Systemic integration of holistic project- andhospitality management

Abstract: Purpose – This conceptual paper integrates and significantlyextends past research cognitions from three different scientificfields: project management (PM), hospitality management (HM) andsystems thinking (ST). As scarcely any scientific sources areavailable on these topics, this paper closes a gap in literatureand invites to further research in this field. Special stress isgiven to the research of possible preventing or at least reducingof negative impacts/footprints of hospitality development to thesocial and physical environments.Methodology/approach – Authors present an overview of milestonesin project- and hospitality management development in Europe fromthe end of the Roman Empire till today. The main developmentstages are checked in view of SR and ST applications. Findings – This research is predominately theoretical, althoughit also presents several examples from practice that very clearlyillustrate the need for merging the knowledge from these both (PMand HM) fields of expertise. The results of the evolution stagesshow that development of both HM and PM have always beensynchronic, and that PM has practically in all development stagesbeen applied to HM, although this happened unconsciously and thusless effective than in other industries.Originality/Value – The value of this research is an improvedunderstanding of the need for merging the cognitions from HM andPM for more responsibility in further HM projects. Key words: hospitality management, project management, socialresponsibility, systems thinking, development generationsPaper type: Conceptual paper

1 Introduction

Growing competitiveness of the so called new economy results ingrowing dynamic of changes in business systems (hereafter BSs).In tourism it is characterised by the immense complexity of BSsand destinations, known for their huge density of interrelated

1

stakeholder-networks and for several layers of impacts onphysical, social and economic environments (known in tourism asthe triple bottom line, hereafter 3BL). This complexity ofinfluences makes responsible management, holistic approach andconsidering interdependence in decision taking indispensable(Dwyer, 2005; Neith, 2008; Lebe and Zupan, 2012; Lebe and Vrečko,2014). Interdependence and holism are two crucial concepts fromsystems theory to which all seven main topics of ISO 26000 (2010)on social responsibility are linked. Therefore systems thinking(hereafter ST) – incorporating interdependence and holism – intourism management can be considered as immanent to the corporatesocial responsibility (hereafter CSR), on which each and everybusiness decision should be based (Sloan et al., 2009; Levy andPark, 2011).

A deeper look at managerial practices in complex tourism systemsshows that tasks of employees often bear the characteristic ofbeing unique and narrowly goal-orientated, which per definitionare the characteristics of project management (hereafter PM).This means that we can actually talk about projects and about projectmanagement in tourism, too, although the employees mostly aren’taware of the fact that they have to do with PM. This isregretful, as the ignorance of this fact does not stimulate usingthe PM knowledge and the PM techniques – which in latestdevelopment generations strongly incorporates ST and CSRviewpoints in line with ISO 26000 (see Chapter 3.3) – in tourism.The fact is that this interlinking has not been explicitly andthoroughly shown until now, or better said, it has not beenconsciously/systematically approached and researched.

A rapidly growing number of projects – as well as their size andthus their strategic importance – has clearly been noticed inmore or less all economy sectors in the last decade. Tourism isno exception in this regard. Even more: some examples show thattourism, the world’s leading industry, deeply depends on PMskills as tourism has converted to one of the globally mostimportant project commissioners. During the last decade, Dubaibecame a synonym for the fastest growing tourism destinations.What Dubai is selling in tourism is its image as a “superlative-destination” – and each one of these superlatives is the result

2

of successfully performed complex and extremely sophisticatedcivil-engineering and architecture projects. Thus Dubai’s USP(unique selling proposition) are actually successfully managedprojects serving as tourism attractions.

Yet albeit Dubai with its futuristic architecture serves astourism attractions per se due to its ambitious tourism-relatedprojects, it has to count with the next upcoming superlativedestination: with China that plans to beat all hospitality-related records in the upcoming 15 years. The country is expectedto reach 9.1 million hotel rooms by 2039, which means four foldthe current amount (stand 2013). This means that the Chinesehotel sector plans the steepest new hotel development curve theworld has ever experienced (Noordzy, 2013).

Such development can surely be considered positive regarding thelabour market development, a better provision with goods andservices for the local population, the improvement of localinfrastructure – but this is just one side of the coin. On theother one, immense damages can occur unless ST and CSR are well-incorporated already in the conceptual phase, and then in all“official” phases (like conceiving and implementation), andthroughout the whole life cycle of developmental projects.

The two explicitly mentioned tourism mega-projects – as well asan array of others – can be described as multi- inter- and trans-disciplinary projects, whose main characteristic is their immensecomplexity. We can argue that being extremely multi-facetted isimmanent to all major tourism projects and that therefore onlyimplementing ST and principles of requisite holism can assureavoiding their multiple negative impacts.

This means that beside the local/regional key stakeholders wehave to integrate competent project staff into hospitalityprojects, and assure an appropriate organisational- andmethodological support for project work. Yet surprisingly: thescientific development and the theory have not – at least notuntil today – recognised these facts sufficiently, since hardlyany academic paper is dealing with pairing project- andhospitality management (two book chapters on project management

3

exist for the field of event management), and actually none isavailable that would link the accumulated knowledge, experiences,and development trends in HM and PM. The search for documents onproject management and hospitality in the CIRET database (January2014) gave no results (CIRET offers info about more than 170,000tourism/hospitality-related documents from all over the world).Noordzy (2013) claims that “…whereas project management conceptshave been embraced and methodologies successfully implementedacross a multitude of industries, they have not been embraced bythe hotel industry…” The author further reports that: “This lackof HM and PM fusion can be discerned from the results of a studyby Anderson Economic Group: it found that ‘project management isused in more than 85 occupations of different functions andindustries’ (PMI, 2010). The hotel industry is not included!”

The current situation shows a lack of a sound scientific base. Such abase on theoretical knowledge could – in theory – approachsystemically and systematically all aspects that are considerednecessary for a proper integration of the project- andhospitality-management fields. At the same time on the other side– in practice – we are witnessing their relatively fastinterlacing that results in their more and more intense(unconscious and unplanned) interlacing. The authors are awarethat several solutions related to problem-solving within projectshave been found as successful applications in the hospitalitysector, which means that PM methods have partly been used (andthat PM knowledge of HM has partly been developed) although the staffwas not aware that they had to do with PM.

As we are considering educational systems as part of thepractice, too, we have checked this field as well: thedevelopment obviously showed the need for such curricula:currently even some study programs on bachelor- and masterdegrees with a strong emphasis on integrating students’ knowledgeand competences in the fields of hospitality- and projectmanagements are available1.

1 For example: Cornell University, School of Hotel Administration (http://www.hotelschool.cornell.edu/industry/executive/pdp/course-desc.html?id=PJM ) ;

4

This theoretical gap is perceived by the authors as an emanatingthreat that such not-planned and non-systemic integration couldsoon prove to be insufficiently holistic and insufficientlysocially responsible. Namely, modern project management theorystarts recognising that non-systemic management of projects (i.e.their preparation and implementation, including understandingtheir results, their impact on the environment etc.) belongs tothe most important factors provoking the crisis currently presentin many countries throughout the world. Hospitality management onthe other side shows its CSR concern in developing severalsustainability schemes and labels and addressing the 3BLproblematic in several ways. In spite of the said, HM is missingthe point that incorporating socially responsible projectmanagement knowledge could resolve/prevent from happening some ofthe most negative examples of acting non-systemic andunsustainable: some investment/infrastructure projects.

The aim of this paper is therefore to show that severalsimilarities and intersections between PM and HM exist sincecenturies, and that making them visible, and connecting themconsciously, would improve the awareness of this fact and helpavoiding damages to all three fields of the 3BL, particularlyregarding future very large and very complex tourism projects.This article thus aims to fill a gap in the literature onsynchronic use of systems thinking, corporate socialresponsibility and project management in the hospitality sector.

2 Methodology

Searching for appropriate ways how to adequately approach theproblematic of pairing the fields of contemporary PM and HM, wedecided to search for possible similarities during the majordevelopment stages of PM and HM. Our aim was to find possiblesignificant orientation points in development anduse/applications of CSR and ST to these two management fields.CSR and ST were considered as obligatory immanent principles ofthe contemporary development stage in both disciplines.

The University of the West Indies (http://www.cavehill.uwi.edu/fss/MGMT/Graduate/tourism/TPM/index.asp)

5

Our first step was setting up a historical overview of periodsthat could be identified as more or less homogenous regardingHM and PM development.

During the second step we inserted these data into a table andadded the main characteristics of each one out of theidentified development stages.

Within the third step we sought for evidence of CSR- and ST-elements in HM and PM practices on each one of the developmentstages with the aim to discover possible similarities in theirdevelopment.

3 CSR and ST in hospitality management and its interrelation withproject management

3.1 CSR and ST in hospitality management

The CSR awareness in tourism is rapidly increasing, especiallysince publications on its possible negative impacts helped raisethe awareness about the imperative of sustainable development.The triple bottom line problematic, also known as the “triple P”(People, Planet, Profit), combined with the awareness of climatechanges that are, among others, induced by travelling, resultedin several programmes that aim at reducing negative footprints onphysical, social and economic environments. In practice this canbe evidenced as e.g. local community supporting programmes, eco-labelling, awareness rising measures for tourists and employees,in making tourism accessible to all by including persons withspecial needs and disabilities etc. (Bohdanovicz and Zientara,2012; Lebe and Vrečko, 2014).

Concentrating the view on the hospitality sector, CSR has beenexamined by shedding light on several different aspects ofhospitality operations. Most of them have to do with marketingaspects, and are testing consumer’s attitudes towards CSR, theirreadiness to pay more for eco-services etc. Holcomb et al (2007)for example analysed the top ten hotel companies (as listed inHotels magazine) using the content analysis method; their aim wasto identify CSR patterns in web sites, annual reports and CSRreports. They found out that the firms understood their CSR role

6

predominately in donating for charitable purposes and much lessregarding e.g. environmental values.

In 2006 a research regarding the hospitality managers’ knowledgeon and attitudes towards CSR has been conducted in Slovenia (Lebeet al., 2006). The results unveiled a low level of their CSRknowledge and their conviction that introducing sustainabilitymeasures into hotel operations would only cause additional costs.After a governmental programme of awareness building has beenexecuted during six years, the picture has changed considerably:today a lot of companies hold an eco-label, and today Slovenemanagers know that implementing eco-management into theirbusinesses brings not only considerable savings but also augmentsthe costumer’s trust into their services.

For this same reason many globally known hospitality companies –like Scandic or Hilton – even embed CSR into their businessmodels (Scandic's “Omtanke” programme, Hilton’s “Double Tree”programme etc.) – yet the extent and the intensity of CSR-measures application vary considerably between companies, fromcomplex and rigorous ones (Omtanke) to more superficial ones thathave experienced a lot of critique (Double Tree).

Result of a further study (Tsaia et al., 2010) show that imageimprovement of an organization is the major dispatch for drivinghotels to fulfil CSR goals.

As the presence of CSR in the company’s policy and dailyoperations are expected to augment trust, Kanga et al (2010) havetested the impacts of CSR-activities on company’s financialperformance by employing both accounting number-basedprofitability and market-based firm value. Findings for hotel andrestaurant sectors (casinos and airlines have been included intotheir investigation as well) showed a positive sensitivity topositive CSR activities on firm value, yet no significant impacton profitability. Several other research reports and scientificpapers in this regard are available; their findings canpositively contribute to managements’ strategic decision-makingfor CSR implementation in any hospitality company.

7

None of the references cited above has tackled the CSR themepaired with systems thinking (ST).

Our next view was thus pointed at literature on ST application inhospitality. After our search for sources tackling with CSR inhospitality has given abundant results, this was not the caseregarding literature on ST application in hospitality management.One of the first scientific contributions in this field wasSouthern’s (1989) systems approach to performance measurement atoperational level in the hospitality sector. It described andanalysed influences between the subsystems of the “system hotel”.The paper stresses the importance of using performance measuresthat create service quality perception and influence the hotel’scompetitiveness.

A really important step forward in practical applications of STinto the hospitality sector occurred when Testa and Sipe (2006)presented an easily to be implemented list of ST-basedimprovements. A major stress is given to the role of humanresources management – which is in line with the contemporarydoctrines in marketing and management as well (differentiationbetween production- and service dominated logic). The valuablecontribution for the hospitality practitioners is a “systems-thinking-knowledge toolbox” given to frontline supervisors on a)how to understand the symptoms and b) how to implement systemsapproach to eliminate them.

All examples listed above as applicable in practice, are meant assingle acts of unique enterprises – there is no systemic orsystematic approach how to address the 3BL topics in as complexsystems as destinations. An under-researched field is theperception of a destination: how many hospitality providers in adestination have to stick to CSR in order the destination as awhole can profit from their positive effects? Thereforetheoretical contributions that help setting up mind maps andschemes, especially if they are generalizable to other fields oftourism, are very helpful. A good example in this regard isWoodside’s application of cause-mapping and system dynamicmodelling of golf, tourism and the environment (Woodside, 2009).The author clearly states that negative impacts of neither of the

8

triple Ps can be completely avoided: yet using the systemsapproach in the way he suggests, these impacts become visible,measurable and structured – and thus manageable by reducing (yetnot completely eliminating) the negative ones and by increasing(and not maximising) the benefits of (golf) tourism development.

Woodside’s model tends to bridge two fields: golf providers andthe (golf) destination. This can be applied further, for examplethe interdependence of hospitality-services providers and thedestination (which always is perceived by tourists as a whole).

3.2 ST, CSR and holistic approach in project management

Links and interdependencies between system theory, ST and PM havelong ago been recognised, but their practical application has beenvarying considerably through time. One of the reasons might be acertain conflict between the basic systems characteristics andprojects – this can be perceived when considering theapplicability of ST to the PM. Systems are considered as openentities (i.e. complex entities rather than – limited – mentalpictures from a selected viewpoint), characterised by openness tothe world and therefore by un-rigidity of their borders, and yetsustainable. On the other hand, the fundamental projectcharacteristics are limitations, resulting from project goals andtime constraints. Projects are accordingly closed (or partiallyopen) systems.

One of the most important reasons why ST should be applied to PMis the density of decisions that have to be met during allproject phases. Subjective thinking- (narrow-minded becauselimited to personal experiences and intuitions) (Rebernik andŠirec, 2007), and decision taking should be avoided in order toassure an objective and thus independent considering of events,phenomena, and ideas. Both: systems theory-based (thus objective)thinking and most of the contemporary project managementmethodologies are incorporating tools that assure a sufficientlevel of objectivity, holism and collaboration in decision makingprocesses.

9

The classic understanding of a successful project was based onefficient achievement of the pre-defined (‘entrance’) demands.Only recently, the focus of discussions diverted: contemporary PMhas to incorporate estimations of rational and permanentlyharmless use of all available (not only of limited) resourcesneeded for projects’ realisation. This includes their influenceon the internal and external business environments, on societies,and on the Earth’s ecosystems during all projects’ exploitationphases (Vrečko, 2011). Only application of requisitely holisticproject understanding can prevent their harming long-terminfluences on the Earth’s ecosystems and therefore on thehumankind (Hauc et al., 2011).

For this reason, for most EU-states and EU-funded projects thePM-methodology recently changed: projects applying for co-financing from the EU-funds obligatory have to clearly exposeeach project’s positive as well as negative present and expectedfuture impacts on the environment, people, competition etc. Thismeans that project owners need to expose their attitude towardCSR. On the other hand, research done by Scholtens (2006) showsthat when projects are sourcing private funds, these questionsare still not of high importance, and project managers- or/andowners are still not keen to start using these modern projectmethodologies.

Using the ST-based project management methodologies (for exampleKerzner’s systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling; 2013) isuseful when we are tackling very complex systems with numerousinterconnected parts – typical examples of such systems aretourism destinations. Destinations as complex systems (being atthe same time subsystems of even more complex supra-system, likestates or the EU) should prevent overlooking any crucial factorthat could influence either its system or the stakeholders’systems – especially if this would be unethical or harmful forthem.

Following such approach heavy mistakes as experienced inhospitality in the past would not be possible (e.g. overcrowdingmany of Mediterranean beaches by exceeding the destinations’carrying capacities, or building a hotel on the top of the

10

natural wonder Pamukkale in Turkey, which sourced the naturalspring for the hotel’s swimming pool and bathrooms, and resultedin drying up of the source that was watering this naturalphenomenon…). Many examples from around the world are proves ofill-minded thinking, which does not fear back from risking tocompromise a world-unique landscape, to destroy the authenticliving space of a tribe, to bring to fall a good working socialsystem, to ruin a microclimate… the greed often seems to bestronger and more powerful than the voices of conscious and ofcommon sense.

In today’s western societies contemporary PM, which knows methodsand possesses tools how to avoid similar irregularities hastherefore become indispensable. It is actively involved in allmajor developmental projects and in most industries. Systemsthinking and a holistic approach thus have – at least in theoryand in EU-states regulated and co-financed projects – replacedthe profit-orientation as the only business goal. Respectingthese highly set ethical goals, disregarding possibleenvironmental damages (as described above) should no longer bepossible.

While contemporary business environment, characterized by quickand constant change, is the perfect setting for the growth of newprojects (Leintz and Rea, 1995; Dietrich and Lehtonen, 2005;Shenhar and Dvir, 2005; Noordzy, 2013), it is important toexpose, that principles, roles and understanding of projectmanagement today strongly differ from what they were 10, 15 oreven more years ago. It is thus important to follow thedevelopment of PM and its entering into the business models toassure they are project management-based. We show it in the table1 and in a more detailed explanation/comment further on (Chapter3.3).

3.3 Parallels drawn between HM and PM and their meeting CSR andST requirements

Although both are forming part of the management science, HM andPM are perceived very differently. HM is something we could

11

describe as “being about WHAT”: it is exclusively related to theHORECA sector (hotels, restaurants, catering), and has no wideapplication possibilities outside the hospitality sector(additionally to HORECA only in hospitals, prisons,homes for senior citizens, boarding houses and similar).Cognitions (e.g. best practices) from HM are hardly applicable toother economy sectors (e.g. to the pharmaceutical-, petrol-automobile etc. industries).

Regarding PM, in the contrary, we can say that it is not so muchabout WHAT it is managing, but “much more about HOW” managementproblems that have project characteristic can be solved. Projectmanager is a coordinator of persons (professionals from differentfields) giving partial answers to the “what” part of the project-problem (by being focused on attaining integrated and holistic answers atthe end of the project). Projects – challenges withinterdisciplinary nature – need an appropriate team to deal withthem. Successful coordination of persons with differingattitudes, characteristics etc., makes knowledge of projectmanagement methodologies- and tools indispensable; in ouropinion, ANY industry or economy sector can profit from thisknowledge by making their projects more successful, using lessresources and preventing unplanned negative impacts. Hospitalityis no exception in this regard.

Another difference exists between the two management fields: aproject (subject to PM) has a beginning and an end and is single-goal oriented (although often consisting of several sub-goals);when talking about hospitality we, in the contrary, refer tobusinesses (subjects to HM) whose owners strive for theenterprise’s growth with hopefully no end.

What HM and PM in spite of this contradictory characteristic havein common is that even hospitality businesses are limited totheir own company and act as sub-systems when considered as partof a destination, where they have only partial influence on whatis happening within their supra-system.

In order to detect further possible parallels within both fieldsof expertise we decided to search for similarities/regularities

12

or differences between them. We used the grid of the fourgenerations of PM as described by Tanaka (2004), and added a pre-management era, where neither PM nor HM have been developedconsciously and systematically. The analysis mirrors thedevelopment in western societies, predominately in Europe.

Table 1: CSR- and ST- presence in European PM and HM

Deve

lopm

ent

stag

e

Project Management field Hospitality field

PM s

tatu

s

Characteristics

ST p

rese

nce

CSR

HM s

tatu

s

Characteristics,examples

ST p

rese

nce

CSR

4: N

ew e

conomy

:New

busi

ness p

hilo

sophie

s

PM a

ppli

ed a

s perm

anen

t vers

atil

econc

ept

PM represents an alternative and a replacement for traditional general management suitablefor all organization types.PM permanently practices systems thinking and considers broader social responsibility.

Yes

Yes

Tourism businesses and destinations are aware of possible positive and negative impacts of tourism development. Sustainability schemes- and labelsreflect social responsibility and ST and are present even in the mass segment offer.

Yes

Yes

13

3: 195

0 –

1990

: Ra

pid de

velo

pment

of n

ewte

chno

logi

es

PM app

lied

bec

ause

of

recogn

ised

advan

tage

s

PM developing up tothe strategic PM model,regarded as a 21st century PM model. PM is defined as “strategic lever totransform the old economy”. Projects became part of overall business and a central part of the development and of the firm’s competitiveness.PM is brought closerto systemic behaviour/thinking.

Yes

Part

lyHuge

cha

nges

, ra

pid

growth

– s

ystema

tic

knowle

dge

accu

mula

tion a

nd u

se

From 1950 on, global statistics on international tourism are available.In 1970-ies mass tourism was born inEurope due to full employment, high salaries, and paid-holidays.New tourism types and destinations joined were developed; long haul travel emergedwith civil aircrafts developed.

Yes

Part

ly

2: I

ndus

triali

sati

on:

1750

til

l 19

50

PM applied

bec

ause o

f ne

cessit

y

Non-project traditional industries start using PM: new product development,

restoration of complex productionfacilities,

railway development,

electricity production plants…

PM goals and results are more and more complex.No concern about 3BL.

Part

lyNo

Diversified upper class offer: luxury hotels noble thermal spas with

rich leisure activities.

Main segments: aristocracy, industrials, and upper military officers.Specialised offer makes systems thinking necessary.No concern about 3BL.

Most

lyNo

14

1: F

rom

14th c

entu

ry on:

Rena

issa

nce

PM app

lied

for m

ajor

proje

cts

PM practices were rarely and informally used. Most projects were aimed for construction or military purposes, where cooperation and coordination was needed. ST was partly applied in dividing projects into smaller parts to become more manageable.

Part

lyNo

More

cho

ice, y

et s

till n

osy

stem

atic

kno

wledge

dev

elopme

nt

For the rich there were noble inns andspas; parallel, there were modest village pubs for common people.No systematic knowledge development or ST was present. No concern for workingconditions of employees or environment (not a problem in that time).

Part

lyNo

0: M

iddl

e Ag

es(5

th to

14th c

entury

)

PM p

artl

y ap

plied

for

major

projec

ts

“Dark Ages” stifledoccurrences of projects and concealed PM practices that needed to be developed in previous times, with regard to major historic achievements (like the Great Wall of China, Egyptian pyramids etc.).

Part

lyNo

Hospit

ality

acce

ssible

to

nobili

ty o

nly; m

odes

t publ

icsupp

ly

Primitive and limited hospitalityservices for trade people and pilgrimsin villages (pubs, monasteries), and amore sophisticated offer accessible toaristocracy only incastles.No systematic hospitality knowledge.Part

lyNo

This “history break-down” of the most important milestones in PMdevelopment is based on Tanaka (2004), to which the authors haveonly added a “zero stage” for the time in which no systematicknowledge on PM was developed and disseminated. This comparisonshowed that for thousands of years the mankind was facingnumerous projects; till the beginning of the 20th centuryengineering projects were prevailing. Today many of themrepresent an indispensable part of the human cultural heritage,inspiring yearly millions of tourists to visit them (likecathedrals in Europe, Great Wall of China, Egyptian pyramids,Nazca lines in Peru and many others).

15

The most important result of this parallel view shows that bothHM and PM can in Europe be divided into (very roughly outlined)approximately the same five major development phases.1. We outlined the first period (marked “0” to respect the

already mentioned Tanaka’s division) as lasting from the fallof the Roman Imperium (5th century) up to the beginning of theRenaissance (14th century). The characteristic of the Middle-Ages is the loss of most of the knowledge and skills from the Roman time.The guilds were keeping their knowledge secret, and thuspreventing innovations and progress: “Dark Ages” was amillennium of economic stagnation in Europe.Regarding PM application, some major civil engineeringprojects have been successfully completed: cathedrals,monasteries and castles. In spite of these “mega projects”that clearly needed some project-knowledge and technologies,neither PM nor HM played a significant role in the society.Neither of them was developed systematically nor were theypermanently present. We have thus decided to mark this periodas the time in which in Europe HM and PM were not present. Some elements of what we are calling “hospitality services”today (open to anybody) were covered by very modest villagepubs and by monasteries (for the very few travellers: tradepeople and pilgrims). Monasteries cannot be described asancestors of today’s hotels as their primary dedication wasnot hosting travellers, and as not all hospitality functionswere present (leisure). Castles in the contrary haveconsciously been built bigger than needed by the nobility andtheir staff with the purpose to host aristocratic guests.Castles thus were the first buildings fulfilling the conditionto offer shelter, food and leisure to the guests – yet their“services” were accessible only to a negligibly small segmentof Europeans.The fall of this period has been introduced by agriculture: inMiddle Ages rural life was governed by feudalism, till in 11thcentury two innovations changed Europe: the heavy plough andthe three-field crop rotation. Less farm workers were needed,and many families moved to towns. By 1300, some 15 cities inEurope had a population of more than 50,000; in these citiesthe Renaissance was born as the result of intellectual andeconomic changes (http://www.history.com).

16

2. The second period, the Renaissance, did not begin in all partsof Europe synchronically: it began in the 14th century in Italyand lasted till the 16th, in some parts till the 17th century.It stands for incredible changes in society and economy:important discoveries were made (compass, paper, print,discoveries of new continents…). The life philosophy haschanged, and, most important: an upper class was formed inEurope due to the quick growth of economy. The workingconditions for lower employees were as bad as their payment –a deep gap appeared between the wealthy and the poor inEurope, and nobody seemed to be worried about it. In hospitality systems thinking was applied only when biggerprojects were planned; knowledge on hospitality management wasmostly intuitive and tradition-based (newcomers learning fromthe existing staff).Something similar was happening in industry where PM has beenapplied because of necessity; knowledge has not beenaccumulated and spread consciously and systematically: PMpractices were used rarely and informally. Most projects wereregarding construction (major objects like castles, cities,ports etc.) or military purposes (planning and realizingmilitary strategies and tactics), where cooperation andcoordination was needed. ST was partly applied in dividingprojects into smaller parts to become better manageable.

3. The third period is the era from the beginning of the quickindustrialisation up to the completed first reconstructionphase after the WW II (1750 -1950).PM concepts start to be used in non-project traditionalindustries (like new products development, restoration ofcomplex production facilities, railway development,electricity production plants etc.). PM goals and results arenot only more and more complicated, but also more and morecomplex. PM is applied: yet only because of necessity.In hospitality transmission of the accumulated knowledgeappeared. Systems thinking was applied for making the offermore specialised: three sectors of hospitality became visiblein hotels: the F&B field (food and beverage sector),housekeeping and leisure. The end of this period brought aconsiderable downturn in the hospitality sector due to the twoworld wars: enormous loss of GDP, huge war-damages, unsafe

17

environments, no respect for human rights, disregarding oflocal communities’ interests to the advantage of capital weretypical for this period. Neither in PM nor in HM concern abouteither of the 3BL parameters was visible.

4. The fourth phase is characterised by rapid development of newtechnologies after 1950. PM is developing up to the strategicPM model, regarded as a 21st century PM model. PM is defined asa strategic lever to transform the “old economy”, and as a wayhow to deal with complex issues of the “new economy”. Conceptsof “business” and “project” are connected, and strategicimportance of projects is emphasised. PM is brought closer tosystemic behaviour/thinking. Projects became part of overallbusiness and a central part of the development and of thefirm’s competitiveness”.Regarding tourism, 1950 represents a milestone: from this yearonwards, global statistics on international tourism areavailable. This year represents the start of permanent tourismgrowth. Very important: after WWII the middle class was formedin Western industrial countries, which made tourism availableeven to simple factory workers. In the 1970-ies mass tourismwas born in Europe stimulated by full employment, by theGerman economic wonder, which resulted in shorter working weekwith Saturday off, in less working hours per week, in highersalaries and in longer paid-holidays than ever experienced inthe world before (the 3S tourism: family holidays, meaningsun, sea and sand). This is the period when tourism hasreached its critical mass that shifted this sector frommarginality to “serious” economic branches. Considerablechanges were induced due to new transport conditions (aprivate car in each family; erection of motorways in Europe;civil aviation development etc.). Several new types of tourism emerged (Alpine, cycling, farm,spa…) with high levels of specialisation, which made systemsthinking necessary.Mass tourism showed very quickly that besides having its niceparts, tourism can be very destroying: the less a society isdeveloped, the harder it is affected by negative impacts oftourism development. To help reduce them, several NGOs (non-governmental organisations) were founded – they still playhere a crucial role by informing local societies (about their

18

rights, about the threats of tourism development etc.), andtourists how to behave as guests not to harm the physical andsocial environment they are visiting.Several global problems became visible through tourism, e.g.human rights violations in some countries; it also becameclear that tourism can positively contribute to reduceprejudices regarding other cultures and nations.

5. The fifth development stage has started with the era of the“new economy”, associated with new business philosophies basedon the seven topics on which the ISO 26000 (2010) is based: 1)organisation, management and governance, 2) respecting humanrights, 3) fair labour practices, 4) responsibility towardsthe environment, 5) using fair operating practices, 6)introducing consumer issues into business operations and 7)supporting (local) community involvement and development.These seven topics of course have to be interlaced with theseven principles of this same ISO standard: with 1)accountability and 2) transparency, with 3) ethical behaviourof all stakeholders and with 4) respect for stakeholders’interests. All practices have to 5) respect the rule of law,6) international norms of behaviour, and 7) human rights. Thisperiod’s business practices are based on systems thinking, onunderstanding and consideration of interdependence betweenindividuals, groups, organizations and broader environment,and on implementing requisite holism by all projects andbusiness issues. By doing so the concept of requisite holism(Mulej and Kajzer 1998) – fortified version of concept of thedialectical system (Mulej 1974) – needs to be regarded sinceattaining totally holistic approach reaches beyond humannatural capacity, even in a team-work based on inter-disciplinary creative cooperation. Because of this (requisite)holistic approach, PM becomes a “versatile concept” that hastools and measures to render any industry and any economysector more successful in respecting the 7 ISO 26000 points.In tourism businesses and consumers are highly concerned aboutrespecting the 3BL – even in the segment of the mass tourismoffer.

This comparison shows that both fields of management have verysimilar development phases, and that they share some major SR and

19

ST topics. This shows that our anticipation was correct and thatit would be sensible to set up a more systematic knowledgeexchange between them. How to do this and what could be thebenefits of doing so is shown in conclusions.

4. CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of both PM and HM showed that a) in these two managementfields homogenous development periods de facto exist, and that b)these periods have several similarities regarding the developmentof CSR and ST within them.

A further observation was that the division into developmentstages was connected to- and depended on economic and socialdevelopment and welfare, and that to each period a similar levelon CSR can be assigned. Regarding ST we found out that it hasbeen consciously introduced into project management practicesonly in the last two development stages (from the time ofindustrial revolution on), after very complex systems andsituations appeared and forced the businesses to overcome theone-sidedness in order to survive on the increasingly competitivemarkets. We can clearly state that the more advanced thedevelopment, the more complex projects are becoming, and the moreST needs to be applied to allow their successful completion. Thisincludes the need for holistic approach to any project, whichautomatically incorporates consideration of the social and thephysical environments – the latter “forces” project managers tomeet decisions in this regard (yet not to act ethically andmorally; too many projects still exist with very clear violationof all ISO 26,000 principles – we have mentioned some of them inthe field of hospitality).

Something similar can be said for hospitality as well: the moreit is developed, the more it gets complex and the bigger becomesits negative 3BL-potential. As hospitlity is not exclusively aneconomic but also a social phenomenon, CSR plays in it a muchstronger role than in industry. A high level of awarenessregarding possible negative footprints has long ago forced theproviders to start introducing visible proofs of their commitment

20

to sustainability and fair business practices. If the decade of2000 onwards in tourism was marked by the slogan: “Who is notonline is not on sale”, then ten years later the new sloganreads: “Who is not eco (which includes principles ofsustainability and responsibility) is not on sale”. 3BL became amajor topic after the extent of tourism/hospitality business hasachieved the critical mass that made irregularities, damages anddeviations it causes not only visible, but intensive enough totrigger a reaction. For the first time in human history groups ofhighly motivated people started founding NGOs in order toconserve their social and physical environments; after twocenturies of being ruled by wish for profit, the society – andthus the consumers – started asking about the impacts of theirholidays. Today the awareness of consumers represents the biggestand the mightiest constraint for providers to act responsibly. Intourism/hospitality, this extremely complex system,responsibility can only be achieved by incorporating all major(requisitely holistic approach) stakeholders form each one of the3BL fields.

Our concluding remark can thus be that the level of awareness andof readiness to act pro-nature, pro-ethics, pro-moral etc. isaugmenting synchronic with the welfare of the society.Hospitality as a pure welfare service is the best prove of it:the more we are climbing up the development pyramid, the moresystems thinking we are forced to apply, and the more CSR and SThave to be integrated into its services to assure a demand forthem on the global market. PM could assist the hospitality sectorcrucially in this regard, because in its 5th generation, it haselaborated ready-made measures and tools for successful problem-solving. Positive experiences from pairing HM with PM exist inthe field of event management are encouraging the authors tosuggest a systematic research how to introduce PM into furtherhospitality services. We suggest checking HM from the PMperspective: how many tasks and which procedures/departments canbe adapted to the 5th generation PM-logic by incorporating CSR-and ST-principles, on which ISTO 26,000 is based, into theiroperations.

21

References

Bohdanowicz, P. and Zientara, P. (2012), “CSR-inspiredEnvironmental Initiatives in Top Hotel Chains”, in Leslie, D.(Ed.), Tourism Enterprises and the Sustainability Agenda across Europe. AshgatePublishing Ltd.

CIRET (accessed on 31st January 2014) http://www.ciret-tourism.com

Dietrich, P. and Lehtonen, P. (2005), “Successful management of strategic intentions through multiple projects – Reflections fromempirical study«, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 386–391.

Dwyer, L. (2005), “Relevance of triple bottom line reporting to achievement of sustainable tourism: a scoping study”, Tourism Review International, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 79-938.

Farrell, B. H. and Twining-Ward, L. (2004), “ReconceptualizingTourism”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 274–295.

Granier, L. (2003/2004), “Review of leading European touroperators’ commitment to Corporate Social Responsibility”,dissertation, Master of Arts in European Tourism Management,Bournemouth University, UK, and Universidad Rey Juan Carlos,Madrid, Spain.

Hauc, A., Vrečko I. and Barilović Z. (2011), “A Holistic Project-Knowledge Society as a Condition for Solving Global Strategic Crises”, Društvena istraživanja, Vol. 20 No. 4, 1039-1060.

Holcomb, J. L., Upchurch, R. S. and Okumus, F. (2007), “Corporatesocial responsibility: what are top hotel companies reporting?”,International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 19 No. 6,pp. 461 – 475.

http://www.history.com/topics/middle-ages

ISO (2010): ISO 26000. See: http://www.iso.org/iso/ discovering_iso_26000.pdf.

22

Kanga, K. H., Leeb, S. and Huhc, C. (2010), “Impacts of positiveand negative corporate social responsibility activities oncompany performance in the hospitality industry”, InternationalJournal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 29, pp. 72–82.

Kerzner, H. (2013), “Project management: A systems approach to planning,scheduling and controlling”, 11th Edition, Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons,Inc.

Lebe, S. S. and Vrečko, I. (2014), “Ecolabels- and Schemes: aRequisitely Holistic Proof of Tourism’s Social Responsibility?”,Systems Research and Behavioral Science – Wiley – in print.

Lebe, S. S. and Zupan, S. (2012), “From Eco-ignorance to Eco-certificates: Environmental Management in Slovene Hotels”, in:Leslie, D. (Ed.): Tourism Enterprises and the Sustainability Agenda acrossEurope. Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Lebe, S. S et al (2006), “Program ekološke ureditve inposodobitve slovenskih hotelov”. Ministry of Economy.

Leintz, B.P. and Rea, K.P. (1995), “Project Management for the 21stCentury«, London: Academic Press.

Levy, S. E. and Park, S. Y. (2011), “An analysis of CSRactivities in the lodging industry”, Journal of Hospitality andTourism Management, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 147-154.

Mulej, M. (1974), “Dialektična teorija sistemov in ljudski reki”,Naše gospodarstvo, Vol. 21 No. 3-4, pp. 207-212.

Mulej, M. and Kajzer, Š. (1998), “Ethics of interdependence andthe law of requisite holism”, in: Rebernik, M. and Mulej, M.(Eds.): STIQE '98. Institute for Entrepreneurship at Faculty ofBusiness Economics, Maribor, pp. 129-140.

Neith, B. (2008) “Ecotourism as a Tool for Sustainable RuralDevelopment and Natural Resources Management in the Tonle SapBiosphere Reserve”, doctoral thesis, Kassel University Press

23

GmbH, Kassel [10 September 2012http://www.uni-kassel.de/upress/online/frei/978-3-89958-465-3.volltext.frei.pdf]

Noordzy, G. (2013), “Project Management of Hotel OpeningProcesses in Greater China”, 4Hoteliers, 5th June 2013 [online10 June2013 http://www.4hoteliers.com/features/article/7642]

Rebernik, M., Širec, K. (2007), »Fostering innovation by unlearning tacit knowledge«, Kybernetes, Vol. 36 No. ¾, pp. 406-419.

Scholtens (2006), “Finance as a Driver of Corporate SocialResponsibility”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 19-33.

Shenhar, A.J. and Dvir, D. (2005), ”Project Management Research -Challenges and Opportunities”, Hoboken: Stevens Institute ofTechnology. [Electronic version]. (http://howe.stevens.edu,24.12.2013).

Sloan, P., Legrand, W. and Chen, J. S. (2009), “Sustainability in theHospitality Industry, Principle of Sustainable Operation,Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Southern, G. (1999), “A systems approach to performancemeasurement in hospitality”, International Journal of ContemporaryHospitality Management, Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. 366 – 376.

Tanaka, H. (2004), »The changing landscape of project management«,Presented at the 4th International Project Management Workshop,ESC Lille.

Testa, M. R. and Sipe, L. J. (2006), “A Systems Approach toService Quality Tools for Hospitality Leaders”, Cornell HospitalityQuarterly February 2006, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 36-48.

Tsaia, W-H., Hsub, J-L., Chenc, C-H., Lina, W-R. and Chena, S-P(2010), “An integrated approach for selecting corporate socialresponsibility programs and costs evaluation in the international

24

tourist hotel”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No.3, pp. 385–396.

Woodside, A. (2009), “Applying Systems Thinking to Sustainable Golf Tourism”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 205-215.

25