THE EVENT PLANNING MODEL: THE EVENT OPERATIONAL PLANNING PHASE
MECHANISM 2: GENERATING WRITTEN OPERATIONAL PLANS The event operational network members are assigned the task of generating
made by the multiple members in the network that are completing the operational planning. Further, the second issue in agency theory involves
“risk sharing that arises when the principal and agent have different attitudes toward risk” (p. 58). An application of this issue means that the network members must manage operating planning risk elements, such as the timing of the completion of operational plans, and be concerned with the impact of critical time periods.
MECHANISM 2: GENERATING WRITTEN OPERATIONAL PLANS
■ event diagrams illustrating activity sites and the placement of key event items.
Any format selected must take into account the complexity and fluidity of event operational planning, along with the requirements of what must be recorded within a specific plan to ensure the elements are commu- nicated in an easy-to-use manner. See examples of design formats in the example operational plans to be found at the end of this chapter.
Logical operational planning
During the creation of the written operational plans for the event, all members of the operational planning network must learn to determine and record the individual activities or tasks necessary to complete their particular component. Operational planning includes the deliberate cre- ation of suppositions, assumptions and conclusions for the development of a coherent and logical step-by-step written list of reasoned event activities to stage a successful event. The process requires a “thinking through” process that is not a simple activity. This is because a concen- tration on each element within the component and the delineation of each logical step and the recording of the steps is a complex and time- consuming task. Goals can be established to aid members as they “think through” the logistical requirements.
Why the provisions of operational planning lists that follow are not included
Many events that have been held previously have information that pro- vides lists or outlines of event activities. This reference information may provide guidance for developing logical operational plans for an event.
However, the reference information is contextually specific and does not take into consideration the numerous nuances that exist within other events. The information is tied to the structure of the operational network, the components and detailed actions that were designed for that event.
Reference information is valuable only for gaining common knowledge about an event. The reference material does not replace an event manager’s responsibility for thinking through each activity and developing advanced knowledge for the specific facility and activities of the current event. There are no shortcuts to the thinking-through process for excellent – event- specific – operational plans.
Sequential operational planning
Each operational plan needs to itemize the event tasks in an ordered and reasoned sequence. The most common method used to achieve this end involves using the concept of time. For example, an operational plan can be subdivided to record all of the tasks that must be completed three, six or 12 months prior to an event, as well as the activities during the week prior to the event and a minute-by-minute list of tasks for each day of the event. As a parallel activity, separate sequential plans can be created to outline the specific items needed for the venue (such as rod and drape, tables, chairs), including the time and site at which they are required.
To aid in the development of sequential operational plans, the concept of weavingis used. Weaving involves conceptually thinking through all of the requirements for one element of an event at a time. For example, a network member can conceive and record the tasks necessary to complete the media management operational plans by conceptually weaving the potential requirements of one media member from the moment of arrival at the event parking lot until they depart. This weaving process is followed repeatedly to develop the multiple logical and sequential steps that must be recorded in the operational plan. A planner can weave forwardsor weave backwards.
Weaving forwards involves recording elements as they will happen, in a progressive, unfolding process. In contrast, weaving backwards requires conceptually thinking of the end product and then backtracking to deter- mine the step-by-step activities that were completed in order to achieve that end product.
It does not matter whether a planner conceptually thinks through the planning requirements by weaving forwards or weaving backwards. The aim is to develop a process that aids in determining the sequential steps to stage the event.
Detailed operational planning
The amount of detail required in an operational plan differs from event to event and can be a difficult decision for an event manager. The plans need to be written in a clear format to ensure other members in the network can read and understand them, and be guided to complete the tasks as outlined. The plan must provide clarity, limit emerging questions and
reduce the potential for incorrect interpretations concerning the actions needed to produce the event. A detailed account of each task is necessary, but the difficulty lies in determining the appropriate threshold for detail.
How much detail is required?
There are three threshold levels of detail in operational planning. Each level requires a different amount of detail in the written record concerning each event task. The three levels are referred to as level 1, level 2 and level 3 planning. The higher the threshold level, the greater the detail provided within the operational plan.
Level 1 planningprovides the lowest level of planning detail. A level 1 plan exhibits a minimal level of detail to explain each task. Level 1 plan- ning is open to questions concerning clarity of the event tasks and does not provide a detailed step-by-step list of directions to avoid misinter- pretations should others enact the plan. Consequently, level 1 planning is open to the interpretations of those completing the implementation of the plans, and these interpretations may alter the planned activities.
Level 2 planningrequires a higher, or medium, amount of planning detail.
This level of planning provides general clarity and offers more detailed step-by-step directions to enact the plan. Level 2 planning answers the majority of questions one would have if implementing the plan. However, the plan is still open to some interpretations that may alter the planned activities.
Level 3 planningdemands the highest level of detail. The level 3 plan provides clear instructions and includes the intimate requirements to complete the tasks. Level 3 planning is open to a limited number of ques- tions and potential plan deviations, as minute details for the completion of each task have been provided.
An event manager must facilitate an understanding of the sensitivities of the detail required for a particular event to the members of the operational planning network. There is a subtle difference between providing instruc- tions and offering too much detail to the point where the network members do not read the plans. Select a simple task and consider at which point you could be given too much detailed instruction that would impair your ability to complete the task.
Next, integrating the multiple plans for the various event components is necessary.
Integrated operational planning
The development of each component operational plan begins as a separate entity, but a key to successful event management is the integration of the multiple detailed plans. Integration of event elements, interlacing or inter- twining them, creates multiple coherent, cohesive and smoothly flowing plans for the overall event.
An example of integration for an accommodation plan is the interlacing of elements from the transportation plan within the accommodation plan.
This integration can help to coordinate elements such as the transportation drop-off and pick-up sites at the accommodation venue. The integration can also ensure that transportation coincides with the accommodation check-in time arrangements. Integrating elements from the accreditation plan can also assist in the distribution of accreditation and room assign- ments all in one coordinated effort.
A successful integration process is reliant upon a key operational factor.
This factor is the establishment of integration exchange opportunities for the operational network members. The integration process must be designed to provide an adequate number of exchange opportunities on a regular basis and must be adaptable to allow intermittent integration exchanges to meet the integration workflow requirements. Generally, there is a large amount of planning detail, and the integration process is complex (Matusik, 2002). An event manager facilitates an integration process and ensures that multiple exchange opportunities are arranged, if required.
Common strategies for integration can include messages, bulletins, announcements, charts, drawings, diagrams, sketches, maps and reports.
A particularly key strategy for integration is to set up production meetings between the members from different components. These meetings provide opportunities to discuss and coordinate items that are important to more than one component. Network theoryindicates that operational network members can exchange planning data without the use of a hierarchy.
The success of an event is, however, contingent upon the extent to which the event manager can facilitate the transfer of operational data across the planning nodes. The flow of the operational planning knowledge is con- tingent on the structure and strategies established to disseminate the transfer.
Another mechanism that aids the development of excellent event opera- tional plans is the inclusion of contingency operational plans. Contingency
operational plans are developed simultaneously with the event opera- tional plans.