Towards Improving Knowledge Capitalization System for Sport
Events Legacy
Malika Grim-Yefsah
1 a
and Benedicte Bucher
2
1
ENSG, 6-8 Avenue Blaise Pascal, 77420 Champs sur Marne, France
2
IGN, 73 Avenue de Paris, 94165, Saint Mandé, France
Keywords: Knowledge Management, Knowledge Capitalization, Knowledge Management System, Sport Events,
Legacy, UML.
Abstract: Knowledge Management is a way to answer the problem of capitalizing on the companies’ knowledge.
Knowing that hosting sports events (SE) requires organizers to learn from past events to not repeat mistakes,
we examine knowledge management in a sport events legacy (SEL). Thus, in this paper, we propose in first,
two conceptual models based on UML; one for the SE, another for SEL. Secondly, we propose a system to
manage SEL to assist in the process of data acquisition and capitalization on SE knowledge. This system
helps to create an open collaborative platform for consultation, visualization of the spinoffs of sport events.
It is intended to be used by public policies, territories, journalists, citizens, historians and all others. We
propose also to take into account the spatiotemporal aspects of SE.
a
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6743-0692
1 INTRODUCTION
The mega sport events, like Olympic and
Paralympic Games, can spread a general spirit of
optimism as create new jobs, construct new iconic
buildings, implement new transports solutions.
However, some citizens see at the growth population
of a city, the increasing of price of apartments, the
insecurity. The problem is that the same legacy can
be positive and negative at the same time. One of the
request of our institute, IGN (National Institute for
Geographical and Forest Information), is
understanding of the sport events legacy. For
organising the Olympic Games in Paris in 2024, the
IGN will coordinate provision of the Olympic
Games’ geographical information for the state by
involving all public stakeholders concerned. The
2019 milestones of IGN are:
Study of needs in geographical information, by
listing data, tools and platforms that exist already
and by identifying the developments required
and potential innovative services.
Constituting a network of stakeholders involved
in the Olympic Game, treating the issue of
Olympic and Paralympic game’ key legacies.
Our work is focused on the issue of Olympic and
Paralympic game’ key legacies. Generally speaking,
the legacy is any outcomes that affect people or
space caused by structural changes that stem from
sport events as Olympic and Paralympic Games.
We agree (Parent, MacDonald, and Goulet,
2014) who consider that hosting sports events
requires organizers to learn from past events to not
repeat mistakes. Thus, knowledge acquired in the
past should be managed to allow more effective
sport events legacy management: it means acquire,
capitalize and use knowledge of passed sport events
to improve future. It’s the role of knowledge
management. The questions guiding this study are:
(1) what elements of a sport event and sport events
legacy do we acquire, store, and capitalize? (2)
Which appropriate system should be implementing
to capitalize knowledge of Sport Events Legacy?
The paper is organised into six sections.
Following this introduction, the next section deals
with the literature review on knowledge
management. In the third section, we present the
concept of sport event and sport events legacy and
we model them using UML diagrams. In the fourth
section, we describe our architecture of Knowledge
264
Grim-Yefsah, M. and Bucher, B.
Towards Improving Knowledge Capitalization System for Sport Events Legacy.
DOI: 10.5220/0008348102640270
In Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2019), pages 264-270
ISBN: 978-989-758-382-7
Copyright
c
2019 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
Capitalization System KM-oriented for Sport Events
Legacy. The fifth section proposes a methodology to
test our technical framework. Finally, the conclusions
and perspectives are given.
2 THEORICAL FRAMEWORK
In this section we examine concepts composed
Knowledge Management (KM). Since the early
nineties interests has increased regarding KM in
organizations. The knowledge management is
viewed by Barclay (Barclay, 2004) “as a process of
identification, formalization, disseminating and use
of knowledge in order to promote creativity and
innovation in companies”.
Knowledge is defined as being justified true
belief (Nonaka, and Takeuchi, 1995). Knowledge is
often distinguished between tacit knowledge and
explicit knowledge (Polanyi, 1967). (Nonaka,
Toyama and Konno, 2000) suggest that explicit
knowledge can be expressed in a formal and
systematic language and is easily shared whereas
tacit knowledge is personal and includes subjective
insights, intuitions and hunches. Tacit knowledge
focuses on ‘knowing how’ rather than ‘knowing
that’ (Sternberg, R. J. And al. 2000). Then, explicit
knowledge can be codified (e.g. writing or drawing)
and articulated since it can be expressed formally
and systematically but tacit knowledge corresponds
to skills, senses, intuition, physical experiences, ‘job
secrets’. (Davenport, and Prusak, 1998) considered a
knowledge hierarchy that includes data, information,
and knowledge, while (Ackoff, 1989) distinguished
DIKUW (data, information, knowledge,
understanding, and wisdom, built upon each other):
“Wisdom is located at the top of a hierarchy of
type.
… Descending from wisdom there are
understanding, knowledge, information, and, at
the bottom, data. Each of these includes the
categories that fall below it…
Data are symbols that represent properties of
objects, events and their environments.
Information systems generate, store, retrieve,
and process data. In many cases their
processing is statistical or arithmetical. In
either case, information is inferred from data.
Knowledge is know-how, for example, how a
system works. It is what makes possible the
transformation of information into instructions.
It makes control of a system possible.”
In below, we define different activities include in
KM such as identification, creation, storage,
capitalization, and transfer.
Knowledge identification refers to the act of
distinguishing the knowledge that is needed in order
to perform a given task (Bera, Burton-Jones, &
Wand, 2011). The source for both tacit and explicit
knowledge may be internal or external for a given
organization.
Knowledge creation is referred to the production
of new knowledge, or knowledge creation, occurs
through a spiral of the four modes of the SECI
process (Nonaka, and Takeuchi, 1995). The four
modes of the SECI process include socialization, or
tacit to tacit knowledge, externalization, or tacit to
explicit knowledge, combination, or explicit to
explicit knowledge, and internalization, or explicit to
tacit knowledge.
According to Grundstein (Grundstein, 2012),
capitalizing on company’s knowledge means
considering certain knowledge used and produced
by the company as a storehouse of riches and
drawing from these riches interest that contributes to
increasing the company's capital. In fact, the
knowledge management is a way to answer the
problem of capitalizing on the company’s
knowledge.
Knowledge transfer is an important part of
knowledge Management (Davenport, and Prusak,
2000). It refers to ensuring that knowledge is
transferred throughout the company or between
organisations from the sender to the receiver who
needs that knowledge. (Davenport, and Prusak,
1998) proposed this definition:
Transfer = Transmission + Absorption (and Use)
(1)
Please, note here the important distinction between
Transmission and Transfer. This equation indicates
that transmitting knowledge by sending or
presenting explicit knowledge is not sufficient for
transferring it. Based on the results of our doctoral
research (Grim-Yefsah, 2012), transferred
knowledge transferred may be applied or used in
three different forms: instrumental use, conceptual
use, such as influencing others; and symbolic use,
such as using the knowledge to justify other actions.
Knowledge storage includes the retention,
protection, and maintenance of knowledge in various
mediums such as individuals, documentation,
computers, and technology (Anand, and Singh,
2011). Knowledge storage may also be a tool used in
knowledge transfer.
We agree (Zyngier, and Venkitachalam, 2011)
who considered Knowledge Management as an
Towards Improving Knowledge Capitalization System for Sport Events Legacy
265
essential tool in order to achieve competitive
advantages. Based on this idea, we design a tool
oriented-KM in aim to capitalize elements of
knowledge acquired in the sport event passed. The
capitalization should be managed to allow more
effective future (or present) sport events
management. We focus on concern regards system
modelling and developing KM solutions.
3 CONCEPTUAL MODEL
This section deals with concepts that are employed
in this paper regarding to context and elements of
mega sporting events such as Olympic and
Paralympic Games and the benefit to be gained from
the legacy that will be left behind. In first part, we
present the concept of sport event, and then our
conceptual model. In the second part, we start with
definition of sport events legacy, and then we
propose a conceptual model too.
We select UML as the modelling language for
modelling concepts of sport event and sport events
Legacy. While UML provides a number of diagrams
for modelling, these diagrams and models are
generic and do not capture the details specific to
sport events and sport events legacy. Therefore, we
model the conceptual details, i.e., the sport events
concepts and the relationship of concepts based on
the domain literature using the class diagram.
Modelling of class diagram is an important step in
understanding the vocabulary.
3.1 Sport Events
A sport event is considered as a planned event.
According to (Getz, 2008) “Planned events are
spatial–temporal phenomenon, and each is unique
because of interactions among the setting, people,
and management systems- including design elements
and the program”.
According also to Getz (Getz, 2008) planned
events are controlled and reported in order to
achieve economic, social or environmental
objectives.
Finally, from these definitions we retain three
dimensions which we introduce into our conceptual
model (see Figure 1): the temporality, the location
and the uniqueness.
This uniqueness is considered in several ways:
Interactions between the environments; their
internal organization which can include the
budget, the goals targeted by the event, etc.
Interactions between people; the personalities
organizing the events,
The management systems for these events,
namely the design, planning and programming
elements they generate.
We model the two dimensions ‘temporality’ and
‘location’ as attributes of ‘Identification’ class and
the ‘Unique characteristics’ as a class.
Figure 1: Conceptual Model for Sport Events.
Chappelet (2014) proposes the following
definition of sport events, "a sport event belongs to a
particular place and returns regularly, usually every
year sometimes every two years, without
interruption except exceptional. The owner of this
event is a local entity, usually a non-profit
organization or community, but not a national or
international organization”.
From this definition, we retain that the author
identifies the following characteristics related to
sport events:
The specific location,
The frequency (Recurrence),
The local governance (owner of the event,
association or community),
The longevity.
This author has added the frequency
characteristic which is not an element of the
definition presented in begin of this section. In our
understanding it is a significant characteristic. Thus,
we add it to our proposal conceptual model.
Bessy (2014) was interested by innovation in
events, in particular in sport events or touristic
events. Thus, he finds that innovation is at the level
of the concept of the events, in their governance and
in their communication. From Bessy’ analysis we
keep two elements: communication of sport events
and the innovation.
At last, we complete our proposal conceptual
model by adding all these dimensions (see Figure 1).
KMIS 2019 - 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems
266
3.2 Sport Events Legacy
The legacy of mega sporting events can be perceived
in several ways. In one hand, Legacy is determined
by benchmarking, based on past experiences from
other mega events. In other hand, Legacy is
determined also by macro-economic indicators.
(Cashman, 2005) consider that legacy is often
assumed to be self-evident, so that there is no need
to define precisely what it is.
(Preuss, 2007) proposed the following definition
“Irrespective of time of production and space,
legacy is all planned and unplanned, positive and
negative, tangible and intangible structures created
for and by a sport event that remain longer than the
event itself ”. This definition highlights six
dimensions. However, most prevent studies and bid
committees focus on only (planned, positive,
tangible) (Cashman, 2005).
(Preuss, 2007) identified some impacts of mega
sport events: economic impact, urban development,
employment impacts, environmental and social
impacts. He precise that the sport events accelerate
city development by built some sport infrastructures,
training sites, villages of athletes, technical officials
and media. In another hand, the supervisors of
technical structure developed power plants,
telecommunication networks, and cultural
attractions.
(Chappelet, 2012) proposes this definition “The
legacy of a mega sport event is all that remains and
may be considered as consequences of the event in
its environment”.
Please, note in this definition the association
between sport events and legacy. (Hinch, and
Ramshaw, 2014) highlight a first explicit association
between sports events and legacy (heritage) through
the concept of ‘Sport Heritage Attractions’.
Figure 2: Conceptual Model for Sport Events Legacy.
The IOC (2009) outlines five Games legacies:
Sporting; Social, cultural and political;
Environmental; Economic; Urban.
Based on these definitions, we retain five
dimensions which we use in our conceptual model
(see Figure 2). Thus, the sport events legacy (SEL)
is described through five classes: ‘economic’,
‘environmental’, ‘cultural-social-political’, ‘urban’
and ‘sporting’.
Finally, the conceptual model of sport events and
the conceptual model of sport events legacy form a
one Global Conceptual Model for sport events (see
Figure3).
Figure 3: Global Conceptual Model for Sport Events.
Sport event legacy is linked to a sport event
because the legacy is any outcomes that affect
people or space caused by structural changes that
stem from sport events.
4 CAPITALIZATION SYSTEM
FOR SPORT EVENTS LEGACY
Our aims are, in one hand, to use the KM for
addressing the different facets of sport events
legacy. In other hand, to implement the KM
solutions which rely on the use of information
technology to collect and disperse the knowledge of
sport events and sport events legacy. Although
(Halbwirth and Toohey 2001) introduced the
concept of knowledge management in major sport
events associated with the 2000 Sydney Olympic
Games, gaps remain, including in the knowledge
management system. Thus, we focus on the
architecture of Knowledge Capitalization System
KM-oriented for Sport Events Legacy.
Generally speaking, the steps of creating new
artifacts in information system are:
Constructs, which provide the vocabulary used
to define and understand problems and solutions
Towards Improving Knowledge Capitalization System for Sport Events Legacy
267
Models, which are designed representations of
problems and solutions
Methods, which are algorithms, practices, for
performing task
Architecture, components, interfaces, (or code)
which is the development that realize the
processes and services.
In the third section, we product the constructs and
models which ensure the creation of database for
storage, retention and protection of data. In this
section, we describe the architecture of the
capitalization System for sport events legacy. The
main goal of the Knowledge Management process is
to capitalize, share and transfer knowledge internally
and externally (for more details see Clarke, 2011).
Then, we implement package for each activities
include in KM process.
Figure 4: Architecture of Knowledge Capitalization
system.
The architecture of our technical framework (see
Figure 4) is as follow:
The Data (Explicit Knowledge) integration is
being by automatic instruments: example use the
tool for Extract-Transform-load for including data in
the platform from files or databases. Or use forms,
when, for example, a territorial agent fills in a form
at giving the name of sport event, frequency,
location: these inscriptions are data. He can input
explicit knowledge as document, video.
Information Creation: Information is the results
of inferences from relevant data. Information is the
data augmented by additional items inferred or
calculated using analytics tooling. In this package,
users can create storyboards.
The administration package is used to rolling
upgrades, improved diagnostic. Also, to ensure the
security, data consistency, etc.
The knowledge Share and transfer: this package
is composed by interfaces for uploading explicit
knowledge and wiki to exchanges with users. First,
users upload documents, video, etc. Secondly they
use the wiki to share their contexts and create new
meanings through interactions. The wiki is a way of
organizing that is based on the meaning it creates,
rather than a form of organization such as hierarchy.
In fact, our proposal ‘Knowledge Capitalization
System KM-oriented’ contributes to manage sport
events knowledge to improve the acquisition,
creation, storage, elaboration and transfer stages.
5 METHOD FOR TOOL USE
This section describes the method for our tool use as
a series of four stages. This method supports the
‘identification’, ‘acquisition and creation’,
‘elaboration’, and ‘transfer’ stages. One other hand,
this method is used to evaluate the usability of our
technical framework. We based on the concept
‘usability’ defined in ((Kitchenham and Pfleeger,
1996), (Garcés and a., 2017 p.134)).
First Stage: identification area and data collect
This first stage is to identify the area of sport event
and knowledge and data needs and sources.
As a starting point of this work, we have
modeled the sport event (see Figure 3) based on the
literature. This modelization helps us to structure the
data and knowledge we collect. Each dimension of
this model is described by:
Data, e.g. organizational data like name of sports
federations, date, address, etc.; types of building
materials used for Olympic Villages, number of
training sites; number of villages of athletes, etc.
these data capture the value of sport event.
Explicit knowledge, e.g. documents,
prospectus,reports, articles about sport events.
Video and model e.g. plans for future city
development.
Other e.g. security, technological.
According to (Preuss, 2007) the knowledge
which describe sport event legacy can be tangible or
intangible (see Table 1). We looked some examples
of knowledge.
The knowledge sources varied, e.g. documents,
past experience, people. Some interviews will be
conducted. The interviewee profile considered ideal
for the interviews are organizers, sponsors,
managers, participants, volunteers and spectators.
We will review Web sites and other available data
sources of sport events to again additional data and
knowledge.
Data Integration – Knowledge Integration
Administration
Information
Creation
(Analytics Tooling)
Knowledge Share and Transfer
Storage
KMIS 2019 - 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems
268
Table 1: Types of Knowledge which describe sport event.
type
Tangible
Urban
Transport solutions
Olympic village flats.
New iconic buildings
Infrastructure
Societal
New job
Receptions
dispositions
Capacity of the
actors to produce
event
Sporting
People interested and
active in sport
Political
Free public services
(security, etc.)
Environmental
Capacity of the
actors maintain
infrastructure
Types of materials
Economic
New hotels, new
restaurants, price
increases, etc.
Second Stage: Acquisition and creation
In the first stage the data (Knowledge) and
respective sources were identified and collected.
This stage addresses two steps. First, if the
identified data (knowledge) already exist in our tool,
it will simply update them or acquires the sources.
Second, if the identified data (knowledge) already
do not exist, then it will be create with respective
sources.
Third Stage: Elaboration
In this stage we deal with ‘transform data into
information’, ‘derive new information from existing’
using analytics tooling and ‘creation of storyboards’.
Fourth Stage: Transfer Knowledge
Ultimately, the knowledge will be transfer to
public policies, territories policies, and futures
organizers of sport events. In other hand, knowledge
will be used by citizens, historians, journalists and
others. Only, transferring explicit knowledge
through documents and reports it's possible using
our tool.
This stage will be in an iterative fashion.
Technology is an important enabler of knowledge
management, more precisely using collaborative tool
for explicit knowledge e.g. web site, forum.
Our case study concerns the sport event ‘Africa
up of nations 2019’. This study is in progress. We
focused, in first step, only on the identification of
data (explicit knowledge) without interviewees. In
second step, we will take into account the human.
We agree (Chugh, 2018) who demonstrates “for any
successful tacit knowledge transfer initiative in an
organisation, it is vital that the identified human,
social and culture factors are tackled to ensure
success. However, all organisational initiatives
towards tacit knowledge sharing will be futile if
employees are not motivated to share.”
6 CONCLUSION
The purposes of this paper are (1) to understand
concepts of sport events and sport events legacy. (2)
To examine the theory and practice of knowledge
Management processes using the sport events legacy
as the empirical setting. (3) Building a knowledge
capitalization system for sport events legacy
according to (Parent, MacDonald, and Goulet, 2014)
that showed that hosting sports events requires
organizers to learn from past events to not repeat
mistakes.
As a starting point of our work, we model the
sport event and sport events legacy based on the
literature using UML diagrams. This modeling helps
us to structure the database of our knowledge
capitalization system for sport events Legacy. The
aim is to propose a uniform way to represent several
sport events and sport events legacy. The proposed
UML model can be used for the modeling of other
case study of sport events. Then, using the
information system methodology enabled us to
construct architecture of knowledge capitalization
system KM-oriented. We created a tool composed
by five (05) components. Each component is
required to establishing the KM-oriented.
Our proposed artifact requires identification and
handling of the elements of data of sport events that
could be stored, analyzed, understood, customized
and transferred for use. However, this artifact merits
to be demonstrated through a case study within a
real sport event. Our case study is in progress.
This work extends the KM discipline, practically,
by incorporating sport events and sport events
legacy as an important field within KM practice, and
providing a specialized knowledge capitalization
socio-technical tool.
There are several limitations of the current study
that need to be addressed. First, when such a
research design is utilized, the case study should
validate the framework. In another hand, the case
study is the generalizability of the results needs to be
addressed. However, our case study is in progress.
A more limiting factor regarding the
generalizability of this research deals with
Towards Improving Knowledge Capitalization System for Sport Events Legacy
269
national/cultural issues. According to (Chugh, 2018)
culture (personal and organizational) and language
could be barriers of knowledge transfer.
One other limitation of our approach in this
paper needs is take in account tacit knowledge.
The main perspective is validation of the
architecture of knowledge capitalization system
KM-oriented for sport events legacy through various
case studies. Another perspective is to take into
account the spatiotemporal aspects of sport events.
REFERENCES
Ackoff, R.L., (1989). From data to wisdom, Journal of
Applied Systems Analysis 16 (1989) 3–9.
Anand, A., & Singh, M. D. (2011). Understanding
Knowledge Management: A literature review.
International Journal of Engineering Science and
Technology, 3(2), 926–939.
Barclay, R., Murray, P. C., (2004). What Is Knowledge
Management?, Knowledge Praxis.
Bera, P., Burton-Jones, A., & Wand, Y. (2011).
Guidelines for designing visual ontoloties to support
knowledge identification. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 883–
908.
Bessy, O. (dir.) (2014). L’innovation dans l’événementiel
sportif: De l’attractivité touristique au développement
territorial. PUS, Voiron, France, p. 244.
Cashman, R. (2005). The bitter-sweet awakening. The
legacy of the syndney 2000 Olympic Games. Sydney:
Walla WallaPress.
Chappelet, J.-L. (2012). Mega sporting event legacies: a
multifaceted concept.
Chappelet, J.-L. (2014). Les événements sportifs
patrimoniaux comme vecteur de développement
territorial. In O. Bessy, (Dir.), L’innovation dans
l’événementiel sportif: De l’attractivité touristique au
développement territorial (pp. 24-35). Voiron: PUS.
Clarke, S. (2011). Support network. Olympic Review, 62–
66.
Davenport, T. H and Prusak L., (1998), Working
knowledge: How organizations manage what they
know. Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press.
Chugh R. (2018). Tacit Knowledge Transfer in Australian
Universities: Exploring the Barriers and Enablers.
MATEC Web of Conferences 210, 04054 2018.
Davenport, T.H., and Prusak, L. (2000). Working
Knowledge – Practitioner approaches to knowledge in
organizations. Boston, Harvard Business School Press.
(Garcés, L. Ampatzogloub, A. Avgerioub, P. Nakagawaa,
E.Y. (2017), Quality attributes and quality models for
ambient assisted living software systems: A systematic
mapping. Information and Software Technology, 82,
121-138.
Getz, D. (2008). Event tourism: Definition, evolution, and
research. Tourism Management, 29, 403-428.
Grim-Yefsah, M. (2012). Knowledge Management and
Outsourcing. Doctoral thesis, Computer science,
University of Paris-Dauphine, France.
Grundstein, M., (2012). Three Postulates That Change
Knowledge Management Paradigm, In Huei-Tse Hou
(Ed.) New Research in Knowledge Management,
Models and Methods (Chap. 1), pp. 1-26.
Halbwirth, S., and Toohey, K. (2001). The Olympic
Games and knowledge management: A case study of
the Sydney Organising Committee of the Olympic
Games. European Sport Management Quarterly, 1(2),
91–111.
Hinch, T., and Ramshaw, G. (2014). Heritage sport
tourism in Canada. Tourism Geographies: An
International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and
Environment, 16(2), 237–251.
IOC (2009). 2018 Candidature Acceptance Procedure.
Lausanne: International Olympic Committee.
Kitchenham, B. Pfleeger SL. (1996). Software Quality,
IEEE software.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi H. (1995). The Knowledge
Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create
the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I. Toyama, R. and Konno, N. (2000). SECI, Ba
and leadership: a unified model of dynamic knowledge
creation, Long Range Planning, 33 (1), 5-34.
Parent, M. M., MacDonald, D., & Goulet, G. (2014). The
theory and practice of knowledge management and
transfer: The case of the Olympic Games. Sport
Management Review, 17, 205–218.
Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. Garden City,
NY: Doubleday & Co.
Preuss, H. (2007). The Conceptualisation of
Measurement of Mega Sport Event Legacies in
Journal of Sport Tourism · November 2007.
Preuss, H. (2015). A framework for identifying the
legacies of a mega sport event. January 2015, Leisure
Studies 34(6):1-22.
Ramshaw, G., Gammon, S.J. (2016). Towards a critical
sport heritage: implications for sport tourism, Journal
of Sport & Tourism.
Sternberg, R. J. Forsythe, G. Hedlund, J. Horvath, J.
Wagner, R. Williams, W. Snook, S. Grigorenko, E.
(2000) Practical intelligence in everyday life.
Cambridge UPress.
Zyngier, S. Venkitachalam, K. (2011). Knowledge
management governance-A strategic driver.
Knowledge Management Research & Practice 9, 136-
150.
KMIS 2019 - 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems
270