london 2012’s model: regeneration of security procedures ... · london 2012’s model:...

ijcrb.webs.com

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS

COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 130

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

London 2012’s Model: Regeneration of Security Procedures but

Degeneration in the Olympics’ Customer Service!

Moez BAKLOUTI, Ph. D.

Tunis Sports Academy, Research Department Head

Vancouver, B. C. – CANADA

Rym ZOUAOUI, M. A.

Tunisia National Olympic Committee, Research Unit

CNOT, Tunis - Tunisia

Zakaria NAMSI, M. A.

Institute of Sports & Physical Education, Grade Student

Ksar Said, Tunis - Tunisia

Amel ZAOUALI, M. Ed.

University of Minnesota, Researcher

Minneapolis, MN - USA

Corresponding Author: Dr. Moez Baklouti

Abstract

This study aims at determining the security model that London 2012 Olympics adopted and what

extent did the Organizing Committee provide a good quality service? Moreover, verifying the

improvement of the main variables in sport mega-events, Service and Security, between London

2012 and Vancouver 2010 Olympics. A random sample of spectators and journalists (N= 349)

from ―London 2012‖ Summer Olympics responded to a survey on customer service and security

in the event. Chi-square tests for two independent samples were used along to test the differences

in opinions between journalists and spectators. The results revealed that attendees have been

dissatisfied with the quality service, mainly because of the ‗hard‘ security model as it showed

little respect for human rights; however, spectators and journalists claimed that they felt secure

and well protected during the games.

Keywords: SECURITY MODELS, LONDON 2012 OLYMPICS, SERVICE QUALITY.

ijcrb.webs.com



JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

Introduction

The risk of a terrorist attack on the Games has been a major concern for British officials -

and for the nearly 200 nations that were competing- since the Olympics were awarded to London

in 2005. The concern was amplified when London‘s transit system was bombed, the day after the

Games were awarded. The bombing killed 56 people, including the four bombers, which was

Britain‘s worst terrorist attack.

―Responsibility for discharging the guarantees made by the Prime Minister and Home

Secretary rests with the Minister for Security and Counter-Terrorism, who supports the Home

Secretary in delivering Games safety and security‖ (PMCHM, 2010). To provide enough guards

for the London 2012 Olympics, the British government reinforced Britain‘s Intelligence and

Security Committee by 15000 troops to prevent atrocities by republican hardliners and al-Qaeda

groups. Such conduct is well understood under the world environment of terrorist attacks, as Iran

acquires nuclear weapons technology and traditional espionage that continues to pose a threat to

British interests. For ―the security context today, we face a real and pressing threat from

international terrorism‖ (OPSSS, 2011).

The events of New York terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 (9/11) brought

international terrorism sharply into focus, since 9/11, cities hosting the Olympics suffered from a

giant increase of the budget reserved to the security; ―with the Olympics and Paralympics now

over, the British Government has forecast the entire cost of the Games will be £8.921 billion

($14.26 billion/€10.96 billion), namely a saving of £377 million ($603 million/€463 million) on

the £9.298 billion ($14.87 billion/€11.43 billion) budget that was set out at the beginning of the

ijcrb.webs.com



JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

project after London won the 2012 bid (Degun, 2012). ―If the London Olympics cost this much,

they still won't be the most expensive in Olympic history. The most expensive Olympics in

history were the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. Costing a staggering US$40 billion, the Games could

have been a financial nightmare for China. Amazingly, China was not left with debt after the

event. Most of this US$40 billion was invested in permanent infrastructure that has been used

ever since. For Athens, the city that hosted the Games four years prior, the economic impact was

vast. The 2004 Olympics, which at the time were the most expensive to date, cost US$15 billion.

The huge costs were attributed to being the first summer Olympics after 9/11, which saw security

and infrastructure costs rise considerably‖ (Investopidia, 2012).

An estimated 50,000 VIPs attended the Games, including a reported 140 heads of state,

200 government ministers, 100 royals and 150 members of the International Olympic

Committee. Most of these figures were present in the opening ceremony, which was the reason

for an intense security body dispositive must be extremely focused. ―The opening ceremony

compiles a single event that brings all spectators in one venue at one time; however, it makes

managers out of the timing range checking spectators in security gates, and requires a heavy

security presence. This also tests the organizing committee about its first adjustment. Such

design pushes sport mega-event researchers to study ceremonies apart from other events‖

(Baklouti, 2011).

It is also worth highlighting that ―in recent years, security and surveillance at sport mega-events

have been subjected to repeated academic scrutiny. Although there continues to be a lack of truly

empirical and comparative work in this field, these investigations allow us to understand security

ijcrb.webs.com



JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

governance at sport mega-events as the result of, and the catalyst for, a broad set of

developments, ranging from processes of technologicalization, militarization and

commercialization to the increasing globalization and standardization of security/surveillance

matters (Klauser, 2011).

Literature Review

Service Quality

―Service quality is an important topic in the marketing literature, since perceptions for

service quality are directly related to customer satisfaction and customer retention‖ (Alexandris

et al., 2004). As a consequence, ―the need for delivering qualitative services to sport spectators‘

area can be achieved, by focusing on the spectators‘ needs and paying attention to the quality and

operation of well-organized sport facilities‖ (Walker and Stotlar, 1997).

In the sport spectators‘ context, satisfaction has been considered as an important feature of

predicting customer‘s intentions when it comes to attending future sporting events (Cronin et al.,

2000; Wakefield and Blodgett, 1996).

Gronroos (1984) and Parasuraman et al. (1988) proposed the first theoretical approach for

quality of services, an approach based on the ―disconfirmation paradigm‖. Indeed, according to

this theory, the quality of services is resulted from a process of comparison of expected

performance with the perception for the real performance as it was initially prescribed by

Gronroos (Gronroos, 1982; Gronroos, 1984).

ijcrb.webs.com



JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

Next to the theory, the first instrument for measuring service quality was developed by

Parasuraman et al. (1988) and Gronroos (1984). Parasuraman et al. (1988) proposed the five-

dimensional SERVQUAL model, while Gronroos (1984) proposed a three-dimensional model.

The fast-growing competition in the service sector in our modern times was a motive for

managers to re-define their strategies, to acquire advantages over their competitors and to focus

their attention on service quality (Gronroos, 1984; Parasuraman et al., 1994; and Zeithaml et al.,

1996). Because the field of sports is dynamic, managers had to be more resourceful and develop

more efficient strategies. In this regard, Scholars agree to the importance and the effects of

service quality (Brady and Cronin, 2001; Dabholkar et al., 1996). Zeithaml (1988) determined

that ―delivery of quality services is a precondition for success‖. Kelley and Turley (2001) further

highlighted that ―service quality is vital for the survival and the success of sports‖, while Cronin

and Taylor (1992) considered service quality as ―a key-strategy for the service providers to be

placed more effectively in the market‖. Failing to fulfil these criteria, according to Jahanshahi et

al. (2011) most definitions for satisfaction share some common elements: a) consumer

satisfaction is a cognitive or emotional response, b) this response refers to a particular focus

(expectations, product, consumption experience, etc.), c) the response occurs at a particular time

(after consumption, after choice, based on accumulated experience, etc.).

In the sports context, Oliva et al. (1992) found that sports fans reach some level of

satisfaction that is experienced from the follow-up of an athletic act, through the frame

‗expectation-disconfirmation‘. The frame ‗expectation – disconfirmation‘, based on the

significance that the satisfaction level is determined by the degree in which the initial customers‘

ijcrb.webs.com



JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

expectations is achieved or is not achieved by the evaluated service. Alexandris et al. (2004)

supported Olivia‘s concept of satisfaction: ―regardless of the disagreements and differences in

conceptualizing satisfaction, it is acceptable that satisfaction is a post-choice evaluative judgment

and refers to consumer fulfillment‖.

However, the consumer fulfillment is hard to achieve if organizers do not work seriously on

other criteria as stated clearly by Baklouti & Namsi (2012): ―Event managers with Games

Security Screening must adjust their timing target vis-à-vis the spectators, media, and especially

human rights institutions. Statistics advise to keep the 30 seconds with journalists and aim 1

minute for spectators‖. It is these accurate details that matter for a spectator who comes to any

event for fun and expects to enjoy his full rights.

Security in Mega-events

Security has becomes a major concern worldwide, because it is not only a very costy

enterprise but because there are always some undesirable outcomes behind achieving security. In

the case of Britain, for example, the OPSSS (2011) sheds lights on the following: ―Britain today

is both more secure and more vulnerable than in most of her long history. More secure, in the

sense that we do not currently face, as we have so often in our past, a conventional threat of

attack on our territory by a hostile power. But more vulnerable, because we are one of the most

open societies, in a world that is more networked than ever before‖. Furthermore, the PMCHM

(2010) clarified that: ―The National Security Council judges that currently, and for the next five

years, the four highest priority risks are those arising from: international terrorism, including

through the use of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) materials; and of

ijcrb.webs.com



JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

terrorism related to Northern Ireland; cyber attack, including by organised crime and terrorists;

international military crises; and major accidents or natural hazards‖. These complex and wide

variety of risks testify that the world‘s challenges are big and securing national security us

getting harder. That is why a recent work underlines the role of sport mega-events as test sites for

increasingly complex high-tech surveillance applications (Samatas, 2007; Boyle and Haggerty,

2009; Yu et al., 2009; Giulianotti and Klauser, 2010).

Technically, Olympic organizers committees are developing their security models from

games to games, the focal point is protecting people and infrastructure, but the manner depends

on many factors, as terrorist attacks history, political involvements around the world, economic

situation, etc. Best practices provided by security professionals moving from country to country,

and from event to event (see Boyle, 2011). ―There are many good reasons for understanding

sport mega-events as highly visible and prestigious projects, whose securitization is firmly

embedded in more or less coercive transnational circuits of imitation and standardization. In this

approach, however, the role of local agency, motivation and expertise in security governance

should not be underplayed or ignored completely‖ (Klauser, 2011).

―Although spectators recognize that these security measures are established for their own safety,

they are still concerned about the type of people dealing with them at the gates, as spectators

become anxious if they are confronted with police officers or military officials. So, another

critical issue we should address is the category of officials that civilians should face while

attending a show‖ (Baklouti & al., 2012). Foucault (1991, 1997, 2000a, 2000b) has shown how

liberalism enacts another form of political rationality that sets mechanisms for a 'society of

security' in place rather than resist the push to security in the name of liberty. As a matter of fact,

ijcrb.webs.com



JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

the fallacy of the political rational is best illustrated by the ―the Atlanta bombing demonstrated

that massive security investments cannot guarantee the safety of the public‖ (Johnson, 2008).

More seriously, Waldron (2003) has identified a problematic connotation of quantity and

precision in the language of balance, including the assumption that the relation between security

and liberty is a zero-sum game. This leads us to Baklouti & Namsi‘s (2012) that what matters is

―ensuring full safety while respecting spectators‘ dignity and facing them with civilians in all

phases of venue services‖

Research Questions and Hypotheses

Did ‗London 2012‘ reconcile between security and service excellence?

Could reducing the time spent in the gates and making a strong campaign to inform

attendees about security procedures be sufficient to satisfy the customer about the service

quality?

Did London Organizing Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (Locog)

improve its service quality compared to the ‗Vancouver 2010‘?

According to the Organizing Committee, should the question of quality service in the

Olympics become trivial in the case of a country with a history of terrorist attacks?

What kind of security staff did ‗London 2012‘use in each ‗layer‘ of security around each

venue?

Which ‗Security Model‘ was adopted in London 2012 Summer Olympics?

http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/view/author/3925.html

ijcrb.webs.com



JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

These research questions culminate to two hypotheses:

1. Customer service excellence in the Olympics depends utterly by the time spent in venue

gates, the eminence of communication with attendees about security procedures, and the

nature of security people dealing with spectators, altogether.

2. Being a country with terrorist attacks‘ history, the Organizing Committee focuses mainly

on protection results and ignores the Human Rights as related to the service provided to

spectators.

Method Supported by the literature review a total of ten questions were generated to represent two

items: (A) ‗Customer service in the event‘ and (B) ‗Security in the event‘.

Participants

The study sample covered 349 respondents (Table 1), divided on 88 journalists and 261

spectators. Journalists were contacted before the Games start at Media Center, during the

competitions in the venues (Indoors or Outdoors), and after the Games. Spectators were met on

the opening and closing ceremonies, and during the competitions in the venues (Indoors or

Outdoors).

Table 1- The study sample for Journalists & Spectators for ‘London 2012’ Summer Olympics.

ijcrb.webs.com



JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

Procedures

Respondents were informed that they are helping a scientific research regarding the

service and security in the event. Trained volunteers conducted the survey by contacting

spectator after he/she takes seat and before the game starts to guide respondent, and as tested

before the tête-à-tête takes six to seven minutes. An extra information was taken above the

survey content is the citizenship of the respondent and the gender. The respondents were

randomly assigned for the following venues, the Olympic Park: Aquatics Centre, Basketball

Arena, BMX Track, Copper Box, Olympic Stadium, Riverbank Arena, Velodrome, Water Polo

Arena; other London venues: Earls Court, ExCeL, Greenwich Park, Hyde Park, Lord's Cricket

Ground, North Greenwich Arena, The Mall, Wembley Arena, Wembley Stadium; and some

‗Out-of-London‘ venues: Hampden Park, City of Coventry Stadium, Lee Valley White Water

Centre...

Measures

The questionnaire consisted item (A) that measure the comfortable time judged when

dealing with the security procedures at the venues gates (A1 & A2), the information about the

regulations regarding the entrance of the venue and the cooperation (A3 & A4), and the

evaluation of service quality provided by the security people (A5). In item (B), the focus was on

security filter met at the portal when entering the venue (B6 & B7), the concept of ‗Critical

infrastructure‘ (B8), responsibility measures (B9), and the level of security do spectators feel

(B10).

The response format for all questions was five-point Likert scale of the following values:

1 (Strongly disagree), 2 (Disagree), 3 (Neutral), 4 (Agree), and 5 (Strongly agree), other five-

http://www.london2012.com/venue/aquatics-centre/

http://www.london2012.com/venue/basketball-arena/



http://www.london2012.com/venue/bmx-track/

http://www.london2012.com/venue/copper-box/

http://www.london2012.com/venue/olympic-stadium/

http://www.london2012.com/venue/riverbank-arena/

http://www.london2012.com/venue/velodrome/

http://www.london2012.com/venue/water-polo-arena/



http://www.london2012.com/venue/earls-court/

http://www.london2012.com/venue/excel/

http://www.london2012.com/venue/greenwich-park/

http://www.london2012.com/venue/hyde-park/

http://www.london2012.com/venue/lords-cricket-ground/



http://www.london2012.com/venue/north-greenwich-arena/

http://www.london2012.com/venue/the-mall/

http://www.london2012.com/venue/wembley-arena/

http://www.london2012.com/venue/wembley-stadium/

http://www.london2012.com/venue/hampden-park/

http://www.london2012.com/venue/city-of-coventry-stadium/

http://www.london2012.com/venue/lee-valley-white-water-centre/



ijcrb.webs.com



JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

point summated rating scale used the format (i.e.): 1 (Insecure), 2 (Somehow not secure), 3

(Don‘t know), 4 (Somehow secure), and 5 (Secure); except, (B6 & B9) where attendees

determine and classify responsibilities.

The study used a Golden Standard Survey that has been used in prior Olympics (Baklouti

and Namsi, 2012); such decision makes the comparison between ‗Vancouver 2010‘ and ‗London

2012‘ straightforward for the same variables.

Results

The date collected were analyzed using chi-square analyses (X2), Mean scores (M) and

Standard Deviations were calculated (SD). A level of significance of .05 was used to test the

results of the study.

1/ How much time did the security procedure take before you got in the venue?

Q1 Spectators Journalists Total

>30 sec 173 72% 45 65% 218 70%

30 sec 22 19 41

<30 sec 66 27% 24 34% 90 30%

Total 261 88 349

P value equals 0.2488 (t= 1.33); this difference is considered to be not

statistically significant. 70% of our sample spent more time than the range of 30

seconds.

2/ How do you judge your comfort according to the time cited above:


Uncomfortable 183 75% 32 51% 215 70%

Casual 17 26 43

Comfortable 61 25% 30 49% 91 30%

Total 261 88 349

P value equals 0.0003 (t= 12.941); this difference is considered to be statistically

very significant. 75% of spectators judged the timing as ‗uncomfortable‘, but

journalists shared this opinion equally.

ijcrb.webs.com



JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

3/ Have you ever been informed about the regulations regarding the entrance of the

venue before you came?


A little bit 101 44% 19 23% 120 39%

I d R 35 7 42

Vaguely informed 125 55% 62 76% 187 60%

Total 261 88 349


very significant. 76% of journalists declared that they were ‗vaguely informed‘

about the regulations regarding the entrance of the venue, but spectators shared

this judgment equally.

4/ Did you cooperate taking some actions regarding the security before coming to the

venue?


A little bit 64 31% 6 7% 70 39%

I d R 59 10 69

Somehow 138 68% 72 92% 210 60%

Total 261 88 349


very significant. Journalists showed that almost the totality collaborated taking

some actions regarding the security, but only 68% of spectators did.

5/ How do value the service quality provided by the security people?


Dissatisfactory 189 80% 67 80% 256 80%

Average 27 5 32

Satisfactory 45 19% 16 19% 61 19%

Total 261 88 349

P value equals 1 (t= 1); this difference is considered to be not statistically

significant. The majority of spectators and journalists valued the service quality

provided by the security people as dissatisfactory.

ijcrb.webs.com



JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

6/ You passed through a security portal, what kind of security people you met:

Q6 Spectators Journalists

Officials: Police, Military... 129 49 % 55 62 %

Security company 46 17 % 17 19 %

I don’t know 41 15 % 3 3 %

Mixed corps 34 13 % 10 11 %

No official 11 4 % 3 3 %

Total 261 98 % 88 98 %

The majority of our surveyed people did not mention that they dealt with ‗No

official‘ staff in security portals; but they confirmed having met ‗Military and

Police officers‘.

7/ The security filter that you met at the portal when entering the venue is:


Weak to Mild 23 10% 15 7% 38 12%

I d K 37 3 40

Hard to Very Strong 201 89% 70 82% 271 87%

Total 261 88 349


statistically significant. 87% of spectators and journalists felt that the security

filter that you met at the portal was strong.

8/ The concept of ‘Critical infrastructure’ has been moved away from the technical

scientific and introduced into the political agenda.


Disagree 63 31% 23 28% 86 30%

I d K 64 6 70

Agree 134 68% 59 71% 193 69%

Total 261 88 349


statistically significant. 70% of spectators and journalists agreed that the concept

of ‗Critical infrastructure‘ has been moved away from the technical scientific and

introduced into the political agenda.

ijcrb.webs.com



JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

9/ When the incident will happen, who is responsible for taking the security measures

to prepare, prevent, deter, or delay a future terrorist attack on a sporting event or

stadium?

Variables of Q9 Spectators Journalists

Politicians in the Government 3.0 2.2

The Local Police 1.4 1.2

The Local City Head 2.5 1.4

Senior Athletic Director 5.0 5.5

Private Security Company 3.0 3.0

Structure in Use (Club, Team, …) 4.2 4.0

Spectators and journalists took the same position by classifying ‗The Local

Police‘ first responsible for taking the security measures when an incident

happens and ‗The Local City Head‘ second. Moreover, journalists gave

importance to ‗Politicians in the Government‘ in this task.

10/ Over all, when attending these winter Olympics in all venues, I feel:


Insecure 28 12% 13 16% 41 13%

I d K 40 7 47

Secure 193 87% 68 83% 261 86%

Total 261 88 349


statistically significant. The entirety of spectators and journalists (above 86%)

felt secure when attending the Olympics in all venues.

Customer service in the event (London 2012)

The study gave a special importance to the ‗timing‘ as a component of quality service.

Time spent at the portal for the security procedures before entering the venue was 30 sec.

(seconds) by person; this was a target from previous studies (Baklouti et al., 2012).

70% of respondents declared that they spent more than 30 sec. to get into the venue,

(72% of spectators -M=119.50; SD=75.66- and 65% of journalists - M=34.50; SD=14.84-). The

difference between groups is statistically not significant (X2: 1.33, df: 1, p-value: 0.2488).

ijcrb.webs.com



JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

Uncomfortably, the timing cited above influenced the position of Journalists (M=31.00;

SD=1.41), who half of them notices time granted to the security procedures is comfortable, but

the majority of Spectators (M=122.00; SD=86.26) said that it is uncomfortable. The difference

between groups is very significant (X2: 12.941, df: 1, p-value: 0.0003).

Statistics confirmed that there was wide significant difference between both categories of

our sample (X2: 11.291, df: 1, p-value: 0.0007); ¾ of Journalists (M=40.50; SD=30.40),

confirmed that they were vaguely informed about the regulations regarding the entrance of the

venue before they arrive, however, around half of Spectators (M=113.00; SD=16.97), declared

that they were a little bit informed. Cooperation taking some actions regarding the security

before coming to the venue showed that the majority (92%) from Journalists (M=39.00;

SD=46.66) took some precaution actions, and only (68%) from Spectators (M=101.00;

SD=52.32) did. The difference between groups is very significant (X2: 17.273, df: 1, p-value:

0.0000).

Even though, Journalists (M=41.50; SD=16.00) are dissatisfied with the service quality

provided by the security people (80%); Spectators (M=117.00; SD=101.82) had equal

evaluations about that service. The difference between groups is not significant (X2: 1, df: 1, p-

value: 1.0000).

Security in the event (London 2012)

While going through security portals, study population (N: 349) noticed that security

people they met are mostly ‗Officials: Police, Military...‘ or ‗Security company‘;

correspondingly, spectators (M=52.20; SD=44.97) and journalists (M=17.60; SD=21.69) did not

ijcrb.webs.com



JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

mention crossing ‗No official‘, there was statistically no significant between respondents‘ groups

(X2: 1.266, df: 3, p-value: 0.7372).

Respondents (271 over 301) confirmed that the security filter at the portal is ‗Hard to

Very Strong‘. Statistics confirmed that there was no significant difference between Journalists

and Spectators (X2: 3.111, df: 1, p-value: 0.0777).

―The political agenda is ruling the concept of ‗Critical infrastructure‘ instead of the

technical scientific conception‖. Arguing this new design, the majority of our respondents (70%)

agreed the exposed idea. There was no significant difference between groups (X2: 0.42, df: 1, p-

value: 0.5169).

The rank ratio of the classification made by respondents in each venue showed that

Journalists and Spectators consider ‗Local Police or Mounted Police‘ the first responsible for

taking the security measures to prepare, prevent, deter, or delay a future terrorist attack on a

sporting event or stadium; as well, respondents agreed to sort ‗Local City Head‘ in the second

rank. Finally, respondents categorized ‗Senior Athletic Director and ‗Structure in Use‘ last.

When attending London 2012 Olympics, respondents felt secured in all venues, the

difference between groups is not significant (X2: 0.577, df: 1, p-value: 0.4474), 83% from

Journalists (M=40.50; SD=38.89), and 87% from Spectators (M=110.50; SD=116.67) declared

that they were well secured.

‘Vancouver 2010’ versus ‘London 2012’

The philosophy choosing a security model is correlated with the history of the host

country, managing resources in security, and tradition of sport mega-events organization.

ijcrb.webs.com



JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

The question still remains open: achieving a full security in sport event, does matter if human

right not fully respected?

The following comparison attempted to use percentage values of respondents of the survey in the

Vancouver Winter Olympics 2010 (V10) and London summer Olympics 2012 (L12). Authors

aimed to respect a security model that banned ‗entering prohibited items to sport venues while

providing service excellence‘.

The graph shows that the time spent at the portal for the security procedures before

entering the venue was above 30 sec. (seconds) by person, and this is for both Olympics:

ijcrb.webs.com



JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

Vancouver 2010 and London 2012 (―V10‖ and ―L12‖). The security procedure is judged

uncomfortable, except for journalists during ―V10‖, I should say that the Media Centre was well

managed and journalists got a positive impression for its relieve.

In both games respondents cooperated taking some actions regarding the security before

coming to the venue, nonetheless spectators in V10 stated that they were not vaguely informed

about the regulations regarding the entrance of the venue before they arrive, their precautions

taken is conditioned by the U.S. spectators who are familiarized by the concept in their sports

system since the 9/11 attacks.

However, people were dissatisfied with the service quality provided by the security people in

V10 with the ratio of 60% and even worse in L12 with a ratio of 80%!

Respondents confirmed in both Games that the security filter at the portals was strong;

therefore they felt secured in all venues; but in L12, organizers achieved that goal using

‗Officials‘, contrary in V10 where they used ―Mixed corps‖ that considered close to Human

Rights values.

Discussion and Conclusions

Anchored in our statistics, we accept the first hypothesis because the data attested that

customer service excellence in the Olympics depends utterly by the time spent in venue gates,

the eminence of communication with attendees about security procedures, and the nature of

security people dealing with spectators, altogether. Though, attendees in London 2012 Olympics

were not satisfied with the service quality because they were facing military and police officers

in the gates for security venues check. For the same reason, it was proven that being a country

ijcrb.webs.com



JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

with terrorist attacks‘ history, the Organizing Committee focuses mainly on protection results

and ignores the Human Rights as related to the service provided to spectators; so, we accept the

second hypothesis too.

Circulating the same investigation tool (survey) in two Olympics gave us the chance to an

eloquent comparison regarding the security model adopted in each of them. When we consider

the two variables of ‗timing‘ and ‗comfort‘ in relation to Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics

(V10) and London Summer Olympics 2012 (L12), we notice that spectators were not satisfied

with either the time spent at the gates or the comfort related to that timing with all the novel

security measures. On the opposite side, it is worth noticing that whereas the journalists in V10

found both procedures reasonable and were glad, the journalists in L12 were largely dissatisfied.

As for the two other variables (‗information‘ and ‗cooperation‘) strictly related to service

quality, the V10 spectators claimed not being informed about the security rules, yet they

surprisingly cooperated well. This attitude could be explained by the fact that the a lot of the V10

spectators from the USA, so they were more knowledgeable and better prepared since Salt Lake

City Winter Olympics 2002 (Event came straight away after 9/11 terrorist attacks). Unlike them,

the L12 spectators stated they were not updated, yet they in large cooperated. Considering the

V10 journalists, they were better prepared as professionals and consequently the procedure went

smoothly and even more positively highlighted with the L12 journalists. This led us to the

following conclusion, now that V10 spectators were relatively dissatisfied with the service, most

spectators in L12 mega-event were unhappy. The same reaction applies to the journalists in

regards to the quality of service in both Olympics.

ijcrb.webs.com



JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

When it comes to security, in both mega-events (V10 and L12) spectators and journalists

strongly approved of the strong filter at security portals, which led to utter security to them.

However, the striking difference shows in regards to the security people. Whereas both L12

journalists and spectators were dissatisfied with the security corps, so they sensed that L12 opted

for a very ‗hard‘ security model, the V10 attendees were largely content with the ‗Mixed Corps‘

security staff (Civilians and Officials). Therefore, we fairly conclude.

Vancouver 2010 vs. London 2012: comparison of the main variables based on 75% of

acceptance.

We recommend that organizers set reasonable timing range for the security procedures in

the gates before getting in the venues, and increase the information with spectators to match

this choice with the expectation of attendees, since customer service satisfaction is correlated

with the prior expectation to that service. ―To optimize services while guaranteeing full

security, Event Managers must attend to two important tasks: widely inform the attendees of

the regulations for entry and ensure their cooperation in all security-related actions before

ijcrb.webs.com



JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

they come to the venue‖ (Baklouti et al., 2012). To promote human rights and liberties,

organizing committee should not face spectators entering to watch the games with military

personnel or police officers to respect spectators dignity and facing them with civilians in all

phases of venue services, here security model in sport mega-events should respect both the

full safety of the venue and the significance of human rights while welcoming spectators.

It should come clear, the, that sport mega-events provide an exemplary illustration of the

globalization of social risks and security threats—such as terrorism, hooliganism and

organized crime (Jennings and Lodge 2009). Before these challenges, a number of highly

complex issues raised: ―Much of the discussion concerning the theory and practices

surrounding security centers on the relationship between these and their consequences for

liberty. Either explicitly or implicitly, the assumption is that we must accept that we have to

forego a certain amount of liberty in our desire for security. The general claim is that in

seeking security, states need to constantly limit the liberties of citizens, and that the

democratic society is one which has always aimed to strike the right 'balance' between

liberty and security‖ (Neocleous, 2007). Baklouti & Namsi (2012) provided more pragmatic

solutions. To them, ―successful ‗security model‘ in mega sport event is based on two pillars:

service excellence that depends on the time spent at the portal, communication with

customers, and type of staff serving in the venue; and highly conditioned by the cooperation

between all security corps in charge‖. More probably the Prime Minister best sums up the

security paradigm as he invites us to remember that ―The overall aim of the Olympic and

Paralympic Safety and Security Strategy, is to deliver a safe and secure Games, in keeping

with the Olympic culture and spirit‖? (PMCHM, 2010).

ijcrb.webs.com



JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

References

Alexandris, K. ; Zahariadis, P.; Tsorbatzoudis, C. & Grouios, G. (2004). An Empirical

Investigation into the Role of the Outcome Dimension in Measuring Perceived Service

Quality in a Health Club Context. International Journal of Sport Management, 5, 281-294.

Baklouti, M. (2011). Customer Service in Mega-Sport Events; Comparison between Indoors &

Outdoors Venues; 2nd International Conference of T.S.A.I.; Vancouver 25 June 2011.

Baklouti, M. & Namsi, Z. (2012). Security Models in Mega Sport Events between Safety and

Human Rights (Case of Vancouver 2010). The Sport Journal, United States Sports

Academy; Vol. 16, No 1.

Baklouti, M.; Namsi, Z. & Zouaoui, R. (2012). Security Measures in Mega-Events, are there any

dissimilarities between the Olympics & the Paralympics? (Case of Vancouver 2010).

Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research In Business; Vol. 4, No 4. [

http://journal-archieves22.webs.com/298-328.pdf ]

Boyle, P. and Haggerty, K. D. (2009). Spectacular security: Mega-events and the security

complex. Political Sociology 3 (3):257–274.

Brady, M. K. & Cronin, J. J. (2001). Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service

quality: A hierarchical approach. Journal of Marketing, 65 (3), 34–49.

Cronin, J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and Extension.

Journal of Marketing, 56, 55-68.

Cronin, J.; Brady, M. & Hult, T. (2000). Assessing the Effects of Quality, Value, and Customer

Satisfaction on Consumer Behavioral Intentions in Service Environments. Journal of

Retailing, 76 (2), 193-218.

ijcrb.webs.com



JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

Dabholkar, P.; Thorpe, D. I. & Rentz, J.O. (1996). A measure of service quality for retail stores.

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24, 3–16.

Degun, T. (2012). London 2012 Set to Come in Nearly $640 Million Under Budget; The Sport

Digest, United States Sports Academy America's Sports University; Vol. 10.

[http://thesportdigest.com/2012/10/london-2012-set-to-come-in-nearly-400-million-under-

budget/]

Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality (1978), in G. Burchell, C. Gordon, P. Miller (eds.) The

Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 87–

104.

Foucault, M. (1997). Security, Territory, and Population, in Ethics: The Essential Works, Vol. 1,

London: Penguin, pp. 67–72.

Foucault, M. (2000a). Omnes and Singulatim: Toward a Critique of Political Reason, in Power:

The Essential Works, Vol. 3, London: Penguin, pp. 298–325.

Foucault, M. (2000b). The Risks of Security, in Power: The Essential Works, Vol. 3, London:

Penguin, pp. 365–381.

Giulianotti, R. and Klauser, F. (2010). Sport mega-events, security and risk management:

Towards an interdisciplinary research agenda. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 34

(1):49–61.

Gronroos, C. (1982). An Applied Service Marketing Theory. European Journal of Marketing,

16(7), 30–41.

Gronroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its marketing implications. European Journal

of Marketing, 18, 36-44.

Investopidia (2012). The Most Costly Olympic Games; retrieved on June 25, 2012, from:

http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0612/most-costly-olympic-

games.aspx#axzz2CAYgMxMM

ijcrb.webs.com



JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

Jahanshahi, A. A.; Gashti, M. A. H.; Mirdamadi, S., A.; Nawaser, K. & Khaksar, S. M. (2011).

Study the Effects of Customer Service and Product Quality on Customer Satisfaction and

Loyalty. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1 (7), 253-260.

Jennings, W.; and Lodge, M. (2009). Tools of Security Risk Management for the London 2012

Olympic Games and FIFA 2006 World Cup in Germany. Discussion Paper No:55, London

School of Economics and Political Science, Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation.

Johnson, C.W. (2008) Using Evacuation Simulations for Contingency Planning to Enhance the

Security and Safety of the 2012 Olympic Venues. Safety Science, 46 (2). pp. 302-

322.

Kelley, S. W. & Turley, L.W. (2001). Consumer perceptions of service quality attributes at

sporting events. Journal of Business Research, 54, 161– 166.

Klauser, F. (2011). ―Commonalities and Specificities in Mega-Event Securitisation: the Example

of Euro 2008 in Austria and Switzerland‖, in, Haggerty K., Bennett C. (eds.), Security

Games: Surveillance and Sport Mega-Events, Routledge, London.

Neocleous, M. (2007). Security, Liberty and the Myth of Balance: Towards a Critique of

Security Politics, Contemporary Political Theory; Issue: 6, 131–149.

Oliva, T. A.; Oliver, R. L. & Macmillan, I. C. (1992). "A catastrophe model for developing

service satisfaction strategies". Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 83-95.

(OPSSS) Olympic and Paralympic Safety and Security Strategy (2011). London 2012 Olympic

and Paralympic Safety and Security Strategy.

Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A. & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for

Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 13-40.

http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/view/author/3925.html

http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/view/journal_volume/Safety_Science.html

ijcrb.webs.com



JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A. & Berry, L. L. (1994). Alternative Scales for Measuring

Service Quality: A Comparative Assessment Based on Psychometric and Diagnostic

Criteria. Journal of Retailing, 70(3), 201-230.

(PMCHM) Prime Minister by Command of Her Majesty (2010). A Strong Britain in an Age of

Uncertainty: The National Security Strategy; UK for The Stationery Office Limited, The

Parliamentary Bookshop.

Samatas, M. (2007). Security and surveillance in the Athens 2004 Olympics: Some lessons from

a troubled story. International Criminal Justice Review 17 (3):220–38.

Wakefield, K. L. & Blodgett, J. G. (1996). The effect of the services cape on customers‘

behavioral intentions in leisure service settings. Journal of Services Marketing, 10 (6), 45-

61.

Waldron, J. (2003). Security and liberty: the image of balance, Journal of Political Philosophy

11(2): 191–210.

Walker, M. & Stotlar, D. (1997). Sport Facility Management. Jones and Bartlett Publishers,

Inc.USA.

Yu, Y.; Klauser, F. and Chan, G. (2009). Governing security at the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

International Journal of the History of Sport 26(3): 390-405.

Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model

and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52, 2-22.

Zeithaml, V. A.; Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioural consequences of

service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60, 31–46.

london 2012’s model: regeneration of security procedures ... · london 2012’s model:...

Documents