This content requires Adobe Flash Player version
or later.
Either you do not have Adobe Flash Player installed,
or your version is too old,
or there is a problem with your Flash installation and we were unable to detect it.
the previous section where measuring the ROI value from an event and the use of a balanced scorecard was significant as expected, it raises an area for further research as to whether it is clear to the respondents that they, as individuals, are responsible for gathering the value required to fulfil their managers’ objectives for their event attendance. Myhill and Phillips (2006) emphasise that business objectives have to underpin event ROI measurement criteria. Understanding this lack of relationship may further be enhanced by considering the response of attendees to a statement posed as to whether employees have found their manager fears sending them to an event as it may mean they (the attendee) will then know more than the manager. The result was that 49% of respondents agreed with this statement, 15% neither agree nor disagree and 36% disagreed. This suggests a managerial influence that may also be negatively affecting creation of a complete top- down value chain process.
Finding of exploratory factor analysis: factor one knowledge embedding
Embedding would be a defined part of a Kaplan and Norton ‘how’ process to retain new knowledge for use in other scorecard areas. The value a business event adds to organisational future performance and a national economy is argued as dependent on the degree to which the organisation recognises the business event as an organisational work process with outcomes that contribute to overall outcomes. Table 7 represents a measure of sampling adequacy from survey results of business event attendee perspectives of the relationship of post-event knowledge embedding activities undertaken by their organisation. This gives the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy as 0.876 showing that a portion of the variance in this sample is caused by underlying variables. The Barlett’s test of sphericity at 0.00 is < 0.05 with the Chi-square statistic at 1150.102 at 10 degrees of freedom is not significant which indicates that this correlation matrix is significantly different from an identity matrix and the variables relate to one another sufficiently to carry out an exploratory factor analysis (EFA).
TABLE 7: KMO AND BARTLETT’S TEST – KNOWLEDGE EMBEDDING
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square df
Sig. (Source: Thomas (2013))
The determinant at 0.038 is > 0.00001 indicating the variables are fairly independent in their behaviour from each other. In Table 8, Factor 1 has an eigenvalue > 1.0 so is acceptable and Factor 1 (unrotated) explains 73% of the total variance.
TABLE 8: TOTAL VARIANCE EXPLAINED – KNOWLEDGE EMBEDDING
Initial Eigenvalues %
Factor 1 2 3 4 5
Total
3.671 .440 .395 .293 .201
of Variance 73.419 8.806 7.892 5.864 4.019
(Source: Thomas (2013)) EXPLORING THE METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING INTANGIBLE VALUE CREATED AT BUSINESS EVENTS 957