However, there will be events for which the simple structure will not be sufficient to ensure successful delivery. In larger events such as sporting events, a simple structure would end up placing too much workload on the events manager or require an impossibly wide range of skills in one person. Some events are simply too big for just one person to arrange. Therefore, a functional structure is needed for events where the manager has to combine different tasks to be carried out within the event.
The nature of these interrelated tasks means that there is a need to deal with different departments such as sponsorship, media, publicity and marketing, administration or logistics and follow well-defined communication paths.
Professional sports events such as badminton tournaments use this type of structure. This structure has the benefit of being simple to understand with clear horizontal lines of action, specified functions and responsibilities.
In contrast with simplicity, there are also major disadvantages to the functional structure. Those in charge have to avoid upsetting or causing offence to anyone, taking care of the interactive relations between departments because this form of structure is level to interdepartmental conflict, often degenerating into classifications such as 'them and us' clannish competition. It is particularly hard to achieve logical and good communication between queasy-autonomous functions without good communications.
However, it can be said that the functional structure is most ideally suited for single purpose events such as a football match or a cricket game. For events that require the co-ordination of a wider range of interrelated activities running concurrently, a matrix structure is the most commonly used.
The matrix structure is effectively a means to co-ordinate the different tasks that need to be completed at the same, or nearly the same time throughout the different venues of an event. Example of such events include the Edinburgh Arts Festival, which encompasses shows, exhibitions, and plays where the scheduling of such events is crucial to ensure that visitors see what they want to see or if they want see everything then they can.
Whilst the above structures are effective in delivery successful events of most types and sizes, there are events that even these structures are simply unable to effectively co-ordinate. For such an event, a network structure is employed in order to ensure successful delivery.
A network structure can be summarised by a complete delegation of provision of services to specialist suppliers. In the recent Concert for Diana that was held at Wembley Stadium earlier this year, it would have been inconceivable to think that it was all organised by Prince William and Prince Harry on their own, Concert for Diana (2007). It would be equally impossible to conceive that their equerrys and Palace staff would have the specialist knowledge, contacts and wherewithal to deliver a successful concert that was beamed to well over a million viewers around the world. The event was in fact delivered by specialist concert organisers who in turn outsourced the provision of singers, acts, entertainment, facilities, TV coverage to other specialist organisations with the expertise and resources to deliver the required services to ensure a successful event.
The obvious advantage of a network structure is that by outsourcing the principal services and retaining the control of the overall project, much more elaborate events can be planned. Events such as the Olympic Games in 2012 would not be possible without a vast network of specialists delivering their services, from the architects, to the builders, to the events planners to the stagehands, the volunteer stewards and so on and so forth. Indeed an army numbering thousands from all nations and possessing a huge variety skills and specialisms will come together to transform one tiny corner of London over the next 5 years for an event which will not last more than 16 days.
However, the disadvantage of the network system is that it is not a perfect fit system for handling, arranging and organising mega-events. The complexity of such projects will always throw up issues that were not foreseen.
Despite this, the network system is the most effective in delivering successful mega-events as it provides a high level of organisation, but it also requires a high level of effective communication between all contributors to ensure that problems are swiftly dealt with.
Whilst Shone and Parry were correct in their postulation that increasing complexity leads to an increased need for organisation (as can be seen in the different types of organisational structures outlined above), it is also important to consider the role played by the personal characteristics of event organisers in making key decisions.
One such decision is that of venue selection. Davidson and Rogers (2006, p.174) claims that, “The importance of location in the selection process is paramount, always featuring among the top three criteria.” Organisation can ensure tasks are on track but cannot choose the location or a venue, although an organised and structured approach would assist. Ultimately, it is up to the organiser, but how does the organiser choose the venue? There are different approaches but all share the same common denominator which is that the venue should fit the event. Considerations in choice of venue depend on the type of event, destination, location and so on. The more complicated the event, the more considerations have to be taken into account.
Typically, for a complex event that requires separate venues running concurrent activities such as the Olympics, major considerations will include catering for hundreds of thousands of spectators, transport links to and from the venues, crowd safety, ensuring that the host city’s normal flow of traffic is not interrupted to an unacceptable degree, parking, signage and scheduling of events. In some cases, an existing venue is not suitable and one must be built for that specific purpose.
This is why the Olympic Delivery Authority has recently sanctioned the development of the new Olympic village in London, which will contain a purpose built stadium to hold 80,000 spectators; London 2012 News (2007). All of the implications above said can be grouped as the ‘six aspects’ for selecting the right venue, they are Marketing; Functional; Operational; Risk Management; Financial and Aesthetic (BA Support Services for Events lecture notes and handout, 2007, p3).
Another important factor is in keeping costs manageable. To an extent, organisation can identify the costs but to get a good deal requires negotiation skills and this is mostly due to the organisers and their ability to convince suppliers that they are also getting a good deal from not charging their usual rates, “achieving a ‘win win’ situation” (BA Sp. Service for Events lecture handout, 2007, p.2). Means by which this can be done can vary from offering free tickets, backstage passes or merchandising signed by artists.
Other methods may emphasis future benefits such as repeat business, using the same supplier on future projects, recommending suppliers to other organisers. Whilst to an extent, organisation can identify how many concessions can be made, when to make them and to what degree they should be made is a fine art which chiefly depends on the organisers personal characteristics. However, that being said, there are other personal characteristics that can positively affect negotiation, such as the status of the organiser. It is unlikely that even the most hardnosed subcontractor would not charge a little less if the organiser asking for the discount were His Royal Highness rather than plain old Mrs Smith from the Village Hall.
An additional important factor is the ability to manage people from disparate specialisms so that they come together to deliver the event. However, whilst organisation can help define roles and responsibilities, the ability of an event manager to be able smooth ruffled feathers is of crucial importance. Again, this will require negotiation skills but also diplomacy. Sometimes all the organisation in the world cannot prevent simple human issues such as disagreement from threatening the success of an entire event. Because its enormous scale, it is easy loosing control within the suppliers. The event organiser must then persuade, explain or cajole in order to ensure continued co-operation between all the suppliers.
This combination of ´carrot´ and ´stick´ depends more on the personal characteristics of an event organiser than any organisational structure. However, this is not to say that organisation is not important, as clearly a poorly organised event will cause much more dispute between the suppliers than a well-organised one. Nevertheless, as problems can occur in even the best-organised events, the ability of the event organiser will be paramount in fixing them. It is for this reason that the personal characteristics of the event organiser are just as important as a high level of organisation in complex events. “The focus of the event leader should be on giving clear guidelines, facilitating efficient work, energizing people and celebrating successes” Van Der Wagen (2001, p.182)
The events business is not solely concerned with the provision of entertainment, refreshment and equipment. Events encompass a wide variety of activities from village fiestas to Olympic Games. With such a large range of activities that not only encompass but also expand upon the provision of entertainment, refreshment and equipment, it is logically clear that there is not ‘one size fits all’ method of organisation that will ensure delivery of every type of event. This is corroborated by the fact that there are different approaches to organisational structure that is predicated on the size and type of event being held. These, quite simply can be summarized as simple, functional, matrix, and network. These structures allow the organisation of most events from the aforementioned village fiesta to the biggest Olympic Games. However, although organisation is a key consideration in ensuring a successful event, there are other considerations that are no less important such as the personal characteristics of the event organiser who ultimately is responsible for the event, where it is held, how much it will cost and therefore the success of the whole project.
BA 1 lecture notes (2007a) Support Services for Events. Semester 1, week2 [i.p. 2], week3 [i.p. 5], week4 [i.p. 6]
An interview with Prince William and Prince Harry, (2007)
Davidson, R. & Rogers, T. (2006) Marketing Destinations & Venues for Conferences, Conventions and Business Events: A Convention and Event Perspective. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK [i.p.5]
Edinburgh Arts Festival (2007) Gallery Events , [i.p. 3]
London 2012 (2007) News, 7th November 2007 “New era of stadium design unveiled”.
http://www.london2012.com/news/archive/2007-11/new-era-of-stadium-design-unveiled.php [i.p.6]
Shone and Parry (2004) Successful Event Management, A Practical Handbook. 2nd edition, Thomson, London, UK [i.p. 1]
Van Der Wagen, L. (2001) Event Management, For Tourism, Cultural, Business and Sporting Events. Hospitality Press, Melbourne, Australia [i.p. 7]
