St. Petersburg State University
Graduate School of Management
Master in International Business
DETERMINANTS OF DIFFUSION AND PERFORMANCE OF THE
INTERNET OF THINGS IN EVENT INDUSTRY
Master’s Thesis by the 2nd year student
MITIM-2016
Alexander Klimov
Research advisor
Associate Professor
Dr. Tatjana A. Samsonowa
St. Petersburg
2016
1
ЗАЯВЛЕНИЕ О САМОСТОЯТЕЛЬНОМ ХАРАКТЕРЕ ВЫПОЛНЕНИЯ ВЫПУСКНОЙ
КВАЛИФИКАЦИОННОЙ РАБОТЫ
Я, Климов Александр Олегович, студент
второго
курса
магистратуры
направления «Менеджмент», заявляю, что в моей магистерской диссертации на тему
«Факторы, определяющие распространение и эффективность интернета вещей в eventиндустрии», представленной в службу обеспечения программ магистратуры для
последующей передачи в государственную аттестационную комиссию для публичной
защиты, не содержится элементов плагиата.
Все прямые заимствования из печатных и электронных источников, а также из
защищенных ранее выпускных квалификационных работ, кандидатских и докторских
диссертаций имеют соответствующие ссылки.
Мне известно содержание п. 9.7.1 Правил обучения по основным образовательным
программам высшего и среднего профессионального образования в СПбГУ о том, что
«ВКР выполняется индивидуально каждым студентом под руководством назначенного ему
научного руководителя», и п. 51 Устава федерального государственного бюджетного
образовательного учреждения высшего
профессионального образования «СанктПетербургский государственный университет» о том, что «студент подлежит
отчислению из Санкт-Петербургского университета за представление курсовой или
выпускной квали- фикационной работы, выполненной другим лицом (лицами)».
_______________________________________________ (Подпись студента)
________________________________________________ (Дата)
STATEMENT ABOUT THE INDEPENDENT CHARACTER OF THE MASTER THESIS
I, Alexander Klimov, second year master student, program «Management», state
that my
master thesis on
the
topic «Determinants of Diffusion and Performance
of the Internet of Things in Event Industry», which is presented to the Master Office to be
submitted to the Official Defense Committee for the public defense, does not contain any
elements of plagiarism.
All direct borrowings from printed and electronic sources, as well as from master theses,
PhD and doctorate theses which were defended earlier, have appropriate references.
I am aware that according to paragraph 9.7.1. of Guidelines for instruction in major curriculum programs of higher and secondary professional education at St.Petersburg University «A
master thesis must be completed by each of the degree candidates individually under the supervision of his or her advisor», and according to paragraph 51 of Charter of the Federal State Institution of Higher Professional Education Saint-Petersburg State University «a student can be expelled from St. Petersburg University for submitting of the course or graduation qualification
work developed by other person (persons)».
________________________________________________(Student’s signature)
________________________________________________ (Date)
2
АННОТАЦИЯ
ФИО студента
Тема магистерской диссертации
Факультет
Программа
Год окончания
ФИО научного руководителя
Описание целей, задач и
основных результатов
исследования
Ключевые слова
Климов Александр Олегович
Факторы, определяющие распространение и эффективность
интернета вещей в event-индустрии
Высшая школа менеджмента,
Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет
080200 «Менеджмент»
2016
Самсонова Татьяна Александровна,
доктор экономических наук
Цель данного исследования состоит в определении
факторов, наиболее значимых для принятия решений об
интеграции технологий, основанных на принципах «интернета
в е щ е й » , в и н д у с т р и и event-менеджмента, а также в
нахождении наиболее оптимального сценария интеграции
путём определения наилучших альтернатив для интеграции
внутри индустрии.
В качестве факторов принятия решений были
использованы 11 факторов, неоднократно использовавшихся
для достижения подобных исследовательских задач, в том
числе в изучении интернета вещей. Эти факторы разделены на
три ключевые группы: технический потенциал, рыночный
потенциал и законодательная среда. В качестве альтернатив
были использованы ключевые сервисы event-индустрии.
Анализ был проведён с использованием множественной
модели принятия решений (метод взвешенных сумм). Для
моделирования решений были проведены интервью с пятью
экспертами индустрии.
В результате анализа были определены ключевые
области с наибольшим потенциалом для интеграции решений,
основанных на интернете вещей: маркетинг и операционная
деятельность. Также были определены факторы, наиболее
значимые для определения потенциала применения технологий
«интернета вещей» в индустрии.
Интернет вещей, event-индустрия, модель принятия
технологий, принятие решений
3
ABSTRACT
Master Student’s Name
Master Thesis Title
Faculty
Program
Year
Academic Advisor’s Name
Description of the goal, tasks and
main results
Keywords
Alexander Klimov
Determinants of Diffusion and Performance of the Internet of
Things in Event Industry
Graduate School of Management,
Saint-Petersburg University
080200 «Management»
2016
Dr. Tatjana A. Samsonowa, Associate Professor
The objective of this research is to identify the factors that
most significantly affect decisions regarding adoption of Internet of
Things-based technologies in event industry and to find the most
optimal scenario of adoption by ranking several alternatives for
integration present in the industry.
11 factors that were used multiple times for solving similar
research questions (including Internet of Things adoption) were
estimated in this research. These factors are divided into three key
groups: technological prospect, market potential and regulatory
environment. The key services of event industry were used as
alternatives for decision making. The analysis was conducted by
applying multi-criteria decision making model (weighted sum
method). Five experts were interviewed in order to model the
decision making process.
As a result of the study, several key factors affecting
adoption potential were identified: technical practicality, market
demands, cost efficiency and standardization. The analysis also
yielded the following key fields with the highest potential for
Internet of Things-based solutions adoption: event marketing and
event operations.
Internet of Things (IoT), event industry, diffusion of innovation,
decision making
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 6
1 LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................................. 8
1.1.
Internet of Things Theoretical Background...................................................................... 8
1.2.
Potential of Internet of Things Adoption in Event Management.................................... 14
1.3.
Research Gap.................................................................................................................. 27
2 METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................................... 29
2.1. Research Approach............................................................................................................. 29
2.2. Weighted Sum Model..........................................................................................................30
2.3. Expert Sampling..................................................................................................................34
2.4. Expert Interviews................................................................................................................ 38
3
RESEARCH FINDINGS....................................................................................................... 42
3.1. Interview Results................................................................................................................ 42
3.2. Data Analysis...................................................................................................................... 49
4.
CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................... 52
4.1. Theoretical Implications..................................................................................................... 53
4.2. Managerial Implications..................................................................................................... 53
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................. 55
APPENDIX A – Interview Scenario..............................................................................................61
APPENDIX B – Quantified Expert Opinions............................................................................... 62
APPENDIX C – Weighted Expert Scores..................................................................................... 65
5
INTRODUCTION
The Internet of Things (or IoT for short) can be defined as a set of objects that present
around people and can exchange information with each other, thus achieving common goals
through cooperation.
The future application of the IoT is twofold. Most of us would agree that IoT is the
technology that already today impacts our lives, our behaviors and our choices significantly; at
the same time we are confident that this technology will be applied in a broad variety in the
future. Nonetheless, observing the current practice, it is hard to define how and where it is going
to be implemented next.
Driven by IT industry, there are many prominent other industries where adoption of IoT
is happening currently, especially in industrial (business-to-business, or B2B) context, for
example automotive, buildings and home automation or manufacturing, just to name a few where
“smart” technology is “on the spot”. The adoption of IoT in B2C (business-to-consumer) has got
off to a sensationally good start, especially featuring solutions in the healthcare in the United
States, where it is already feasible to provide insured people with wristbands tracking their body
parameters, or home controls also in the US, where people have the possibility to remotely
control devices in their homes such as temperature, humidity, etc. Enterprises also implement
IoT in their processes to reach the new competitive edge: the most prominent applications
currently are logistics, retail operations and predictive maintenance of equipment. However, for
many industries future IoT technologies are still in the greenfield, and their actual form and
application models are yet to be discovered.
This is the case for event management. There is a continuing discussion on how IoT can
be applied for different types of events or for different connected activities, but it is going
outside of scholarly research and lacks systematic approach currently. Scholars, on their side,
currently focus on adopting IoT techniques in healthcare, inventory management and logistics.
This situation calls for an investigation of factors and potential uses of the Internet of Things to
help industry players identify what should be the next steps in developing new services and plan
adoption of the technology.
Our goal is to identify, measure and rank the crucial drivers and barriers that are likely to
affect adoption of wearable technology on mass events. To accomplish this, we aim to explore
the currently existing literature on the topic, defining the current state-of-the art in particular and
exploring connections between Internet of Things and event industry in the first part of the
thesis. In the second part, the weighted sum method used to simulate decision making will be
described, together with the process of expert sampling and interviewing. In the third part we
6
will investigate the factors that affect diffusion and performance of wearable technologies in
entertainment industry and make an attempt to define the most prominent areas where it can be
applied. Finally, in the fourth part we will make conclusions and formulate recommendations for
the industry stakeholders based on our findings.
7
1 LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1.
Internet of Things Theoretical Background
One of the current challenges IoT research faces is an agreement upon a common
definition of the IoT concept. The literature on topic is extremely diffused. To begin with, the
‘Internet of Things’ term is often mentioned in connection with technology. Therefore, we should
give a proper definition to Internet of Things and identify whether it is a technology or not, as
this will set the course to the whole research. In order to do so, we will find the modern
understanding of the term ‘technology’ and try to connect it with the currently central definitions
of IoT.
The Oxford Dictionary identifies technology as ‘the application of scientific knowledge
for practical purposes, especially in industry’. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary proposes the
following definitions: ‘the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area’; ‘a
manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge’ ;
and, finally, ‘the specialized aspects of a particular field of endeavor’.
Arthur (2009) identifies three definitions of technology. According to the first one,
technology is ‘a means to fulfill human purpose’. The second definition defines technology as
‘an assemblage of practices and components’, and the third refers to technology in the most
plural sense, as to the ‘entire collection of devices and engineering practices available to a
culture’. Considering the scope of our topic, we will limit ourselves to the first two definitions
mentioned.
Table 1 - Comparison of technology definitions
Oxford Dictionary
Merriam-Webster
Application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes
Practical application M a n n e r
o f Specialized aspects of
Dictionary
of knowledge
accomplishing a task a particular field of
<…> using technical endeavor
processes, methods or
W. Brian Arthur
knowledge
a means to fulfill an assemblage of entire collection of
human purpose
practices
components
and devices
and
engineering practices
available to a culture
International Telecommunication Union (2012), a division of the United Nations that is
widely accepted as the regulator of IoT standards, defines the IoT concept as a “global
8
infrastructure for the information society, enabling advanced services by interconnecting
(physical and virtual) things based on existing and evolving interoperable information and
communication technologies.”
Consulting agency Gartner (2012) proposes that it “is the network of physical objects that
contain embedded technology to communicate and sense or interact with their internal states or
the external environment”.
Finally, Minerva et al. (2015) argue that all such definitions are biased towards the assets
in question. To solve the problem, they propose two different definitions of the Internet of Things
based on the environment scope. In case of “small environment”, there are one or several
uniquely identifiable things which are connected to the Internet and thus provide users with a
seamless access to the data generated by the sensors or actuators embedded into “things”. In
“large environment”, the “things” are “interconnected to deliver a complex service and support
an execution of a complex process”, thus representing a complex system.
In case of small environment, the authors define IoT as “a network that connects uniquely
identifiable “Things” to the Internet.” In case of large environment their definition sounds as
follows: “Internet of Things envisions a self-configuring, adaptive, complex network that
interconnects ’things’ to the Internet through the use of standard communication protocols.”
Now we will try and synthesize our definitions of technology and Internet of Things to
understand the nature of the latter and relations of the two.
As we have mentioned when investigating existing popular definitions of technology, we
do not need to look at it as something ubiquitous. The same can be said about the narrower
definitions. The first appropriate definition in the frame of our research should be ‘the
assemblage of practices and components’, as it can be used to describe nearly every technology
that has a practical use, from the simplest to complex ones. This will allow us to look at the
Internet of Things as a subject that incorporates existing practices and methods, e.g. RFID, Wi-Fi
or other means of wireless connection, etc.
The second definition that can be used here is ‘a means to achieve human purpose’. It is
more appropriate to use it when describing Internet of Things as a social phenomenon that affects
daily lives or business practices. It is even more important to use this definition in the context of
entertainment industry, which is naturally connected with the lifestyle (Lloyd & Clark, 2001).
Synthesizing these definitions, we draw the following conclusion for our research:
1. IoT is a way of connecting ‘things’ (wither virtual or physical) to the internet by using
standardized communication protocols;
9
2. The “things” themselves have sensing or actuation capabilities, are programmable and
uniquely identifiable;
3. Finally, the “things” offer certain services or new capabilities to the users – either by
using the “individual” capabilities of the “things” or via the network of “things”.
We can also argue that IoT is not a technology but rather a concept that unites several
technologies and makes them work in a new way described above. This opinion is supported by
some authors, for example Lee & Lee (2015), who identify five essential IoT technologies:
Radio frequency identification (hereinafter RFID for short);
Wireless sensor networks (hereinafter WSN for short);
Middleware;
Cloud computing;
IoT application software.
We must explore this set of technologies further to get a better understanding of them.
RFID technology, developed by MIT’s Auto-ID Center, enables seamless identification
and data exchange using RFID tag and RFID reader connected via radio waves. RFID tag stores
a specific amount of information that can be read and altered by the reader. There are three types
of RFID tags:
Passive: use energy from reader radio waves to be powered, do not use an external power
source like battery, used in supply chains and passports.
Active: use external data source and thus are able to initiate communication with a reader,
as well as transmit data from connected sensors.
Semi-passive: use batteries to read information from sensors and reader waves for
communication.
Atzori et al. (2010) identify wireless sensor networks (WSN) as spatially dispersed
devices with embedded sensors that monitor environmental and physical conditions. Their
sensoring capability can be enhanced further if cooperating with RFID-equipped mobile devices.
WSNs are getting cheaper as the technology of low-power circuits and wireless
communications is progressing and more and more companies start using them in their
operations (Gubbi et al., 2013). General Electrics and American Airlines are implementing WSN
and gathering large amounts of data through it to improve their preventive maintenance
processes.
The next important technology that makes the Internet of Things possible is middleware.
Middleware is an interconnecting software layer for different software applications that serves to
ease organizing data interchange between such applications. This type of software became
10
popular in the 1980s as software products reached such level of complexity where it became
extremely difficult and time-consuming to specify data interchange methods for each new
product. This led to a greater simplicity of development and boosted emergence of new IT
solutions. The Windows operating system can be roughly categorized as middleware, as it has a
lot of mechanisms that ease interaction of different software products.
In case of IoT, middleware is even more important than before: it is the only solution to
the problem of connecting numerous devices which use different firmware. Another reason for
using middleware is that the network topology is often unknown and is impossible to investigate.
One of the popular examples of today’s IoT middleware is the IFTTT (‘if this then that’)
application for smartphones that serves to generate conditional outputs and facilitate automated
access to needed information.
Cloud computing is defined by Lee & Lee (2015) as ‘a model of on-demand access to a
shared pool of configurable resources’. In case of IoT, cloud computing is the best solution to
store and analyze the huge amount of data generated by IoT-enabled devices, as most of such
devices do not have required computing power due to their small size.
Finally, the Internet of Things, by nature, fosters development of numerous enterprise and
consumer applications: human-computer interaction is the key for successful implementation of
IoT, and this requires special tools that allow for quick and effective data monitoring and
decision making. The worldwide logistics leader FedEx uses software developed by SenseAware
to track vital characteristics of its packages, such as temperature and humidity.
Farooq & Waseem (2015) in their state-of-the-art review identify the following potential
uses for Internet of Things technology:
Table 2 - State of the art in IoT enterprise applications (Farooq & Waseem, 2015)
S m a r t T r a f f i c Adding IoT capabilities to transport vehicles and road infrastructure will
System
provide features like automatic vehicle and free parking slots tracking,
theft detection, accidents reporting and ultimately will lead to the more
effective traffic with less damage to the environment and less energy
Smart
consumption.
This section refers to the control of the natural environment and will lead
Environment
to predicting natural disasters (e.g. earthquakes) and controlling air
Smart Home
pollution levels.
In this domain, a lot of routine that home owners have will be automatized
(like plant watering in the garden), and utilities consumption will be more
efficient.
11
Smart Hospitals
IoT implementation in healthcare will allow all medical personnel to
constantly monitor health of their patients, and the intelligent vehicles like
Smart Agriculture
drones will decrease the response times for the ambulance.
In agriculture, the monitoring of soil nutrition, air and water quality, etc.
will be significantly easier with IoT capabilities, and the resources use will
also become significantly efficient.
Smart Retailing Use of IoT here is mostly connected with the RFID technology. It will
and Supply-Chain allow accurate, automatic tracking of supplies and each individual product
Management
with an RFID chip embedded. This will also let retailers place their orders
with suppliers automatically and build better stock strategies.
Above are the areas where a certain degree of progress was already achieved. For
example, in most Russian major cities public transportation vehicles such as buses are equipped
with GLONASS positioning sensors that track and transmit their location data in real time,
enabling prediction of travel times.
Chui et al. (2010) have identified the following general applications for the Internet of
Things.
Table 3 – Generalized enterprise applications for the Internet of Things. (Chui et al., 2010)
Application Group
Information and Analysis
Application Definition
Examples
Tracking behavior: monitoring
Presence-based
the behavior of persons, advertising and payments
things, or data through space based on consumers’ location
Inventory monitoring
and time
and management
Enhanced situational
Sniper detection using
awareness: facilitating real- sound direction to locate
time awareness of physical sound source (shooters)
environment
Sensor-driven decision
Oil field site planning
analytics: assisting human with 3D visualization and
decision making through deep simulation
Continuous monitoring
machine-based analysis and
of chronic diseases to help
data visualization
Automation and Control
find best disease treatment
Process optimization:
Maximization of
automated control of closed refinery throughout using
12
systems
wireless sensors
Continuous and precise
adjustments in manufacturing
lines
Optimized resource
Smart meters and
consumption: control of energy grids that match
consumption to optimize generation and consumption
resource use in a network
of resources to lower costs
Data
center
management that optimizes
energy, storage and processor
use
Complex autonomous
Collision avoidance
systems: automated control in systems in vehicles
Cleaning hazardous
open environments with great
materials through use of
uncertainty
robots
To better assess feasibility of IoT application from the managerial point of view, it seems
more appropriate to use more generic criteria that describe not only technical but also other
parameters important for business applications. One such model was proposed by Bourgeois
(1980) as part of technology studies and later refined and reviewed by Kim & Kim (2016) in
context of Internet of Things.
However, we were more interested in areas where no significant progress was made yet,
but the perceived potential for implementation of Internet of Things is very high. This is the case
in the entertainment industry and large-scale event management in particular, which will be
described in the next chapter.
1.2.
Potential of Internet of Things Adoption in Event Management
Event management and event studies are seen by the top scholars involved in the relevant
research as a part of the tourism industry. For example, Getz (2007) supports this view and
explains that most special events are attracting a number of visitors from other regions (even if
these are minor events, e.g. weddings) and thus bring tourism benefits to the destination where
the named event is taking place.
The tourism industry is of an extreme importance today for the global economy, where its
contribution had reached $7.58 trillion in 2015 (Statista, 2015). This accounts for approximately
13
one tenth of gross world product (Statista, 2016). This is possible due to the increasing rate of
globalization and achievements in transportation that enable people across the world to travel
and explore anywhere they want.
The key object of the tourism industry is destination. Buhalis (2000) defines destination
as an ‘amalgam of tourism products and services which are consumed under the brand name of
the destination’. Pike’s (2004) definition is ‘places that attract visitors for a temporary stay, and
range from continents to states and provinces to cities to villages to purpose built resort areas’.
A lot of studies were devoted to the concept of destination competitiveness. Ritchie and
Crouch (2010) have identified the following list of core resources and attractors that define
competitive capabilities of destinations:
Physiography and climate;
Culture and history;
Market ties (tourists who travel to the region because of individual reasons, e.g. sports,
ethnic ties, etc.);
Entertainment;
Tourism superstructure;
Special events.
The researchers identify special events as ‘a wide range of ‘happenings’ that can create
high levels of interest and involvement on the part of both visitors and residents’.
Tara-Lunga (2012) had conducted an extensive analysis of meanings of the word ‘event’
and synthesized the following meaning of it: ‘result, effect as well as that of happening, adding
meanings such as:
Gathering or social activity;
Something that happens at a given place and time;
Competition;
Adventure;
Occasion.’
A lot of research uses the following definition of special events: ‘a celebration or display
of some theme to which the public is invited for a limited time only, annually or less frequently’
(National Task Force on Tourism Data, 1986). Getz (1989) has also identified the following
criteria for such events:
Open to public;
Main purpose of such events is celebration or display of some theme;
Occur yearly or less frequently;
14
Have predetermined opening and closing dates;
Use permanent structures (venues) not owned by the event;
The programme of such event consists of one or more separate activities;
All activities take place in the same community or tourist region.
Getz (1989) points out that this definition of special events was ‘influenced by…
orientation to community-based festivals’ and that ‘any definition of special events should be
designed to meet particular planning needs’. This definition is similar to the one given by
Goldblatt (2002): ‘a unique moment in time celebrated with ceremony and ritual to satisfy
specific needs’.
Matthews (2008) attempts to generalize the definition: ‘a gathering of human beings,
generally lasting from a few hours to a few days, and designed to celebrate, honor, sell, teach
about, or observe human endeavors’.
It can be seen that all definitions are based around the following aspects: time, place,
reason and gathering.
Goldblatt and Matthews, both renowned specialists in event management, propose
different classifications of special events based on their theme. Below are the ‘subfields’ of
special events identified by Goldblatt (2002):
Table 4 - Special event types (Goldblatt, 2002)
Subfield Name
Civic Events
Definition
Example
Celebration events where Doo-Dah Parade
e v e r y o n e i s i n v i t e d t o Mardi Gras
Expositions
participate
Event where suppliers meet Mobile World Congress
p o t e n t i a l c l i e n t s a n d / o r Electronic Entertainment
Fairs and Festivals
introduce their products
Expo
Public community event Religious festivals (e.g.
s y m b o l i z e d b y m u l t i p l e Easter)
experiences that find meaning M u s i c f e s t i v a l s ( e . g .
Meetings and Conferences
through lives of participants
Tomorrowland)
E v e n t s t h a t p r o v i d e Krasnoyarsk Economic Forum
networking opportunities for St. Petersburg International
Retail Events
the participants
Economic Forum
Promotional events organized Live concert at a mall
to drive attendees and
15
Social Life-Cycle Events
increased sales at the venue
Milestone events that mark the Bar-mitzvah
Sport events
passage of time
Wedding
Events that display competing Football games
Tourism
teams or individuals
Ice skating championship
Multitude of events supposed Craft shows
to attract tourists to the region
Historical reenactments
Matthews (2008), citing these subfields, criticizes this approach and proposes a ‘more
integrated approach’, dividing special events into three subcategories:
Meetings and conferences;
Expositions and trade shows;
Celebrations, ceremonies and spectacles.
The latter category is also divided into public and private events. This framework,
however, is intended by the author to aid readers in choosing their career path in event
management and also lists according certifications. We should also note that it can be considered
as a more general classification of events than the one given by Goldblatt (2002) and therefore
less practical to our research, as it is not as deep and informative.
Jago (1997) has developed a definitional framework that aims to classify all event types
taking into account their scale:
16
Figure 1 - Event typology (Jago, 1997)
There is, however, still little agreement between event management scholars about the
exact scale ranges that refer a particular event to a specific category, e.g. based on the number of
attendees (Jago, 1997). For example, average concert attendance in UK in 2012 was about
17,000 people, while sport leagues in Europe and US can attract from 15,000 to 60,000 people
(Statista, 2016).
There is also a separate category of ‘mega-events’ mentioned by Jago (1997) that defines
events with attendance from 200,000 people and higher. The Olympic Games and FIFA World
Championship belong to this category. Beyond the attendance level, such events are
characterized by the destination change for each new event (Matthews, 2008).
Another important category is hallmark events which are associated with a particular
territory and are held once a year (typically) or more seldom. An example of such events can be
the Tomorrowland music festival which is held annually in the same territory in Belgium.
Getz (1997) has developed a generic model of special events (see Figure 2).
17
Figure 2 - Special event model (Getz, 1997)
This model brings an understanding of events’ place in the environment, their
stakeholders and the impact that events have on each of them. Based on it, we can deduct four
major event goals: satisfy guests who seek leisure, education or specific service; help event
organizers and sponsors achieve their goals, financial, cause-related goals or others; generate
value for community and economy through attracting tourists and developing local heritage and
culture. Additionally, events must be sustainable and not damage (or, ideally, improve) the
environment they are held in.
Hernandez-Mogollon et al. (2014) in their state-of-the-art review of event management
synthesize the following set of benefits that holding special events brings to a destination:
Economic benefits generation by attracting tourists;
Development of infrastructure and services;
Creation or strengthening of a brand image for the destination site.
Thus, special events are an important part of economy and community and benefit them
on local and global levels.
The companies operating in the event industry are very diverse and it is complicated to
give a proper classification to them.
Event industry is focused on providing services (i.e. special events), and Bowdin et al.
(2006) suggest a so-called ‘event services trinity’ (see Figure 3 below).
18
Figure 3 - The event services trinity (Bowdin et al., 2006).
This approach allows an easy categorization of all major activities connected with event
management and organization. It is convenient as it does not include generic business processes
connected with events company administration and focuses only on industry specifics which is
what we are seeking in this research. Further, each part of the trinity will be explained.
The event operations domain contains activities such as ticketing, queuing, site layout,
lighting and sound, and all other functions connected with managing tangible assets on the event.
The human resources part manages the personnel and volunteers who work on the
particular event. Its task is to provide the necessary skills and expertise for the event and to
manage it effectively.
Finally, event marketing is the last part of the trinity which is responsible for event
conceptualization and promotion. Its ultimate task is the successful event creation which fosters
the achievement of goals set by the event organizers.
At the center of the trinity is the customer. There is a special attribute connected with the
event customers which is called attendee experience, the central part of each event. This is what
defines the event success or failure (Silvers et al., 2005), so it needs to be examined thoroughly.
The attendee experience domain of event studies has attracted a lot of research. Getz
(2007) identifies the event experience as the core factor of every event which is the main reason
why people actually attend the described event. He gives three different definitions of
‘experience’:
Conative: ‘describes actual behavior, the things people do including physical activity’.
This definition of experience is synonymic to ‘live through’ and is often used in daily life.
Cognitive: involves judgement, learning and understanding and is the key component of
experience on business meetings or scientific conference. This definition resembles
learning.
Affective: concerns emotions and feelings, used to describe fun and pleasure from an
event. This is the most common way to define experience from concerts of sports.
Matthews (2008) puts great emphasis on special effects, lighting and other aspects of
events that add to attendee experience. They are seen as an integral part of festivals and their
effect on the affective type of experience is enormous.
On the other side, attendee experience is the final product of the three key event services
we have described before (Bowdin et al., 2006), so it is feasible to choose these services as the
units of our adoption analysis.
19
If we want to understand the potential of the Internet of Things in the market from the
managerial perspective, we should use Rogers’ (2003) diffusion of innovation theory as the
cornerstone for building the research concept.
In this theory, innovation is defined as a certain ‘idea, practice, or an object perceived as
new by an individual or other unit in adoption’. Another key aspect is the communication
channel that is the ‘means by which messages get from one individual to another’. Finally, the
diffusion is defined by Rogers (2003) as ‘the process by which an innovation is communicated
through certain channels over time among the members of a social system’.
The social system is another important aspect that defines the environment in which an
innovation is diffused. Rogers (2003) defines it as ‘a set of interrelated units that are engaged in
joint problem solving to accomplish a common goal’ that has a certain structure and opinion
leaders – units influencing others in making innovation decisions. Such social systems may be
comprised not only of individual people, but also of organizations: an industry or a market is an
example of such social system.
Innovation decisions are an integral part of adoption: this term defines how and who
decides whether an innovation must be adopted or not. Three major types of innovation decisions
are identified:
1. Optional innovation decisions: each individual in the system decides on his or her own
whether an adoption must be made, and the influence of other individuals is limited.
2. Collective innovation decisions: all members of the social system must reach an
agreement regarding the adoption, otherwise it would not be made.
3. Authority innovation decisions: decision on adoption is made by a group of individuals,
while other members of the social system have no right to participate in the decision
making process. The abovementioned group comprises system members who possess the
power, expertise, or status that gives them exclusive rights for decision making.
Innovation decision as a process include five stages:
1. Knowledge, when an individual is made aware of the existence of innovation and begins
to understand how it works and functions;
2. Persuasion, when a positive or negative attitude to an innovation is formed by an
individual;
3. Decision, when the described individual starts to engage in processes and activities that
lead to either adoption or rejection of an innovation;
4. Implementation, when an individual who decides to adopt the innovation starts actually
using it;
20
5. Confirmation, when the individual who is using the innovation receives reaction from
other members of his/her social system and makes a final decision whether to keep an
innovation or refrain from using it.
Another key finding of the theory is the analysis of innovation attributes (as perceived by
individuals). Rogers (2003) identifies five of them:
1. Relative advantage: ‘the degree to which an innovation is perceived as better than the
idea it supersedes’.
2. Compatibility: ‘the degree to which an innovation is perceived as consistent with the
existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters’.
3. Complexity: ‘the degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to understand,
adopt and use’.
4. Trialability: ‘the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited
basis’, thus reducing the risks of uncertainty when making innovation decisions.
5. Observability: ‘the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible by others’.
Finally, Rogers (2003) defines a system of variables that determine the rate of adoption of
innovations (see Figure 4).
21
Figure 4 - Variables determining the rate of adoption (Rogers, 2003)
Rogers (2003) has also defined a set of main types of diffusion research:
1. Early check about system’s awareness of innovations;
2. Adoption rate study for different innovations in a certain social system;
3. Innovativeness studies;
4. Opinion leadership;
5. Networks of diffusion;
6. Adoption rate in different social systems;
7. Usage of communication channels;
8. Consequences of adoption and use of an innovation.
Wisdom et al. (2014) in their extensive review of existing innovation adoption theories
developed a multi-level framework of these theories based on context (Table 5).
22
Table 5 - Adoption constructs by level of context (Wisdom et al., 2014)
Context
External System
Changes in adoption constructs
External Environment
Government Policy and Regulation
Social Network
Organization
Regulation with Financial Incentives
Absorptive Capacity
Leadership and Champion of Innovation
Network with Innovation Developers and Consultants
Norms, Values, and Cultures
Operational Size and Structure
Social Climate
Social Network (Inter-organizations)
Training Readiness and Efforts
Innovation
Traits and Readiness for Change
Complexity, Relative Advantage, and Observability
Cost-efficacy and Feasibility
Evidence and Compatibility
Facilitators and Barriers
Innovation Fit with Users’ Norms and Values
Individual
Trialability, Relevance, and Ease
Affiliation with Organizational Culture
Attitudes, Motivations, and Readiness towards
Quality Improvement and Reward
Feedback on Execution and Fidelity
Individual Characteristics
Managerial Characteristics
Social Network (Individual’s Personal Network)
Another approach was proposed by Baumgartner & Winkler (2003) who have identified
three forces that determine diffusion and performance of a technology: technological prospect,
market potential and regulatory environment. This framework was later exploited by a number of
studies (Jaffe et al., 2005; Braun and Wield, 1994) and applied by Kim & Kim (2016) in their
IoT feasibility study. We have also implemented this approach in our research.
The technological prospect includes the following adoption criteria:
23
1. Technical practicality: the technology ability to meet enterprise technical requirements,
such as compatibility with currently used technologies, scalability to support business’
growth, and security. For the Internet of Things, it is still a question whether particular
solutions suffice to such demands (Xu et al., 2014).
2. Technical reliability: technologies that are aimed to limit or even eliminate the human
factor, as in case of IoT, are to be assessed for their security and reliability with increased
attention. The reason is that single, smallest failures in their system can slow down
important business processes such technologies aim to ease (Mattern & Floerkemeier,
2010).
3. Cost efficiency: although the IoT concept is supposed to decrease costs for the adopters
of the technology (Ahn et al., 2010), the adoption itself is often associated with indirect
costs, such as contracting, legal costs for the enterprise, learning and perceptional costs
for the users. It is also crucial, of course, that benefits from adoption outweigh the
associated costs (Erreev & Patel, 2012).
4. Standardization: although IoT is still in the beginning of its development, standardization
of participating technologies is a critical issue, as the concept is aimed to connect
technologies, industries and business processes that is hardly possible if there are several
different conflicting standards in the market (Bandyupadhyay & Sen, 2011).
The market potential force is split into the following four criteria:
1. Market demands: adoption rates for innovations are at the highest levels when market
participants use not only push (scientific development) but also pull strategies, and the
latter depends heavily on market demand (Myers & Marquis, 1969). For IoT, this is even
more important, as the performance of IoT-based solutions is defined by a number of
‘things’ connected, and the failure to reach critical mass will result in product being
thrown out of the market (Dutton, 2014).
2. User acceptance: the lack of acceptance hinders technology adoption significantly, and to
convince users to accept new technology, it must be ensured that the change is perceived
as useful and easy (Davis, 1993). The Internet of Things case might be even more
complex as it is associated with the decrease of privacy and security of users (Dutton,
2014).
3. Business model: for a technological solution to be successful in the market, it must
deliver the sufficient value to customers and satisfy vendor’s needs for returns, which
requires a clear business model (Chesbrough & Rosenbloom, 2002). Creation of such
model is a complicated task in case of Internet of Things due to immaturity of the concept
24
and high variety of participating technologies and things connected (Westerlund et al.,
2014).
4. Ecosystem building: this criterion defines whether a suggested technology can form a
basis for a market leader which can group solutions made by other vendors around it and
become a standard; ecosystem leaders get enormous benefits from leading the ecosystem
and are able to define the strategy of the whole segment (Gueguen & Pellegtin-Boucher,
2004). This factor’s significance is especially important given the lack of standardization
in Internet of Things mentioned above.
The last force is regulatory environment which includes:
1. Industry regulation: one of the major regulatory challenges for Internet of Things vendors
and adopters is the lack of the proper regulatory framework (Bradley et al., 2013). In
other words, it is hard to predict the legal response to the technology, which is a serious
obstacle for many enterprises. Additionally, Internet of Things is meant to connect
different industries where regulation can differ significantly, thus making the situation
even more uncertain (Weber, 2011).
2. Consumer protection regulation: as was mentioned before, Internet of Things use is
associated with security and privacy threats, thus a regulatory practice has to be
established in order to ensure that consumers are protected from such issues (Xu et al.,
2014).
3. Governmental support: participation of government in the process of IoT adoption (e.g.
by providing tax deductions or grants for adopting enterprises) might boost the adoption
rates, especially in the case of our research, where businesses are reluctant to invest in
new, unexplored domains (Xu et al., 2014).
Getz (2007) mentions several technological aspects that improve event management
practices, in particular, those connected with ticketing and team management.
Emery (2010) in his series of interviews has found out that senior sport managers and
local authority hosts name the following factors that will shape the future practice in sport event
management: power of mega sports events, emerging needs to better understand cultural
sensitivities, development of career opportunities and labor distribution in the industry and the
influence of technology. Most respondents argued that it will be technology that will drive the
practice of the future, and suggesting a range of possible developments ranging from
developments of 3D home television enhancing the quality of watching sports at home to
stadium enhancements including vibrating seats and embedded screens.
25
Researchers often experiment with technology to understand how it can be used to
enhance the attendee experience. One notable research was conducted by Veerasawmy and
McCarthy (2014) who studied how the experience of football match spectators changed when
they saw the visualization of their activity compared to the fans of the rivaling team. The
respondents reported that this feature was very engaging when the game’s pace was slowing
down.
It is not surprising that event organizers are experimenting with new ways of improving
attendee experience using modern technology. There are several prominent examples of already
implemented solutions that use the Internet of Things concept.
The Canada-based Pixmob company provides clients with wearables for their events that
serve as tickets and have a powerful LED light embedded. The latter feature allows event
organizers to improve lighting and even make it dynamic, letting the performers improvise with
synchronized lighting. This technology is used by Taylor Swift on her world tours.
Disneyland in Orlando uses Magic Bands – wearables that, again, perform ticketing
functions and let attendees pay for their purchases on-site using the NFC chip in the wristband.
The US startup Cantora is developing several high-tech applications for the music
industry, one of them being Nada wristband. The product is still not released but the producer
promises that it will let event organizers track user behavior at the event.
Finally, Sendrato is a Dutch company that already has the most advanced solution in the
market. Sendrato wristband has functions of a ticket, LED lighting, a ‘social’ button (lets user
interact with the event online, e.g. ‘like’ the event page on Facebook) and a pairing function that
helps attendees meet new friends. It is used at Tomorrowland electronic music festival with
attendance rates over 100,000 people.
Table 6 - Comparison of existing successfully implemented IoT solutions in event management
Vendor Name
Ticket
LED Lighting Social
functions
Pixmob
+
Disney Magic +
Band
Cantora Nada
Sendrato
1.3.
+
+
+
+
+
Research Gap
26
Release
Users
Status
Released
Released
Taylor Swift
Disneyland
Not released
Released
Not known
Tomorrowland
Focusing first on applying Internet of Things to enhance attendee experience on events,
we have soon found out that understanding the potential of IoT application inside event industry
would allow us to analyze the industry better and generate more valuable insights, and ultimately
would help industry stakeholders see the picture in general and make better adoption decisions.
There are multitude of studies that experiment with new applications of Internet of Things for
various types of events, from football matches (Veerasawmy & McCarthy, 2014) to dance
performances (Barkhuus et al., 2014) and they all are trying to work out specific designs for
particular event type. One of the explanations to this situation could be that IoT concept is still
not mature enough, especially in industries which remain mostly uncharted to this date, as in the
case of event industry.
On the other hand, it turned out that event organization is a much more complex process
than it seemed in the start, and that IoT might be applicable in some other areas of this industry.
The literature studied did not return satisfactory proofs of denials of this hypothesis. In
particular, the adoption potential and the factors affecting diffusion and performance of the
Internet of Things in event industry have not been researched yet. Studying these topics is very
likely to reveal the adoption prospects, together with the plan of action for businesses to boost
their performance using the Internet of Things solutions.
This is why we decided to use a different approach, inspired by Kim & Kim (2016), who
were trying to create a basis for further research of applying IoT in certain industries in a
particular region (South Korea). For this research, we have used similar logic: to activate the
events market for the Internet of Things, first a general view is needed, as some aspects of the
industry (other than attendee affective experience) could remain in the dark and expert
interviews could shed light on them.
We believe that this approach fits our research goal much better, since it allows us to stay
in the limits of innovation management science and is aimed to fill the important research gap,
with the ultimate goal of helping event companies and technology vendors to interact more
efficiently.
27
2 METHODOLOGY
2.1. Research Approach
To achieve our goal and formulate recommendations for stakeholders that can actually be
used in practice, a set of data regarding adoption factors and their evaluation is needed.
Saunders et al. (2015) propose an extensive and widely used framework for student
business research called ‘the research onion’ (see Figure 5).
Figure 5 - The research onion (Saunders et al., 2015)
This technique defines six key characteristics of a research: philosophy, approach to
theory development, methodological choice, strategy, time horizon and techniques and
procedures. We will describe choices made on steps 3-6.
We will start from the methodological choice step, where the decision is made whether
qualitative or quantitative data is to be used.
The search for secondary data regarding adoption of IoT in enterprises did not return any
results, as it was explained in the first chapter of the research. There are several reviews of
currently used technologies and trends in the non-scientific literature about event management
(e.g. GEVME, 2016) but scholars have not studied event industry for IoT adoption potential
deeply yet.
28
Saunders et al. (2015) consider two approaches for data collection: quantitative and
qualitative. They define quantitative techniques as data collection techniques that ‘generate or
use a numerical data’, and qualitative techniques as those that exploit non-numerical data, such
as words, images, etc.
The authors, however, argue that this distinction is ‘both problematic and narrow’,
because in reality most research cases made in business and management areas are very likely to
combine both methods, therefore mono-method research is a rare practice. Thus, mixed research
methods are often used.
In our case, however, we have used qualitative methods only, due to the high uncertainty
of the research environment where an immature technology’s potential is evaluated in the context
of the event management industry and where only little practice of application for this
technology exists. It is therefore complicated to create the right research framework to generate
reliable quantitative data.
The next step of formulating the research design is identifying the research strategy to be
used. Saunders et al. (2015) identify the following types of research strategies: experiment,
survey, archival/documentary, case study, ethnography, action, grounded theory and narrative.
For the purposes of our research, we have used the survey strategy to make a snapshot of
expert knowledge, as this strategy is fast, efficient and allows for extracting and understanding
valuable insights.
There are two types of research time horizons: cross-sectional (studying a certain
phenomenon or phenomena in a certain moment of time to develop a snapshot understanding of
a current situation) and longitudinal (studying a phenomenon or phenomena or during a long
period of time to observe change and development). We chose the cross-sectional time horizon
due to high speed of IoT technologies development that requires rapid observation methods to
generate practically valuable implications.
The final step in building the research framework is defining the exact tools and methods
to use in the study. For our purpose, we have used one of multi-criteria decision making models
– Weighted Sum Model, together with expert judgment elicitation techniques.
2.2. Weighted Sum Model
According to the problem this research is trying to solve (finding the best alternative for
IoT integration in event management services), and the means we are using (5 expert interviews),
we have referred to the multi-criteria decision making domain.
29
Decision making in any group can take either the consensus or conflict form. In the first
case, the final decision is reached when all or most members of a group (who have equal
positions) agree on one of the options given. In case of conflict decisions, some members of a
group have more influence than others and can lobby certain decisions.
Multi-criteria decision making is a group of methods aimed to ‘evaluate a set of
alternatives in terms of a number of a criteria’ (Triantaphyllou, 2013), thus reducing uncertainty
when making important decisions in business, engineering, risk management and many other
domains. These methods can be split into several groups based on the information available to
the researcher and data generated during the process; a taxonomy of MCDM methods can be
found below.
Figure 6 - Taxonomy of multi-criteria decision making methods (Chen et al., 1992)
Speaking in terms of the described taxonomy, we have information on the attributes (11
technology adoption factors described in our literature review); we also want to use cardinal
(unranked) scores to simplify expert judgment process. Using ordinal methods is not appropriate
in our case since neither we nor experts have a full understanding of relative importance of each
of factors evaluated.
30
According to the factors abovementioned, we decided to start a search for experts in order
to model a decision making process for technology adoption. For the aggregation of expert
opinions the weighted sum model was chosen.
All cardinal methods using expert judgment share the same principle in their basis:
different experts give their judgments about a set of evaluation criteria which are then used to
rank several alternatives.
Assume that there are the following given parameters: n alternatives, p experts and m
decision criteria. Ai and Cj, (i = [1, 2, …, n], j = [1, 2, …, m]) are the sets of alternatives and
criteria, respectively. Let
k
x ij
be the opinion of k-th expert about j-th criterion applied to i-th
alternative. Therefore, a total evaluation score of an alternative i can be calculated using the
following formula:
p
Si=∑ aik w k ,
k =1
where wk is a weight of a given expert;
m
aik =∑ x ij u j
k
j=1
k
( ukj
is weight given by expert k to criteria j).
Weighting experts and criteria is obviously of extreme importance; however, it is not
always appropriate. Ramanathan & Ganesh (1994) described a ‘supra-decision maker’ approach
to expert importance weighting, where one person has the ultimate power of assigning weights to
different experts; however, this requires that this person has a certain status recognized by all
other experts and the necessary qualifications.
Other approaches suggest comparing experts in terms of their relevant experience,
including formal education, citation indices and similar parameters (e Costa & Oliveira, 2012).
We can use neither of these approaches: all experts selected have very different
experience and there is no single person who could do the evaluation of others. In this situation,
Ramathan & Ganesh (1994) suggest using equal weighting for each expert to minimize the
potential bias.
Our another concern was about weighting the criteria (performed by the experts);
however, after our first interview we chose to deny this approach and using equal weights as
well, since the criteria are rather inconsistent and therefore hard to rank. Another reason for this
was uncertainty in criteria importance (which this research is actually aimed to reduce).
However, using simple means is generally not recommended in the literature when
interviewing small numbers of experts. Instead, it is suggested (Meyer & Booker, 2001) to use a
median score for a criteria from all five experts.
31
Thus, a median score for each criteria against each alternative is then weighted (or
normalized) for a criteria and the sum of scores is calculated for each alternative, according to
the Weighted Sum Method (Triantaphyllou, 2013).
First, a matrix with expert opinions is built for each alternative:
Table 7 – Expert opinions’ initial matrix
Expert 1
1
xi1
1
xi2
…
1
x ij
Criterion 1
Criterion 2
…
Criterion J
Expert 2
2
xi1
2
xi2
…
2
x ij
…
…
…
…
…
Expert n
n
xi1
n
xi2
…
n
x ij
Then, expert opinions are combined into medians for each criterion against each
alternative and the resulting matrix is formulated:
Table 8 – Median opinion matrix
Alternative 1
x͂ 11
x͂ 21
…
x͂ j 1
Criterion 1
Criterion 2
…
Criterion J
Alternative 2
x͂ 12
x͂ 22
…
x͂ j 2
…
…
…
…
…
Alternative i
x͂ 1i
x͂ 2i
…
x͂ j i
Finally, medians are weighted for each criterion and the total scores are calculated and
ranked for each alternative:
Table 9 – Weighted opinion matrix
Criterion 1
Criterion 2
…
Criterion J
In Table 9,
Alternative 1
ω11
ω21
…
ω j1
x͂
ωij = j ij
.
∑ x ͂ ij
Alternative 2
ω12
ω22
…
ωj2
…
…
…
…
…
Alternative i
ω1 i
ω2 i
…
ω ji
1
After this alternatives are being ranked according to the resulting sum of scores:
j
∑ ¿ ∑ ω ij
,
1
and all alternatives are ranked according to the resulting sum scores.
32
2.3. Expert Sampling
The factors chosen and their explanation are given in the Table 8 below.
Table 10 - Survey framework
Technique Factor
Technique
Our Choice
Expert Judgement
Argumentation
High uncertainty and
forecasting nature of the
Expert Occupations
Arena Managers
research
Arena managers deal with a
lot of different kinds of events
and manage innovative event
Event Industry CTOs
technologies at the same time
These specialists are
responsible for innovation in
event companies and should
have huge expertise about all
kinds of applicable
technologies
T e c h n o l o g y V e n d o r These experts have an
Employees
expertise in providing already
working solutions for event
Sample Size
industry
Recommended size is 5-9;
9
There are limitations in our
research connected with low
diffusion or IoT in Russia, so
experts with relevant
experience are harder to reach
Elicitational Situation
Individual Interviews
Low availability of experts,
geographical distance,
Motivation Methods
Intrinsic Aspect of Research
different expertise
Lack of financial resources,
Expertise Recognition
innovative nature of the
research
33
Based on the research framework developed and our own limitations, we have also
formulated the following requirements for the research technique:
The experts must work in arenas with capability of more than 5000 people, event
management companies that run events involving more than 5000 people or technology
vendors that have launched commercial IoT solutions for event management;
The interview should be conducted via Skype or other Internet-based voice
communication service to ensure stability and prevent both parties from having any
communication costs;
Interviews should not be longer than 1 hour;
All interviewees must be asked if they want to keep their identity anonymous in the
research;
All interviewees are sent a Google form after the interview in which they quantify their
evaluations to confirm interview results.
Considering all abovementioned factors, we have defined the following company
population which we contacted to request expert interviews:
Table 11 – Experts asked for cooperation
Category
Arena Managers
Organization
Saku Arena (Tallinn), Tauron Arena (Krakow),
Palau Sant Jordi (Barcelona), Ahoy Arena
(Rotterdam), Globe Arenas (Stockholm),
Mercedez-Benz Arena (Berlin), O2 Arena
(London), Hartwall Arena (Helsinki), Siemens
Arena (Vilnius), O2 Czech (Prague), European
Technology Vendors
Arenas Association
Sendrato, Pixmob, Nada, IBM, Cisco, AGT
Event Management Companies
International
IMG Group, SFX Entertainment
During the interview the experts are asked to evaluate the adoption factor of IoT against
each part of the event services trinity (all those factors were found in the literature review part of
the research) and justify their opinion; thus a discussion is started where expert can express his
position on these aspects freely. The simplified scheme is presented on Figure 7 below and the
detailed structure is located in Appendix A.
34
Figure 7 - Survey structure
We also realized that our interviews are also an excellent opportunity to generalize
experts’ opinion about the technology, so we added additional questions to learn the following
data from respondents:
Examples of other IoT solutions used in event industry;
Interest for IoT adoption in event industry in general;
Other adoption factors not included in the framework;
Priority areas for respondent’s company;
General level of IoT potential for event industry and future forecasts.
This is why we have chosen to use the convenience sampling technique. We have
selected those experts who:
Could be reached and agreed to have an interview;
Had an experience or at least understanding with IoT applications;
Work in or develop technology solutions for event industry.
We have used the following sources for finding and contacting experts:
Own contacts (10 people);
European Arenas Association list of members (13 arena employees);
National Arenas Association (USA, NAA inbox);
Technology companies that develop relevant solutions (4 companies).
35
The initial contacting phase returned 5 replies. We have worked further with these experts
only. Below is the list of experts to whom we will refer as Expert 1-5 to ensure anonymity.
The sample building was defined mostly by our limitations, i.e. the time frame of the
research and a considerably low amount of experts with actual experience in this field.
Table 12 – Expert profiles
Expert 1
Group
Event Management
Occupation
Marketing
Location
Europe
Manager
Expertise
Investigated
opportunities for
IoT
Expert 2
Technology Companies
Data Analyst
Europe
implementation
Participated in an
IoT project for
an
event
management
Expert 3
Technology Companies
Marketing
North America
Director
company
Responsible for
marketing of an
IoT for Events
Expert 4
Expert 5
Arenas
Event Management
Marketing
Europe
solution
Wo r k e d w i t h
Specialist
s e v e r a l I o T-
Independent
enabled events
Consulted event
North America
consultant, blog
management
writer
companies about
IoT
implementation
2.4. Expert Interviews
Expert judgement is ‘data given by an expert in response to a technical problem’. An
expert is a person with a considerable background in subject area who is recognized by the
researchers or by expert’s peers as qualified enough to provide answer to researcher’s questions
in an interview or a questionnaire. This method is used in cases when research questions cannot
be answered by other, more reliable means (Meyer & Booker, 1991).
36
Expert judgement is used to generate information ‘when other sources, such as
measurements, observations, experimentation, or simulation, are unavailable’ (Meyer & Booker,
1991). The authors also argue that this method can be applied in conditions when data is ‘sparse,
questionable, or only indirectly applicable’ (Meyer & Booker, 1991).
There are several specific cases where using expert judgment method is advised in
research explicitly, e.g. when estimates on complex, rare, new, or otherwise poorly understood
phenomena are needed, (Krupka et al., 1983) or when there is need for forecasting future events
(Ascher, 1978). This justifies our method selection.
The process of gathering expert judgement is called elicitation and is conducted using
methods of verbal or written communication designed for the research.
Elicitation is affected by a multitude of factors, with the most notorious being difficulty
of problem preparation, type of information provided by the experts and time frames that experts
have (e.g. interview duration) (Meyer & Booker, 1991).
There three basic elicitation situations exist: individual interviews, group interviews or
Delphi situations (a group of experts is gathered and their answers are randomized and reevaluated to enhance validity) (Green et al., 2007). We are using the individual interview
method.
There are also some other notable considerations that require researcher’s attention when
sampling and interviewing experts.
Seaver (1976) suggests that diversity of experts participating in research provides the
better quality of answers, as diverse experts are prone to viewing and solving problems in
different manners and therefore allow the researcher to consider different viewpoints. This view
is supported by Ascher (1978) who argues that diverse expert samples lead to the most up-to-date
view on the problem while requiring little resources compared to other researching strategies.
Tversky & Kahneman (1974) also admit that such strategy minimizes the impact of a single
individual on the overall result of the sample.
Meyer et al. (1991) state that the size of the sample for expert judgement method can vary
highly. Generally, it is advised to use sample sizes 5 or above, as having less reduces chances
that adequate diversity will be provided and, therefore, that significant inferences can be made.
For individual interviews, the researchers recommend interviewing 5-9 experts.
They also argue that analysis of expert data should begin from defining the following key
features:
Granularity: ‘the level of detail defined or chosen for the data, the analysis, and the
conclusions’. The authors describe an example where the problem solving process could
37
return data in form of ‘detailed steps, equations, <…> and descriptions’ or in form of
general categorization given by a pessimistic expert.
Conditionality: the extent to which the data generated in the interview is affected by
external factors (expert’s motivation, mood, environment of the interview, connection
quality, or information available and so on).
Granularity can be altered by changing the response mode and documentation recording
procedures. Conditionality is harder to achieve in small sample studies where no quantitative
analysis is used as it requires multi-method analysis of data. We have designed this research with
these two criteria in mind.
One key point of the expert judgment method is expert motivation. Gorden (1980)
suggests that the researcher must consider maximizing factors that motivate experts to participate
in the interview and minimize those that prevent this. Meyer et al. (1991) provide examples of
such factors:
Table 13 – Factors of expert motivation/demotivation (Meyer et al., 1991)
Motivating factors
Opportunity to affect the research project
Demotivating factors
High time consumption (more than 1 hour)
Opportunity to contribute to the knowledge Bad research design
domain
Opportunity to receive recognition
Money compensation paid
Low researcher status
The literature on this topic has developed two approaches for motivating experts: through
pay and through communication of the intrinsic aspects of the project (Meyer et al., 1991). Due
to limitations of this student research we will consider only the second option and explain it
thoroughly below.
Stroud (1981) puts specific emphasis on the communication of the intrinsic values of the
research, thus giving increased attention to the researcher-expert communication process. He
suggests that the experts would like to get the information regarding the project in the following
order of importance: the reason for the contact, researchers and research sponsors, time and
effort required, reason for selection, detailed task explanation, anonymity and anticipated result.
Regarding the questions formulation, Meyer & Booker (1991) describe a three-step
formulation procedure which we have followed (see Table 14):
Table 14 – Interview questions formulation procedure (Meyer & Booker, 1991)
38
Formulation Step
Define project’s
Outcome
Purpose: understand how the event industry estimates the potential for IoT
purpose and goals
adoption
Goals: develop an understanding of which IoT characteristics would
Selecting the
facilitate or slow down the adoption process
Area 1: Potential for IoT integration in event marketing
general question
Area 2: Potential for IoT integration in event operations
areas
Area 3: Potential for IoT integration in event HR management
Area 4: general view on IoT integration in event management
Questions defining
Area 5: current practices of adoption
For each event service: which factors do you see as potential or current
drivers of IoT adoption? Which could be barriers?
We have chosen the factors listed by Baumgartner & Winkler (2003) that were mentioned
in the Part I of this study: technological prospect, market potential and regulatory environment.
Experts, therefore, are to match these adoption factors with the existing event services, choose
drivers and barriers and explain their choice.
There are, however, other factors that have to be taken into account when defining an
interview scenario that were mentioned before.
Below is the list of changes and amendments implemented to the scenario based on these
recommendations from the methodological literature:
1.
The scenario is designed with 1 hour interview duration goal in mind;
2.
Experts are approached based on their experience level and merits, and are invited
to bring their expertise and express their thoughts on the topic to increase their motivation;
3.
Experts have an opportunity to go beyond the limits of specified criteria measured
in the interview by suggesting their own criteria of measuring adoption potential;
4.
Findings are generalized during the course of interview and after the interview
(each expert is asked to fill in a Google form);
5.
All experts are provided anonymity (with a brief reference to the expert category
and location) and have access to the research when it is finished.
Additionally, we have conducted a test interview with one expert which had shown that it
is necessary to find out whether the expert is actually familiar with Internet of Things and its
applications in event management before proceeding to the interview stage.
The resulting interview scenario can be found in the Appendix A of this research.
39
3
RESEARCH FINDINGS
3.1. Interview Results
We have managed to interview 5 experts whose profiles were given in the previous part
of this research. All interviews were conducted via Skype on preliminary agreed times. Each
expert was interviewed individually.
Graphs below represent the data provided by experts in the interview.
5
Practicality
Reliability
4
Cost Efficiency
Standardization
3
Market Demands
User Acceptance
2
Business Model
Ecosystem Building
1
Industry Regulation
Consumer Protection
Regulation
0
Operations
Marketing
Governmental Support
Human Resources
Figure 8 - Expert 1 scores
5
Practicality
Reliability
4
Cost Efficiency
Standardization
3
Market Demands
User Acceptance
2
Business Model
Ecosystem Building
1
Industry Regulation
Consumer Protection
Regulation
0
Operations
Marketing
Figure 9 - Expert 2 scores.
40
Governmental Support
Human Resources
5
Practicality
Reliability
4
Cost Efficiency
Standardization
3
Market Demands
User Acceptance
2
Business Model
Ecosystem Building
1
Industry Regulation
Consumer Protection
Regulation
0
Operations
Marketing
Governmental Support
Human Resources
Figure 10 - Expert 3 scores.
5
Practicality
Reliability
4
Cost Efficiency
Standardization
3
Market Demands
User Acceptance
2
Business Model
Ecosystem Building
1
Industry Regulation
Consumer Protection
Regulation
0
Operations
Marketing
Figure 11 - Expert 4 scores
41
Governmental Support
Human Resources
5
Practicality
Reliability
4
Cost Efficiency
Standardization
3
Market Demands
User Acceptance
2
Business Model
Ecosystem Building
1
Industry Regulation
Consumer Protection
Regulation
0
Operations
Marketing
Governmental Support
Human Resources
Figure 12 - Expert 5 scores
The interview with Expert 1 was a set-up interview for the whole project, where we
discussed various aspects of event management and its services identified in the literature to
understand how they should be assessed in our research and what is the current, up-to-date
situation like in the industry.
Expert 1 (marketing management from event management sphere) informed us that she
had been evaluating opportunities for IoT integration in business and was discussing this with
various departments in the company.
She was very eager about the potential for adoption of Internet of Things solutions in
operations. Although it was not the function she was dealing with on a regular basis, she
communicated with the departments responsible for operations quite often on various projects.
She informed us that event operations and logistics is crucial for event management, as these
functions involve frequent transfer of valuable, fragile and often bulky equipment from location
to location together with required service and storage. Another important function is transfer of
people (performers, sportspeople, personnel). Finally, a lot of operational work is done on-site,
which requires hiring local personnel or adopting to the local infrastructure, and both ways are
complicated.
Regarding the Internet of Things adoption potential for operations, the expert valued both
industry and consumer protection regulation in this field very high, giving them the top score.
She gave us an example of promising technology solution – Fedex SenseAware and said that
42
there are little obstacles that could hinder the adoption and integration of such technologies in
terms of regulation, at least in North America and Europe.
The expert confirmed that the company did not investigate government aid programs but
she knows that there are different public-private initiatives concerning adoption of Smart City
and Internet of Things technologies and that some level of support is certainly present, but
expressed concerns about investing in business projects.
The expert’s opinion about the technological prospect of Internet of Things expressed her
belief in high technical practicality of such solutions. She, again, referred to Fedex example and
mentioned that using such solutions could increase the operation department’s awareness about
the objects en route. However, the expert was unsure about technical reliability and cost
efficiency of such solutions, expressing the need in decreasing costs of using them and
improving fail-safe practices. It was also mentioned that there was a lack of standardization of
IoT technologies which could hinder the adoption significantly.
Finally, speaking about the market potential of such technologies, Expert 1 said that new,
disruptive technologies in operations are very likely to be accepted by the users and are actually
demanded by the market, although there was no clear business model of their usage yet. She also
informed us that adoption of such technologies relies more on logistics providers, but they would
adopt them if clients, in particular event marketing companies, would accept this.
In the marketing section of the research, the expert was a bit unsure about how IoT
solutions could actually be used in this sphere. She approved the examples of behavior and
location tracking of smartphone users, and confirmed that the company was looking into this
market and was negotiating integration of such solutions with several technology vendors, seeing
potential in it.
Expert 1 praised the amount and reliability of data that could be potentially gathered
using such technologies, but was concerned about how this data could be actually put into
practice. The proposed solution to overcome this problem was using specialists in data analysis
to disseminate gathered information and return valuable insights. This, however, would decrease
potential cost efficiency, at least in the nearest future, according to expert’s opinion.
Regarding the market potential of IoT solutions for marketing in event management,
expert mentioned that it can be considered high but still largely unexpressed and unrealized due
to the general immaturity of the technology. She also argued that creating an appropriate
business model for marketing IoT solutions should not be a problem as there are several
functioning platforms in the market. The example mentioned was Salesforce IoT cloud which
43
enabled companies using Salesforce platform to gather data from their customers’ devices and
analyze it in the cloud.
In terms of regulatory environment, the industrial regulation was developed as well as
online marketing was present in the market for a considerable amount of time, and there was
little difference in principles of online and IoT marketing solutions. However, security and
privacy of individual users who are generally the objects of such marketing are a huge concern,
according to Expert 1. She mentioned that even if now it is not a huge problem, it is not yet clear
how online or IoT marketing regulation in terms of consumer protection could change in the near
future what creates a certain degree of uncertainty. Expert 1 was also sure that there was no
governmental support for developers or adopters of such solutions, except for startup companies
developing them.
We also had a brief discussion about specifics of event human resources management.
Two key points here that make it different from other industries are that personnel is often
recruited on-site and includes volunteers helping official staff.
Expert 1 had expressed careful interest in using such technologies, but suggested that it is
a matter of more distant future as there was currently a number of problems to solve and more
prominent industries to come in with IoT solutions, such as marketing.
The expert said that reliability of prospective solutions might be enough for early
implementation, but such solutions actually lack practicality and demand in event management.
Overall, expert identified the following adoption factors as key drivers of adoption:
technical practicality, technical reliability and market demands. She also had identified a set of
barriers: lack of proper, reliable business models, lack of standardization of solutions and
questionable cost efficiency.
Expert 1 suggested that adoption in the industry should begin from the most prominent
service domain (which she thinks is event operations) and diffuse to other services when tested
and optimized. She suggested that first commercially successful adoption might take place in the
following 5-7 years.
Based on the interview and feedback from Expert 1, we optimized the interview scenario,
adding generalizing questions and a follow-up form that helped quantifying the scores experts
gave in interviews.
Expert 2 was optimistic about both operations and marketing potential of IoT. He has
pointed out that IoT is used for these applications outside of event industry for quite a long time
already and were adopted by leading companies, e.g. Fedex. He, however, expressed concerns
about cost efficiency of such solutions, arguing that the scalability of such solutions is limited
44
due to their high cost. He also questioned the reliability of IoT solutions for operations, saying
that such technologies yet have to mature enough to be adopted on B2B level, and event industry
is not an exclusion. This expert also mentioned that it is questionable whether a successful
business model could be built around IoT solutions in marketing or operations, and mentioned
uncertainty of the regulation as one of the key factors for this.
Prospects of marketing applications of IoT were not very promising as of now for Expert
2: he claimed that implementing the technology in this domain would require huge amounts of
investments while the reliability of marketing data generated is not guaranteed on the current
level of development.
Regarding the HR field, Expert 2 said that there are certainly some opportunities to invest
but they are not open yet since the currently existing solutions dramatically lack practicality,
reliability and cost efficiency and this tendency is unlikely to change in the nearest future.
Expert 3 praised the same benefits of IoT for event operations, primarily ticketing and
logistics. He, however, also expressed concerns about cost efficiency of IoT solutions, as Expert
2 did, but also had a counterargument that event logistics often requires sophisticated modes of
transportation due to fragility or other specific characteristics of items transported. He noticed
that such solutions should ideally work as ‘on-demand’ products, as the operations that event
companies perform are often irregular, geographically diverse and require a lot of adjustments to
a particular event.
He was less optimistic about marketing applications of IoT, however, grounding such
inferences on his prior experience. Expert 3 praised IoT solutions for the amount and
heterogeneity of data gathered with IoT enabled-devices on events, but argued that such
applications are still too specific to be cost efficient and to create a successful business model. At
the same time, expert mentioned that out-of-event data generation is probably the future of event
marketing but is hard to achieve now, even by market leaders such as Google.
The expert was interested in evaluating IoT potential for HR management, saying that
this is a very promising idea to augment this service. He mentioned, however, that such
applications would be worthwhile on complex or very large events where the personnel is very
qualified to benefit from the technology or it is required to manage a lot of personnel which
might be very complicated. He supposed that the industry would actually welcome such
solutions but this would require developing new business models and increasing practicality and
reliability.
Expert 4 valued both operations and marketing potential of IoT as very high. He
considers the technology as quite mature already to be implemented at world’s top mega events;
45
however, to his opinion, each specific application must be tailored to the specific event it will be
used on, so the cost efficiency is questionable. Expert supposed that this problem could be solved
by simplification and standardization of IoT solutions so that they could be easily implemented
anywhere.
The expert believed that the best providers for such technologies would be small or
medium technology companies or event startups, explaining that, to his opinion, IoT solutions
for event management would require not the top technology but successful, efficient business
models which are harder to achieve in large, established companies, and suggested that this is
what event providers and venture funds should start looking for.
Like Expert 3, he agreed that human resources can be optimized with use of IoT but this
would require better, more mature and more cheap technological solutions.
Expert 5 expressed skepticism regarding IoT application but agreed that the potential is
quite high. He considers the market demands for the technology as quite low but is positive
about the level of user acceptance if the solutions would truly bring something new to the
employees and event attendees.
His opinion about operations and marketing was in concordance with opinions of
previous experts: he expressed a lot of optimism about IoT adoption in this domain and said that
lack of industrial standards is slowing down the adoption process. The expert proposed that this
problem could be overcome if technology vendors would put more emphasis on ecosystem
building. This process could be started by large vendors or vendor alliances and ultimately
benefit the whole industry.
The expert generally rejected the idea of IoT application for HR purposes, assuming that
it is feasible only in some special cases but is hardly to benefit most companies in the event
industry so the adoption prospects are really low.
Experts 1, 2 and 3 valued potential of IoT application for event human resources
management as extremely low, not believing in the possibility of success in the nearest future
and arguing that HR processes in event management companies are established and do not
require augmentation with such novel technology.
Expert 5, surprisingly, was more optimistic about this, pointing out that event personnel
could actually include the performers, whose data is often extremely valuable, e.g. in case of
football match. On the other hand, he said, other event personnel and volunteers could also
benefit from IoT implementation through enhanced communication and control. Still, Expert 5
believes that IoT implementation here will not happen early in the future.
46
3.2. Data Analysis
Table 15 displays the resulting scores for each alternative and their sum. The scores
generated by the experts for each alternative are given in the Appendix B of the thesis.
Table 15 – Resulting median opinion matrix
Criterion
Practicality
Reliability
Cost Efficiency
Standardization
Market Demands
User Acceptance
Business Model
Ecosystem Building
Industry Regulation
Consumer Protection
Regulation
Governmental Support
Total Alternative Score
Event
Event
Operation Marketin
s
g
0,44
0,44
0,38
0,38
0,33
0,50
0,40
0,40
0,44
0,44
0,38
0,50
0,50
0,33
0,33
0,50
0,33
0,44
0,29
0,25
4,07
Event
Human
Resources
Managemen
t
0,11
0,25
0,17
0,20
0,11
0,13
0,17
0,17
0,22
0,57
0,50
5,01
0,14
0,25
1,91
According to our analysis using weighted expert opinions, event marketing reaches the
top position regarding the adoption potential for Internet of Things solutions. Event operations
field is also ranked highly, while event human resources management potential is estimated as
poor ground for IoT integration by all of the experts.
Using the same weighted sum model, we can find the priority factors for each alternative
(Table 16); see the Appendix C for weighted sum tables for each alternative.
Table 16 – Criteria ranking for each alternative
Event
Operations
Criteria
User
Acceptance
Practicality
Industry
Regulation
Market
Demands
Rank Event
Marketing
Criteria
1 Market
Demands
1 Practicality
2 Reliability
Rank
2 User
Acceptance
2
47
1
1
2
Rank
Event HR
Criteria
Industry
Regulation
Reliability
Consumer
Protection
Regulation
Market
Demands
1
2
2
3
Consumer
Protection
Regulation
Cost Efficiency
Ecosystem
Building
Reliability
Business
Model
Standardizatio
n
Governmental
Support
3 Industry
Regulation
2 Practicality
4
3 Business
Model
4 Consumer
Protection
Regulation
5 Cost Efficiency
6 Standardizatio
n
6 Ecosystem
Building
7 Governmental
Support
3 Standardizatio
n
4 Business
Model
4
5 Cost Efficiency
5 User
Acceptance
5 Ecosystem
Building
6 Governmental
Support
5
5
4
5
5
Top ranked factors of IoT adoption for event operations are user acceptance, practicality,
industry regulation and market demands. This is consistent with expert opinions: most experts
named technical practicality, industry regulation and market demands as drivers of adoption. On
the opposite side, most said that lack of standardization and proper, reliable business models are
currently reducing adoption rates in the field.
In case of event marketing, most experts identify high market demands for IoT solutions
there; for example, Expert 1 mentioned that marketing is developing rapidly compared to other
business fields, and that all innovative solutions are adopted fast if they show value for the
business. This view is supported by other experts and they also mention practicality of IoT for
marketing as a key adoption driver. On the other hand, interviewees were concerned with cost
efficiency and standardization of solutions, suggesting that these parameters are preventing IoT
solutions from entering the market.
Finally, experts generally refused the idea that IoT technologies can be applied to the
event human resources management field, and named lack of technical practicality, user
acceptance and proper business model knowledge as significant barriers preventing the adoption.
The combined results of the analysis are displayed on the Figure 13 below.
48
Figure 13 – Alternatives ranking, adoption drivers and barriers
4 out of 5 experts said that they are looking forward to adoption of Internet of Things in
the industry, thus claiming that the adoption potential is high. This idea was rejected only by
Expert 3, who argued that the solutions are still immature and they will require more
development in those spheres that are currently more prone for IoT use (e.g. smart grids) to be
introduced to other markets, including event industry.
49
4.
CONCLUSIONS
Internet of Things is not only entering our private lives at increasing speeds, but is also
being evaluated and adopted by enterprises from different industries to optimize their various
business and technological processes and open new ways for increasing efficiency of their
activities. This brings to light the question whether IoT technologies should be adopted at their
current level of development, and in what industries and departments such adoption would take
place and what benefits would it bring.
IoT solutions for enterprises are very flexible, yet complex and uncertain regarding to
what benefits they might bring. The literature suggests that in each particular case the adoption
potential should be evaluated independently for a particular industry or a company to ensure
smooth and efficient technology transfer in the future, thus essentially transforming the problem
into a decision-making task.
Due to high diversity of such solutions it is complicated to construct an appropriate
adoption framework, as is the search for experts who are required to have expertise in both
Internet of Things technologies and the industry in question. We have overcome this problem by
using the technology adoption criteria suggested by Bourgeois (1980) and refined by Kim & Kim
(2016), and referring to multi-criteria decision making methods. Using expert interviews as a
tool for gathering information, we have aggregated their opinions and identified the best
opportunity for IoT integration in event management industry, as well as the barriers and drivers
affecting prospective adoption in each case.
In the first chapter we have reviewed current literature about the Internet of Things
applications, gathering and combining different definitions of the term to develop a general,
single understanding for facilitating further research. Additionally, key adoption criteria were
identified to be used in the later analysis. The event industry was also analyzed there to
understand how events are classified and how the event industry is organized to see what
services and processes can be improved there.
In the second chapter of the research the research methodology was described. Using the
consensus decision-making approach, we have evaluated different multi-criteria decision making
techniques and chose the weighted sum model as the most appropriate method for our research.
We have also described the expert judgment approach that we used to find, sample, interview
and elicit knowledge from experts in this domain.
The third chapter of the research is explaining the empirical results of our study.
First, we have described briefly each interview proceeding and the analysis procedure.
50
First, the three key event services (event operations, marketing and human resources)
were evaluated for the IoT adoption potential considering the median opinion of all experts about
11 adoption criteria divided into three major groups: technological prospect, market potential and
regulatory environment. Then, we have ranked three alternatives and found that event marketing
and event operations are dominating, according to the expert opinions, with the former scoring
slightly higher than the latter. Event human resources management, however, was evaluated
poorly, mirroring the experts’ opinion that this service is unlikely to be successfully augmented
with IoT at the current level of development.
Second, for each service we have identified scores for IoT adoption criteria using the
weighted sum model approach. The resulting data was compared to the experts’ explicit
identification of existing barriers and drivers of adoption. For event marketing, the drivers
defined by the experts were technical practicality of and market demands for IoT solutions, and
the barriers were lack of standardization and questionable cost efficiency of such solutions. For
event operations, the experts have named the same drivers as for marketing with addition of
industrial regulation factor, and the barriers chosen were cost efficiency, standardization and lack
of proper business models. Finally, no drivers of adoption were identified for event human
resources management, and practicality, user acceptance and absence of applicable business
models have been named as barriers preventing potential adoption.
Finally, the findings of the research were combined to make a clear picture of the
adoption potential of Internet of Things for each of the three event services identified and the
experts’ general estimation of the adoption potential in the industry was described.
4.1. Theoretical Implications
Our research explores the potential of Internet of Things integration in companies
operating in event industry. It contains a framework construct that could be used in further
studies on the subject that could involve other samples of respondents or other elicitation
techniques.
The study results allow researchers to estimate the quality of the methodology and results
generated and use the knowledge gained as a basis for developing new, more optimized and
efficient research frameworks.
4.2. Managerial Implications
The results of this study are supposed to benefit two groups of users.
51
First, event industry decision makers can use them as a general view on the adoption
potential and make their own decisions regarding the nature and scale of the potential technology
transfer, or use it as a starting point for further investigations on their own. The research’s
empirical results can also be interpreted as a plan for action which depicts the order of adoption
and the barriers that must be overcome to ensure success.
Second, the investigation results can be assessed and used by technology companies that
develop technology solutions for event industry, or by those that investigate the opportunity to do
so. Using the insights gained, decision makers in these companies could assess the overall
potential of entering this market. Another use that we suppose is using the results to assess
products or solutions of such firms in order to understand whether the key drivers are
emphasized or whether there are barriers in such solutions that must be overcome in order to
gain competitive advantage.
52
REFERENCES
1.
Ahn, J. Y., Song, J., Hwang, D., & Kim, S. (2010). Trends in M2M Application
Services Based on a Smart Phone. Advances in Software Engineering Communications in
Computer and Information Science, 50-56.
2.
Ascher, W. (1978). Forecasting: An appraisal for policy-makers and planners.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
3.
Atzori, L., Iera, A., & Morabito, G. (2010). The internet of things: A survey.
Computer networks, 54(15), 2787-2805.
4.
Bandyopadhyay, D., & Sen, J. (2011). Internet of things: Applications and
challenges in technology and standardization. Wireless Personal Communications, 58(1), 49-69.
5.
Barkhuus, L., Engström, A., & Zoric, G. (2014, April). Watching the footwork:
Second screen interaction at a dance and music performance. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1305-1314). ACM.
6.
Baumgärtner, S., & Winkler, R. (2003). Markets, technology and environmental
regulation: Price ambivalence of waste paper in Germany. Ecological Economics, 47(2-3), 183195.
7.
Bourgeois, L. J. (1980). Strategy and environment: A conceptual
integration.Academy of management Review, 5(1), 25-39.
8.
Bowdin, G., O'Toole, W., Allen, J., Harris, R., & McDonnell, I. (2006). Events
management. Routledge.
9.
Bradley, J., Barbier, J., Handler, D., 2013. Embracing the Internet of everything to
c a p t u r e y o u r s h a r e o f 1 4 . 4 t r i l l i o n . C I S C O W h i t e P a p . Av a i l a b l e a t :
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac79/docs/innov/IoE_Economy.pdf.
10.
Braun, E., & Wield, D. (1994). Regulation as a means for the social control of
technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 6(3), 259-272.
11.
Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism
management, 21(1), 97-116.
12.
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational
analysis (Vol. 248). London: Heinemann.
13.
Chen, S. J., Hwang, C. L., & Hwang, F. P. (1992). Fuzzy multiple attribute
decision making(methods and applications). Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical
Systems.
14.
Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The role of the business model in
capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation's technology spin ‐off
companies. Industrial and corporate change, 11(3), 529-555.
15.
Chui, M., Löffler, M., & Roberts, R. (2010). The internet of things. McKinsey
Quarterly, 2(2010), 1-9.
16.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective
in the research process. Sage.
17.
Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: system
characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International journal of man-machine
studies, 38(3), 475-487.
18.
Dodgson, M., Gann, D. M., & Salter, A. (2008). The management of
technological innovation: strategy and practice. OUP Oxford.
53
19.
e Costa, C. A. B., & Oliveira, M. D. (2012). A multicriteria decision analysis
model for faculty evaluation. Omega, 40(4), 424-436.
20.
Emery, P. (2010). Past, present, future major sport event management practice:
The practitioner perspective. Sport management review, 13(2), 158-170.
21.
Ereev, S. Y., & Patel, M. K. (2012). Standardized cost estimation for new
technology (SCENT)-methodology and tool. Journal of Business Chemistry, 31-48.
22.
Gartner. (2012). The internet of things. Retrieved March 31, 2016, from
http://blogs.gartner.com/it-glossary/internet-of-things/
23.
Getz, D. (2007). Event studies: Theory, research and policy for planned events.
Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
24.
GEVME. The Internet of Things (IoT) in Events. (n.d.). Retrieved May 24, 2016,
from https://www.gevme.com/blog/the-internet-of-things-iot-in-events
25.
Global GDP 2010-2020 | Statistic. (n.d.). Retrieved April 04, 2016, from
http://www.statista.com/statistics/268750/global-gross-domestic-product-gdp/
26.
Goldblatt, J. J. (2002). Special events: Twenty-first century global event
management. New York: Wiley.
27.
Gorden, R. L. (1980). Interviewing: Strategy, techniques, and tactics. Homewood,
IL: Dorsey Press.
28.
Green, K. C., Armstrong, J. S., & Graefe, A. (2007). Methods to elicit forecasts from
groups: Delphi and prediction markets compared.
29.
Gubbi, J., Buyya, R., Marusic, S., & Palaniswami, M. (2013). Internet of Things
(IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions. Future Generation Computer
Systems, 29(7), 1645-1660.
30.
Gueguen, G., & Pellegtin-Boucher, E. (2004). Coopetition and IT business
ecosystems: the success of SAP. The European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management,
September, 16-17.
31.
H. Dutton, W. (2014). Putting things to work: social and policy challenges for the
Internet of things. info, 16(3), 1-21.
32.
Handfield, R., Walton, S. V., Sroufe, R., & Melnyk, S. A. (2002). Applying
environmental criteria to supplier assessment: A study in the application of the Analytical
Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research, 141(1), 70-87.
33.
Hernandez-Mogollon, J. M., Folgado Fernandez, J. A., & Duarte, P.A.O. (2014)
Event Tourism Analysis and State of the Art. European Journal of Tourism, Hospitality and
Recreation, 5(2), 83-102.
34.
International Design Foundation. (n.d.). Wearable Computing. Retrieved March
3 1 , 2 0 1 6 , f r o m https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-ofhumancomputer-interaction-2nd-ed/wearable-computing
35.
International Telecommunication Union. (2012). Overview of the Internet of
things. Series Y: Global Information Infrastructure, Internet Protocol Aspects and nextGeneration Networks - Frameworks and Functional Architecture Models, 22.
36.
Ishizaka, A., & Labib, A. (2009). Analytic hierarchy process and expert choice:
Benefits and limitations. OR Insight, 22(4), 201-220.
54
37.
Jaffe, A. B., Newell, R. G., & Stavins, R. N. (2005). A tale of two market failures:
Technology and environmental policy. Ecological Economics, 54(2-3), 164-174.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.12.027
38.
Jago, L.K. (1997). Special events and Tourism Behaviour: A Conceptualisation
and an Empirical Analysis from a Values Perspective (Doctoral thesis, Victoria University,
Melbourne, Australia)
39.
Johnson, P., & Clark, M. (2006). Business and management research
methodologies: Evaluating research and the question of criteriology. London: SAGE.
40.
Kim, S., & Kim, S. (2016). A multi-criteria approach toward discovering killer
IoT application in Korea. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 102, 143-155.
41.
Krupka, M. C., Peaslee, A. T., & Laquer, H. L. (1983). Gaseous fuel safety
assessment for light-duty automotive vehicles (No. LA-9829-MS). Los Alamos National Lab.,
NM (USA).
42.
Lee, I., & Lee, K. (2015). The Internet of Things (IoT): Applications, investments,
and challenges for enterprises. Business Horizons, 58(4), 431-440.
43.
Lloyd, R., & Clark, T. N. (2001). The city as an entertainment machine. Critical
perspectives on urban redevelopment, 6(3), 357-78.
44.
Mattern, F., & Floerkemeier, C. (2010). From the Internet of Computers to the
Internet of Things. Lecture Notes in Computer Science From Active Data Management to EventBased Systems and More, 242-259.
45.
Matthews, D. (2008). Special event production: The process. Amsterdam:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
46.
Mazhelis, O., Luoma, E., & Warma, H. (2012). Defining an internet-of-things
ecosystem. In Internet of Things, Smart Spaces, and Next Generation Networking(pp. 1-14).
Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
47.
Meyer, M. A., & Booker, J. M. (1991). Eliciting and analyzing expert judgement:
A practical guide. London: Academic.
48.
Minerva, R., Biru, A., & Rotondi, D. (2015). Towards a definition of the Internet
o f T h i n g s ( I o T ) . I E E E I n t e r n e t T h i n g s, 1 – 8 6 . R e t r i e v e d f r o m
http://iot.ieee.org/images/files/pdf/IEEE_IoT_Towards_Definition_Internet_of_Things_Revision
1_27MAY15.pdf
49.
Moscovici, S., & Doise, W. (1994). Conflict and consensus: A general theory of
collective decisions. Sage.
50.
Myers, S., & Marquis, D. G. (1969). Successful industrial innovations: A study of
factors underlying innovation in selected firms (pp. 69-17). Washington, DC: National Science
Foundation.
51.
National Task force on Tourism Data (Canada). Project Team on Festivals and
Special Events. Unpublished, 1986.
52.
Ortiz, N. R., Wheeler, T. A., Breeding, R. J., Hora, S., Meyer, M. A., & Keeney, R.
L. (1991). Use of expert judgment in NUREG-1150. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 126(3),
313-331.
53.
Phuong Ta, H., & Yin Har, K. (2000). A study of bank selection decisions in
Singapore using the analytical hierarchy process. International Journal of Bank Marketing,
18(4), 170-180.
55
54.
Pike, S. (2012). Destination marketing. Routledge.
55.
Ramanathan, R., & Ganesh, L. S. (1994). Group preference aggregation methods
employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members'
weightages. European Journal of Operational Research, 79(2), 249-265.
56.
Rangone, A. (1996). An analytical hierarchy process framework for comparing the
overall performance of manufacturing departments. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 16(8), 104-119.
57.
Ritchie, J. R., & Crouch, G. I. (2010). A model of destination
competitiveness/sustainability: Brazilian perspectives. Revista de Administracao Publica, 44(5),
1049-1066.
58.
Rogers, E. (2003). The Diffusion of Innovations. Fifth Edition. New York: Free
Press.
59.
Saaty, T. L. (2004). Decision making: the analytic hierarchy and network
processes (AHP/ANP). Journal of systems science and systems engineering, 13(1), 1-35.
60.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2015). Research methods for business
students. Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited.
61.
Seaver, D. A. (1976). Assessment of group preferences and group uncertainty for
decision making. Decisions and Designs Inc.
62.
Silvers, J. R., Bowdin, G. A., O'Toole, W. J., & Nelson, K. B. (2005). Towards an
international event management body of knowledge (EMBOK). Event Management, 9(4), 185198.
63.
Statista. Concert - Market Statistics & Industry Facts. (n.d.). Retrieved May 24,
2016, from http://www.statista.com/stats/147953/concert
64.
Statista. Facts on the global tourism industry. (n.d.). Retrieved April 04, 2016,
from http://www.statista.com/topics/962/global-tourism/
65.
Stroud, M. (1980). Professional writing: Strategies to improve the transfer of
knowledge. Communications Strategies of Advanced Technologies, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
66.
Swan, M. (2012). Sensor mania! the internet of things, wearable computing,
objective metrics, and the quantified self 2.0. Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks, 1(3),
217-253.
67.
Tara-Lunga, M.O. (2012). Major special events: an interpretative literature review.
Management & Marketing, 7(4).
68.
Travis, A. & J. Croize (1987). The Role and Impact of Mega-Events and
Attractions on Tourism Development in Europe: A Micro Perspective. Proceedings of the 37th
Congress of AIEST, Calgary, 28, 59-78.
69.
Triantaphyllou, E. (2013). Multi-criteria decision making methods: a comparative
study (Vol. 44). Springer Science and Business Media.
70.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics
and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
71.
Vedder, R. G., & Mason, R. O. (1987). An expert system application for decision
support in law enforcement. Decision Sciences, 18(3), 400-414.
72.
Veerasawmy, R., & McCarthy, J. (2014). When noise becomes voice: designing
interactive technology for crowd experiences through imitation and invention. Personal and
Ubiquitous Computing, 18(7), 1601-1615.
56
73.
Weber, R. H. (2011). Accountability in the Internet of Things. Computer Law &
Security Review, 27(2), 133-138.
74.
Wei, J. (2014). How Wearables Intersect with the Cloud and the Internet of
Things: Considerations for the developers of wearables. Consumer Electronics Magazine, IEEE,
3(3), 53-56.
75.
Westerlund, M., Leminen, S., & Rajahonka, M. (2014). Designing business
models for the internet of things. Technology Innovation Management Review,4(7), 5.
76.
Willey, Z. (1982). Economic Criteria in Environmental Regulation: Prospects for
the 1980s. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 64(5), 935.
77.
Wisdom, J. P., Chor, K. H. B., Hoagwood, K. E., & Horwitz, S. M. (2014).
Innovation adoption: a review of theories and constructs. Administration and Policy in Mental
Health and Mental Health Services Research, 41(4), 480-502.
78.
Xu, L. D., He, W., & Li, S. (2014). Internet of Things in Industries: A Survey.
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf., 10(4), 2233-2243.
57
APPENDIX A – Interview Scenario
1. Please introduce yourself, your company and your title and briefly explain your key
responsibilities.
2. How familiar are you with the Internet of Things concept?
(for event/arena managers)
o
3. Are IoT solutions used in event industry? Can you name any examples?
(for technology vendors)
o
3. Do you perceive the interest for IoT from the event industry as of high level?
4. Let us discuss the factors of adoption for each of the three key event activities (see appendix
for detailed list)
o
Which factors do you consider the most or least important for each activity and
why?
o
What barriers for adoption do you see today?
5. Can you suggest other factors or barriers for adoption not mentioned before?
o
How do you think these factors will affect adoption?
6. Let us sum up the findings.
o
Where do you see the highest potential for IoT adoption?
o
Which factors will drive adoption, to your opinion?
o
Which factors do you perceive as barriers for adoption?
o
Which factors are at the highest priority of consideration in your company?
7. How do you perceive the potential of integrating IoT in event industry overall? Will the
interest in adoption increase and why?
8. Please feel free to make any comments regarding the interview and the research.
9. Would you mind filling in a short form to help compare your opinion with those of other
experts?
10. Would you like your name and your company to be anonymous in all public results of the
research?
58
APPENDIX B – Quantified Expert Opinions
Table 17 - Expert 1 scoring matrix
Practicality
Reliability
Cost Efficiency
Standardization
Market Demands
User Acceptance
Business Model
Ecosystem Building
Industry Regulation
Consumer Protection
Regulation
Governmental Support
Event
Event
Operation Marketin Event Human
s
g
Resources
4
3
3
4
3
2
2
2
4
3
4
3
2
3
3
1
5
3
5
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
Table 18 - Expert 2 scoring matrix
Practicality
Reliability
Cost Efficiency
Standardization
Market Demands
User Acceptance
Business Model
Ecosystem Building
Industry Regulation
Consumer Protection
Regulation
Governmental Support
Event
Event
Operation Marketin Event Human
s
g
Resources
4
3
3
4
3
2
2
2
4
3
4
3
2
3
3
1
5
3
5
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
Table 19 - Expert 3 scoring matrix
Practicality
Reliability
Cost Efficiency
Standardization
Market Demands
User Acceptance
Event
Event
Operation Marketin Event Human
s
g
Resources
4
3
3
4
3
2
2
2
4
3
4
3
59
1
2
1
1
1
1
Business Model
Ecosystem Building
Industry Regulation
Consumer Protection
Regulation
Governmental Support
2
3
5
3
1
3
1
1
2
5
2
2
1
1
1
Table 20 - Expert 4 scoring matrix
Practicality
Reliability
Cost Efficiency
Standardization
Market Demands
User Acceptance
Business Model
Ecosystem Building
Industry Regulation
Consumer Protection
Regulation
Governmental Support
Event
Event
Operation Marketin Event Human
s
g
Resources
4
3
3
4
3
2
2
2
4
3
4
3
2
3
3
1
5
3
5
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
Table 21 - Expert 5 scoring matrix
Practicality
Reliability
Cost Efficiency
Standardization
Market Demands
User Acceptance
Business Model
Ecosystem Building
Industry Regulation
Consumer Protection
Regulation
Governmental Support
Event
Event
Operation Marketin Event Human
s
g
Resources
4
3
3
4
3
2
2
2
4
3
4
3
2
3
3
1
5
3
5
2
2
1
1
1
Table 22 - Median scoring matrix
Event
Operation
s
60
Event
Marketin
g
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Event
Human
Resource
s
Practicality
Reliability
Cost Efficiency
Standardization
Market Demands
User Acceptance
Business Model
Ecosystem Building
Industry Regulation
Consumer Protection
Regulation
Governmental Support
61
4
3
2
2
4
3
3
2
3
4
3
3
2
4
4
2
3
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
4
2
1
1
APPENDIX C – Weighted Expert Scores
Table 23 - Weighted ranked sum matrix for event operations
User
Acceptance
Practicality
Industry
Regulation
Market
Demands
Consumer
Protection
Regulation
Cost Efficiency
Ecosystem
Building
Reliability
Business
Model
Standardizatio
n
Governmental
Support
Expert
1
0,11
Expert
2
0,13
Expert
3
0,13
Expert
4
0,13
Expert Weighted
5
Avg
0,12
0,12
Rank
0,11
0,14
0,13
0,11
0,11
0,11
0,13
0,10
0,12
0,12
0,12
0,11
1
2
0,11
0,13
0,13
0,10
0,09
0,11
2
0,14
0,11
0,11
0,10
0,06
0,10
3
0,08
0,08
0,11
0,08
0,08
0,08
0,10
0,13
0,12
0,09
0,10
0,09
3
4
0,08
0,05
0,08
0,03
0,08
0,08
0,06
0,06
0,12
0,06
0,08
0,06
5
6
0,05
0,05
0,08
0,03
0,06
0,06
6
0,05
0,05
0,03
0,06
0,03
0,05
7
1
Table 24 - Weighted ranked sum matrix for event marketing
Market
Demands
Practicality
Reliability
User
Acceptance
Industry
Regulation
Business
Model
Consumer
Protection
Regulation
Cost Efficiency
Standardizatio
n
Ecosystem
Building
Expert
1
0,11
Expert
2
0,12
Expert
3
0,11
Expert
4
0,13
0,11
0,15
0,11
0,16
0,08
0,08
0,14
0,11
0,09
0,13
0,06
0,13
0,09
0,13
0,13
0,13
0,11
0,11
1
2
2
0,11
0,12
0,11
0,09
0,09
0,11
2
0,11
0,08
0,09
0,09
0,13
0,10
3
0,07
0,12
0,09
0,06
0,04
0,08
4
0,07
0,07
0,04
0,08
0,06
0,09
0,09
0,06
0,09
0,04
0,07
0,07
5
5
0,04
0,08
0,09
0,09
0,04
0,07
5
62
Expert Weighted
5
Avg
0,17
0,13
Rank
1
Governmental
Support
0,04
0,04
0,03
0,06
0,04
0,04
6
Table 25 - Weighted ranked sum matrix for event human resources
Industry
Regulation
Reliability
Consumer
Protection
Regulation
Market
Demands
Practicality
Standardizatio
n
Business
Model
Cost Efficiency
User
Acceptance
Ecosystem
Building
Governmental
Support
Expert
1
0,15
Expert
2
0,09
Expert
3
0,14
Expert
4
0,12
0,15
0,08
0,09
0,09
0,14
0,07
0,12
0,06
0,07
0,27
0,11
0,11
2
2
0,08
0,09
0,14
0,06
0,13
0,10
3
0,08
0,08
0,09
0,09
0,07
0,07
0,12
0,12
0,07
0,07
0,08
0,08
4
4
0,08
0,09
0,07
0,12
0,07
0,08
4
0,08
0,08
0,09
0,09
0,07
0,07
0,06
0,06
0,07
0,07
0,07
0,07
5
5
0,08
0,09
0,07
0,06
0,07
0,07
5
0,08
0,09
0,07
0,12
0,00
0,07
5
63
Expert Weighted
5
Avg
0,13
0,13
Rank
1
Отзывы:
Авторизуйтесь, чтобы оставить отзыв