constructing the theoretical model (the projective instrument) A theoretical model was firstly developed from the literature (figure 1), to be utilized as a projective instrument. A projective instrument can take different forms (e.g. model, photo, picture, chart), which is mostly utilized to facilitate collecting information from interviewees. Projective instruments are widely used in clinical and forensic settings (Lilienfeld et al, 2000) and increasingly in consumer research and marketing (Chang, 2001). Lilienfeld et al. (2000) identify five major subtypes of projective technique: association; construction; completion; arrangement/selection; expression. The projective instrument developed here would best be categorised as a construction technique which is especially useful when a holistic research approach is desired (Hassay & Smith, 1996). The theoretical model (the projective instrument) was developed from a review of the literature; it as well borrowed from the Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) (Malcolm et al, 1959) in identifying and ordering constituent activities. The model provides a framework for the systematic identification and deconstruction of four major stages of event development, namely: decision, detailed planning, implementation and evaluation. Phase Two: Establishing the practical models Three Welsh cultural events were selected for examining their practical managerial procedures. A fourelements criteria was used to select the three Welsh events: (1) a recurring (i.e. not one-off), (2) cultural event, which (3) receives a government subsidy, and (4) aims mainly to achieve non-financial goals (i.e. financial aims are secondary, or not considered at all). Accordingly, three Welsh events were selected: Llangollen International Music Festival (LIME), the May Fair Festival at the Museum of Welsh Life (MF) and the Urdd Eisteddfod (UE). In this context, three to four interviews were conducted with senior staff in the organising boards of each of the three cases, where the theoretical model resulted from phase one was used as a base for the discussion, aiming to (1) establish the managerial model of each of the three Welsh events, as well as (2) enable identification of congruence and dissonance in managerial approaches between the theoretical model and the practical managerial model applied in each of the three events. For achieving these two aims, the interviewees from the three events were invited to comment on the theoretical model and asked to tell the story of their event -2- detailing when and how their event differed from the model. In this way, qualitative data was collected which enabled the development of a meaningful picture of each event and therefor practical models of the three events were developed (see Figures 2, 3 and 4). Phase three: Establishing the best practical model Using the Delphi Technique, phase three focused on achieving consensus on a generic model for managing cultural events. Delphi Technique is a well-established means of developing consensus (Green et al, 1990; Veal, 1997; Bramwell & Hykawy, 1999). The practical models developed in phase two from each of the three events were discussed with the organisers of each of the three events, where similarities and dissimilarities between the three models were discussed in details. Two rounds of discussions were conducted before coming up with a ‘best practice’ generic model (see Figure 5). A UNIFIED MODEL OF CULTURAL SPECIAL EVENTS MANAGEMENT The theoretical model built form literature provides an overview of event management practice applicable to festivals and cultural events and was used as a projective instrument to facilitate discussion with event managers. In practice, the model is not necessarily linear and may be iterative, e.g. redefining the event product in the light of a detailed financial study or market research. Activities do not take place in series but are broken down to facilitate their parallel development and the involvement of different stakeholder groups, whether employed directly by the event or sub-contracted. The four phases of the model are described briefly below. DECISION PHASE Decision phase initiates the process and determines ultimately whether the event goes ahead or not. At its most complex, it comprises five distinct activities: catalysis; specifying the event aims and objectives; establishing the management board; feasibility study including market research and an initial financial study; decision-making.  Catalysis is the source of the event concept, idea or aims and may result from the public (government, local authority or agency), private (corporation, firm or individual) or voluntary sector.  Event aims and objectives are crucial and must be resolved early as they impact on many aspects of the event and may fall into one of three main categories: economic, political as well as social and cultural. Event aims are ideally broken down into ‘SMART’ objectives (Doran, 1981) to help identify performance targets for the event and to facilitate evaluation.  A management board progresses the event and comprises one or more people who plan, implement and evaluate the event. It reflects diverse skills and expertise in areas such as event management, finance and sponsorship, media and marketing, and event logistics.  An outline feasibility study to check that the event ‘stacks up’ and to provide a broad indication of success or failure. For larger events, more detailed feasibility study and market research could be required.  Decision-making completes the decision phase and enables the board to decide whether the event should progress to the detailed planning stage or not. -3- Figure 1: A Unified Model of Special Events Management DECISION Aims and Objectives Catalyst Establish Management Board Decision Outline Feasibility Study DETAILED PLANNING Event definition EVALUATION Sponsors Community Organization Financial study Outcome and Process Marketing Logistics Customer Environment Staff Human Resource Management IMPLEMENTATION Shutting down Dealing with contingencies Monitoring progress -4- THE DETAILED PLANNING PHASE Detailed planning involves event product definition and detailed financial study, which often form an iterative cycle. Detailed planning then moves on to give more detailed attention to logistics, marketing and human resource management. Event product definition and financial study should aim to create a mix that satisfies the largest number of potential customers and avoid product orientation, i.e. trying to sell the event with little or no regard for what potential customers need, want, and will pay for (Getz, 2012). The earlier the features are specified the better, although events are organic and will evolve all the way through the event itself (Armstrong, 2001). For a mega event product, definition may take place over a period of several years leading up to the event. The detailed financial study usually focuses on defining and estimating three issues: anticipated income and expenditure, budgeting and cash flow. Event marketing has three important objectives: Read their customer needs and motivations, develop products that meet these needs, and build a communication programme which expresses the event’s purpose and objectives’ (Hall, 1992). Market research, although not always utilised, can help understand customer motivations. Goldblatt (2005) believes that an organization may have the best quality event product, but unless it has a proper promotion plan, it will remain the best-kept secret in the world. Promotional techniques include advertising, publicity, public relations and merchandising. The timing of marketing activities is critical to event success. Logistics allows the event organizers to plan how the event will fit into the venue and how facilities, staff, equipment services, etc., will be distributed and scheduled. Important considerations include: signage, crowd management and crowd control. Human resource management is a key element of the event experience. The human resource strategy flows from analysis of which elements are to be delivered by the event organizers and which are to be subcontracted to other organizations. The resultant staffing structure is likely to involve several different categories of staff - a professional core of staff supplemented by specialist consultants, hourly-paid staff and volunteers. IMPLEMENTATION Implementation comprises monitoring event progress, dealing with contingencies and shutting down activities. Monitoring event progress refers to forming a robust plan, which identifies key activities for monitoring the progress and implementation of the event as previously planned and enables taking corrective actions, when necessary. Dealing with contingencies – to avoid unexpected happenings, event organizers need to ask ‘What if…?’ and rehearse solutions. There are ‘two good defences against most problems: well-prepared leadership and a strong set of contingency plans’, although they ‘cannot possibly cover every conceivable occurrence’ (Armstrong, 2001). Well-trained staff members able to deal with most expected contingencies are vital, although staff must also know what to do in the case of emergencies. Good communication is key to success. Shutting down activities - includes two tasks: dismantling and selling, storing or removing the equipment as well as cleaning up. A timetable for suppliers to dismantle and remove hired equipment should be identified in the hire contract. Cleaning up should extend beyond the event to include the removal, and ideally recycling, of promotional materials and special signage. -5- EVALUATION Evaluation “is the process of looking back at an event, identifying good and bad points, and learning for the future” (Youell, 1994). It can be divided into outcome and process evaluation. Outcomes should be derived from the original SMART objectives set for the event in the decision phase. Data for outcome evaluation, e.g. final profit and numbers of tickets sold, emerge after the event. Process evaluation requires feedback from event staff and customers, although timing is critical as dispersal happens quickly after the event. Staff debriefing sessions, e.g. using focus groups with visual evidence such as video footage and media coverage as tools, allow staff to reflect on the event. Customer feedback can be obtained in various ways. RESULTS Case one: Llangollen International Musical Eisteddfod (LIME) LIME goes through four managerial phases: decision, planning, implementation and evaluation (see Figure 2). The first year decision phase differed from the decision phase for subsequent iterations of the event. LIME was firstly organized in 1947, on the inspiration of Harold Tudor who provided the idea of organizing an international Eisteddfod for cultural activities including musical, literature and artistic activities to make a contribution through the arts into better understanding and friendship between nations. Later, another ‘pragmatic aim’ was added, i.e. to achieve financial break-even on an annual basis. Llangollen was suggested as a home for the Eisteddfod and the catalyst proposed the event concept to the town council and residents who announced their willing for nominating Llangollen as a permanent location for the Eisteddfod. This led to the formation of a voluntary board of nine local members to manage the event. The potential budget was initially estimated and four local businessmen agreed to act as guarantors for the event (Attenburrow, 1996). Subsequently, a decision was made by the board to move to detailed planning. In subsequent iterations of LIME the catalyst’s role vanished and the control passed to a permanent organizing board. The decision phase is now confined to revising the objectives, forming the initial features, and estimating the cost of new activities. Similar to the unified model, LIME organizers agree with splitting the detailed planning phase into five areas: event definition, financial study, human resource management, marketing and logistics. But, unlike the unified theoretical model, the five activities take place in parallel. During the Eisteddfod week, all three implementation activities are undertaken. A ground committee is mainly responsible for monitoring the Eisteddfod implementation and taking corrective actions against any deviations. A risk management team analyses the potential hazards against individuals (e.g. accidents, stampedes) and property (e.g. fire, thefts). Post-event a week is dedicated for shutting down activities. Evaluation is always made toward the end of, or shortly after, the event implementation targeting the assessment of the fulfilment of the SMART objectives, defining the problems and identifying improvements for the following Eisteddfod. Evaluation tools include visitors’ comments, staff self-assessment as well as official records. -6- Figure 2: A Model of the Llangollen International Music Festival DECISION FIRST YEAR DECISION Catalyst Aims Market research Idea Forming Board Initial financial study Decision Forming initial features ANNUAL MANAGERIAL MODEL DETAILED PLANNING DECISION Forming Board Aims and Objectives Event definition Decision Marketing Logistics IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION Community Organization On-ground risk management Outcome and Process Customers Financial study Initial financial study Revising objectives Sponsors Human Resource Management Environment Monitoring implementation Shutting down Staff -7- Case two: May Fair Festival (MF) MF is a recurring three-day cultural event held at the Museum of Welsh Life in Cardiff. MF dates back to the 16th century and signifies the celebration of the traditional spring season. MF involves traditional activities, such as raising the Maypole and folk dancing. Despite its long history, celebrating MF at the Museum only started in 1987. Similar to both the unified model and LIME model, the management of MF goes through four phases: decision, planning, implementation and evaluation, which form the managerial frame for organizing the festival (see Figure 3). Revival of celebrations of the traditional May Fair was suggested by the Museum of Welsh Life, Marketing Department in 1987. The aim was to increase public awareness of Welsh culture. A board comprising senior members from the museum staff was formed to run the event. The Board then formed the festival initial features, which were approved by museum visitors through market research. Being part of the Museum of Welsh Life, the site activities department, received a fixed budget for the activities each April. However, this does not preclude a separate initial financial study for each year’s event before decision-making. Initial estimation for the event costs are assessed and proposed to the events committee, which bases its decision fundamentally on the event costs. Similar to LIME, the first-year decision phase was not repeated. Again the role of the catalyst ended after suggesting the idea, and the festival control passed entirely to the organizing committee. The festival idea and aim did not need any further decisions; as well, no pre-event market research was conducted. Therefore, the decision phase is now confined to revising the objectives, forming the festival initial features, undertaking the festival initial financial study before decision-making. Similar to the unified model, all the detailed planning phase areas were identified for the MF. However, unlike the unified model and due to constraints of the in-advance fixed budget, the financial study is brought forward and has a major influence on the planning of each of the other four areas, which occur in parallel. All the three theoretical implementation areas are identifiable. Again, a risk management scheme is applied. The site was divided into four zones with a senior staff member allocated to each zone to monitor the event and implement any required remedial actions. Typically, shutting down activities take place after the festival. Evaluation starts immediately after the event implementation. Unlike the unified model, but similar to LIME, market research is conducted during and after the event for evaluation purposes. Other evaluation tools, including staff self-assessment, public and stockholders comments, are also utilized. Although evaluation covers all six areas mentioned in the unified model, MF organizers deem that the evaluation conducted is insufficient due to shortage in time. -8- Figure 3: A Model of the May Fair Festival at the Museum of Welsh Life DECISION FIRST YEAR DECISION Aims Forming Board Catalyst Forming initial features Feasibility study Decision Idea ANNUAL MANAGERIAL MODEL DETAILED PLANNING DECISION Forming Board Initial financial study Decision Forming initial features Revising objectives Community Organization Event definition Marketing Logistics On-ground risk management Outcome and Process Customers Human resource management IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION Sponsors Finanical study Environment Monitoring implementation Shutting down Staff -9- Case three: Urdd Eisteddfod (UE) As with the unified model and the previous two cases, the management of UE goes through the four managerial phases: decision, planning, implementation and evaluation (see Figure 4). UE was firstly organized in 1929, on the inspiration of Sir Ifan ab Owen Edwards who proposed the idea of organizing a national Eisteddfod where children compete in Welsh cultural activities, including music and drama performances. The aim was to encourage Welsh children and teenagers to preserve their Welsh culture, especially the Welsh language, and to give them the opportunity to develop their artistic skills. Sir Ifan invited Urdd members in Corwen to a meeting to arrange the event in their town. The meeting led to the establishment of an organizing committee to manage UE. Subsequently, the organizing committee decided that UE would be a two-day event with drama competitions. Few trophies were to be awarded with no monetary prizes (Davies, 1973). No market research or initial financial study was conducted before the first event decision-making. Similar to the previous two cases, the first year decision phase was not repeated in the subsequent iterations and also the catalyst role disappeared. The event idea and aim required no more discussions; nevertheless, the board revises UE’s objectives each year. Additionally, features of UE are altered in the light of initial estimates of the financial situation, before decision-making. Similar to both the unified model and the previous two cases, the detailed planning phase of UE comprises five activities. Nevertheless, similar to the MF case, UE organizers deem that the financial study precedes and impacts on all four other activities. During the six days of the UE, a site manager and a trained team manage all the three implementation activities. All staff members are required to report any risk or implementation problems immediately to the site manager. Finally, dismantling the equipment and cleaning the site are usually conducted immediately after the event. Similar to the previous two cases, evaluating UE commences as the implementation phase is being completed. Several evaluation tools including market research, stockholders’ surveys (i.e. sponsors, merchandisers), reports from staff and Board members and official records, are used aiming to improve the following Eisteddfod. -10- Figure 4: A Model of the Urdd Eisteddfod DECISION FIRST YEAR DECISION Aims Forming initial features Forming Board Catalyst Decision Idea ANNUAL MANAGERIAL MODEL DETAILED PLANNING DECISION Forming Board Initial financial study Decision Forming initial features Revising objectives Community Organization Event definition Marketing Logistics On-ground risk management Outcome and Process Customers Human resource management IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION Sponsors Finanical study Environment Monitoring implementation Shutting down Staff -11- DISCUSSION Congruence and Dissonance between the three models Like the unified model, each of the repetitive, annual, managerial models for the three cases splits into four phases: decision, detailed planning, implementation and evaluation phase, to form the managerial framework for organizing the events (see Figures 2, 3 and 4). While the unified model claims that the decision phase would be repeated through subsequent event iterations, the Welsh cases reveal that two distinct decision phases are undertaken - first, a non-recurring decision phase for the first event only; second, a recurring decision phase for all subsequent events. The decision phase in the unified model seems more analogous to the nonrecurring decision phase. Similar to the unified model, all the three non-recurring decision phases began on the inspiration of a catalyst that provided the event idea and aims; and ended by a decision. In between, two areas have been repeated in all the three cases, regardless the sequence in which they emerged, which are: forming the Board and forming the initial features. Nevertheless both market research and initial financial study (i.e. feasibility study) were conducted in the LIME and MF cases; UE is the only case where neither market research nor initial financial study was done. In all the three cases, the recurring decision phase typically starts by forming the organizing Board, which then revises the event objectives aiming to provide precise criterion for what is actually expected from the event to achieve. Afterwards, whereas LIME Board firstly forms the initial features, before undertaking an initial financial study in case of new activities only, prior to decision-making, both the MF and the UE Boards start by undertaking the festival initial financial study first, which leads to forming the event initial features, before decision-making. Despite all the three cases illustrate resemblance with each other and with the unified model concerning applying all the planning five areas, evident distinction emerges concerning: the sequence of those five areas and therefore the interior influence between them. Whereas, LIME organizers assert that all the five planning activities take place at the same time where mutual influence emerges between them; both MF and UE organizers state that the financial study usually takes place prior to all the other four activities, which are all influenced by the financial study outcome. However, this could be due to the fact that, while LIME depends largely on self-funding, which gives the organizers the freedom to alter their budget regarding the other planning activities, the other two events depend mainly on restricted funding from external entities, which necessitate considering the financial availabilities before launching any other planning activity. All the three Welsh cases are similar to the unified model in relation to the implementation phase, where three activities emerge: on ground risk management, monitoring implementation and shutting down activities. Unlike the unified model all the three Welsh cases, locate the market research at the end of the implementation phase, aiming to provide feedback for evaluation and to assess whether the event fulfilled its objectives or not. Several tools including public comments, staff self-assessment, official records besides market research are utilized. Building a consensus on a best practice model In discussion each of the three models resulting from Phase 1 of the study were discussed with senior members in the organizing boards for each of the three events. The interviewees were invited to revise the models to ensure they reflected practice. They were then invited to give an opinion on what they think would be the most appropriate for a generic best practice model. Building a consensus required only one iteration of the Delphi technique, as the differences between the three Welsh cases were minimal. Those differences confined to: firstly, the relation between conducting the initial financial study and forming the initial features (the decision -12- phase); second, the relation between the financial study and the rest of the planning areas (the planning phase). All the three cases were identical in relation to the implementation and evaluation phases. Figure 5: A Generic Best Practice Annual Managerial Model for Cultural Special Events ANNUAL MANAGERIAL MODEL DETAILED PLANNING DECISION Forming Board Initial financial study Decision Forming initial features Revising objectives Community Organization Event definition Marketing Logistics On-ground risk management Outcome and Process Customers Human resource management IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION Sponsors Finanical study Environment Monitoring implementation Shutting down Staff -13- Llangollen International Musical Eisteddfod For financial reasons the LIME general secretary suggested that LIME is about to change its model to undertake initial financial studies before forming the Eisteddfod syllabus (i.e. the Eisteddfod features). The LIME model would then be following the pattern of both MF and UE. The LIME General Secretary states that the Eisteddfod syllabus for the year 2004 will be produced in January 2004 based on the results of an on-going financial study, which depends on the elements of the last available actual budgets (i.e. the budget of LIME 2003). Both these changes emphasise the increasing attention that the LIME organizers are paying now to the LIME financial situation and its influence on all the other procedures. Finally, LIME General Secretary suggested that organizing a new event would preferably start with a financial study in advance to minimise risk of major financial loss. May Fair Festival The MF manager believes that their managerial model offers them an efficient and successful framework for their event. As well, she believes that conducting the financial study (whether during the decision or the planning phase) before any other activity is essential for them to guarantee keeping the expenditure within the defined budget. Consequently, she declares that there is no reason to change their model. Urdd Eisteddfod The UE South Wales office manager believes that the UE model provides an efficient pattern for managing their Eisteddfod which had been successful over the long history of the Urdd Eisteddfod. However, conducting the financial studies in advance, whether during the decision phase or the planning phase, offers them security against financial loss and guarantees financial support at the outset before designing any features. Finally, it should be revealed that none of the event organizers believe they can suggest any consensus on the non-recurring decision phase, assuming that it reflects the circumstances surrounding each catalyst separately and can hardly be predicted or changed. CONCLUSION The phenomenal growth of interest in special events is evidenced through the plethora of annual events calendars produced by many tourism authorities and professional entities. Of course, the relationship between tourism and events is widely existing, where several destinations are currently relying on establishing an extensive events colander either to enhance its tourist product (e.g. Wales) or even to offer events as its main tourist attraction (e.g. Dubai). However, there is less work on understanding the practical procedures of managing cultural events and whether a unified model could be followed. Accordingly, this research aimed to develop a best practice model for managing cultural events, which is firstly built upon literature, then modified and adjusted according to the practical experiences provided by practitioners in the field. The research resulted in concluding that, following the model of the project cycle management, events managerial procedures could be divided into four main phases namely: Decision, detailed planning, implementation and evaluation. Each phase consists of several sub-phases, which should mostly be applied in a consecutive manner. However, to maximise the benefits of events a number of management issues should be considered, notably the development of a model of good practice that could be incrementally enhanced in the light of experience and could codify knowledge and experience gained from the delivery of special events to inform future practice. There is considerable consensus on the annual managerial models for the Welsh cultural special -14- events studied and a generic best practice annual managerial model was produced (see Figure 5). The implementation and evaluation phases were identical for all the events studied. For each event the detailed planning phase are similar in terms of the constituent activities but differ in the chronological order in which these activities are undertaken. This can be ascribed to the relative priority given to financial planning in each of the events. The decision phase also shows similar activities for each of the events with differences relating to the initial financial study although in subsequent iterations of LIME there will be no differences between the events. Differences between the models relate mainly to the first year decision phase for which it was not possible to develop a consensus model. This is due to historical differences in the development of each of the cultural special events as a result of the different circumstances facing each catalyst. REFERENCES 1. Allen, J. O'Toole, W., Harris, & R. McDonnell, I (2012). Festival and Special Event Management. (5th ed.). Brisbane: John Wiley & Sons. 2. Armstrong, J. (2001). Planning special events. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 3. Attenburrow B. (1996). The Llangollen International Eisteddfod: fifty glorious weeks: 1947-1996. Llangollen: The Llangollen International Eisteddfod. 4. Bull, C., & Jane Lovell, J. (2007). The Impact of Hosting Major Sporting Events on Local Residents: an Analysis of the Views and Perceptions of Canterbury Residents in Relation to the Tour de France 2007. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 12(3-4), 229-248. 5. Chang, J.E. (2001). The Revival of Projective Techniques: Past, Present and Future Perspectives. Advances in Consumer Research, 28 (1), 253-254. 6. Davies, G. (1973). The story of the Urdd: 1922-1972. Llandysul: Lewis & Sons Ltd. 7. Doran, G.T. (1981). There’s a S.M.A.R.T. Way to Write Management Goals and Objectives. Management Review, 70 (11), 35-36. 8. Dwyer, L. (2006). Modeling the Impact of Australia’s Mining Boom on Tourism: A Classic Case of Dutch Disease. Journal of Travel Research, 45(1), 59-66. 9. Ferdinand, N. & Kitchin, P. (2012). Events Management: An International Approach. London: SAGE Publication Ltd. 10. Fredline, L., Jago, L. & Deery, M. (2003). The development of a generic scale to measure the social impacts of events. Event Management, 8(1), 23-37. 11. Getz, D. (2005). Event management and event tourism. (2nd ed.). New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation. 12. Getz, D. (2012). Event studies: Theory, research and policy for planned events. (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. 13. Goldblatt, J.J. (2005). Special events: Best practices in modern events management. (4th ed.). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. 14. Green, H., Hunter, C. & Moore, B. (1990). Application of the Delphi technique in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 17 (2), 270-279. 15. Gursoy, D. & Kindall, K.W. (2006). Hosting mega events: Modeling Locals’ Support. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(3), 603–623. 16. Hall, C.M. (1992). Hallmark tourist events – impacts, management and planning. London: Belhaven Press. 17. Hassay, D.N. & Smith, M.C. (1996). Fauna, Foraging and Shopping Motives. Advances in Consumer Research, 23 (1), 510-515. -15- 18. Jago, L. & Shaw, R. (1998). Special events: A conceptual and definitional framework. Festival Management & Event Tourism, 15 (1/2), 21-32. 19. Lilienfeld, S.O., Wood, J.M., & Garb, H.N. (2000). The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques. Psychological Science, 1 (2), 27-66. 20. Long, P.T. & Perdue, R.R. (1990). The economic impact of rural festivals and special events: assessing the spatial distribution of expenditure. Journal of Travel Research, 28 (4), 10-14. 21. Malcolm, D.G., Roseboom, J.H., Clark, C.E. & Fazar, W. (1959). Application of a Technique for Research and Development Program Evaluation. Operations Research, 7, 646-669. 22. Salem G., Jones E. and Morgan N. (2004). An Overview of Special Events Management. In: I Yeoman, M Robertson, J Ali-Knight, U McMahon-Beattie and S Drummond (Eds.), Festivals & Events Management: An International Perspective (pp 14-31). Chichester: Wiley & sons. 23. Salem, G., Jones, E. and Morgan, N. (2012). An overview of special event management. (2nd ed.). In Yeoman, I. et al (eds.): Festivals and Event Management: An International Arts and Culture Perspective. (pp. 1431) London, John Wiley and Sons. 24. Walker, M., Kaplanidou, K., Gibson, H., Thapa, B., Geldenhuys, S., & Coetzee, W. (2013). Win in Africa, With Africa: Social responsibility, event image, and destination benefits. The case of the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa. Tourism Management, 34(1) 80 – 90. 25. Youell, R. (1994), Leisure and tourism: advanced GNVQ. London: Longman. -16-