OLYMPIC GAMES AND URBAN DECISION-MAKING. Ir Erwin Heurkens. Adecs BV Delft University of Technology

Transcription

1 OLYMPIC GAMES AND URBAN DECISION-MAKING Ir Erwin Heurkens Adecs BV Delft University of Technology

2 CONTEXT Sport and Urban Development are the main themes of the International Conference Sport and Urban Development 2005 in Rotterdam. The relationship between these themes can be seen in multiple ways. The graduation department of Real Estate and Housing at the Delft University of Technology has a laboratory called the Integrated Area Development. Here students are trained to think and handle in solution directions, in order to cope with changes that take place in spatial developments. This integrated way of thinking was the starting point of my personal graduation project within this laboratory called Olympic Games and Urban Decision-Making. The reason for my participation in the Conference is to share the findings of my scientific investigation with the practice world of sport and urban development. To do so I have found a private agency Adecs Bv, specialized in advanced decision systems, to support the purpose of the investigation. That purpose was to create a suitable solution for the decision-making process of the urban development of the Olympic Games in the Netherlands. The National Olympic Committee (NOC*NSF) currently studies the possibilities of the organization of the event in Central thought of my investigation is to make a contribution to this orientating study from the spatial point of view. The development of an instrument called Preference Measurement Model is, in my opinion, the suitable solution for the complex process. The model is based on a multi-actor decision approach. With the preference measurement technique we can locate the potential bottle-necks and conflicts between actors, but also the agreements of the group. Tests with this technique very well stated this supposition. This could well be of great contribution to the complex decision-making of the future urban development of the Olympic Games in the Netherlands, but furthermore, certainly suitable for international applications.

3 PROJECT / PARTNERS Project The project is characterized by three major parts, the personal motivation, the problem and goal, and the duration. The detailed content of the project is described in the next section Methods, here we try to give a first impression by creating a simple historical background of the project. Personal motivation Through my study at the Delft University of Technology I became fascinated by complex processes that take place at the urban area developments. But mainly in the area developments that have tangent planes with the organization of a temporarily event, like, for example, the World Expo. Beside it I have a personal interest in sports in general. My ideal for my graduation project was to combine both worlds. The choice of the Olympic area development as my starting point of investigation then becomes clearly. Furthermore it contains a great personal challenge. Problem & goal The graduation project is based on a practical occasion. The National Olympic Committee of the Netherlands (NOC*NSF) has taken the initiative to form a work group which studies the possibilities of the Olympic Games of 2028 in the Netherlands. Beside it, the Dutch Government and several municipalities intended their interest in the future organization of the sport event. In the present initiative phase, there is a lack of solid cooperation between organizations that have an interest in the Olympics. Next to that, little knowledge exists of the decision-making process of the spatial planning of the Olympic Games. The existence of a wide spread spectrum of spatial requirements and interests of parties results in a difficult to survey, and thus apparently, complex decision-making of the Olympic Games. Now, the purpose is to simplify this complexity, and to map it in such a way that the interests of different organizations are incorporated, and are being fine-tuned, if possible. The way of doing so will be explained in the next section Methods. Duration The graduation phase of the project had duration of nine months. Starting in September 2004, I finished my graduation in June 2005 with a Master of Science degree. This is the minimum required time for a sustainable graduation project at the Real Estate and Housing department. The department encourages free subjects of students as a starting point of investigation, because, in general, students are likely to perform better while being interested in a topic. That is the reason why I decided to take this opportunity to develop my own speciality. The practical phase of the project roughly started in September With the Delft University of Technology I came to the conclusion that further development of the project is needed and possibly wanted. This stated that there were companies and organizations that support the project s approach or, that take an interest in the subject. Contacts with the International Conference Sports and Urban Development, and the NOC*NSF, are the starting point of the practical phase of the project. With the support of Adecs Bv we are striving to make the message heard in practice.

4 Partners The project can be divided in two partners; Delft University of Technology and Adecs Bv. These organizations are the base of working with; there influence can be stated as follows. Delft University of Technology Within the Department of Real Estate and Housing one can distinguish two sections on which the project is wellfounded. The Integrated Area Development (IAD) section facilitates the tacit knowledge of the project, mainly the theoretical framework. The Chair of Computer Added Architectural Design (CAAD) section provides the technical system of the project. The Open Design methodology strives to make a contribution between the IAD and CAAD departments, in a way that insights in real estate matters can be gained through the role of instruments. The instrument used for the problem solving of the investigation is just one key project within the Open Design Systems. Figure 1 Logo Delft University of Technology Adecs Bv One step further than the graduation investigation is the practical introduction of the project. The private company Adecs Bv expressed one s willingness to pay a contribution to this practical introduction. Adecs stands for Advanced Decision Systems. This agency has a twenty year experience with the integrated approach of area developments tasks. The independent division, Area and City Planning, distinguishes itself from other agencies by the manner of seeking for solutions. In there, the notion integrated feasibility, in the meaning of acceptable for all involved parties, plays a leading role. Characteristic activities in a solution process with Adecs than are: - Gain insight in all conditions the solution space should content, to satisfy the different actors. - Development of instruments which generate solutions within the conditions boundaries. - Gain insight in the level of sufficiency of the solutions based on the stated conditions. This approach is well suited for the introduction of the Preference Measurement Model (that has been used in the graduation project) in the sport and urban development world. Figure 2 Logo Advanced Decision Systems (Adecs) BV

5 METHODS The methods used in the project can be divided in an Attainability Study, a Case Study, a Preference Measurement Model and the Adecs Method. In the following part we try to give an overlook of the methods used for the project continuation. First we describe the theoretical background. Theoretical Background The philosophical background of my graduation project can be stated through the following sportive metaphor. An attacker and defender of soccer team play a match in the preparation season. In this game the attacker wants to play adventurely and score goals, the defender wants to play sober and avoid goals. During the first match of the season the team plays awful and is defeated. Everybody is dissatisfied with the result, so the team captain decides to hold a team discussion before the next match. He concludes that the communication during the previous match was bad, and he advises the group to give one another s intentions for the following match. With the evaluation of the individual goals of the players the team captain concludes that these goals have conflicting characteristics, they undermine the team s goal, namely to win the next match and enjoy the game. Together they define their team tactics; they set up a clear organization in which every player can develop their individual goals. The next match, the cooperation in the field is terrific; players relate their own goal to the team s goal, they work hard and coach each other towards a victory. After the match they evaluate the match and conclude that an optimal result has been achieved, they are satisfied with their individual share on the outcome, and began to notice that good communication between all players leads to a better cooperation. This metaphor gives the essence of the necessity for complex decision-making; a confrontation of interests. There comes a win-win situation in the decision-making process into being, when contradictions, bottle-necks, and agreements of individuals are defined and related to the common group interest. We can localize these effects by organizing a multi-actor decision-room, a method which has been used in the graduation project by means of a Preference Measurement Model. Figure 3 shows a two-dimensional model of the styles of managing conflicts by Hugo Prein. stand behind own interests assertive forcing confronting avoiding polderen neutral cooperate Figure 3 Styles of managing conflicts and mediation: Confrontation, by Hugo Prein

6 Attainability Study: Choice of Dutch Candidate Cities The investigation itself started with a framework of conditions. The requirements of the Candidate Acceptance Procedure of the IOC resulted in an Attainability Study for the choice of a candidate city in the Netherlands. Along with other Dutch spatial ambitions and conditions (like post-olympic usage), this study produced the base of Amsterdam and Rotterdam as the most likely Dutch Olympic cities. In figure 4 you can find an example of the Attainability Study. Figure 4 Example of the Attainability Study: Interregional scale, Central Corridor Case Study of Olympic Area Developments: Choice of locations within Candidate Cities A Case Study of former and future Olympic Area Developments resulted in a typology of locations. Waterfront Areas (WA), Inner municipal Areas (IA) and Periphery municipal Areas (PA) are suitable for the development of the Olympic Village, Olympic Park and Media Village. As a result of this study the choice for optional locations in the cities was made. For Amsterdam these options resulted in the allocation of the areas Northern Harbors, Amsterdamsche Bos and ArenA Boulevard. For Rotterdam the areas Rotterdam Airport, City Harbors and the borough Feyenoord are suited for the Olympic venues. Figure 5 gives an example of the three typologies of Olympic area developments. Figure 5 Example of the Case Study: Typology of Olympic area developments (WA / IA / PA)

7 Preference Measurement Model: The key of incorporating soft variables We can state soft variables as wishes, interests and goals of participants, along with spatial conditions of locations and alternative ways of developing these sites. In the orientating phase of the decision-making process one must seek insight in all these variables; otherwise we lose our ability to see the big picture. Namely, in a group process, decision makers are basically inclined to realize their own individual interest. The common group interest then often is a suboptimal solution for all participants. By developing a Preference Measurement Model it is possible to create an optimal (collective) solution space for all stakeholders. This model contains a technique through which soft priorities and preferences, given by the stakeholders, are measured, based on several criteria. The final result is an overall preference for all possible combinations of locations and alternative ways of developing these locations for each city. This is the so called common supported solution space of the Olympic area development. All possibilities are good from a group point of view, only some are preferable to one another from an individual view point. A workshop held at the Delft University of Technology made clear that this way of making decisions, for such a complex issue as the spatial planning of the Olympic Games, creates more effectiveness and transparency in the decision-making process in the initiative phase. In a decision room the overall preference for the Olympic area development in Amsterdam was easily generated and discussed. Figure 6 shows the model design of the graduation project, and figure 7 shows the decision method used by the Preference Measurement Model. Figure 6 Model Design Figure 7 Decision Method

8 Adecs Method In Adecs s point of view, the usual working method in area developments leads to suboptimal solutions, because it consists of incremental steps towards solutions. Often this way of handling the different topics of an area development, leads to conclusions like: infeasible, unpayable, or uninhabitable, depending on the starting point and hierarchy of the working method. This normal method is shown in figure 9. The method that Adecs Bv uses is based on the ideal of a transparent integral project design for area developments. The difference with the normal method is made clear in figure 10. Access Roads Access Roads Finance Housing Greens Acces Roads Greens Housing Housing Facilities Facilities Greens Finances Finances Facilities Infeasible Unpayable Uninhabitable Figure 9 Normal work methods, by Adecs Access Roads criteria Housing Greens Facilities Finances standards options intentions constraints P R O C E S S I N G Opted for Design / planning Priorities etc Figure 10 Adecs method, by Adecs From a project work method point of view (cycle shown in figure 11), Adecs starts with the intention to define and realize goals of the involved parties, as well as the goal of a project team. The Adecs method seeks to gather relevant information of the topics involved in an area development stated by the involved parties. The first step in the process is the formulation of the key question. From that point on Adecs strives to explore the problem, in order to come up with the definition of the problem. From this moment on, the decision process continues with the definitions of goals which can further being translated in goal specifications. This is done by the definition of criteria, standards, options, intentions, conditions and so on shown in figure 10. From there, with the help of an optimalisation process, it is possible to generate a preferable design and planning, an integral plan. To come up with the preferable design Adecs uses computer models to facilitate the optimal solutions. This is done in an open decision process, in order to cope with difficulties that might influence the project as a whole. Through this way of working, the involved parties come up with an integral design, because they are aware of the influence of their individual goals on the group goal.

9 Integral plan Questionnaire Problem exploring Problem definition Goal definition Optimal solutions Involved parties Goals Optimalisation Priorities Goal specification Consideration model Model construction Criteria Constraints Figure 11 Work process cycle, by Adecs From now one we are striving to use the Preference Measurement model as a possible instrument that generates a solution space. This development, within the Adecs method, is an interesting way of contributing to the decisionmaking process of the Olympic Games in practice. This might sound logical, but practice has shown that insight in each other s interests and goals is not often wanted by the involved parties. This approach however has a low boundary, the vital information of organizations is not published, only (soft) priorities and preferences are demanded. At the International Conference Sport and Urban Development, we will show the working of the decision model. By this demonstration, in which we would like participants to give their opinion, we are curious to hear the reactions on this way of supporting the complex decision-making process of the Olympic area development in the Netherlands for the year 2028.

10 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION / IMPLICATIONS Results Workshop results of the graduation project, obtained during a test session within the laboratory of Real Estate & Housing at the Delft University of Technology, generated the answers to the graduation problem. The possibility of designing the decision-making process of the urban development of the Olympic Games can be realized by developing a Preference Measurement Model. This is because of characteristics of the model: - Multi-actor decision-making, which leads to insight in each other s assessments. - Creation of a solution space instead of one solution, which generates several choices that are all good. - Flexible usage, which means that adjustments and additions can be made to the model, if wanted. Furthermore, the whole graduation project contributes to the way of looking at the complex building project of the Olympic Games. In my opinion, this integral way of thinking is essential, when involved organizations want the Olympic area development in the Netherlands to be of great success. Discussion When we take a closer look at the spatial environment in which sports and urban development have their part, we have to be aware of the goals of involved parties within the Olympic decision-making process. These involved parties of the sport world are the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Dutch Olympic Committee (NOC*NSF). These sport organizations support the same individual general goal: Olympic Games as a means to improve the top-class sport climate. The other world of urban development contains government institutes as city municipalities and government development agencies. Furthermore, these actors share the same individual general goal. The common goal of the organization of the Olympic Games in 2028 is to create a durable development for city and sports. This means that the purpose of the event is to realize lasting developments for the Netherlands as a sport nation, and a contribution to the welfare of inhabitants. This implicates that we have to find a fine tuning of goals on behalf of sports and urban development to end up with a win-win situation for both. The fine tuning of goals can be achieved by confronting the individual interests with the common interests. The confrontation leads to information we can classify in three groups: - Bottle-necks: existing versus preferred circumstances. - Conflicts: clashing interests (opposite poles). - Agreements: common interests (tangent planes). This is why we use a model to obtain and organize this information. A model then is a means of creating a brainstorm session between actors with the purpose of classifying the information. The result of this approach can be formulated in three main topics: - A faster planning design: reduction in the complexity of the process, and largeness of scale of the Olympic area development; - A conflict reduction: pointing out, and work on, the crucial contradictions of involved parties; - A win-win situation: achieving of goals stated by government agencies, as well as those stated by sport organizations. Future Implementation In the near future we are willing to bring the method of working in practice. Therefore we are enthusiastic to participate at the first International Conference Sport and Urban Development. With insights that can be generated during the sessions, we can even improve the method, which could be useful when involved parties show their interest in the usage of the method. We are convinced that this formula can be of great contribution to the decision-making process of the Olympic urban development in the Netherlands, especially in the initiative phase of the current NOC*NSF investigation about the possibilities of organizing the Olympic Games in 2028.

11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Through my graduation phase, and after that, I have been supported by many people, but here I want to give my special thanks. First I would like to thank Mrs. Ineke Bruil, my head mentor of the graduation project, for her enthusiastic and structural contribution to the continuation of my project. Secondly Mr. Peter Paul van Loon, my second mentor, for his scientific recognition of the subject and the creation of impulses that made me strive for a higher level. I also would like to thank the company Adecs Bv, and specially Mrs. Evelien Wilms. For giving me the opportunity to do what I like in work; trying to convince people with my enthusiasm, in this case, getting organizations acquainted with a support possibility for their decision-making process for the urban development of the Olympic Games. And finally, I want to thank the organization committee of the International Conference Sport and Urban Development for giving me the opportunity of participating in their conference. The belief in the contribution of sports to urban development, and vice versa, is a common thought I can understand, and support completely. Kindest regards, Erwin Heurkens.

12 KEYWORDS Integrated Area Development: The education and research laboratory, part of the department of Real Estate & Housing, a graduation direction within the Faculty of Architecture of the Delft University of Technology. Open Design Systems: An innovation approach in the domains of architecture and urban planning, founded at the Faculty of Architecture at the Delft University of Technology. Olympic area development: The development of locations with Olympic accommodations and infrastructure facilities. Urban decision-making: The process of making decisions about a specific urban development. Attainability Study: Part of the graduation project which generates the choice of possible Dutch Olympic candidate cities. Preference Measurement Model: Decision method within the graduation project, which incorporates soft variables, to solve an urban planning issue.