evaluating european union structural funding programmes for tourism smes: a case from industrial...

ABSTRACT

This paper considers the evaluation of aprogramme designed to improve thecontribution of tourism to the economy ofindustrial South Wales. The evaluation ofthe Network of Excellence for Action inTourism (NEAT) initiative is compared withrecent thinking around two key areas ofresearch into tourism and economicregeneration. First, is the need foralternative (non-traditional) approaches toevaluation, and second, is the need foreffective networks of communicationbetween tourism employers to facilitate theeffective demand for skills. This paperanalyses the claim that tourismdevelopment programmes offer significantadvantages other than those commonlyidentified by funding specifications.Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 22 January 2003; revised 16 June 2003; accepted 22June 2003

Keywords: evaluation; EU structural funds;tourism; Industrial South Wales.

INTRODUCTION

Buckley and Witt (1985, p. 205) describeda ‘difficult area’ for tourism as having asmall tourism base in terms of receipts; a

poor image for tourism development withunfavourable social or economic factors; and,as being in need of infrastructural improve-ment. Industrial South Wales (ISW) is strug-gling to improve its tourism receipts (asevidenced by local economic developmentstrategies); is currently designated an Objec-tive One area by the European Union (EU),replacing its previous Objective Two status;and is beginning its transition from traditionalmining and heavy industry towards a modernlocality. This particular ‘difficult area’ wouldappear to meet the criteria on all counts.

This paper considers an EU Structural Fundtourism project in the ISW area and undertakesan analysis by comparing it with the recentthinking around two key areas of research intotourism and economic regeneration. The firstarea is the evaluation of structural funding programmes for tourism. Recent evaluationsof such programmes suggest they are wellsuited to dealing with the relatively ‘easy’tourism problems (low standards, poor offseason facilities, etc.) but that they also havethe potential to make up for an absence ofstrategy and provide opportunities for net-working between tourism sectors. If these indi-rect benefits of structural fund programmesare to be adequately understood it has beenargued that an alternative approach to evalua-tion becomes necessary (Bull, 1999). Theproject under consideration in this paper evi-dences this claim and demonstrates the needfor a more flexible approach to evaluation.

The second key area of research into tourismand regeneration focuses upon the role of skills development. Thomas and Long (2001)

Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCHInt. J. Tourism Res. 5, 393–402 (2003)Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/jtr.445

Evaluating European Union StructuralFunding Programmes for Tourism SMEs:a Case from Industrial South WalesD. O’Sullivan*, E. J. Stewart, B. Thomas, A. Sparkes and J. YoungBusiness School, University of Glamorgan, Pontypridd CF37 1DL, UK

*Correspondence to: D. O’Sullivan, Business School, Uni-versity of Glamorgan, Pontypridd CF37 1DL, UK. E-mail: [email protected]

argue that employer attitudes to, and demandfor, training (and other aspects of businessmanagement) is a key issue in effectivetourism-led regeneration. The authors go on tosuggest that even where employers are alreadycommitted to utilising high quality skills in thesector, they are often ill informed about localskills supply initiatives, making the need foreffective networks of communication a pre-condition to their actual demand for them. Theproject evaluation reported here supports thisclaim and finds that the benefits of the projectare not predefined quantifiable projections (job creation, increase in business turnover,changes in staff turnover, number of qualityawards or ratings) but qualitative reportsaround improvements in working practice.This paper analyses the Network for Excellence and Action in Tourism (NEAT)project in relation to these key areas of researchin tourism-led regeneration.

Here NEAT is considered for its propensityto make a positive contribution to economicregeneration in the field of skills development,and, for its ability to produce positive out-comes that need an alternative to the tradi-tional evaluative approach in order to beidentified.

THE EVALUATION OF STRUCTURALFUNDING PROGRAMMES FOR TOURISM

Most evaluations of EU programmes take theprogramme specification as their starting pointand evaluate performance in terms of easilymeasurable objectives, often increases in jobsor tourism flows (e.g. Jorgensen et al. (1992)and Jorgensen (1995), cited in Bull, 1999. p.150). This approach offers an obvious logic asthe identification of measurable outcomes is a pre-requirement of structural, or indeedalmost any type of, funding support. It hasbeen suggested, however, that this method ofevaluation overlooks important outcomes thatwere not predefined in programmes (Majoneand Wildavsky (1984) and Browne and Wildavsky (1983), as cited in Pressman andWildavsky, 1984). It has also been argued thatend-goals are not always clear until after theevent (Sabatier, 1986) and that this has beenparticularly true in the case of structural fundprogrammes (Armstrong, 1995).

Bull (1999), based on work undertaken byHull and Hjern (1982), argues for an alterna-tive approach to evaluation and implemen-tation of structural fund programmes. Such anapproach would not merely evaluate theachievement of predefined goals but would‘examine how well local populations of firmsfare in coping with their problems of develop-ment and to ask whether any differences canbe explained by the varying actor and resourcecomposition of the assistance structures’. Bull(1999) argues for evaluation that measures theextent to which local actors are helped to over-come obstacles to tourism development (theaim of the programme in question), as definedthrough subjective criteria identified by thelocal industry themselves. The study by Bull(1999, p. 164) concludes that a ‘bottom-up’evaluation method facilitates the identificationand separation of those problem areas withinthe local tourism industry that the fundingprogramme has ‘had success in alleviating,from those where it has had less success’. Theapproach is argued to provide an ‘importantsupplement to traditional top-down evalua-tion’ (Bull, 1999, p. 164).

SKILLS DEVELOPMENT, TOURISM ANDECONOMIC REGENERATION

Despite the difficulties associated with evalu-ating the impact of tourism-led regenerationinitiatives (Law, 1992; Ryan, 1995; Williams,1997; Argarwal, 1999) attitudes to tourismdevelopment remain generally positive(Williams and Shaw, 1998; Hall, 1999; Mules,1999). In recent years policy documents atnational (DCMS, 1999), regional (Wanhill,2000) and local (Argarwal, 1999) level extol thevalue, and indeed the necessity, of promotingemployee skills and training as a precursor tosuccessful tourism development and local economic regeneration. One area that has been neglected until recently is that of tourismsector supply and competitiveness. In theirrecent paper Thomas and Long (2001, p. 230)argue that the supply and utilisation of skillsdevelopment for tourism is an issue of key,although not exclusive, importance.

In exploring the link between skills devel-opment and the contribution of tourism toregeneration, Thomas and Long (2001, p. 231)

394 D. O’Sullivan et al.

Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 5, 393–402 (2003)

argue that ‘there is growing evidence thatinvestment in training and the effective utili-sation of skilled staff within organisations has a beneficial impact, albeit indirectly, onbusiness performance’. The literature cited byThomas and Long (2001) appears to claim thatthere are advantages to be gained from invest-ment in training and the effective utilisation ofskilled staff in the areas of improved produc-tivity (Prais et al., 1989; Ichniowski et al., 1995);lower staff turnover (Eaglen et al., 1999);improved service quality (Hubrech and Teare,1993); greater organisational commitment(Gallie and White, 1993); increased flexibility(Mabey et al., 1998) and flexible approaches to change (Lashley 1997). The crux of Thomasand Long’s (2001) argument revolves aroundthe claim that many enterprises operate in a‘low skill/low quality’ equilibrium (as identi-fied by Finegold and Soskice, 1988). Conse-quently, poor training and skills utilisation isthe ‘inevitable consequence of being in such anequilibrium, rather than a problem in its ownright’ (Thomas and Long, 2001, p. 231). Theauthors conclude that for regeneration to be fully realised not only must employersdemand appropriate skills, local skills supplyinfrastructures must be prepared to providethem.

The Network for Excellence and Action inTourism (NEAT) project: background

The project was devised by University of WalesInstitute Cardiff (UWIC) to improve trainingopportunities for tourism, hospitality andleisure businesses within the industrial SouthWales area. In partnership with South EastWales TEC (now Education and LearningWales — ELWa), UWIC applied for fundingfrom the European Social Fund under the ISWObjective Two programme. The project wasapproved for one year, 2000–2001, with aproject manager employed to bring tourismbusinesses together to identify and fundopportunities for members around trainingand marketing. Clusters of tourism businesseswere formed across South Wales and encour-aged to identify business needs. Membershipwas characterised by micro and small busi-nesses including, for example, members fromthe accommodation sector, heritage sector and

outdoor pursuits/arts/sports organisations.Some training opportunities were partlyfunded and some were entirely funded by the project. Sessions were many and variedincluding, for example, training on ICT/webdesign, customer care, health and safety, andmarketing.

NEAT is described in its promotional litera-ture as a project which

aims to create a network of micro andmedium-sized tourism, hospitality andleisure businesses. We will introduce strat-egies to equip businesses to place them-selves at the forefront of their immediateregion. We will provide you with trainingand help you to market yourself and Walesas a realistic and vibrant tourist alternative

In March 2001 the University of Glamorganwas commissioned by the project manager toundertake the evaluation of the NEAT projectcluster in Rhondda Cynon Taf (RCT) in accor-dance with funding requirements. The reportwas produced in May of that year (for fulldetails see Stewart et al., 2001).

Evaluating NEAT

The evaluation of the NEAT project focused onthree key aims as negotiated with the projectmanager. The first aim was to measure theimpact of NEAT against four projected out-comes (job creation, increase in businessturnover, changes in staff turnover, number ofquality awards or ratings). The second aim ofthe evaluation was to identify future trainingneeds of cluster members. The third aim of theevaluation was to provide a general overviewof individual perceptions of the benefits of theNEAT training programmes.

Data were obtained from 17 of the 22 clustermembers. The five non-respondents declinedowing to their lack of involvement with theNEAT project. Approximately three interviewswere undertaken at each of the 17 sites. One-to-one semi-structured, non-linear interviews(Singleton et al., 1993) were conducted withmembers of the RCT cluster over a 20 dayperiod in March 2001. A semi-structured interview approach was chosen for the NEATevaluation because it is flexible and the inter-view schedule can be limited to certain

Evaluating Structural Funds for Tourism 395


subtopics of interest. Semi-structured inter-views have specific objectives but allow theinterviewer some freedom in how these aremet (Singleton et al., 1993).

Perceptions of both managerial and non-managerial levels of the organisation weresought in an effort to gain more reliable evi-dence. Managers were asked about their atti-tudes to training before their involvement withthe NEAT project; details of their involvementwith NEAT during the previous 12 months; thevalue of NEAT training with regard to job creation and staff turnover; the value of NEATtraining with regard to business turnover andquality awards and ratings; and their thoughtsabout the future of the NEAT project (seeAppendix 1). Staff were asked similar ques-tions about attitudes to training before NEATproject involvement; what training they hadreceived; about their perceptions of the valueof the training (to them and to the organisa-tion); what further training needs they felt stillremained; and finally, about the future of theNEAT project (see Appendix 2).

Following the interviews, the quantitativeaspects of the interview were post-coded andthe data were entered into a computer spread-sheet. The majority of these data were nominal,so the analysis was descriptive utilising basicmeasures of frequencies and percentages. Datasets were too small for the use of meaningfulinferential and correlation statistics. Analysisof the (verbatim) interview transcripts focused,where possible, on the repetition of themes and topics (Lofland and Lofland, 1984). Theserepeated themes and topics formed the basis oflater discussion (see Analysis of key projectedoutcomes, item 3).

Analysis of key projected outcomes

(1) To measure the impact of NEAT against fourkey projected outcomes

Number of jobs created directly or indirectly.The analysis within the report indicates the dif-ficulties of attempting to apply quantifiableoutcomes to projects such as NEAT (Stewart etal., 2001, pp. 9–11). On the whole respondentswere not prepared to claim that jobs had beencreated directly or indirectly by their involve-ment with NEAT but their perceptions of its

value were nonetheless clear. One respondentclaimed that involvement with the projectenabled them to keep full time staff andincrease opportunities for part time work.Another said that the training contributed tojob creation but could not isolate training asthe only, or the even most, relevant factor. Onerespondent claimed that their involvementwith NEAT contributed to the creation of dif-ferent (better) roles for staff but not neces-sarily extra ones. Another claimed that duringa two-year period of restructuring they werepleased to say they had made no redundanciesdespite redundancies in the sector locally.

Tangible increase in business turnover. Fewrespondents were willing to address this ques-tion in detail and this was most likely becauseof an exceptionally poor year for the industryowing to the Foot and Mouth crisis. Onerespondent was able to say that turnover wasup over the period but could not attribute it toNEAT training alone. Another respondentcommented that it was difficult to attributechanges to the training because ‘you don’tknow what would have happened if you hadnot done it’ (Stewart et al., 2001, p. 10). Afurther respondent confirmed this point andadded that they perceived a link but that it was‘not possible to sort it out from all the othersuccesses in the organisation’ (Stewart et al.,2001, p. 10).

Changes in staff turnover. Responses to thisquestion continued in the same vein but onerespondent was convinced that the NEATtraining was significant in halting the highlevels of staff turnover experienced by theorganisation in the past. ‘I think that staff dorecognise that they are getting developed andtrained and that it’s a profession rather than ajob’ (Stewart et al., 2001, p. 11). One respon-dent did, however, note that there was a pos-sibility that training might lead to higher staff ambitions and make them interested in moving to another company with betteropportunities than their current employercould offer.

Number of quality awards or ratings. Thecommon response to these questions revealeda lack of awareness about quality ratings but



two respondents attributed the attainment ofWales Tourist Board Training Awards, at leastin part, to their involvement with NEAT.

(2) Future training needs of cluster members.Respondents spoke in positive terms of futuretraining needs suggesting that undertakingtraining always identifies further trainingneeds but that this was a ‘good thing’. Theresearch collated 27 different suggestions fromrespondents on future training need (Stewartet al., 2001, p. 12).

(3) To provide a general overview of individual perceptions of the benefits of the NEAT trainingprogrammes. In seeking to identify the percep-tions of managers and staff of their involve-ment with the NEAT programme the followingthemes emerged.

Staff confidence and morale. Many positivecomments on the impact of NEAT training onstaff morale and confidence were recorded.Managers claimed that the NEAT training hadgiven staff feelings of ownership of the busi-ness and that they (staff) were being valuedthrough the training opportunities beingoffered. One manager claimed that staff werevoluntarily identifying training needs andasking for places on courses which they hadnot done before the NEAT project had been putin place.One staff member stated:

(the training has) given me a lot more devel-opment for myself and I’ve developed fromit. So it’s benefited not only the business butmy staff as well because I can train thembetter, more confidently . . . instead of goingto pieces when I have to stand up in front ofthem . . . yes, it’s a great project’ (Stewart etal., 2001, p. 13).

Team working. Respondents at both manager-ial and staff levels claimed better team rela-tions. One example given was the improvedunderstanding of each others jobs gained by ajob swap exercise, an idea that had arisendirectly from a training session. Terms used todescribe this included ‘a feeling of belonging’,‘being part of a team’, and ‘openness withinthe team’. A better understanding of ‘who does

what and why’ was also claimed to exist(Stewart et al., 2001, p. 14).

Networking opportunities. Sharing trainingbetween NEAT participants was considered to be a positive outcome as cluster membersshowed evidence of a move towards seeing each other as partners rather than com-petitors. Respondents spoke in terms of ‘bring-ing businesses together’, ‘sharing ideas andproblems’ and ‘finding they are not alone’.Indeed some respondents valued this oppor-tunity at least as highly as the actual trainingprovided. One respondent identified the‘sharing’ of customers with other NEAT clustermembers as being extremely successful in their case.

Commitment to learning — cultural change. Anotable aspect of responses from both man-agers and staff was a positive attitude toongoing programmes of training. Respondentsreported that they were aware of a new com-mitment to learning as a result of staff par-ticipation in NEAT events and one staffrespondent claimed that colleagues were‘hungry for training’ and that this was a newand positive development (Stewart et al., 2001,p. 15). Another respondent commented thatthis change was necessary for the profile of the industry and its general image with potential future employees (Stewart et al., 2001,p. 15).

Fear of Losing Staff. Fear of losing staffthrough training was raised by one respondentbut overwhelmingly the training offeredthrough the NEAT project appeared to be seenas having a positive impact on staff retention.Even staff who had moved on to other compa-nies were seen as illustrating progression anda chance to ‘bring in new blood’ (Stewart et al.,2001, p. 16). These responses would suggest aperception of such staff movement as dynamicand positive and as something to be embraced.

Inclusiveness. The inclusivity of the clusterbecame clear during the research exercise butone negative note was raised. Some respon-dents suggested that the hotel sector did some-times tend to overdominate joint trainingsessions so that these were less directed to



non-hotel sector needs than they might other-wise have been.

Barriers to attendance. There were fewreported barriers to attendance for the NEATproject but one respondent did indicate thatsome training events were oversubscribed andthis meant a limit on staff from larger organisa-tions. A second problem was noted by onerespondent who found that the NEAT meetingsheld in the early evening were inconvenient.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS FROM NEAT EVALUATION

In summary the NEAT report argues thatalthough the project can not claim quantifiableoutcomes (jobs created, tangible increases in business turnover, improvements in staffturnover and improvements in quality awardsor ratings) it can claim a supporting role in areassuch as:

(1) safeguarding existing jobs(2) reduction in staff turnover(3) improvements in staff morale and

confidence(4) improvements in personal development(5) support of good management aims(6) improvements in team working(7) commitment to culture of continuous

training/learning(8) improvements in customer spend(9) reduction in customer complaints(10) speeding up the pace of business

improvement through training(11) opportunity to network — to share ideas

and problems

A generally positive perception of the NEATproject was made clear by respondents’ praisefor its ‘flexibility’ and ‘adaptability’. Meetingswere perceived by participants as ‘businesslike’ and ‘focused’ rather than a ‘talking shop’and such comments were typical in demon-strating support for the way the project wasmanaged (Stewart et al., 2001, p. 17). The reportcommented upon what it identified as a‘growing feeling of empowerment’ amongthose NEAT member organisations that hadenthusiastically embraced the training concept(Stewart et al., 2001, p. 22).

Recommendations for the future came fromrespondents and from the evaluation team.These included mergers with other local clus-ters to continue to develop tourism in theregion from a position of strength; subclusters,for example, within the accommodation sectorwhere training could be specialised; news-letters and web presence; repetition of trainingevents for new members; formal training eventevaluation; database management; and incen-tives to encourage inactive and new members.

CONCLUSIONS AND POLICYIMPLICATIONS

The arguments for a switch of emphasis awayfrom large automatic grants to attract inwardinvestment projects towards small firms andindigenous development has long since beenmade (Rodenberg, 1980). The case for promot-ing SMEs is undertaken on the basis that suchfirms underpin communities for entrepreneur-ship and job creation and indeed, that in the case of tourism, such objectives can, andare, being achieved (Wanhill, 2000). What theevaluation undertaken in this case (NEAT)suggests is that there may be a stage of almost‘pre-development’ necessary in some caseswithin the tourism sector. In their study ofCornwall, Williams and Shaw (1990) notedthat many tourism enterprises demonstratedweak management skills with high levels ofresistance to advice or change, causing barriersto development of the sector in region. The approach offered by NEAT, focused but flexible, with an emphasis on beingmember-driven, would appear to offer thepotential for circumventing some of theseproblems. The cultural shift identified by the evaluation towards partnership working(within organisations and between them); ageneral recognition of the value of training; ofthe support and networking being discoveredby project members; and of the feeling ofbelonging and personal development (withinorganisations and between them) becomes significant.

If the evaluative approach promoted by Bull(1999) (as discussed earlier) is taken it is pos-sible to argue that in the case of NEAT, pre-defined goals are less significant than theexamination of how the project supports SMEs



in their efforts to improve and grow theirtourism businesses.

Further, if we accept the argument ofThomas and Long (2001) that effective regen-eration through tourism requires employers todemand and utilise appropriate skills, and thatlocal skills supply infrastructures be geared to their provision, again NEAT appears to befulfilling these needs. Employers seem to bedemonstrating recognition of the value oftraining and are beginning to demand it, andthe NEAT project network is both promotingthe demand, and enabling members to identifyand access training supply.

The application of an alternative approach to evaluation demonstrates that there are dif-ferent, but no less significant, outcomes to be gained from tourism development pro-grammes than those identified traditionally. Inaddition, if it is accepted that for tourism-ledeconomic regeneration to be effective theremust be an accompanying demand for appro-

priate skills and training among employers,then this type of project is shown to deliver onboth counts.

It has been said that the worth of evaluationsmust be judged by their utility (Rossi andFreeman, 1993, p. 443). Evaluation of tourismprojects may produce a wealth of informationbut only when they contribute to decisionmaking will they be truly valuable. The evalua-tion undertaken here appears to support recentfindings reported in the academic milieu withregard to both programme evaluation (Bull,1999) and to the importance of networkingaround skills supply and demand (Thomasand Long, 2001).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

With thanks for help and co-operation of Sheridan Jeffrey (University of Wales InstituteCardiff) NEAT Project Manager.



App

end

ix 1

Man

ager

ial

inte

rvie

w p

rofo

rma



Inte

rvie

w N

umbe

r:

1. A

ttit

ude

to ‘

trai

ning

’ be

fore

in

volv

emen

t in

the

NE

AT

Pro

ject

∑ B

efor

e yo

u go

t inv

olve

d w

ith th

e N

EA

Tpr

ojec

t wha

t ‘va

lue’

did

you

atta

ch to

trai

ning

?

∑ If

trai

ning

had

occ

urre

d in

the

orga

nisa

tion

– w

hat f

orm

did

the

trai

ning

take

and

how

did

it be

nefit

you

r or

gani

satio

n?

∑ W

hy d

id y

ou b

ecom

e in

volv

ed in

the

NE

AT

proj

ect?

5. F

utur

e of

the

NE

AT

pro

ject

∑ W

hat a

re y

our

trai

ning

prio

ritie

s ov

er th

e ne

xt 1

2 m

onth

s? D

o yo

u th

ink

thes

e m

ight

be a

chie

ved

with

the

help

of t

he N

EA

Tpr

ojec

t?

∑ H

ow d

o yo

u th

ink

the

NE

AT

pro

ject

co

uld/

shou

ld p

rogr

ess

over

the

next

12

mon

ths

in o

rder

to h

elp

addr

ess

the

need

fo

r tr

aini

ng m

embe

rs?

Pre

ambl

eC

onfi

dent

iali

ty S

tate

men

t P

erso

nal P

rofi

leC

ompa

ny P

rofi

le

6. B

ig P

ictu

re

Now

that

we

have

spe

nt s

ome

time

thin

king

abo

ut ‘

NE

AT

Tra

inin

g’ c

an y

ou

sum

up

wha

t im

pact

, if

any,

it h

as h

ad o

n yo

ur o

rgan

isat

ion?

∑ C

atch

all

– is

ther

e an

ythi

ng th

at y

ou

thou

ght w

e m

ight

ask

, tha

t we

have

n’t,

and

that

you

wan

t to

add

now

, at t

he e

nd.

4. V

alue

of

NE

AT

Tra

inin

g –

Tur

nove

r

∑ H

as th

ere

been

any

qua

ntifi

able

cha

nge

inbu

sine

ss tu

rnov

er th

at m

ight

be

said

to b

e a

resu

lt of

invo

lvem

ent i

n N

EA

T tr

aini

ng?

If ye

s, b

y ho

w m

uch?

If n

o, d

o yo

u th

ink

ther

e m

ight

be

chan

ge a

t a fu

ture

poi

nt?

∑ D

o yo

u fe

el th

at y

our

curr

ent t

rain

ing

need

s ha

ve b

een

addr

esse

d th

roug

h th

e N

EA

T p

roje

ct?

[i.e.

val

ue fo

r m

oney

]

∑ H

as y

our

invo

lvem

ent w

ith N

EA

T le

d to

the

atta

inm

ent o

f qua

lity

awar

ds o

r ra

tings

?

2. I

nvol

vem

ent

in N

EA

T T

rain

ing

over

last

12

mon

ths

∑ C

an y

ou li

st a

ll th

e N

EA

T tr

aini

ng e

vent

s m

embe

rs o

f sta

ff ha

ve a

ttend

ed?

∑ W

hy a

nd h

ow d

id y

ou c

hoos

e th

is/th

ese

trai

ning

eve

nt/s

?

∑ W

hat i

s yo

ur o

pini

on o

f the

way

in w

hich

N

EA

T tr

aini

ng is

dec

ided

upo

n?

∑ A

fter

the

trai

ning

eve

nt -

did

you

or

your

staf

f ‘sh

are’

exp

erie

nces

with

oth

erm

embe

rs o

f sta

ff in

you

r or

gani

satio

n?

∑ W

hat t

rain

ing

othe

r th

an fr

om N

EA

T h

asyo

ur o

rgan

isat

ion

been

invo

lved

ove

r th

e la

st 1

2 m

onth

s, if

any

?

3. V

alue

of

NE

AT

Tra

inin

g -

Em

ploy

men

t∑

Has

you

r in

volv

emen

t in

NE

AT

cre

ated

ne

w jo

bs, e

ither

dire

ctly

or

indi

rect

ly, i

f so,

ho

w m

any?

∑ W

hat,

if an

y, a

re th

e be

nefit

s fr

om s

taff

part

icip

atio

n in

NE

AT

trai

ning

eve

nts?

∑ H

as a

nyth

ing

held

you

bac

k fr

omac

cess

ing

NE

AT

trai

ning

at a

ny ti

me?

∑ H

ave

you

seen

any

cha

nges

to s

taff

turn

over

as

a re

sult

of in

volv

emen

t in

NE

AT

trai

ning

eve

nts?



App

end

ix 2

Sta

ff i

nte

rvie

w p

rofo

rma

Inte

rvie

w N

umbe

r:

1. A

ttit

ude

to ‘

trai

ning

’ be

fore

in

volv

emen

t in

the

NE

AT

Pro

ject

∑ B

efor

e yo

u go

t inv

olve

d w

ith th

e N

EA

Tpr

ojec

t wha

t did

you

thin

k ab

out t

rain

ing?

∑ If

trai

ning

had

occ

urre

d –

wha

t for

m d

id it

take

and

how

effe

ctiv

ely

was

it d

eliv

ered

?

∑ W

hy d

id y

ou b

ecom

e in

volv

ed in

the

NE

AT

proj

ect?

∑ W

hat w

ere

your

exp

ecta

tions

of N

EA

Ttr

aini

ng?

5. F

utur

e of

the

NE

AT

pro

ject

∑ H

ow d

o yo

u th

ink

the

NE

AT

pro

ject

co

uld/

shou

ld p

rogr

ess

over

the

next

12

mon

ths

in o

rder

to h

elp

addr

ess

the

need

fo

r tr

aini

ng m

embe

rs?

Pre

ambl

eC

onfi

dent

iali

ty S

tate

men

t P

erso

nal P

rofi

le

6. B

ig P

ictu

re

Now

tha

t w

e ha

ve s

pent

som

e ti

me

thin

king

abo

ut ‘

NE

AT

Tra

inin

g’ c

an

you

sum

up

wha

t it

mea

ns t

o yo

u?

∑ C

atch

all

– is

ther

e an

ythi

ng th

at y

ou

thou

ght w

e m

ight

ask

, tha

t we

have

n’t,

and

that

you

wan

t to

add

now

, at t

he e

nd o

f the

in

terv

iew

?

4. I

ndiv

idua

l Tra

inin

g N

eeds

∑ D

o yo

u fe

el th

at y

our

curr

ent t

rain

ing

need

s ha

ve b

een

met

thro

ugh

NE

AT

trai

ning

or

do y

ou th

ink

you

need

furt

her

trai

ning

?

∑ W

hat a

re y

our

pers

onal

trai

ning

prio

ritie

sov

er th

e ne

xt 1

2 m

onth

s?

2. I

nvol

vem

ent

in N

EA

T T

rain

ing

over

last

12

mon

ths

∑ C

an I

chec

k al

l the

NE

AT

trai

ning

eve

nts

you

have

atte

nded

?

∑ W

hy a

nd h

ow d

id y

ou c

hoos

e th

is/th

ese

trai

ning

eve

nt/s

?

∑ A

fter

the

trai

ning

eve

nt -

did

you

‘sha

re’

your

exp

erie

nces

with

oth

er m

embe

rs o

fst

aff i

n yo

ur o

rgan

isat

ion

[eith

er fo

rmal

ly o

rin

form

ally

]?

∑ H

ave

you

been

invo

lved

in o

ther

form

s of

trai

ning

ove

r th

e la

st 1

2 m

onth

s (ie

not

NE

AT

rel

ated

)?

3. V

alue

of

NE

AT

Tra

inin

g

∑ W

hat b

enef

its, i

f any

has

the

NE

AT

trai

ning

had

for

you?

∑ W

hat b

enef

its, i

f any

has

the

NE

AT

trai

ning

had

for

the

orga

nisa

tion

that

you

w

ork

for?

∑ H

ave

ther

e be

en a

ny b

arrie

rs to

you

taki

ng

part

in N

EA

T tr

aini

ng e

vent

s?

REFERENCES

Argarwal S. 1999. Restructuring and local economicdevelopment: implications for seaside resortregeneration in Southwest Britain. Tourism Man-agement 20(4): 511–522.

Armstrong H. 1995. The role and evolution of European Community regional policy. In TheEuropean Union and the Regions, Jones, B, KeatingM (eds). Clarendon Press: Oxford 23–62.

Buckley P, Witt S. 1985. Tourism in difficult areas:case studies of Bradford, Bristol, Glasgow andHamm. Tourism Management 6(3): 205–214.

Bull B. 1999. Encouraging Tourism developmentthrough the EU structural funds: a case study ofthe implementation of EU programmes on Bornholm. International Journal of Tourism Research1: 149–165.

DCMS. 1999. Tomorrow’s Tourism: a Growth Industryfor the New Millennium. Tourism Division, Depart-ment of Culture, Media and Sport: London.

Eaglen A, Lashley C, Thomas R, 1999. Benefits and Cost Analysis: the Impact of Training on Business Performance. Hospitality Training Foundation/Leeds Metropolitan University:London.

Finegold D, Soskice D. 1988. The failure of trainingin Britain: analysis and prescription. OxfordReview of Economic Policy 4(3): 21–53.

Gallie D, White M. 1993. Employee Commitment andSkills Revolution. PSI: London.

Hall C. 1999. The politics of decision making andtop down planning: Darling Harbour, Sydney. In Managing Tourism Cities: Policy, Process andPractice, Tyler D, Guerruer Y, Robertson M (eds).Wiley: Chichester; 9–24.

Hubrech J, Teare R. 1993. A strategy for partnershipin total quality service. International Journal ofContemporary Hospitality Management 5(3): 1–4.

Hull C, Hjern B. 1982. Helping small firms grow: animplementation analysis of small firm assistancestructures. European Journal of Political Research 10:187–198.

Ichniowski C, Shaw K, Prennushi G. 1995. The effectsof human resource management practices on produc-tivity. Working Paper 5333 National Bureau ofEconomic Research: Cambridge, MA.

Lashley C. 1997. Empowering Service Excellence.Cassell: London.

Law C. 1992. Urban tourism and its contribution to economic regeneration. Urban Studies 29(3/4):599–618.

Lofland J, Loftland L. 1984. Analysing Social Settings:A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis,2nd edn. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Mabey C, Salaman G, Storey J. 1998. StrategicHuman Resource Management. Sage: London.

Mules T. 1999. Events tourism and economic devel-opment in Australia. In Managing Tourism Cities:Policy, Process and Practice, Tyler D, Guerruer Y,Robertson M (eds). Wiley: Chichester; 9–24.

Prais S, Jarvis V, Wagner K. 1989. Productivity andvocational skills in services in Britain andGermany: hotels. National Institute EconomicReview.

Pressman J, Wildavsky A. 1984. Implementation, 3rdedn. University of California Press: Berkeley andLos Angeles, CA.

Rodenberg E. 1980. The effects of scale on economicdevelopment: tourism in Bali. Annals of TourismResearch 24: 566–591.

Rossi P, Freeman H. 1993. Evaluation: a SystematicApproach, 5th edn. Sage: California.

Ryan C. 1995. Finance, flowers and festivals — acase study of little economic impact. Tourism Economics 1(2): 183–194.

Sabatier D. 1986. Top-down and bottom-upapproaches to implementation research: a criticalanalysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of PublicPolicy 6: 21–48.

Singleton R, Straits B, Straits M. 1993. Approaches toSocial Research. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Stewart E, O’Sullivan D, Saunders J, Sparkes A,Thomas B, Young J. 2001. Evaluation of the NEATProject: Final Report. Unpublished, University ofGlamorgan.

Thomas R, Long J. 2001. Tourism and economicregeneration: the role of skills development. Inter-national Journal of Tourism Research 3: 229–240.

Wanhill S. 2000. Small and medium tourism enterprises. Annals of Tourism Research 27(1):132–147.

Williams A, Shaw G (eds). 1998. Tourism and Eco-nomic Development: European Experiences, 3rd edn.Wiley: Chichester.

Williams C. 1997. Consumer Services and EconomicDevelopment. Routledge: London.



evaluating european union structural funding programmes for tourism smes: a case from industrial...

Documents