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.
Bersin (2004) and other authors to be difficult to apply in practice. The authors note that this is partly because most of the companies reviewed had no high level managerial directive (policy) on how a knowledge strategy should be implemented. It is argued here that a high level policy with associated practical processes would support an integrated approach to intangible-tangible value mix realisation. A balanced scorecard sets the overall organisational objectives with the Phillips model practically delivering the ‘how’ of a top-down approach. Phillips KPI then becomes easier to define (first finding). Further, the EFA highlights the practicality of processes aligned to policies that ensure the stored potential of newly gained intangible value as influencers in intangible-tangible value creation – predefined mixes set in strategic organisational objectives. Phillips et al. (2007) draw attention to this criterion of ensuring the organisation’s strategies are well understood before the event is planned as these are the bases for all ROI evaluations that follow while Yorks (2005) notes that the Phillips model assumes that the organisation supports an environment for knowledge transfer.
LIMITATION AND RECOMMENDATION
A limitation of the study is that the best known and promoted model for measuring return on investment from a business event, Phillips ROI methodology, is not popular in practical terms with organisations because to-date managers have struggled to establish KPI easily manageable in terms of time and HR costs. Management needs to know how to set attainable business event ROI- KPI aligned within top-down strategies to assurance the value business events contribute to organisational performance. To deal with this limitation a recommendation would be for more in- depth research as to the typical challenges organisations have with ROI methodology for business events and to propose practical solutions that provide content for policy and processes that guide standardised application of integrated top-down strategy supported with bottom-up monitoring and evaluation.
CONCLUSION
This research findings and literature review have indicated practical management of intangible value arising from business events as tenuous due to a variety of practical application hurdles. The hurdles include how to firstly acknowledge and define a standardised value creation mix/mixer strategy that influences from top-down but delivers value from bottom-up and then secondly to overcome challenges in ensuring and monitoring where and how this new value releases its potential for multiple value creation across different areas of the organisation. This research’s findings suggest that tangible and intangible mixes can be pre-defined and practically attained if ‘value creation mixes’ (top-down value scope) and their KPI (bottom-up monitoring and evaluation) are established when setting overall strategic objectives of desired, future organisational performance. The literature review evidence argues strongly for the utility in evaluating and controlling the degree of alignment between strategy and business event intangible value creation. The findings indicate a possible practical methodology shown as intuitively acceptable to many survey respondents. Business tourism activities are argued as unique in that they have the ability to contribute value to many areas if their potential for organisations, industries and national economies is defined in value creation mixes.
EXPLORING THE METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING INTANGIBLE VALUE CREATED AT BUSINESS EVENTS 959