ARTICLE IN PRESS

0261-5177/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.to

�CorrespondE-mail addr

clark.hu@temp1Tel.: +1 215

Tourism Management 29 (2008) 929–939

www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Understanding strategic alignment for destination marketing andthe 2004 Athens Olympic Games: Implications from extracted

tacit knowledge

Neha Singha,�, Clark Hub,1

aCollins School of Hospitality Management, California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly Pomona), 3801 West Temple Avenue, Building 79B-2427,

Pomona, CA 91768, USAbNational Laboratory for Tourism and eCommerce, School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Temple University (062-62), 1700 North Broad Street,

Suite 201F, Philadelphia, PA 19121-3429, USA

Received 17 July 2006; accepted 21 November 2007

Abstract

Major international hallmark events, especially the Olympic Games, represent a significant opportunity for marketing tourism to the

host country. Due to the scale and importance of the event, the coordination between the Olympic organizing committee and the

destination marketing organization of the host country becomes a knowledge-intensive and exceptionally complicated task. Analyzing

on-site interview data collected from top executives of the two major organizations involved in the 2004 Summer Olympic Games

(ATHOC and GNTO), this research achieved two objectives: (1) extracted and organized the tacit knowledge from both organizations to

discover major issues concerning the Athens 2004 Olympic Games, and (2) identified the strategic alignment issues between the domains

of Olympics planning and destination marketing and proposed a conceptual framework for the future Olympic host countries.

r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: ATHOC (Athens Organizing Committee); GNTO (Greek National Tourism Organization); Destination marketing; Tacit knowledge; Olympic

Games; Strategic alignment

1. Introduction

Large, internationally known events of world impor-tance and high profile are considered as mega-events thathave a major impact on the image of the host countries andcities (Bramwell, 1997a, b; Law, 1993). As a unique class ofspecial events, these mega-events can be viewed further aslarge-scale tourism products and integral to tourismdevelopment and marketing plans (Getz, 1989). Mega-events not only directly attract participants and spectatorsto the host destinations but also raise the host country’sprofile through advertising and news coverage, indirectlygenerating tourism revenues from increased future visita-

e front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

urman.2007.11.005

ing author. Tel.: +1909 869 4565; fax: +1 909 869 4805.

esses: nsingh@csupomona.edu (N. Singh),

le.edu (C. Hu).

204 1994; fax: +1 215 204 8705.

tions (Bramwell, 1997a, b; Chalip, Green, & Hill, 2003;Morse, 2001; Mules & Faulkner, 1996). They are viewed ascomplex projects requiring multiple activities, resources,and time (Henderson, 2005). Within the group of mega-events, the Olympic Games especially receive tremendousattention internationally and represent a significant touristasset for marketing tourism of the host area (Ahn &Ahmed, 1994; Bramwell, 1997a, b). The Olympic Gamesare unparalleled in their scale and the potential impact theycan have on the economies of host cities, regions, andcountries. The Games can provide an excellent opportunityfor local businesses to leverage from networking, enhan-cing the economic benefits of sport events for hostcountries (Beriatos & Gospodini, 2004; Chalip & Leyns,2002; O’Brien, 2006). The exposure and enormous interestof the Olympic Games can also provide an excellentopportunity for countries to market themselves to potentialtourists. Therefore, mega-events such as Olympic Games

ARTICLE IN PRESSN. Singh, C. Hu / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 929–939930

offer the tourism industry of the host countries a uniqueopportunity to capitalize on their long-term marketpotential.

Before 1984, in which the Los Angles Olympic Gamesmade a surplus of approximately $311 million, staging theOlympic events was considered a financial and adminis-trative burden to the hosting country and city (Gratton,Dobson, & Shibli, 2000). Encouraged by the financialsuccess of the 1984 Los Angles Olympic Games and drivenby the national pride of staging such a prestigious sportevent, most recent host countries (especially Australia’s2000 Sydney Games and the United States’ 1996 AtlantaGames) have realized that hosting Olympic Games can benot only a financial success but also an excellentopportunity to position or re-position both the host cityand the host destination to a global audience. OlympicGames also help in fostering feelings of national pride andnational identity among the host people in the host country(Karkatsoulis, Michalopoulos, & Moustakatou, 2005). TheGames ignite feelings of patriotism, community spirit, andthe desire to come together in the host communities (Waitt,2003). In fact, some scholars have suggested that majorsport events have become both an important contributor tothe local economy (Gratton et al., 2000; Ritchie, 2000) anda vital component of the marketing mix for touristdestinations (Getz, 1998; Gibson, 1998). From the tourismperspective, most countries market their destinationsthrough their destination marketing organizations (DMOs)that strive to differentiate their destinations from others(Buhalis, 2000). These organizations focus on promotingand marketing what the destinations have to offer totourists and play an important role as a facilitator toachieve the strategic objectives of the destinations (Buhalis& Collins, 2003). The Olympic Games offer uniquemarketing opportunities and challenges to DMOs of hostcountries. This paper investigates these opportunities andchallenges, especially the aspects that require coordinationbetween the host country’s DMO and the NationalOlympic Committee (NOC) for achieving strategic benefitsfrom the Games.

1.1. Primary organizations

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is thesupreme authority of the Olympic Movement. Its primaryresponsibility is to supervise the organization and smoothoperations of the Olympic Games in the host country. Theorganization of the Olympic Games is entrusted bythe IOC to the NOC of the host country. Organized bythe NOC, a committee is then formed exclusively for theOlympic Games, which communicates directly with theIOC. The Athens 2004 Olympic Games were planned andcoordinated by the Athens Organizing Committee(ATHOC), an ad hoc strategic organization responsiblefor the Games. By contrast, the responsibility for market-ing Greece as a tourism destination lay with its DMO, theGreek National Tourism Organization (GNTO). The

GNTO was a quasi-governmental, permanent agencybefore the Ministry of Tourism was reestablished in 2004.GNTO’s efforts needed to be aligned carefully with themega-event planning of ATHOC to maximize the benefitsof the Olympic Games. Both entities can be characterizedas knowledge-based organizations, because they share acommon intellectual nature of handling complicated workwith a well-educated, qualified, and knowledgeable work-force (Alvesson, 2001).

2. Research objectives

The Olympic organizing committee (e.g., ATHOC) istemporary in nature and is dissolved once the mega-event isover. On the other hand, the DMO for the country (e.g.,GNTO for Greece) is a permanent entity. Its majorfunctions remain the same before, during, and after theOlympic event, although the event offers extraordinaryopportunities to expose the destination’s image andfeatures. For the tourism industry, it is extremelyimportant to understand the alignment and coordinationbetween these two organizations. The outcome from thislearning process can be shared and can be of benefit to thetourism industry of other countries that plan to hostinternational mega-events in the future. Although tourismscholars (Ritchie, 2000; Ritchie & Smith, 1991; Spilling,1998) have documented the substantial destination market-ing challenges faced by host countries of the OlympicGames, research based on the first-hand coordinatingexperience at such a scale is greatly needed. Since hostingOlympic events is a rare opportunity, most attention hasbeen drawn to short-term industrial/economic benefitsrather than long-term tourism contributions. Much of theunique experience, a form of tacit knowledge, gained by theorganizing committees and DMOs of the host countriesappears to have been lost, leaving future organizations ofsubsequent Olympic Games with limited knowledge of theunique aspects of the event. Therefore, the objectives ofthis study were (1) to extract and learn the implicitknowledge from both organizations’ intellectual humancapital regarding the 2004 Summer Olympic Games, and(2) to understand the alignment issues between the twoorganizations and propose a conceptual framework forsuggesting strategic implications to future Olympic hostcountries. The second objective of this study occurred tothe authors due to the results of the first objective. Whileanalyzing the data collected from interviewing the eliteofficials from ATHOC and GNTO, various aspects thatrequired coordination between the two organizationswere recognized, if the country were to gain strategicbenefits from hosting the Games. Thus, based on theanalysis of the data collected in this study, the authorsdeveloped a conceptual framework whereby this coordina-tion could be discussed further. The conceptual frameworkis not tested in this paper, because it was proposed basedon the data collected and analyzed. This is typical of‘‘grounded theory’’ research (Borgatti, 2007), wherein most

ARTICLE IN PRESSN. Singh, C. Hu / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 929–939 931

qualitative data are collected and analyzed with the aim ofgenerating theories and conceptualizing certain phenomena(Goulding, 2002).

3. Literature review

3.1. Resource-based and knowledge-based views of

performance

The resource-based view (RBV) has emerged as one ofthe several important explanations of persistent firmperformance in the field of strategic management (Foss,1998). Even though RBV has come under attack asbeing among other things, tautological, overly simplistic,and largely untestable (Levitas & Ndofor, 2006; Priem &Butler, 2001), it is considered a ‘‘dominant’’ theory inthe strategic management literature for understandinghow certain firms create economic rents more effectivelythan their rivals (Barney, 2001; Makadok, 2001). Under-standing resources that provide a sustained competitiveadvantage to firms has been discussed by many scholars(Barney, 1991; Porter, 1985; Wernerfelt, 1984). RBVtheorists consider that resources, including all assets,capabilities, organizational processes, firm attributes,information, knowledge, etc., enable a firm to conceiveand implement strategies that improve its efficiency andeffectiveness (Daft, 2003). According to Barney (1991),these firm resources can be classified into three categories:(1) physical capital resources, (2) human capital resources,and (3) organizational capital resources. Strategicallyrelevant resources can be a source of competitive advan-tage for a firm. A firm is said to have a competitiveadvantage when it implements a value-creating strategythat is not simultaneously being implemented by any othercompetitor firm. Additionally, a firm is said to have asustained competitive advantage when it implements avalue-creating strategy that is not simultaneously beingimplemented by any other competitor and cannot beduplicated by another competitor (Barney, 1991; Barney,McWilliams, & Turk, 1989). For any resource to be asource of sustained competitive advantage to a firm, it isimportant for the resource to be valuable, rare, imperfectlyimitable, and non-substitutable in a short period oftime (Barney, 1991). Similar to resources providingsustained competitive advantage to firms, the OlympicGames are viewed by host countries as resources thatprovide valuable, rare, and difficult to imitate or substituteopportunities by other host destinations.

The knowledge-based view can be conceived as a specificbranch of the RBV theory that views a firm as aknowledge-creating entity and argues that knowledge isstrategically the most important resource to the firm(Grant, 1996; Moller & Svahn, 2006). This view arguesthat knowledge and a firm’s capability to create and utilizesuch knowledge are the most important assets to the firm’ssustainable competitive advantage (Kogut & Zander, 1992;Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka, Toyama, & Nagata,

2000). Knowledge and skills can give a firm a competitiveadvantage, because it is through them that a firm is able tointroduce new products/processes/services and/or improvethe existing ones. In contrast to explicit knowledge orknowledge expressed in manuals, etc. implicit knowledgeor knowledge in individuals is difficult to capture andimitate due to its tacitness (Nonaka et al., 2000). Implicitknowledge is subjective and experiential and hard toformalize. Similar to firms in the strategic managementliterature, tourism DMOs and Olympic organizing com-mittees can be considered as knowledge-based organiza-tions and the people involved in organizing the OlympicGames and marketing the destination as knowledge-intensive resources. Thus, in this article, both Olympicorganizing and destination marketing are viewed asknowledge-intensive tasks that require complex knowledgeof product and service systems. Due to the scale andimportance of the event, knowledge integration betweenthese two organizations becomes critical for a destinationwhen it aims to maximize the long-term economic benefitsof the event for tourism. This is because when twoorganizations working toward a common goal possessmultiple individuals with specialized knowledge, the key toefficiency is to achieve effective integration between the twoorganizations (Grant, 1996).

3.2. Strategic alignment

To operate effectively in a dynamic business environ-ment, firms need to ‘‘align’’ themselves with their strategies,capabilities, and environment (Beer, Voelpel, Leibold, &Tekie, 2005). The importance of aligning the objectives andstrategies of an organization’s information systems (IS)group with those of the broader organization has beenrecognized in literature and referred to as strategicalignment (Campbell, Kay, & Avison, 2005; Chan, 2002;Henderson, 1990; Kearns & Lederer, 2000). The earlierwork on strategic alignment was theoretical in natureproviding the platform on which later work was developed.Henderson (1990) described alignment as a workingpartnership that reflects a long-term commitment, a senseof mutual cooperation, shared risks and benefits, and otherqualities consistent with the concept and theories ofparticipatory decision-making. The concept of strategicalignment was popularized in the field of InformationTechnology (IT) where investments in IT projects andassets needed to be directed toward achieving theorganization’s strategic vision. Strategic alignment wasoriginally concerned with the inherently dynamic fitbetween the two domains of business and technology forimproved organizational performance. It addressed the factthat lack of such an alignment could lead to failure torealize IT investments.Due to the scale and importance of the Olympic Games,

the coordination between the host Olympic PlanningCommittee and the host country’s DMO can be character-ized as an essential, knowledge-intensive, and exceptionally

ARTICLE IN PRESSN. Singh, C. Hu / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 929–939932

complicated task. This coordination often determinesthe success of the Olympic Games and affects futuregrowth and development of the host country’s tourism.The importance of coordination between the sportsand tourism agencies has been studied and discussedin a wide variety of research studies (Bramwell, 1997a, b;Gibson, 1998; Redmond, 1991; Weed, 2003). Whileanalyzing data collected for this study, it was found thatthe coordination between the Olympic Planning Commit-tee and the Tourism Organization could have been better.Thus, modified from the strategic alignment modelproposed by Venkatraman, Henderson, and Oldach(1993), an alignment model was conceptualized by theauthors to illustrate how the destination marketing andOlympic organizing domains can be strategically aligned.Hosting an Olympic event is a major investment for anycountry where the tourism administration and Olympicorganizing committee must be aligned to maximize thelong-term benefits. In the context of strategic destinationmarketing, this alignment translates into effective useand coordination of knowledge between DMOs andOlympic organizing committees for strategic benefits tothe tourism industry.

4. Methodology

4.1. Data collection

Data was gathered in the form of six in-depth interviewswith three top management elites from each of the twoorganizations: ATHOC and GNTO. Elite interviewing hasdistinct advantages as the top executives of organizationshold strategic knowledge on leadership and assets (King,1994; Lowe, 1981; Reinmoeller, 2004; Weed, 2003).Although it can be difficult to reach the desired elites tohold an interview, their knowledge and comprehensiveperspective on events under study provide a rich andthorough source of data. These on-site interviews were heldat the end of 2004 Olympic Games, so that a moreaccurate, holistic, and evaluative perspective (as tacitknowledge) from each interviewee could be obtained.A team of four researchers conducted the interviews andat least two interviewers were present for each interview.Notes were taken by each interviewer and the interviewswere recorded for later transcriptions.

4.2. Major directions of the interviews

The interviews were semi-structured, so that with abroad direction, the responses could trigger furtherquestions from the interviewees. The major interviewdirections were as follows:

1.

Explain the entire process that the country goes throughfor holding the Olympic Games.

2.

What are the operations of the Olympic PlanningCommittee and the destination management organization?

Does the strategy of a DMO change due to OlympicGames?

3.

Is the coordination between the planning committee andthe destination management organization important?Why?

4.

What are the main areas of concern for the countryduring the period of event planning and the staging ofthe event?

The above-mentioned areas were investigated in thecontext of Athens 2004 Olympic Games. The interviewquestions were semi-structured, as the study was undertakento explore issues that emerge from the interview data. This istypical of ‘‘grounded theory’’ research methodology.

4.3. Data analysis

Management research is predominantly based on deduc-tive theory testing and positivist research methodologies(Alvesson & Willmott, 1996). These approaches incorpo-rate a more scientific approach with the formulationof theories and the use of large data samples toobserve their validity. They rely on strong statistical andquantitative methods. However, these approaches, by andlarge, fail to give deep insights and rich data intoorganizational practices. On the other hand, qualitativeresearch is best suited to the types of questions thatrequire exploration of data in depth over a not particularlylarge sample (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). In this paper,the qualitative methodology for data collection anddata analysis was appropriate to help in understandingthe processes involved during Olympics in the hostcountry. The qualitative methodology was signifiedby the following qualities: natural setting, human instru-ment, utilization of tacit knowledge, purposive sampling,inductive data analysis, and grounded theory (Lincoln &Guba, 1985).To assure an unprejudiced content analysis, the widely

used grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967,1994) was used to guide data analysis. Grounded theory isregarded as a general theory of scientific method concernedwith the generation, elaboration, and validation of socialscience theory. In this methodology, the researcher startswith minimalist a priori constructs and inquires deeply intocollected data to form theoretical constructs (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe, & Lowe, 1993). It is one of the well-developed inductive research methods and is appropriatefor this type of investigation because (1) little is written andknown about the alignment between a DMO and anOlympic organizing committee, (2) grounded theory has aset of established guidelines that encourages objectivitywhen venturing into qualitative research (Goulding, 2002),and (3) grounded theory is an established and crediblequalitative methodology.One element of traditional grounded theory involves the

use of early interviews to influence questions asked in laterinterviews; this was carefully considered while conducting

ARTICLE IN PRESSN. Singh, C. Hu / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 929–939 933

interviews. Thus, the questions were unfocused initially, sothat the interviewees were given freedom to provide richerand in-depth information to researchers. These interviewswere then transcribed and besides the verbal data, line-by-line coding was employed to represent the key ideas of eachinterview statement. This data was then aggregated intohigher order concepts through a process that involvedselecting and categorizing recurring themes in the codes.The highest level core categories were sought, demonstrat-ing the relationships of the concepts to each other. Finally,core information was used to conceptualize the strategicalignment framework.

5. Findings and discussion

The major findings of the interviews have been organizedand presented in Fig. 1. Two types of findings are reported:(1) the exact quotes from the interviews and (2) a summaryoverview of the key issues that emerged from the interviews.

Process of O

Committee;

Planning events & exe

Operations of GNTO (i.e., Destination

Marketing efforts toward destination; Licensing and development of tourist destinations

Coordination

GNTO and A

Investment on infrastrElevating quality of to

Performing promotionHandling negative pub

Strategic Im

• Increase in long-term t• Strategic tourism polic• Enhanced tourism bran

Winning the bid;Competing for the bid

Application by the Na

Marketing Organization)

services;

Fig. 1. A summary of tacit knowledge

The interviewees’ verbatim data are presented in thesummaries. They are not afterthoughts of the interviewersbut summaries of the actual data.

5.1. Process of Olympic Games (Direction 1)

It can take almost nine to ten years from the time acountry’s National Olympic Committee applies for hold-ing the Olympic Games to the time they are actually held.

Olympic Games is an extremely complex event whichrequires huge organization and investment. The Greekgovernment thought that seven years would be morethan enough to prepare for the event but there shouldhave been no room for delays due to the complexity ofthe project.

Greece had to be modernized for the Olympic Games toaccommodate and sustain large number of tourists andevents. Some precious time was lost in the beginning butas time went by, some major changes were seen in thecity’s infrastructure.

lympics

cuting the events

Operations of ATHOC

(i.e., Olympics Planning Committee)

Olympic event planning and organizing; Destination superstructure and infrastructuredevelopment

between

THOC

ucture;urism products &

campaigns;licity

plications

ourism revenues;y-making;ding

;

tional Olympic

extracted from the interview data.

ARTICLE IN PRESSN. Singh, C. Hu / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 929–939934

In the context of 2004 Athens Olympic Games, Greecereceived the bid in 1997 and had almost 7 years toprepare for the event. After some initial delays andwarnings from the IOC, ATHOC started to focus onmajor issues like infrastructure, television rights,accommodation, media services, accreditation, cleanliness,security, technology, ticketing, food and beverageservices, and transportation. Most of these issues requiredextensive advance planning and financial aid frompartnerships. Some planning and construction jobs weredelayed, leading to bad publicity questioning whether ornot Athens would be ready for the event. Eventually, mostof the financial aid came from the Greek government, IOC,and the rest came from sponsorships, ticketing, andmerchandising. Expertise in the form of knowledge andpeople was also offered from other developed countriesand previous Olympic host countries on constructionprojects in Greece.

5.2. Operations of GNTO and ATHOC (Direction 2)

GNTO was the sole public body involved in tourismpolicy until the Ministry of Tourism was created. Itperformed three main functions as an executive agency:Marketing, Development, and Licensing.The strategy of GNTO changed due to Olympic Games.Greece had long suffered from neglect and shortage offunds. Olympics provided the funds for modern infra-structure and services.ATHOC was the Olympic organizing committee con-stituted to organize and ensure the smooth operation ofthe event in Athens.Olympic Games were not just a mega-event but a supermega-event for a small country like Greece. ATHOCwas an adhoc organization created for a special task.

GNTO was the sole public body in Greece involved intourism planning until the Ministry of Tourism wasreestablished in 2004 as a complimentary body to GNTO.However, this decision took a long time because there weresome delays in the communication between the Greekgovernment and GNTO. The three main functions ofGNTO as an organization are marketing and promotion oftourism activities, licensing and control of tourismdestinations, and development of the tourist destinations.The other tasks of GNTO during the years of preparationfor the Olympic Games were restraining high hotelaccommodation rates, upgrading the hotels and othertourist facilities, and planning the strategy for tourismmarketing for the Olympic Games. Although Athens has atremendous cultural heritage, it suffered from neglect andinsufficient tourism services. For many years, Athens wasperceived solely as a gateway city to various islands. Theopportunity of hosting the Olympic Games providednecessary funds for modernizing Athens’ infrastructureand transportation services (tramway, metro, airport, andnew marinas). These infrastructural improvements servedas a catalyst in promoting Athens as a modern city with

rich cultural treasures, which, in turn, helped to promote apositive image of Athens. The future strategy of GNTOwould be to not only promoting Greece as a cultural citybut also as a modern, safe city for tourists. In the future,GNTO would also hope to promote sport tourism inGreece along with promoting Greece for conventionsand meetings due to the excellent sport facilitiesbuilt for Olympics. In previous years, the budget tomarket Greece was 2.7 million euros, but, for 2004, themarketing budget was 30 million euros solely due to theOlympics. ATHOC was constituted as a temporary teamby the Greek government as an organizing committee. Itsmain objective was to ensure successful Olympic Gamesthat would accommodate vast numbers of tourists,athletes, volunteers, and other key officials in a timelyand secure fashion. Once the event was over, the committeewould dissolve.

5.3. Coordination between GNTO and ATHOC (Directions

3 and 4)

The promotion of Athens Olympic Games 2004 couldhave been improved with better communication betweenGNTO and ATHOC.ATHOC’s role was to organize Olympic Games, not tocollaborate with other organizations to market Greece.That is the role of the government. There was nocollaboration between ATHOC and GNTO.There were three main areas of concern when it comes tothe negative publicity being received by Greece whilepreparing for Olympic Games: slow progress, safety andaccommodation rates. These concerns could have beenaddressed better by GNTO and ATHOC together.However, ATHOC was not integrated with the publicsector and GNTO had no ministry of tourism till sometime before the event. So, communication betweenATHOC and GNTO was not much.

It was found in the interviews that the coordinationbetween GNTO and ATHOC could have been improved tomarket the event as well as the destination effectively.Communication was important between the two organiza-tions, especially on the following issues: amount ofinvestment on infrastructure and tourism services, promo-tional campaigns, and addressing the negative publicitybeing discussed by media worldwide. There was a concernamong the Greek people regarding the huge amount ofinvestment in building sport venues for Olympic Games.Many people felt that it would not beneficial for Greece tomake huge investments in infrastructure, which would havelittle use to them once the event is over. To resolve thisissue, coordination between GNTO and ATHOC wasimportant, so that an appropriate amount of investmentwas made on the infrastructure that could be utilized by thecity for tourism.Proper and timely coordination between the two

organizations would have also increased event revenue tosome extent. As per GNTO, there was some negative

ARTICLE IN PRESSN. Singh, C. Hu / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 929–939 935

publicity that Greece received from journalists worldwide.Three main areas of concern were as follows: (1) someinitial delays in the planning activities due to the slowprogress of getting Athens ready. There was widespreadconcern whether Greece could eventually be ready to holdall the sport and tourist activities effectively. Although theGreek culture was found to be ‘‘ready-at-last-minute’’ andthe ATHOC officials felt confident in their on-timereadiness, it was difficult to explain their confidence tothe world. (2) Safety had been greatly emphasized due tothe increase in terrorism in the last few years. Safe andsecure Olympic events were eventually held due to hugeinvestments in improving safety and security by the Greekgovernment, as well as through a vast amount of help andexpertise from international cooperation. However, safetyissues were being discussed by media, as the event venuescould be attractive sites for terrorism. (3) There wasconcern over inflated prices due to the high accommoda-tion rates in hotels all over Athens. Even though this issuewas resolved by the joint efforts of GNTO and the locallodging association a few weeks before the Olympic Gamesopening ceremonies, the concerns led to some negativepublicity for Greece as a host country. GNTO eventuallyran special campaigns through the press and other media tomake people aware that these concerns had been effectivelyaddressed by the Greek government and, in addition, somerepresentative journalists from various countries wereinvited to visit Athens in order to alleviate the negativepublicity.

After the interviews were analyzed, it was found thatmany of issues on Athens’ negative publicity could havebeen avoided by careful coordination between GNTO andATHOC. The interview responses raised a few issuesregarding the coordination between the Olympic PlanningCommittees and the destination tourism organizations.Successful coordination between the two organizationscould have led to positive strategic implications not just formarketing of the event and destination during the event butalso for the country’s tourism planning and marketing forthe future. The coordination between GNTO and ATHOCcould have many strategic implications during and after theevent such as increase in long-term tourism revenues,strategic tourism policy-making, enhanced tourism brand-ing, and knowledge transfer. Thus, based on the datacollected, the authors propose that for the long-termbenefits of hosting Olympics, it is important that there bestrategic alignment between a host country’s destinationmarketing and Olympic organizing domains. In thefollowing section, a conceptual framework is proposed byauthors that can help in understanding the coordinationbetween the two domains of destination marketing andOlympic organizing. This framework is adapted from thestrategic alignment framework proposed in the IT field(Venkatraman et al., 1993). It is important to note that thetheory of strategic alignment between destination market-ing and Olympic organizing is proposed after analyzing thedata collected for this study.

5.4. The conceptual framework

The concept of strategic alignment can help in under-standing the nature and pattern of inter-relationshipsbetween destination marketing and Olympic organizingdomains. It is based on two dimensions: ‘‘strategic fit’’ and‘‘integration.’’ The former dimension recognizes the needfor any strategy to address both external and internalenvironments. The external environment is the environ-ment in which the destination competes and is concernedwith strategy attributes that differentiate the destinationfrom its competitors. In contrast, the internal environmentis concerned with the administrative systems and processesnecessary for achieving the required competencies. Withinany business domain, the fit between external and internalarrangement has been found critical for maximizingeconomic performance and is termed a strategic fit. Thesecond dimension of the model consists of strategic andfunctional integration. Strategic integration reflects theintegration of the destination marketing and the Olympicorganizing strategies. This specifically considers howstrategic choices in the Olympic organizing domain impacton those made in the destination marketing domain andvice versa. More specifically, it deals with the capability ofthe Olympic organizing strategy to shape and support thedestination marketing strategy. This capability is particu-larly important, as Olympic events have emerged as agolden source of strategic advantage to destinations.Functional integration is concerned with the correspondinginternal link between the DMOs’ infrastructure andprocesses and the organizing committee’s infrastructureand processes. This type of integration highlights theimportance of ensuring internal coherence between the twoorganizations’ requirements and expectations. The strate-gic alignment model is described in the following text withfour dominant perspectives and is illustrated in Fig. 2.

5.5. Strategic interpretations of four dominant alignment

perspectives

5.5.1. Destination marketing strategy as the driver

The first two cross-domain relationships arise whendestination marketing strategy serves as the driving force.

1.

Perspective A (tourism strategy execution). This per-spective is based on the notion that a destinationmarketing strategy is articulated by the DMO and is thedriver of its own organizational, as well as of theOlympic organizing committee’s, processes. The perfor-mance of this alignment can have strategic benefits forthe tourism industry of the host country, as the overalldestination marketing strategy drives the processes ofDMO and those of the Olympic organizing committee.Some benefits can be enhanced destination publicity aswell as an increase in the long-term tourism revenues.

2.

Perspective B (transfer of strategic vision). This per-spective is based on the notion that a destination

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Destination Marketing

Destination Marketing

C A

Four Dominant Alignment Perspectives ( )A = Tourism Strategy Execution (e.g., Elevating quality of tourism

products/services)B = Transfer of Strategic Vision (e.g., Performing promotion campaigns for

the destination)C = Competitive Potential for tourism (e.g., Handling negative publicity of

the Olympic Games)D = Enhanced Tourism Resources (e.g., Investment on infrastructure)

BD

Strategic Fit

Olympic Organizing

External

Internal

Strategy

Olympic Organizing

Strategy

DMOInfrastructureand Processes

OlympicInfrastructure and

Processes

Strategic Coordination

Functional Coordination

Fig. 2. The strategic alignment framework for the two major domains: destination marketing and Olympic organizing.

N. Singh, C. Hu / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 929–939936

marketing strategy is expressed by the DMO and is thedriver of the Olympic organizing strategy and thecommittee’s processes. This alignment perspective in-volves implementing the chosen destination marketingstrategy through an appropriate Olympic organizingstrategy and the articulation of the required infrastruc-ture and processes to organize Olympic Games. Thisperspective is not constrained by the DMO’s organiza-tional infrastructure or processes.

5.5.2. Olympic organizing strategy as the driver

The next two cross-domain relationships arise when theOlympic organizing strategy enables new or enhanceddestination marketing strategies with corresponding orga-nizational implications.

1.

Perspective C (competitive potential for tourism). Thisalignment perspective is concerned with the exploitationof the opportunities that Olympic Games can offer to adestination. The benefits can influence the entiredestination marketing strategy and can assist in devel-oping new forms of relationships with other destinationsin the host country. Unlike the previous perspectivesthat consider business strategies as given, this perspec-tive allows for the adaptation of the destinationmarketing strategy. It also seeks to identify thecorresponding set of decisions pertaining to DMO’sinfrastructure and processes.

2.

Perspective D (enhanced tourism resources). This align-ment focuses on how to build useful and high-quality

tourism resources for the destination. These resourcescan be helpful for the destination not only for thecurrent Olympic events but also for the future tourismindustry. The Olympic organizing strategy can drivethe infrastructural building for the hosting country suchas better transportation, sport arenas, etc. However,these resources must be re-useable and useful forthe tourism industry in the future. This perspectiveallows resources to be built with their long-termusability in mind.

Important strategic implications of alignment, betweenthe host country’s DMO and Olympic organizing commit-tee, were learned from the extracted tacit knowledge. Themajor implications of effective alignment between the twoorganizations will be (1) enhanced destination marketingand branding during Olympics, (2) increased visitationduring and after the Olympics is over, and (3) strategictourism policy-making whereby the event can be plannedstrategically to increase tourism of the host country.

6. Conclusion

Major international hallmark events can generate sub-stantial publicity that provides the host community with anopportunity to secure a prominent position in the tourismmarket (Ritchie, 1984). The opportunities provided fromthe Olympic Games are competitive advantages fordestination marketing organizations of the host destina-tions. In host countries, the Olympic organizing committee

ARTICLE IN PRESSN. Singh, C. Hu / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 929–939 937

is a temporary organization whose main task is organizingsmooth Olympic Games. On the other hand, the hostcountry’s DMO is a tourism organization that is nottemporary in nature and that markets the destinationbefore, during, and after the event for tourism. Forsuccessfully marketing the destinations, strategies andoperations involving two knowledge domains (Olympicplanning and destination marketing) are extremely im-portant and need to be coordinated and aligned carefully.This research used a conceptual model to demonstrate asystematic way of understanding the alignment between thehost countries’ DMOs and the Olympic Games organizing/planning committees. It is important to note that theproposed conceptual framework was outlined by theauthors after analyzing the interview data collected duringthe Athens 2004 Olympic Games. Hence, the proposedframework could not be tested during the Game period.Qualitative methods are useful in the exploratory stages ofresearch, where they often help researchers understand thenature of interesting phenomena, set the research ques-tions, and generate hypotheses for later testing. Thus, it isrecommended that the proposed strategic alignment frame-work be further examined by researchers in the context offuture Olympic Games. This reflects not only the scarcityof research opportunities for the current study but also theimportance of future continuing efforts in this researchstream.

The Olympic Games are unparalleled in their scale andtheir potential economic impact on the host cities, regions,and countries (O’Brien, 2006). These Games are logisticallylonger term and strategically more complex than anyother mega-events. The time between winning an Olympicbid campaign and the staging of such Olympic Gamestypically ranges from 7 to 10 years. From the budgetaryperspective, the amount for organizing each WinterOlympic Games costs over US $800 million and twice asmuch for a Summer Olympic Games (Persson, 2002). Inlarge-scale events, most tourism research (e.g., Adamo,2003; Deccio & Baloglu, 2002; Gratton et al., 2000;Hiller, 1998; Jones, 2001; Mihalik & Simonetta, 1999;Pyo, Cook, & Howell, 1988; Pyo, Uysal, & Howell, 1988;Waitt, 2003) aimed at examining short-term and visitation-related impacts, rather than long-term outcomes such asstrategic development and knowledge management/trans-fer. Given the huge public and private investments involvedin these large-scale events, the need to fill this gap in theextant literature seems surprisingly obvious and necessary.There is a vast amount of tacit knowledge accumulatedby key officials who are involved in organizing themega-event and marketing the destination. This preciousknowledge source should be transferred to and re-used byfuture organizing committees and destination organiza-tions again.

Knowledge is arguably the only organizational asset thatincreases when it is shared and used more frequently(Bouncken & Pyo, 2002). This perspective is even moreimportant in the context of mega-events such as the

Olympic Games. In this study, such an attempt was madeto extract tacit knowledge from the top management of thetwo critical organizations—Athens Olympic Committee(ATHOC) and Greek National Tourism Organization(GNTO). The authors explored the coordination betweenthese two national organizations by interviewing the topofficials of the two organizations. The interview responsesshed light on the new understanding of coordination issuesbetween the Olympic Planning Committee and theNational Tourism Organization during the 2004 SummerOlympic Games. Furthermore, the authors added theircontribution by providing the strategic alignment frame-work between the domains of Olympic planning anddestination marketing. Although this framework origi-nated from the field of Information Technology where itargues that an organization’s IT investments need to bedirected toward achieving the organization’s strategicvision, it particularly supports a systematic considerationin leveraging opportunities that mega-events present in thetourism context. Certainly, better strategic alignmentbetween the two mentioned domains (Olympic planningand destination marketing) creates a rational thinking andplanning framework that allows viable national organiza-tions to enhance the sustainability of their long-termbenefits and better justify their claims for nationalsupports. O’Brien (2006, p. 258) correctly pointed out,‘‘mega events and the opportunities they present are merelythe seed capital; what hosts do with that capital is the keyto realizing sustainable longer-term legacies.’’ Thus, theacquired tacit knowledge from the study is invaluable,intellectual capital that provides key understanding forfuture destination marketing with mega-events. Indeed, torealize ‘‘sustainable longer term legacies,’’ the destinationmarketing strategy should be carefully integrated andaligned with the mega-event organizing strategy of thehost country, so that the host city, nation, and its regioncan fully capitalize on the ‘‘Olympic’’ advantage for thelong run.

References

Adamo, F. (2003). Impacts evaluation and destination management of the

XX Olympic Winter Games. Paper presented at the international

conference on event tourism and destination management, 28–30

November, Yichang/Three Gorges, China.

Ahn, J.-Y., & Ahmed, Z. U. (1994). South Korea’s emerging tourism

industry. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 35(2),

84–89.

Alvesson, M. (2001). Knowledge work: Ambiguity, image and identity.

Human Relations, 54(7), 863–886.

Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (1996). Making sense of management.

London, UK: Sage Publications.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage.

Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

Barney, J. (2001). Is the resource-based view a useful perspective for

strategic management research? Yes. Academy of Management Review,

26(1), 41–56.

Barney, J., McWilliams, A., & Turk, T. (1989). On the relevance of the

concept of entry barriers in the theory of competitive advantage. Paper

ARTICLE IN PRESSN. Singh, C. Hu / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 929–939938

presented at the annual meeting of the Strategic Management Society,

San Francisco, CA.

Beer, M., Voelpel, S. C., Leibold, M., & Tekie, E. B. (2005). Strategic

management as organizational learning: Developing fit and alignment

through a disciplined process. Long Range Planning, 38(5),

445–465.

Beriatos, E., & Gospodini, A. (2004). ‘‘Globalising’’ urban landscapes:

Athens and the 2004 Olympics. Cities, 21(3), 187–202.

Borgatti, S. (2007). Introduction to grounded theory. Available from /http://

www.analytictech.com/mb870/introtoGT.htmS; accessed 23.03.07.

Bouncken, R. B., & Pyo, S. (2002). Achieving competitiveness through

knowledge management. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality &

Tourism, 3(3–4), 1–4.

Bramwell, B. (1997a). A sport mega-event as a sustainable development

strategy. Tourism Recreation Research, 22(2), 13–19.

Bramwell, B. (1997b). Strategic planning before and after a mega-event.

Tourism Management, 18(3), 167–176.

Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination of the future.

Tourism Management, 21(1), 97–116.

Buhalis, D., & Collins, C. (2003). Destination management systems

utilisation. Paper presented at the 10th international conference on

information technology and travel and tourism (ENTER 2003), 29–31

January, Helsinki, Finland.

Campbell, B., Kay, R., & Avison, D. (2005). Strategic alignment: A

practitioner’s perspective. Journal of Enterprise Information Management,

18(6), 653–664.

Chalip, L., Green, C., & Hill, B. (2003). Effects of sport event media on

destination image and intention to visit. Journal of Sport Management,

17, 214–234.

Chalip, L., & Leyns, A. (2002). Local business leveraging of a sport event:

Managing an event for economic benefit. Journal of Sport Management,

16(1), 132–158.

Chan, Y. E. (2002). Why haven’t we mastered alignment? The importance

of the informal organization structure. MIS Quarterly Executive, 1(2),

97–112.

Daft, R. L. (2003). Organization theory and design (8th ed.). New York,

NY: South-Western.

Deccio, C., & Baloglu, S. (2002). Nonhost community resident reactions

to the 2002 Winter Olympics: The spillover impacts. Journal of Travel

Research, 41(1), 46–56.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Introduction: Entering the field of

qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),

Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–7). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Lowe, A. (1993). Management

research. London, UK: Sage Publications.

Foss, N. J. (1998). The resource-based perspective: An assessment and

diagnosis of problems. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 14(3),

133–149.

Getz, D. (1989). Special events: Defining the product. Tourism Management,

10(2), 125–137.

Getz, D. (1998). Trends, strategies, and issues in sport-event tourism.

Sport Marketing Quarterly, 7(2), 8–13.

Gibson, H. (1998). Sport tourism: A critical analysis of research. Sport

Management Review, 1(1), 45–76.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory:

Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1994). More grounded theory methodology:

A reader. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Goulding, C. (2002). Grounded theory: A practical guide for management,

business and market researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm.

Strategic Management Journal, 17(1), 109–122.

Gratton, C., Dobson, N., & Shibli, S. (2000). The economic importance of

major sports events: A case-study of six events. Managing Leisure, 5(1),

17–28.

Henderson, J. C. (1990). Plugging into strategic partnerships: The critical

IS connection. Sloan Management Review, 31(3), 7–18.

Henderson, L. S. (2005). Reflecting on Athens 2004: What we can learn

about modern project management from ancient Olympian archetypes.

Organization Development Journal, 23(4), 10–19.

Hiller, H. H. (1998). Assessing the impact of mega-events: A linkage

model. Current Issues in Tourism, 1(1), 47–57.

Jones, C. (2001). Mega-events and host-region impacts: Determining the

true worth of the 1999 Rugby World Cup. International Journal of

Tourism Research, 3(3), 241–251.

Karkatsoulis, P., Michalopoulos, N., & Moustakatou, V. (2005).

The national identity as a motivational factor for better performance

in the public sector: The case of the volunteers of the Athens 2004

Olympic Games. International Journal of Productivity and Performance

Measurement, 54(7), 579–594.

Kearns, G. S., & Lederer, A. L. (2000). The effect of strategic alignment

on the use of IS-based resources for competitive advantage. Strategic

Information Systems, 9(1), 265–293.

King, N. (1994). The qualitative research interview. In C. Cassell, &

G. Symon (Eds.), Qualitative methods in organizational research: A

practical guide (pp. 14–38). London, UK: Sage Publications.

Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative

capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science,

3(3), 383–397.

Law, C. M. (1993). Urban tourism: Attracting visitors to large cities.

London, UK: Mansell.

Levitas, E., & Ndofor, H. A. (2006). What to do with the resource-based

view: A few suggestions for what ails the RBV that supporters and

opponents might accept. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(2),

135–144.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

Lowe, P. (1981). A political analysis of British rural conservation issues

and policies (no. HR5010). London, UK: University College

London.

Makadok, R. (2001). Towards a synthesis of the resource-based and

dynamic capability views of rent creation. Strategic Management

Journal, 22(5), 387–401.

Mihalik, B. J., & Simonetta, L. (1999). A midterm assessment of the host

population’s perceptions of the 1996 Summer Olympics: Support,

attendance, benefits, and liabilities. Journal of Travel Research, 37(3),

245–249.

Moller, K., & Svahn, S. (2006). Role of knowledge in value creation in

business sets. Journal of Management Studies, 43(5), 985–1007.

Morse, J. (2001). The Sydney 2000 Olympic Games: How the Australian

Tourist Commission leveraged the games for tourism. Journal of

Vacation Marketing, 7(2), 101–107.

Mules, T., & Faulkner, B. (1996). An economic perspective on major

events. Tourism Economics, 2(2), 107–117.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How

Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Nagata, A. (2000). A firm as a knowledge-

creating entity: A new perspective on the theory of the firm. Industrial

and Corporate Change, 9(1), 1–20.

O’Brien, D. (2006). Event business leveraging: The Sydney 2000 Olympic

Games. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1), 240–261.

Persson, C. (2002). The Olympic Games site decision. Tourism Management,

23(1), 27–36.

Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York, NY: Free Press.

Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Is the ‘‘resource-based view’’ a useful

perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management

Review, 26(1), 22–41.

Pyo, S., Cook, R., & Howell, R. L. (1988). Summer Olympic tourist

market—Learning from the past. Tourism Management, 9(2),

137–144.

Pyo, S., Uysal, M., & Howell, R. (1988). 1988 Seoul Olympics—Visitor

preferences. Tourism Management, 9(1), 68–72.

Redmond, G. (1991). Changing styles of sports tourism: Industry/

consumer interactions in Canada, the USA and Europe. In M. T.

ARTICLE IN PRESSN. Singh, C. Hu / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 929–939 939

Sinclair, & M. J. Stabler (Eds.), The tourism industry: An international

analysis (pp. 107–120). Wallingford, UK: CAB International.

Reinmoeller, P. (2004). The knowledge-based view of the firm and upper

echelon theory: Exploring the agency of TMT. International Journal of

Learning and Intellectual Capital, 1(1), 91–104.

Ritchie, J. R. B. (1984). Assessing the impact of hallmark events:

Conceptual and research issues. Journal of Travel Research, 23(1),

2–11.

Ritchie, J. R. B. (2000). Turning 16 days into 16 years through Olympic

legacies. Event Management, 6(3), 155–165.

Ritchie, J. R. B., & Smith, B. H. (1991). The impact of a mega-event on

host region awareness: A longitudinal study. Journal of Travel

Research, 30(1), 3–10.

Spilling, O. R. (1998). Beyond intermezzo? On the long-term industrial

impacts of mega-events: The case of Lillehammer 1994. Festival

Management & Event Tourism, 5, 101–122.

Venkatraman, N., Henderson, J. C., & Oldach, S. (1993). Continuous

strategic alignment: Exploiting information technology capabilities for

competitive success. European Management Journal, 11(2), 139–149.

Waitt, G. (2003). Social impacts of the Sydney Olympics. Annals of

Tourism Research, 30(1), 194–215.

Weed, M. (2003). Why the two won’t tango! Explaining the lack of

integrated policies for sport and tourism in the UK. Journal of Sport

Management, 17(3), 258–283.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource based view of the firm. Strategic

Management Journal, 5, 171–180.