IOC - REDEFINING RESPONSIBILITY
The Context “The Olympic Games Executive Director’s (OGED) proposal to review our Overall Games management approach (i.e. Olympic Games + Youth Olympic Games) has been approved as part of this year’s Shape discussions. A number of mini-audits and reflections will need to be conducted over the coming months, sometimes with the support of outside advisers. The major development over the last few years has been the addition of the Youth Olympic Games. This is having major impacts on the resources and will require an evolution of the structure and processes to coordinate and supervise the management of the Olympic Games and the Youth Olympic Games. We live in a fast-moving and changing world, which requires a quick adaptation of our Games approach, one which takes into account the unique context of each host city/nation, as well as increasing
demands and/or sophistication from our organizing partners. The last ten years have seen a number of changes in the way the IOC supports the OCOGs, as well as in the IOC’s internal structure, tools and proceedings. However, the tools have evolved faster than the structure, the mindsets and the reporting lines! Changes are now required. The parallel discussions which took place as part of the Olympic Congress follow-up will also be considered as the IOC administration moves forward towards fulfilling its Games-related mission. The following topics were discussed and are included in the Congress recommendations: sustainability, impact of the Games, service levels, size, cost and complexity of the Games, bidding process, relationships with the IPC. culture & education and youth‌..�
Our Objectives We have been asked to focus on each IOC department’s and Games function’s contributions to and interaction with the Games management, with a view to gaining deep insight into the various perspectives, pressures and challenges – as well as understanding the part each entity plays in the support of Games Management. The key outcome of this exercise will be a set of recommendations for the OGED to consider as part of the continuing adaptation of the Games Management structure. We asked ourselves the following Exam Question...
How should we optimise our games management moving forward and what changes to our structure and/or level of expertise may be required in the near future?
THE VIEW FROM OUTSIDE We have repeated our own assessment in this report - this is also contained within the interview summary. The IOC is a truly inspiring institution – full of passion for the brand, the Olympic Movement and commitment to the success of Games. Virtually everyone performs more than one role. Conflicting priorities are common. These realities are not ones that we can remove. The very nature of this organization cries out for the most dynamic adaptable model and way of working.
THE RATIONALE AND CONTEXT It was critical to appreciate the sensitivities and challenges faced by such a unique institution. This is a genuinely complex environment where the Games enjoys a very high profile and is responsible for the revenue that allows the Olympic Movement to be sustained. This causes tensions and a feeling that the Games Department gets all the attention. Each edition of the Games is ‘active’ over a 7-year cycle from the time that the Host City is elected, although Games Time itself is only a few weeks. Added to that there are now four ‘species’ of Games – Summer, Winter, Youth Summer and Youth Winter. Each species has three distinct overlapping phases – the bid and award of an event, the planning and delivery of the event and the review and handover of knowledge for the next event. The context for every event is different and requires different focus and prioritization – and therefore different resources and capabilities. A large number of IOC employees ‘double hat’ in terms of role. IOC departments (e.g. Legal, Sport, Communications etc.) provide a service to the Games Department as well as being responsible for non-Games activities and also managing critical relationships across the Olympic Family – key ones being International Federations, National Olympic Committees and Broadcast and Marketing Partners. Demands on time come from multiple sources, each being viewed as the most critical – until the pivotal moment at Games Time where nothing else matters. A key aim and challenge for the Executive Director of the Games Department is to find the best way to fulfill the most critical obligations with the right resources at the right time.
MUCH TO BE ADMIRED There are very few organizations that have to deal with so many complexities and variations. Failure is not an option and deadlines cannot slip. Every Games event has to live up to huge expectation and while the IOC is the ultimate owner of the brand and reputation the majority of the delivery is the responsibility of the Host City. Within this landscape the Games Department is clearly recognized for its excellence and experience – it is the only constant in the lifecycle and the knowledge and experience that has been developed is a key asset that everyone seeks to leverage. The skills displayed and proudly described cover everything from facilitation through to expert advice. At various stages in the cycle the team have to move through objective guidance, critical evaluation, insight sharing, problem solving, risk mitigation and negotiation. And the context for every event varies, so added to this is the need for huge cultural awareness and sensitivity. The one constant throughout the interviews was total recognition of the achievement of the department, its continuing evolution and focus on continuous improvement and the depth of knowledge and experience that now exists – at least in its key members. This is a strong network that is clearly valued – inside and outside of the IOC and its establishment is universally seen as bringing in much needed improvement. As is normal and to be expected there are still improvements that need to be made and the responses to the questions not surprisingly focus more on what could be improved. With an organization dealing with this complexity and scale of challenge this is to be expected. The main challenge is how to create the right structure and achieve sustainable operation while preserving the spirit of what exists today.
FOCUS FOR IMPROVEMENT From our conversations and independent synthesis of the feedback to our questions we have focused on a number of areas where we think ideas for improvement should be directed. Fundamentally, we don’t believe there is anything significantly wrong with the model – the challenge is to create a balance between needing a physical organization structure and the imperative of flexibility, adaptability and dual roles. Any traditional model will struggle with this challenge. The biggest challenges that we believe should be addressed directly within Games Management cover: •
Focus on core capabilities
•
Better use of the “eco system”
•
Clarity of Contribution at various points in the Cycle
•
Improved Governance and decision-making
•
Greater strategic focus
•
C ontinuing focus on codification of, and access to, knowledge (especially tacit knowledge) and use of tools
The Approach The programme started with a series of interviews – mostly face to face but some via telephone – where we asked a series of questions. The questions were developed at the start of the programme and continued to be refined to take account of available time, method of interview and lessons learned from the initial interviews. In all cases they were focused on: • Relationships between IOC & Games departments • Effectiveness of the current structures • Challenges and issues • Future structure of YOG Interviews were conducted under the promise of anonymity and so while we have provided a separate report with more context from the conversations they are not attributed to the specific department or individual.
This Report Has Been Constructed In Four Parts
1 A summary of the results of the series of interviews
that we have now completed with key stakeholders in the IOC
2 Insights and observations 3 A vision for the games management department 4 The implications on structure and capabilities
Part One Interview Observations
Based on our assessment of the interview outcomes we have chosen 4 themes that we have used to shape our recommendations. These themes build on the outcomes of the interviews and act as a further refinement so that we make sure we are addressing the most important points raised with any suggested model.
PURPOSE There is universal passion and commitment to the Games and the Olympic Movement. The exact nature varies depending on role and everyone clearly perceives their role as being critical to the success of the Games and/or the reputation of the IOC. The key role of the Games department was seen to be to make sure that the Games were as successful as they possibly could be – IOC departments all consistently added the need to protect reputation and credibility. There were mixed opinions as to whether the IOC should take on more direct control. Everyone emphasised the fact that IOC is a constant – expressed in various ways. This came out through the consistent reference to capturing and passing on knowledge (expressed as experience across Games, being able to guide and facilitate and knowing what does and doesn’t work) – this was as strong in other IOC departments as it was in the Games department. Everyone felt that they worked at all levels of the continuum when it came to the balance of guidance vs. delivery. The same dynamics were quoted every time as being behind the variability of their involvement – the context for each host city, the maturity of the OCOG and the different stages of the Games planning cycle. Most felt that the complexity and dynamics of the Games are never fully appreciated and there was clear appetite in some areas for taking on more control in delivery of the Games. While some areas could be outsourced – and there was common agreement that expertise did not necessarily need to reside solely within IOC – the need to retain core knowledge and experience of what works was seen as critical to continuity. We are suggesting that we think about activity in terms of ‘core’ vs. ‘context’ to help make decisions about resourcing (internal and external) and prioritization. Core - critical to be managed from within the IOC as it requires close oversight or deep expertise Context - still a key part of the Games but expertise could be better provided externally or for short periods What is deemed ‘core’ will potentially change depending on the stage of the cycle
ORGANISATION There seems to be a general perception that ‘it works somehow as long as you know what pressure points to push’ – but that this model can’t continue. Most agreed that the structure of the IOC was confusing and felt that there is a general trend towards too much bureaucracy. Internally the various roles do not seem to be socialised much. In more than one instance there was a sense that ‘we assume everyone knows what they are doing, so we don’t need to know about everyone’s role’. Very few expressed a strong desire to understand the bigger context. Yet a number agreed that there were overlaps and duplicate interactions with OCOGs due to inadequate co-ordination and communication internally. The term ‘silo’ cropped up many times. Many interviewees considered that people worked too much in their own ‘silos’. There is a lot of focus on the imminent departure of Scanlon – many see this as a great loss, but also an opportunity to think afresh. The majority felt that things had got better (from their perspective) since the establishment of the Games department. Attendance at meetings was a point of contention from a number of perspectives: • Some felt they were not invited to critical meetings for their dept • Some felt there were too many meetings that didn’t achieve anything • Others felt that the wrong people were turning up – or departments were simply not contributing You will see that we are suggesting that we introduce the concept of Value Networks as a way of breaking down silos and establishing more of a systems view to Games Management There will be multiple value networks in support of number of typical scenarios and phases – we could also consider a business as usual version.
CAPABILITY Most people spoke highly about the Technical manuals, but didn’t give examples of how their insights and experience were captured and shared to help OCOGs avoid making mistakes that had been made in the past – this was something that many said the OCOGs wanted. Most people used their knowledge instinctively and had not ‘codified’ it anywhere. A number feel that there is less on the ground practical Games experience available today within the IOC and that it is important to have been involved in the Games operationally. This generally related to activities that required close liaison with OCOGs on specialist areas – the ability to be able to anticipate and react to situations was a prime reason for requiring this level of experience and not necessary for all roles. There were a few debates around whether IOC needed more on the ground presence during Games time during the preparatory phase of each Games – if the capacity was there more would possibly adopt this practice and second people to work with the host city. Some obviously are already doing that. Some departments are clearly addressing experience gaps by staffing their teams with known people from prior Games OCOGs – so that they continually bring in the latest lessons.
As we redefine contribution and how we approach core/ context we should find it easier to make these choices and respond to local needs more appropriately.
RELATIONSHIP IOC is seen as the ‘glue’ – the honest broker or the facilitator. A fundamental strength is its ability to parachute in to resolve conflicts and some felt that this strength was not fully ‘exploited’ – in a positive sense. Most feel that relations with key stakeholders – OCOGs in particular – were good and that their contribution was valued. Very few actually validate this against a benchmark – most rely on reviews and feedback post Games (for example). Interestingly many suggested also that the information provided to OCOGs could be better/more meaningful. Despite the lack of formal measurement in the majority of cases the importance of having the right relationships and the value in these relationships was a constant message. This is a world where everyone involved in delivering a successful Games is dependent on others and the sharing of expertise and knowledge.
We need to continue to leverage this great skill within Games Management and the rest of IOC to build great relationships and establish more rigor and structure in the way that we test and validate and make it a part of everyone’s ‘DNA’.
A number of cross-cutting insights emerged against the various subjects that we covered and are worth describing in some more detail as they will influence any decisions around how to evolve the Games Management structure...
Part Two Clues and Insights
What became very clear was that even though the focus of the discussions was aimed at the Games Department, it was impossible to ring fence the conversations to that topic. At virtually every interview a wider discussion emerged around the effectiveness of the IOC itself. Whilst no one lacked passion for the movement and the organisation, there is clearly significant frustration across departments when it comes to certain aspects of organisation and governance. We have included reference to these as it is important to feed this back, given the consistency of the comments. You will see that in the accompanying interview report we have divided the content between wider IOC observation and Games Management. This is important context as it will limit the ability of the Games Department in some areas to realise the benefits of changes that they may choose to implement.
The Network – there is a strong legacy of personal relationships – this has driven many of the ways of working and is both an advantage and a constraint. A great deal of tacit knowledge is sitting in the heads of individuals and successful delivery often seems to hang on the quality of the relationship. There is a very protective feel to many relationships – good connections are highly leveraged. Access to Knowledge – building on the previous point, it is hard to get a real sense of knowledge being fully shared and accessible to everyone. The response to any question regarding knowledge management was mostly directed back to the quality of the technical manuals, yet this seemed to contradict other comments and insights about the need for experience that doesn’t appear to actually be documented in the way it is most valued by team members and OCOGs. There seems to be significant untapped potential in the Master Schedule that could be leveraged to build better and more valuable insights. Leadership – although not specifically called out under this heading there were many concerns expressed about the senior leadership. Many departments chose to simply bypass formal routes to get things done. This probably generated the strongest feelings across the interviewees. Some felt that nothing would change without this being addressed. There are too many personal agendas and rivalry. Several people expressed the view that the IOC was not functioning as a team. 360 System – while no one questioned the intention of 360 there was a mix of confusion and cynicism. Several claimed that nothing meaningful had come out of 360 since it was established, while others found its cross-functional nature useful for solving problems and discussing longer-term strategy. Some who felt that the IOC worked too much in ‘silos’ valued the ‘silobuster’ role of 360. One person even referred to it as a parallel management system. It will be important to align any changes in Games Management to the 360 system so that the intended value is realised. YOG – everyone agreed that there needed to be much more clarity about YOG and structure. Most pointed out the difference in role between Youth Games and the main Olympic Games – the former requiring much more proactive promotion and content development. Many felt that they hadn’t had the opportunity to influence the structure – that it was something that was decreed from above and has not been fully thought through. While there was a clear case for separating YOG from a developmental perspective there does seem to be significant overlap and duplication in other areas, and there was a recognition that - after the success of the first YOG – YOG management could now be more integrated into normal Games Management structures.
Part Three Taking a fresh Perspective
Based on everything that we have heard and observed, and taking some of our own philosophies into account here, we have been building a new language for how we might think about the way we work. You will see that the visual concept stretches beyond the Games department – in reality this is a highly interconnected system that needs to operate as a whole and looking at this from the perspective of physical silos was not very helpful when thinking hard about the future of such a dynamic and impressive organisation. The primary focus is still the Games Management process however...
Games Management within the IOC – A Truly Adaptive & Living System – Creating the Polycentric Enterprise. A 21st Century Legacy. This suggests an ‘adaptive’ organisation built around Centres of Excellence and Pivotal Leaders. Pivotal Leadership within a Polycentric Enterprise means that powerful and well-working systems largely stay in place, but that leadership has extremely precise and clear roles and accountability within and between them. Games Management and co-ordination is pivotal at Games time – a combination of specialist functions and delivery capability that becomes embraced as required. The key mechanism for the Polycentric Enterprise is a common operating platform (governed primarily by an enhanced Master Schedule, embracing both the IOC and OCOGs). The Polycentric Enterprise can expand and contract as demands change and fluctuate, but the common operating platform stays constant.
POLYCENTRIC THINKING & CAPABILITY INNOVATION There’s a revolution underway in how enterprises organise and innovate. We observe the discussion around the board tables at some of the world’s most admired companies who voice the need for a radical shift in strategy that will lead to unprecedented levels of value creation and the adoption of a truly global or enterprise wide execution and operating model. These multinationals are progressively abandoning their traditional approaches to the organisation chart and the capability to deliver – capability centres are no longer able to remain the source of simple oneway flow of creativity and knowledge, they have to truly integrate and contribute in a dynamic and adaptive way. We also use the term ‘value network’ to describe the new way of thinking about the organisation and how it should operate more like a living, liberating and social system.
INTEGRATING VALUE NETWORKS INTO THE TRADITIONAL ORGANISATION We have become stuck – thinking that the org chart is how the work gets done. But the work flows all over the place, between the lines and in informal networks. A person may have different hats to wear – and execute different roles from day to day. The org chart often does not really honour these multiple roles that people play. A role is different from a job on the chart. Companies that are integrating value network modeling and analysis have created role taxonomies around work that complement the org chart. People can be qualified to play certain roles and can be allocated much more flexibly to those roles as needed.
POLYCENTRIC DESIGN AUTHORITY For an enterprise to be adaptive and ‘polycentric’ there are nodes within these ‘systems’ that are potentially identifiable as crucial – pivotal. We have started to identify these nodes and link them to roles and critical ‘players’ within the system. Fundamentally a design authority of seniors is required to envision, agree, create and then build. It has to be designed that way. This means a more enhanced/inclusive operating platform from where we are today. This team would represent all aspects of the IOC between them and across the nodes – and provide strategic direction for the organisation. At these nodes there must be capability, intelligence and opportunity to create real gains in performance and express adaptivity. Each ‘centre’ within the polycentric ‘system’ is in truth leveraged. We need to identify these pivotal points, in some cases create new owners and roles for the new performance we design – and get people to work this way – within the idea of the whole – magic will be possible. Adaptive.
ITERATIVE AND LEARNING AS WE GO Armed with the effectiveness of these pivotal points value networks will emerge. Once people are exchanging real knowledge and passion for the overall outcome it’s easy to see how improvements might be rapid. It’s also far easier to see how we can work the ‘pivotal’ team more easily in smaller/crucial chunks then make change stick throughout the system by having ‘key connections’ cemented in a first phase (Design – co-creation) and made fully aware (Accountable) by owning their responsibility for the more effective polycentric outcome – ending up with a social network, a community of functional, operational and institutional experts operating as a system with the following capabilities and soft skills: • Facilitation skills • Political skills • Operations & Delivery experience • Analytical skills • Risk Management skills • Project Management skills • Conflict resolution • Cultural awareness • Flexibility & Adaptability • Relationship Management
We have included all of the main functions within the IOC to show the connections and links, however the focus is still on Games Management.
Part Four Moving Forward
Based on everything that we have learned and the information that has been provided we have attempted to provide an illustration of how this might develop for the Games Department. We have deliberately avoided using existing department titles or structures, although the roles and functions should all be represented here at a high level...
If we were to look at the main functions of the IOC from the perspective of nodes in this system, we could break them down as follows: Direction & Governance:
Olympic Specialisms:
Games Management
Ceremonies
Olympic Movement
Ticketing
IOC Business
Games Operations
Synchronisation:
Media Operations
Programme Support
Games Technology
Games Co-ordination
Games Compliance
Programme Tracking
Product/Content Development
Programme Reporting
Stakeholder Relationships
Programme Governance
Cultural & Protocol
Communication
Education & Awareness
Knowledge Management
Business Management:
Project Management
Logistics IT Services HR Services Procurement Financial Management Commercial Management
THESE NODES REPRESENT THE KEY ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE IOC WHERE VALUE IS CREATED AND SHARED The various departments within the IOC contribute value in a number of ways depending on their role, the context of any particular edition and the needs of the key stakeholders – OCOG, IF and NOC in particular. Within these nodes are contributions from these stakeholders as well – they are all part of the system. Across this network value is contributed to the Olympic Movement and the Olympic Games at a number of levels. At the core are the Games themselves and the key nodes here can be grouped into cross-cutting Co-ordination, Governance and Games Specialism. We could argue that everything else is basically context – critical enabling activity that either promotes or serves the successful running of the Games or the Olympic Movement.
IOC ASSETS Supporting these nodes and underpinning the exchanges between parties are a set of IOC assets that contain the value that is being contributed. We have identified the following assets from our conversations with IOC departments. These are a mix of tangible and intangible assets: • Master Schedule • Games Foundation Plan • Technical Manuals • Specialist Knowledge • Host City Contract (HCC) • Bidding Process • Olympic Charter • Tacit Knowledge • Post Games Report • Relationships • Policies • Issue Tracker Some of these assets will need to be enhanced – or even codified in a way that makes them more accessible and higher value. The Master Schedule in particular seems to offer significant potential to act as the definitive governance for the Core Games contributions and also as a means of establishing dynamic prioritisation.
VALUE EXCHANGES AND TRANSACTIONS The flow of information and the delivery of outcomes occur between nodes through multiple activities and transactions. These can be two-way exchanges where there is mutual value, or one-way transactions that basically fulfill a predefined task. Within IOC the typical flows that we have been hearing about cover the following: • Advising OCOGs in multiple ways on how to think about delivering their Games • Qualifying and accrediting proposals from bid cities • Facilitating the resolution of problems and challenges • Mitigating risks to delivery • Promoting the Olympic Movement • Ensuring the delivery of the Games meets necessary compliance and regulation • Promoting new ideas and collaborating over new content • Developing commercial opportunities to invest in the Movement • Monitoring progress through Games time • Developing and maintaining relationships with key stakeholders These activities would need to be ‘unpacked’ into greater detail to establish clarity of roles and how this correlates to the ‘multihat’ nature of most teams. Rather than try and resolve that as if it is an isssue, the objective here is to enable the model to better accomodate something that is critical to the organisation. This is the start of developing greater cross-organisational appreciation of the contributions each person makes to the bigger outcomes.
These ideas have been visually interpreted using the concepts in this document and will continue to be refined as we work with you through the final consolidation stage. The intention is not to force through a dramatic physical restructure, although we believe that some changes may well be required. The dynamic nature of the Games will always present challenges to a conventional organistation chart and will limit the individual’s ability to respond and adapt within multiple teams without being heavily dependent on individual knowledge. By raising the debate to a level of value contribution and shared purpose we are introducing new ways to think about existing jobs. Adapting the Games department to operate this way does not need to impact the wider IOC. However, there will need to be some collaboration and recognition across the IOC to make this successful. It is not possible to deliver the Games without the wider context and co-ordination across the IOC. This means clear goals and responsibilities and a shared appreciation of the priorities and what is expected of everyone in the organisation – and why. This will help in getting the right people allocated to the right activities at the right time. These concepts have been presented to the sponsors of this project and we await feedback. At that point we will complete this report with further suggestions of how to implement this model. Some of the steps that we believe follow this are listed on the final page and will be expanded in the next release of this report.
TAKING THIS FORWARD We discussed some steps that may be helpful to implement and sustain this model in our last meeting with the Games Department. These are listed here and will be defined more fully following feedback on the concepts that have now been presented: 1. D efine the critical success factors – for year 1 and then beyond. We will need to implement change in manageable stages potentially 2. I dentify and Define the Value Networks – and map the contributions across IOC 3. D efine the key scenarios per VN and introduce the notion of a ‘Master Plan’ per scenario 4. Identify pivotal leaders and establish the Design Team 5. Define Principles for working within a Value Network 6. Align the Master Schedule to the new model 7. A lign Knowledge Management to the new model and extend to bring in the concept of a social community 8. E stablish appropriate governance model (includes decisionmaking framework) 9. Engagement, Co-Creation and iteration of the model
Group Partners Europe 32 St James’s Street, Mayfair London SW1A 1HD, UK
Group Partners America 111 West John Street, Suite 302 Seattle, WA 98119
www.grouppartners.net www.grouppartnerswiki.net