london 2012’s model: regeneration of security procedures ... · london 2012’s model:...
TRANSCRIPT
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 130
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
London 2012’s Model: Regeneration of Security Procedures but
Degeneration in the Olympics’ Customer Service!
Moez BAKLOUTI, Ph. D.
Tunis Sports Academy, Research Department Head
Vancouver, B. C. – CANADA
Rym ZOUAOUI, M. A.
Tunisia National Olympic Committee, Research Unit
CNOT, Tunis - Tunisia
Zakaria NAMSI, M. A.
Institute of Sports & Physical Education, Grade Student
Ksar Said, Tunis - Tunisia
Amel ZAOUALI, M. Ed.
University of Minnesota, Researcher
Minneapolis, MN - USA
Corresponding Author: Dr. Moez Baklouti
Abstract
This study aims at determining the security model that London 2012 Olympics adopted and what
extent did the Organizing Committee provide a good quality service? Moreover, verifying the
improvement of the main variables in sport mega-events, Service and Security, between London
2012 and Vancouver 2010 Olympics. A random sample of spectators and journalists (N= 349)
from ―London 2012‖ Summer Olympics responded to a survey on customer service and security
in the event. Chi-square tests for two independent samples were used along to test the differences
in opinions between journalists and spectators. The results revealed that attendees have been
dissatisfied with the quality service, mainly because of the ‗hard‘ security model as it showed
little respect for human rights; however, spectators and journalists claimed that they felt secure
and well protected during the games.
Keywords: SECURITY MODELS, LONDON 2012 OLYMPICS, SERVICE QUALITY.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 131
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
Introduction
The risk of a terrorist attack on the Games has been a major concern for British officials -
and for the nearly 200 nations that were competing- since the Olympics were awarded to London
in 2005. The concern was amplified when London‘s transit system was bombed, the day after the
Games were awarded. The bombing killed 56 people, including the four bombers, which was
Britain‘s worst terrorist attack.
―Responsibility for discharging the guarantees made by the Prime Minister and Home
Secretary rests with the Minister for Security and Counter-Terrorism, who supports the Home
Secretary in delivering Games safety and security‖ (PMCHM, 2010). To provide enough guards
for the London 2012 Olympics, the British government reinforced Britain‘s Intelligence and
Security Committee by 15000 troops to prevent atrocities by republican hardliners and al-Qaeda
groups. Such conduct is well understood under the world environment of terrorist attacks, as Iran
acquires nuclear weapons technology and traditional espionage that continues to pose a threat to
British interests. For ―the security context today, we face a real and pressing threat from
international terrorism‖ (OPSSS, 2011).
The events of New York terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 (9/11) brought
international terrorism sharply into focus, since 9/11, cities hosting the Olympics suffered from a
giant increase of the budget reserved to the security; ―with the Olympics and Paralympics now
over, the British Government has forecast the entire cost of the Games will be £8.921 billion
($14.26 billion/€10.96 billion), namely a saving of £377 million ($603 million/€463 million) on
the £9.298 billion ($14.87 billion/€11.43 billion) budget that was set out at the beginning of the
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 132
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
project after London won the 2012 bid (Degun, 2012). ―If the London Olympics cost this much,
they still won't be the most expensive in Olympic history. The most expensive Olympics in
history were the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. Costing a staggering US$40 billion, the Games could
have been a financial nightmare for China. Amazingly, China was not left with debt after the
event. Most of this US$40 billion was invested in permanent infrastructure that has been used
ever since. For Athens, the city that hosted the Games four years prior, the economic impact was
vast. The 2004 Olympics, which at the time were the most expensive to date, cost US$15 billion.
The huge costs were attributed to being the first summer Olympics after 9/11, which saw security
and infrastructure costs rise considerably‖ (Investopidia, 2012).
An estimated 50,000 VIPs attended the Games, including a reported 140 heads of state,
200 government ministers, 100 royals and 150 members of the International Olympic
Committee. Most of these figures were present in the opening ceremony, which was the reason
for an intense security body dispositive must be extremely focused. ―The opening ceremony
compiles a single event that brings all spectators in one venue at one time; however, it makes
managers out of the timing range checking spectators in security gates, and requires a heavy
security presence. This also tests the organizing committee about its first adjustment. Such
design pushes sport mega-event researchers to study ceremonies apart from other events‖
(Baklouti, 2011).
It is also worth highlighting that ―in recent years, security and surveillance at sport mega-events
have been subjected to repeated academic scrutiny. Although there continues to be a lack of truly
empirical and comparative work in this field, these investigations allow us to understand security
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 133
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
governance at sport mega-events as the result of, and the catalyst for, a broad set of
developments, ranging from processes of technologicalization, militarization and
commercialization to the increasing globalization and standardization of security/surveillance
matters (Klauser, 2011).
Literature Review
Service Quality
―Service quality is an important topic in the marketing literature, since perceptions for
service quality are directly related to customer satisfaction and customer retention‖ (Alexandris
et al., 2004). As a consequence, ―the need for delivering qualitative services to sport spectators‘
area can be achieved, by focusing on the spectators‘ needs and paying attention to the quality and
operation of well-organized sport facilities‖ (Walker and Stotlar, 1997).
In the sport spectators‘ context, satisfaction has been considered as an important feature of
predicting customer‘s intentions when it comes to attending future sporting events (Cronin et al.,
2000; Wakefield and Blodgett, 1996).
Gronroos (1984) and Parasuraman et al. (1988) proposed the first theoretical approach for
quality of services, an approach based on the ―disconfirmation paradigm‖. Indeed, according to
this theory, the quality of services is resulted from a process of comparison of expected
performance with the perception for the real performance as it was initially prescribed by
Gronroos (Gronroos, 1982; Gronroos, 1984).
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 134
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
Next to the theory, the first instrument for measuring service quality was developed by
Parasuraman et al. (1988) and Gronroos (1984). Parasuraman et al. (1988) proposed the five-
dimensional SERVQUAL model, while Gronroos (1984) proposed a three-dimensional model.
The fast-growing competition in the service sector in our modern times was a motive for
managers to re-define their strategies, to acquire advantages over their competitors and to focus
their attention on service quality (Gronroos, 1984; Parasuraman et al., 1994; and Zeithaml et al.,
1996). Because the field of sports is dynamic, managers had to be more resourceful and develop
more efficient strategies. In this regard, Scholars agree to the importance and the effects of
service quality (Brady and Cronin, 2001; Dabholkar et al., 1996). Zeithaml (1988) determined
that ―delivery of quality services is a precondition for success‖. Kelley and Turley (2001) further
highlighted that ―service quality is vital for the survival and the success of sports‖, while Cronin
and Taylor (1992) considered service quality as ―a key-strategy for the service providers to be
placed more effectively in the market‖. Failing to fulfil these criteria, according to Jahanshahi et
al. (2011) most definitions for satisfaction share some common elements: a) consumer
satisfaction is a cognitive or emotional response, b) this response refers to a particular focus
(expectations, product, consumption experience, etc.), c) the response occurs at a particular time
(after consumption, after choice, based on accumulated experience, etc.).
In the sports context, Oliva et al. (1992) found that sports fans reach some level of
satisfaction that is experienced from the follow-up of an athletic act, through the frame
‗expectation-disconfirmation‘. The frame ‗expectation – disconfirmation‘, based on the
significance that the satisfaction level is determined by the degree in which the initial customers‘
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 135
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
expectations is achieved or is not achieved by the evaluated service. Alexandris et al. (2004)
supported Olivia‘s concept of satisfaction: ―regardless of the disagreements and differences in
conceptualizing satisfaction, it is acceptable that satisfaction is a post-choice evaluative judgment
and refers to consumer fulfillment‖.
However, the consumer fulfillment is hard to achieve if organizers do not work seriously on
other criteria as stated clearly by Baklouti & Namsi (2012): ―Event managers with Games
Security Screening must adjust their timing target vis-à-vis the spectators, media, and especially
human rights institutions. Statistics advise to keep the 30 seconds with journalists and aim 1
minute for spectators‖. It is these accurate details that matter for a spectator who comes to any
event for fun and expects to enjoy his full rights.
Security in Mega-events
Security has becomes a major concern worldwide, because it is not only a very costy
enterprise but because there are always some undesirable outcomes behind achieving security. In
the case of Britain, for example, the OPSSS (2011) sheds lights on the following: ―Britain today
is both more secure and more vulnerable than in most of her long history. More secure, in the
sense that we do not currently face, as we have so often in our past, a conventional threat of
attack on our territory by a hostile power. But more vulnerable, because we are one of the most
open societies, in a world that is more networked than ever before‖. Furthermore, the PMCHM
(2010) clarified that: ―The National Security Council judges that currently, and for the next five
years, the four highest priority risks are those arising from: international terrorism, including
through the use of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) materials; and of
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 136
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
terrorism related to Northern Ireland; cyber attack, including by organised crime and terrorists;
international military crises; and major accidents or natural hazards‖. These complex and wide
variety of risks testify that the world‘s challenges are big and securing national security us
getting harder. That is why a recent work underlines the role of sport mega-events as test sites for
increasingly complex high-tech surveillance applications (Samatas, 2007; Boyle and Haggerty,
2009; Yu et al., 2009; Giulianotti and Klauser, 2010).
Technically, Olympic organizers committees are developing their security models from
games to games, the focal point is protecting people and infrastructure, but the manner depends
on many factors, as terrorist attacks history, political involvements around the world, economic
situation, etc. Best practices provided by security professionals moving from country to country,
and from event to event (see Boyle, 2011). ―There are many good reasons for understanding
sport mega-events as highly visible and prestigious projects, whose securitization is firmly
embedded in more or less coercive transnational circuits of imitation and standardization. In this
approach, however, the role of local agency, motivation and expertise in security governance
should not be underplayed or ignored completely‖ (Klauser, 2011).
―Although spectators recognize that these security measures are established for their own safety,
they are still concerned about the type of people dealing with them at the gates, as spectators
become anxious if they are confronted with police officers or military officials. So, another
critical issue we should address is the category of officials that civilians should face while
attending a show‖ (Baklouti & al., 2012). Foucault (1991, 1997, 2000a, 2000b) has shown how
liberalism enacts another form of political rationality that sets mechanisms for a 'society of
security' in place rather than resist the push to security in the name of liberty. As a matter of fact,
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 137
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
the fallacy of the political rational is best illustrated by the ―the Atlanta bombing demonstrated
that massive security investments cannot guarantee the safety of the public‖ (Johnson, 2008).
More seriously, Waldron (2003) has identified a problematic connotation of quantity and
precision in the language of balance, including the assumption that the relation between security
and liberty is a zero-sum game. This leads us to Baklouti & Namsi‘s (2012) that what matters is
―ensuring full safety while respecting spectators‘ dignity and facing them with civilians in all
phases of venue services‖
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Did ‗London 2012‘ reconcile between security and service excellence?
Could reducing the time spent in the gates and making a strong campaign to inform
attendees about security procedures be sufficient to satisfy the customer about the service
quality?
Did London Organizing Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (Locog)
improve its service quality compared to the ‗Vancouver 2010‘?
According to the Organizing Committee, should the question of quality service in the
Olympics become trivial in the case of a country with a history of terrorist attacks?
What kind of security staff did ‗London 2012‘use in each ‗layer‘ of security around each
venue?
Which ‗Security Model‘ was adopted in London 2012 Summer Olympics?
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 138
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
These research questions culminate to two hypotheses:
1. Customer service excellence in the Olympics depends utterly by the time spent in venue
gates, the eminence of communication with attendees about security procedures, and the
nature of security people dealing with spectators, altogether.
2. Being a country with terrorist attacks‘ history, the Organizing Committee focuses mainly
on protection results and ignores the Human Rights as related to the service provided to
spectators.
Method Supported by the literature review a total of ten questions were generated to represent two
items: (A) ‗Customer service in the event‘ and (B) ‗Security in the event‘.
Participants
The study sample covered 349 respondents (Table 1), divided on 88 journalists and 261
spectators. Journalists were contacted before the Games start at Media Center, during the
competitions in the venues (Indoors or Outdoors), and after the Games. Spectators were met on
the opening and closing ceremonies, and during the competitions in the venues (Indoors or
Outdoors).
Table 1- The study sample for Journalists & Spectators for ‘London 2012’ Summer Olympics.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 139
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
Procedures
Respondents were informed that they are helping a scientific research regarding the
service and security in the event. Trained volunteers conducted the survey by contacting
spectator after he/she takes seat and before the game starts to guide respondent, and as tested
before the tête-à-tête takes six to seven minutes. An extra information was taken above the
survey content is the citizenship of the respondent and the gender. The respondents were
randomly assigned for the following venues, the Olympic Park: Aquatics Centre, Basketball
Arena, BMX Track, Copper Box, Olympic Stadium, Riverbank Arena, Velodrome, Water Polo
Arena; other London venues: Earls Court, ExCeL, Greenwich Park, Hyde Park, Lord's Cricket
Ground, North Greenwich Arena, The Mall, Wembley Arena, Wembley Stadium; and some
‗Out-of-London‘ venues: Hampden Park, City of Coventry Stadium, Lee Valley White Water
Centre...
Measures
The questionnaire consisted item (A) that measure the comfortable time judged when
dealing with the security procedures at the venues gates (A1 & A2), the information about the
regulations regarding the entrance of the venue and the cooperation (A3 & A4), and the
evaluation of service quality provided by the security people (A5). In item (B), the focus was on
security filter met at the portal when entering the venue (B6 & B7), the concept of ‗Critical
infrastructure‘ (B8), responsibility measures (B9), and the level of security do spectators feel
(B10).
The response format for all questions was five-point Likert scale of the following values:
1 (Strongly disagree), 2 (Disagree), 3 (Neutral), 4 (Agree), and 5 (Strongly agree), other five-
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 140
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
point summated rating scale used the format (i.e.): 1 (Insecure), 2 (Somehow not secure), 3
(Don‘t know), 4 (Somehow secure), and 5 (Secure); except, (B6 & B9) where attendees
determine and classify responsibilities.
The study used a Golden Standard Survey that has been used in prior Olympics (Baklouti
and Namsi, 2012); such decision makes the comparison between ‗Vancouver 2010‘ and ‗London
2012‘ straightforward for the same variables.
Results
The date collected were analyzed using chi-square analyses (X2), Mean scores (M) and
Standard Deviations were calculated (SD). A level of significance of .05 was used to test the
results of the study.
1/ How much time did the security procedure take before you got in the venue?
Q1 Spectators Journalists Total
>30 sec 173 72% 45 65% 218 70%
30 sec 22 19 41
<30 sec 66 27% 24 34% 90 30%
Total 261 88 349
P value equals 0.2488 (t= 1.33); this difference is considered to be not
statistically significant. 70% of our sample spent more time than the range of 30
seconds.
2/ How do you judge your comfort according to the time cited above:
Q2 Spectators Journalists Total
Uncomfortable 183 75% 32 51% 215 70%
Casual 17 26 43
Comfortable 61 25% 30 49% 91 30%
Total 261 88 349
P value equals 0.0003 (t= 12.941); this difference is considered to be statistically
very significant. 75% of spectators judged the timing as ‗uncomfortable‘, but
journalists shared this opinion equally.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 141
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
3/ Have you ever been informed about the regulations regarding the entrance of the
venue before you came?
Q3 Spectators Journalists Total
A little bit 101 44% 19 23% 120 39%
I d R 35 7 42
Vaguely informed 125 55% 62 76% 187 60%
Total 261 88 349
P value equals 0.0007 (t= 11.291); this difference is considered to be statistically
very significant. 76% of journalists declared that they were ‗vaguely informed‘
about the regulations regarding the entrance of the venue, but spectators shared
this judgment equally.
4/ Did you cooperate taking some actions regarding the security before coming to the
venue?
Q4 Spectators Journalists Total
A little bit 64 31% 6 7% 70 39%
I d R 59 10 69
Somehow 138 68% 72 92% 210 60%
Total 261 88 349
P value equals 0.0000 (t= 17.273); this difference is considered to be statistically
very significant. Journalists showed that almost the totality collaborated taking
some actions regarding the security, but only 68% of spectators did.
5/ How do value the service quality provided by the security people?
Q5 Spectators Journalists Total
Dissatisfactory 189 80% 67 80% 256 80%
Average 27 5 32
Satisfactory 45 19% 16 19% 61 19%
Total 261 88 349
P value equals 1 (t= 1); this difference is considered to be not statistically
significant. The majority of spectators and journalists valued the service quality
provided by the security people as dissatisfactory.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 142
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
6/ You passed through a security portal, what kind of security people you met:
Q6 Spectators Journalists
Officials: Police, Military... 129 49 % 55 62 %
Security company 46 17 % 17 19 %
I don’t know 41 15 % 3 3 %
Mixed corps 34 13 % 10 11 %
No official 11 4 % 3 3 %
Total 261 98 % 88 98 %
The majority of our surveyed people did not mention that they dealt with ‗No
official‘ staff in security portals; but they confirmed having met ‗Military and
Police officers‘.
7/ The security filter that you met at the portal when entering the venue is:
Q7 Spectators Journalists Total
Weak to Mild 23 10% 15 7% 38 12%
I d K 37 3 40
Hard to Very Strong 201 89% 70 82% 271 87%
Total 261 88 349
P value equals 0.0777 (t= 3.111); this difference is considered to be not
statistically significant. 87% of spectators and journalists felt that the security
filter that you met at the portal was strong.
8/ The concept of ‘Critical infrastructure’ has been moved away from the technical
scientific and introduced into the political agenda.
Q8 Spectators Journalists Total
Disagree 63 31% 23 28% 86 30%
I d K 64 6 70
Agree 134 68% 59 71% 193 69%
Total 261 88 349
P value equals 0.5169 (t= 0.42); this difference is considered to be not
statistically significant. 70% of spectators and journalists agreed that the concept
of ‗Critical infrastructure‘ has been moved away from the technical scientific and
introduced into the political agenda.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 143
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
9/ When the incident will happen, who is responsible for taking the security measures
to prepare, prevent, deter, or delay a future terrorist attack on a sporting event or
stadium?
Variables of Q9 Spectators Journalists
Politicians in the Government 3.0 2.2
The Local Police 1.4 1.2
The Local City Head 2.5 1.4
Senior Athletic Director 5.0 5.5
Private Security Company 3.0 3.0
Structure in Use (Club, Team, …) 4.2 4.0
Spectators and journalists took the same position by classifying ‗The Local
Police‘ first responsible for taking the security measures when an incident
happens and ‗The Local City Head‘ second. Moreover, journalists gave
importance to ‗Politicians in the Government‘ in this task.
10/ Over all, when attending these winter Olympics in all venues, I feel:
Q10 Spectators Journalists Total
Insecure 28 12% 13 16% 41 13%
I d K 40 7 47
Secure 193 87% 68 83% 261 86%
Total 261 88 349
P value equals 0.4474 (t= 0.577); this difference is considered to be not
statistically significant. The entirety of spectators and journalists (above 86%)
felt secure when attending the Olympics in all venues.
Customer service in the event (London 2012)
The study gave a special importance to the ‗timing‘ as a component of quality service.
Time spent at the portal for the security procedures before entering the venue was 30 sec.
(seconds) by person; this was a target from previous studies (Baklouti et al., 2012).
70% of respondents declared that they spent more than 30 sec. to get into the venue,
(72% of spectators -M=119.50; SD=75.66- and 65% of journalists - M=34.50; SD=14.84-). The
difference between groups is statistically not significant (X2: 1.33, df: 1, p-value: 0.2488).
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 144
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
Uncomfortably, the timing cited above influenced the position of Journalists (M=31.00;
SD=1.41), who half of them notices time granted to the security procedures is comfortable, but
the majority of Spectators (M=122.00; SD=86.26) said that it is uncomfortable. The difference
between groups is very significant (X2: 12.941, df: 1, p-value: 0.0003).
Statistics confirmed that there was wide significant difference between both categories of
our sample (X2: 11.291, df: 1, p-value: 0.0007); ¾ of Journalists (M=40.50; SD=30.40),
confirmed that they were vaguely informed about the regulations regarding the entrance of the
venue before they arrive, however, around half of Spectators (M=113.00; SD=16.97), declared
that they were a little bit informed. Cooperation taking some actions regarding the security
before coming to the venue showed that the majority (92%) from Journalists (M=39.00;
SD=46.66) took some precaution actions, and only (68%) from Spectators (M=101.00;
SD=52.32) did. The difference between groups is very significant (X2: 17.273, df: 1, p-value:
0.0000).
Even though, Journalists (M=41.50; SD=16.00) are dissatisfied with the service quality
provided by the security people (80%); Spectators (M=117.00; SD=101.82) had equal
evaluations about that service. The difference between groups is not significant (X2: 1, df: 1, p-
value: 1.0000).
Security in the event (London 2012)
While going through security portals, study population (N: 349) noticed that security
people they met are mostly ‗Officials: Police, Military...‘ or ‗Security company‘;
correspondingly, spectators (M=52.20; SD=44.97) and journalists (M=17.60; SD=21.69) did not
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 145
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
mention crossing ‗No official‘, there was statistically no significant between respondents‘ groups
(X2: 1.266, df: 3, p-value: 0.7372).
Respondents (271 over 301) confirmed that the security filter at the portal is ‗Hard to
Very Strong‘. Statistics confirmed that there was no significant difference between Journalists
and Spectators (X2: 3.111, df: 1, p-value: 0.0777).
―The political agenda is ruling the concept of ‗Critical infrastructure‘ instead of the
technical scientific conception‖. Arguing this new design, the majority of our respondents (70%)
agreed the exposed idea. There was no significant difference between groups (X2: 0.42, df: 1, p-
value: 0.5169).
The rank ratio of the classification made by respondents in each venue showed that
Journalists and Spectators consider ‗Local Police or Mounted Police‘ the first responsible for
taking the security measures to prepare, prevent, deter, or delay a future terrorist attack on a
sporting event or stadium; as well, respondents agreed to sort ‗Local City Head‘ in the second
rank. Finally, respondents categorized ‗Senior Athletic Director and ‗Structure in Use‘ last.
When attending London 2012 Olympics, respondents felt secured in all venues, the
difference between groups is not significant (X2: 0.577, df: 1, p-value: 0.4474), 83% from
Journalists (M=40.50; SD=38.89), and 87% from Spectators (M=110.50; SD=116.67) declared
that they were well secured.
‘Vancouver 2010’ versus ‘London 2012’
The philosophy choosing a security model is correlated with the history of the host
country, managing resources in security, and tradition of sport mega-events organization.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 146
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
The question still remains open: achieving a full security in sport event, does matter if human
right not fully respected?
The following comparison attempted to use percentage values of respondents of the survey in the
Vancouver Winter Olympics 2010 (V10) and London summer Olympics 2012 (L12). Authors
aimed to respect a security model that banned ‗entering prohibited items to sport venues while
providing service excellence‘.
The graph shows that the time spent at the portal for the security procedures before
entering the venue was above 30 sec. (seconds) by person, and this is for both Olympics:
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 147
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
Vancouver 2010 and London 2012 (―V10‖ and ―L12‖). The security procedure is judged
uncomfortable, except for journalists during ―V10‖, I should say that the Media Centre was well
managed and journalists got a positive impression for its relieve.
In both games respondents cooperated taking some actions regarding the security before
coming to the venue, nonetheless spectators in V10 stated that they were not vaguely informed
about the regulations regarding the entrance of the venue before they arrive, their precautions
taken is conditioned by the U.S. spectators who are familiarized by the concept in their sports
system since the 9/11 attacks.
However, people were dissatisfied with the service quality provided by the security people in
V10 with the ratio of 60% and even worse in L12 with a ratio of 80%!
Respondents confirmed in both Games that the security filter at the portals was strong;
therefore they felt secured in all venues; but in L12, organizers achieved that goal using
‗Officials‘, contrary in V10 where they used ―Mixed corps‖ that considered close to Human
Rights values.
Discussion and Conclusions
Anchored in our statistics, we accept the first hypothesis because the data attested that
customer service excellence in the Olympics depends utterly by the time spent in venue gates,
the eminence of communication with attendees about security procedures, and the nature of
security people dealing with spectators, altogether. Though, attendees in London 2012 Olympics
were not satisfied with the service quality because they were facing military and police officers
in the gates for security venues check. For the same reason, it was proven that being a country
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 148
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
with terrorist attacks‘ history, the Organizing Committee focuses mainly on protection results
and ignores the Human Rights as related to the service provided to spectators; so, we accept the
second hypothesis too.
Circulating the same investigation tool (survey) in two Olympics gave us the chance to an
eloquent comparison regarding the security model adopted in each of them. When we consider
the two variables of ‗timing‘ and ‗comfort‘ in relation to Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics
(V10) and London Summer Olympics 2012 (L12), we notice that spectators were not satisfied
with either the time spent at the gates or the comfort related to that timing with all the novel
security measures. On the opposite side, it is worth noticing that whereas the journalists in V10
found both procedures reasonable and were glad, the journalists in L12 were largely dissatisfied.
As for the two other variables (‗information‘ and ‗cooperation‘) strictly related to service
quality, the V10 spectators claimed not being informed about the security rules, yet they
surprisingly cooperated well. This attitude could be explained by the fact that the a lot of the V10
spectators from the USA, so they were more knowledgeable and better prepared since Salt Lake
City Winter Olympics 2002 (Event came straight away after 9/11 terrorist attacks). Unlike them,
the L12 spectators stated they were not updated, yet they in large cooperated. Considering the
V10 journalists, they were better prepared as professionals and consequently the procedure went
smoothly and even more positively highlighted with the L12 journalists. This led us to the
following conclusion, now that V10 spectators were relatively dissatisfied with the service, most
spectators in L12 mega-event were unhappy. The same reaction applies to the journalists in
regards to the quality of service in both Olympics.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 149
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
When it comes to security, in both mega-events (V10 and L12) spectators and journalists
strongly approved of the strong filter at security portals, which led to utter security to them.
However, the striking difference shows in regards to the security people. Whereas both L12
journalists and spectators were dissatisfied with the security corps, so they sensed that L12 opted
for a very ‗hard‘ security model, the V10 attendees were largely content with the ‗Mixed Corps‘
security staff (Civilians and Officials). Therefore, we fairly conclude.
Vancouver 2010 vs. London 2012: comparison of the main variables based on 75% of
acceptance.
We recommend that organizers set reasonable timing range for the security procedures in
the gates before getting in the venues, and increase the information with spectators to match
this choice with the expectation of attendees, since customer service satisfaction is correlated
with the prior expectation to that service. ―To optimize services while guaranteeing full
security, Event Managers must attend to two important tasks: widely inform the attendees of
the regulations for entry and ensure their cooperation in all security-related actions before
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 150
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
they come to the venue‖ (Baklouti et al., 2012). To promote human rights and liberties,
organizing committee should not face spectators entering to watch the games with military
personnel or police officers to respect spectators dignity and facing them with civilians in all
phases of venue services, here security model in sport mega-events should respect both the
full safety of the venue and the significance of human rights while welcoming spectators.
It should come clear, the, that sport mega-events provide an exemplary illustration of the
globalization of social risks and security threats—such as terrorism, hooliganism and
organized crime (Jennings and Lodge 2009). Before these challenges, a number of highly
complex issues raised: ―Much of the discussion concerning the theory and practices
surrounding security centers on the relationship between these and their consequences for
liberty. Either explicitly or implicitly, the assumption is that we must accept that we have to
forego a certain amount of liberty in our desire for security. The general claim is that in
seeking security, states need to constantly limit the liberties of citizens, and that the
democratic society is one which has always aimed to strike the right 'balance' between
liberty and security‖ (Neocleous, 2007). Baklouti & Namsi (2012) provided more pragmatic
solutions. To them, ―successful ‗security model‘ in mega sport event is based on two pillars:
service excellence that depends on the time spent at the portal, communication with
customers, and type of staff serving in the venue; and highly conditioned by the cooperation
between all security corps in charge‖. More probably the Prime Minister best sums up the
security paradigm as he invites us to remember that ―The overall aim of the Olympic and
Paralympic Safety and Security Strategy, is to deliver a safe and secure Games, in keeping
with the Olympic culture and spirit‖? (PMCHM, 2010).
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 151
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
References
Alexandris, K. ; Zahariadis, P.; Tsorbatzoudis, C. & Grouios, G. (2004). An Empirical
Investigation into the Role of the Outcome Dimension in Measuring Perceived Service
Quality in a Health Club Context. International Journal of Sport Management, 5, 281-294.
Baklouti, M. (2011). Customer Service in Mega-Sport Events; Comparison between Indoors &
Outdoors Venues; 2nd International Conference of T.S.A.I.; Vancouver 25 June 2011.
Baklouti, M. & Namsi, Z. (2012). Security Models in Mega Sport Events between Safety and
Human Rights (Case of Vancouver 2010). The Sport Journal, United States Sports
Academy; Vol. 16, No 1.
Baklouti, M.; Namsi, Z. & Zouaoui, R. (2012). Security Measures in Mega-Events, are there any
dissimilarities between the Olympics & the Paralympics? (Case of Vancouver 2010).
Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research In Business; Vol. 4, No 4. [
http://journal-archieves22.webs.com/298-328.pdf ]
Boyle, P. and Haggerty, K. D. (2009). Spectacular security: Mega-events and the security
complex. Political Sociology 3 (3):257–274.
Brady, M. K. & Cronin, J. J. (2001). Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service
quality: A hierarchical approach. Journal of Marketing, 65 (3), 34–49.
Cronin, J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and Extension.
Journal of Marketing, 56, 55-68.
Cronin, J.; Brady, M. & Hult, T. (2000). Assessing the Effects of Quality, Value, and Customer
Satisfaction on Consumer Behavioral Intentions in Service Environments. Journal of
Retailing, 76 (2), 193-218.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 152
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
Dabholkar, P.; Thorpe, D. I. & Rentz, J.O. (1996). A measure of service quality for retail stores.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24, 3–16.
Degun, T. (2012). London 2012 Set to Come in Nearly $640 Million Under Budget; The Sport
Digest, United States Sports Academy America's Sports University; Vol. 10.
[http://thesportdigest.com/2012/10/london-2012-set-to-come-in-nearly-400-million-under-
budget/]
Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality (1978), in G. Burchell, C. Gordon, P. Miller (eds.) The
Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 87–
104.
Foucault, M. (1997). Security, Territory, and Population, in Ethics: The Essential Works, Vol. 1,
London: Penguin, pp. 67–72.
Foucault, M. (2000a). Omnes and Singulatim: Toward a Critique of Political Reason, in Power:
The Essential Works, Vol. 3, London: Penguin, pp. 298–325.
Foucault, M. (2000b). The Risks of Security, in Power: The Essential Works, Vol. 3, London:
Penguin, pp. 365–381.
Giulianotti, R. and Klauser, F. (2010). Sport mega-events, security and risk management:
Towards an interdisciplinary research agenda. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 34
(1):49–61.
Gronroos, C. (1982). An Applied Service Marketing Theory. European Journal of Marketing,
16(7), 30–41.
Gronroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its marketing implications. European Journal
of Marketing, 18, 36-44.
Investopidia (2012). The Most Costly Olympic Games; retrieved on June 25, 2012, from:
http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0612/most-costly-olympic-
games.aspx#axzz2CAYgMxMM
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 153
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
Jahanshahi, A. A.; Gashti, M. A. H.; Mirdamadi, S., A.; Nawaser, K. & Khaksar, S. M. (2011).
Study the Effects of Customer Service and Product Quality on Customer Satisfaction and
Loyalty. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1 (7), 253-260.
Jennings, W.; and Lodge, M. (2009). Tools of Security Risk Management for the London 2012
Olympic Games and FIFA 2006 World Cup in Germany. Discussion Paper No:55, London
School of Economics and Political Science, Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation.
Johnson, C.W. (2008) Using Evacuation Simulations for Contingency Planning to Enhance the
Security and Safety of the 2012 Olympic Venues. Safety Science, 46 (2). pp. 302-
322.
Kelley, S. W. & Turley, L.W. (2001). Consumer perceptions of service quality attributes at
sporting events. Journal of Business Research, 54, 161– 166.
Klauser, F. (2011). ―Commonalities and Specificities in Mega-Event Securitisation: the Example
of Euro 2008 in Austria and Switzerland‖, in, Haggerty K., Bennett C. (eds.), Security
Games: Surveillance and Sport Mega-Events, Routledge, London.
Neocleous, M. (2007). Security, Liberty and the Myth of Balance: Towards a Critique of
Security Politics, Contemporary Political Theory; Issue: 6, 131–149.
Oliva, T. A.; Oliver, R. L. & Macmillan, I. C. (1992). "A catastrophe model for developing
service satisfaction strategies". Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 83-95.
(OPSSS) Olympic and Paralympic Safety and Security Strategy (2011). London 2012 Olympic
and Paralympic Safety and Security Strategy.
Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A. & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for
Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 13-40.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 154
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A. & Berry, L. L. (1994). Alternative Scales for Measuring
Service Quality: A Comparative Assessment Based on Psychometric and Diagnostic
Criteria. Journal of Retailing, 70(3), 201-230.
(PMCHM) Prime Minister by Command of Her Majesty (2010). A Strong Britain in an Age of
Uncertainty: The National Security Strategy; UK for The Stationery Office Limited, The
Parliamentary Bookshop.
Samatas, M. (2007). Security and surveillance in the Athens 2004 Olympics: Some lessons from
a troubled story. International Criminal Justice Review 17 (3):220–38.
Wakefield, K. L. & Blodgett, J. G. (1996). The effect of the services cape on customers‘
behavioral intentions in leisure service settings. Journal of Services Marketing, 10 (6), 45-
61.
Waldron, J. (2003). Security and liberty: the image of balance, Journal of Political Philosophy
11(2): 191–210.
Walker, M. & Stotlar, D. (1997). Sport Facility Management. Jones and Bartlett Publishers,
Inc.USA.
Yu, Y.; Klauser, F. and Chan, G. (2009). Governing security at the 2008 Beijing Olympics.
International Journal of the History of Sport 26(3): 390-405.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model
and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52, 2-22.
Zeithaml, V. A.; Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioural consequences of
service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60, 31–46.