The Evaluation of Event Planning Models

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 715
  • Published : March 9, 2013
Open Document
Text Preview
The Evaluation of Event Planning Models
The Evaluation of Event Planning Models

Word Count- 2451
Arianne

Word Count- 2451
Arianne

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction 2

2. Context2
2.1 Importance of planning 4

3.Objectives6

4. concept7

5. conclusion9

6.appendix10

7. references12

1. Introduction
This report will, in detail, examine and evaluate the elements of the event planning models: Masterman(2009) Strategic sports event management, Allen et al (2008) Festival and special event management and Getz (1997) Event Management and Event Tourism Shone & Parry (2010) Successful Event Management. In addition, the study will identify the key strengths and weaknesses of each model, whilst evaluating their usefulness and effectiveness. This will be achieved by applying them to current events and referring to case studies. Throughout this report the models will be compared to each other to achieve a more comprehensive conclusion.

2. Context
The events industry is developing & growing constantly, at local, national and international levels. This is due to events having such a broad definition, whether it is, for example; a wedding, sports occasion or a music festival. As there is a vast amount of diverse events, it is advantageous to assign them a category. The way events are categorised is diverse with different organisations. Although a simple way to classify events is on their purpose and objectives. Shone and Parry (2010) recognized that the event industry can be classified into four broad categories based on their purpose and objective: 1. Leisure events e.g. leisure sport, music, recreation.

2. Cultural events e.g. ceremonial, religious, art, heritage, and folklore. 3. Personal events e.g. weddings, birthdays, anniversaries. 4. Organizational events e.g. commercial, political, charitable, sales, product launch,expo. The definition of what constitutes an event varies with both academics and organizations. “Events are temporary occurrences, they have a finite length, and for a planned event this is usually fixed and publicized” (Getz, 1997 p4) Getz believes that every event is unique combination of its duration, setting, management and people. The models being evaluated within this report all share both similarities within their structure and elements, along with showing clear differences and contrasting against one another. Identifying the key elements and effectiveness of event planning models, enables us to recognize which method is best suited to a specific event. Each model can be applied to either a specific scale or type of event, or some have the ability to adapt to any scale or nature of event. For instance, Masterman (2009) states ‘A sport event planning model that is appropriate for all scales and intentions that encompasses short term implementation and long term legacy benefits’ Masterman (2009) pg56. This enables all events to follow this planning process, not matter what nature or size. This can be seen as both strength and a weakness. The reason for this is due to the model not specifying any particular concept for an event. This may result in less through planning for a specialist event. Shone & Parry suggest ‘The nature of organization between small local events, medium- sized events, and large scale international mega events is not especially one of differences in management functions; but is about differences in scale, sophistication of techniques, intensity and detail of planning.’ Shone & Parry( 2010) pg74 Shone & Parry (2010) suggest that their planning method be used for slightly smaller scale events such as, personal occasions eg Weddings or cultural and leisure based. This enables an organization to use a method in which is especially designed for that specific event. In contrast to Shone & Parry, Getz (1997) proposes that this planning technique is hard to implement for small events that rely on volunteers...
tracking img