Eric Frank en Jack Kruf | 2016

On 20 May 2016, PRIMO Netherlands organised a masterclass at Utrecht’s new city hall to further explore key aspects of risk management at major events. The final report on Le Grand Départ of the Tour de France by the municipality of Utrecht and the evaluation by Utrecht University, together with the Royal Couple’s visit to the municipality of Roosendaal in 2013, served as the starting point for the discussion.

This essay, based on a masterclass, examines these two successful events. What is the key to this success? How were uncertainties managed? What risks were anticipated?

We hear from two managers who were at the forefront of the branding and responsible for its success, and from a researcher who offers a critical analysis and draws conclusions. A fine combination for a dialogue yielding surprising insights.

“The whole world has to work together, something they normally rarely, if ever, do. An event is therefore a tremendous unifying factor. It is a form of higher intelligence, of advanced mathematics, a bit of luck and, above all, good weather.” – Martijn van Hulsteijn, project leader for Le Grand Départ 2015, Utrecht.

Sharing knowledge?

PRIMO emphasises the great importance of sharing knowledge in general and of major events in particular. Based on discussions held in recent years with the network and the study of relevant reports and literature on events, the association has concluded that the sharing of experiences regarding uncertainties, risks, and successes in the Netherlands is not only very limited, but that a national platform for the exchange of public experiences regarding major events is in fact, entirely lacking. Yet one would expect this to exist, precisely because so much is organised in the Netherlands.

It is hardly logical that the wheel has to be reinvented time and time again. That in itself is no easy task, but it also increases vulnerability – particularly for smaller organisations – and, above all, is much more expensive. Hence, the initiative for this masterclass. The seeds for this were sown during the preparations for the Le Grand Départ of the Tour de France in September 2014, when PRIMO was asked to advise on integrating risk management into the project. The aim is to step back and look more broadly at events.

Uncertainty and risk

PRIMO uses the definition: ‘Risk is a potential deviation from a chosen value’. A risk can thus be regarded as a deviation from the intended outcome, in this case, a ‘perfect event’. A definition in which the aim, by analogy with Robin Hood, is to hit the bullseye, driven here by the effective use of collective resources. Today, we draw inspiration from two successful archers.

A course within a course on the road to success

Beneath the Dom

In his argument, Martijn van Hulsteijn highlights several key points regarding the organisation and working methods of the project team in addressing uncertainties and risks. Martijn: “The Tour literally passed beneath the Dom. That was the plan right from the very first thoughts of bringing the Tour to Utrecht. This, the world’s largest annual event, delivered unprecedented figures for the city in terms of visitors, partners, side events, volunteers, and journalists. The media attention was nothing short of remarkable. As project director, I felt, as it were, like a spider in a vast urban web, bringing all those parties together and getting them to work together. It was also the art of persuasion.

The beauty of Le Grand Départ is that many of those parties didn’t know each other beforehand and now find it easier to connect, or have even started working together. In that respect, the event has therefore fostered a great deal of cohesion between municipal and regional businesses and institutions and, in a number of cases, led to new alliances.

Objective

The central objective was a ‘perfectly and safely organised event’. Safe for visitors, riders, and local residents. Throughout the organisation, we always stuck to this goal in every decision we made. And there were many of them. During the preparations, wild ideas would sometimes pop up, such as doing even more to raise the city’s profile. These, in turn, led to unforeseen expenses to ensure safety at all times. New ideas were constantly emerging from all sides.

As is so often the case with projects, this ‘evolving understanding’ and ‘natural enthusiasm’ posed a risk to staying within budget. Things tend to pile up, and we didn’t want that. We consistently made this financial decision with ‘safety first’ in mind. Time and time again.

Drive

With the Grand Départ, we all felt a drive to get the best out of the city. Utrecht is the smallest of the G4 cities and wants to position itself as an equal. At the same time, the city council wanted to do justice to its vision of making the event ‘by and for the city’ and to organise the approach so that this organic principle could take the lead.

This led to 200 side events organised by the city itself. For the project organisation’s risk management, this meant that direct control over these events was not always possible and that the entire project team also had to be able and willing to adopt a different mindset, alongside the aspects you naturally want to keep under control. This meant ‘trusting residents and organisations and daring to let go’. During the preparations and throughout the event, we, as a team, found this rather nerve-wracking at times. It turned out that there was a great deal of professionalism and organisational strength within the city itself. And that is fantastic to see. The trust placed in them has been more than richly rewarded.

Approach

During kick-off sessions with PRIMO Netherlands in September 2014 and subsequently with Utrecht University, considerable time was spent discussing how risk management could best be embedded within the overall project, and how the organisation’s objectives could be measured and ultimately evaluated. This led to the decision to combine COSO II with a cycle of risk sessions involving the entire team and, on occasion, partners. The evaluation model was discussed and agreed upon in advance.

We consider ourselves fortunate to have, alongside Sport and Society researcher Bake Dijk, Prof. Dr. Maarten van Bottenburg – the leading professor of Sport Development in the Netherlands – on board at Utrecht University. This enabled us to adopt a professional approach.

We opted for a systematic approach to recording and control, combined with the dynamics of open dialogue. In regular risk sessions, we discussed aspects such as the workload of staff within the team and the municipal organisation, financial progress and the constant pressure on budgets (logically, there is always a struggle for funds), the dilemma of deploying volunteers versus hiring professionals, team cohesion, the expected involvement of third parties in the activation programme for the side events, relationships with knowledge partners, and so on.

A conscious decision was made to adopt an open working style, in which uncertainties and risks could be communicated transparently to knowledge partners, residents, organisations, the executive committee, and the municipal council. Significant investment was made in communication skills in general and in the process of raising awareness of organising together in particular. Developing mutual respect and understanding within this kind of dynamic is a challenge in itself. It was our starting point.

Safety

‘Safety’ was handled through a dedicated, specific approach. All relevant professional bodies and sectors – 55 in total – involved in safety in one way or another sat down together, both during the preparations and throughout the event. Forty disaster scenarios were discussed and measures put in place. The challenge was not only to focus on extreme scenarios but also on ordinary, routine incidents and accidents. This was combined with the event’s dynamics. In effect, our team created a model for the entire city.

It is worth noting that we worked with Movaris, one of the knowledge partners, to gain insight into visitor flows and the factors that could influence them. With the Tourmakers in the city, who were able to direct and guide people, a high-calibre urban crowd management system was established. This demonstrates the strength of the holistic approach to safety. An absolute requirement for this event. A holistic approach proved crucial.

Risks under the microscope

Some key points regarding uncertainties and risks:

• When designing the project’s organisational structure, considerable attention was paid to alignment with the regular organisation. Alignment between project tasks and regular tasks was somewhat vague at the outset, but was ultimately firmly established through specific agreements with the civil service client, Maarten Schurink, and his management team. This was a key area requiring explicit attention, as the boundaries were too vague. Significant risks can arise if this separation is not properly implemented.
• Because the municipality itself also wanted to gain a great deal of knowledge and was keen to explicitly involve and deploy its own staff, a constant assessment was required of when and how external expertise was desirable or necessary. The choice among in-house service providers, volunteers, or external knowledge partners received a great deal of care and attention.
• The coordination between what were effectively two budgets: the foundation’s board and the local authority, the commissioning body. This proved to be a particular aspect of risk management. Financial management, with its accountability and reporting lines, was a tour de force. Each budget had its own cycle, language, style, formats, and accountability system within which work had to be carried out. Project secretary and risk manager Anneke van der Kluit did an excellent job in this regard.
• Getting the budget to balance ex ante was a challenge in itself. The trick was to be able and dare to look far ahead, make estimates as reliable as possible, and supplement the budgets available from the Ministry and local authorities with those from private parties, forging them into a single, functioning whole. As part of the private contributions, proprietary products and services, clear agreements, sound contracts, and impeccable bookkeeping proved to be the backbone of the entire undertaking.
• Due to the critical media, who are essentially always looking over your shoulder, the team opted for absolute transparency. Everything was recorded in the relevant formats and, of course, explicitly communicated where that was sensible and useful. Risk management starts with transparency.
• With ‘safety’ as the starting point, a great deal was invested preventively in matters that ultimately did not occur. You cannot know that in advance. Prevention took a great deal of time and attention, particularly as safety was central. The value of this safeguard is considerable; the investments justify this.
• Because the principle of ‘for and by the city’ was guiding, there was much discussion within the team about involving all parts of our own organisation, letting go and placing trust in institutions and civil society organisations, and drawing on professional expertise where necessary. It was enriching to see just how much the council itself could achieve. This process of constant self-reflection – what can we do ourselves and what cannot we do, what do we know and what do we not know – is not always easy, particularly as you are working under intense pressure and there is a sense of euphoria and enthusiasm.

The power of focus

In conclusion, we have not done too badly. Financially, we overspent by €385,000 on a €15 million budget, which amounts to 2.5%. The municipal executive chose to communicate the overspend clearly and, above all, transparently to the council and the public, rather than absorbing it into the overall municipal budget. This was greatly appreciated. Because transparency was maintained throughout the process, this proved acceptable. In my view, this openness is a crucial aspect of risk management. Being open and honest – that is the foundation.”

Pride

Martijn concludes on a personal note: “I am very proud of the whole team I have had the privilege of leading. During the event, I thoroughly enjoyed coming into contact with so many different people – from the coffee lady to King Willem-Alexander – the joy and happiness of the people in the city, the enormous sense of identification with the Tour de France shown by everyone from the smallest shopkeeper, who decked out their shop windows with bicycles and, above all, that beautiful yellow, right up to the larger organisations such as the Jaarbeurs, where absolutely everyone – directors included – worked shoulder to shoulder to ensure guests, riders, visitors and residents had a good time. The commitment and dedication of those 1,500 volunteers were overwhelming. Martijn: “This was good and felt good.”

About clear lines of communication and coordination of collaboration

Gabriel Jas shares his experiences as the security manager during the Royal Couple’s visit to Roosendaal in 2013. Unlike Martijn van Hulsteijn, the preparation time for the Royal Couple’s visit was just six weeks. It was only then that it became known that King Willem-Alexander and Queen Maxima would be coming to Roosendaal.

Getting started with King’s Day

Gabriel Jas: “In short, that meant two weeks of preparation, planning, and setting up, and four weeks of ‘going all out’. That was a tight schedule, but it was enough to organise a perfect welcome. It really hits home when you hear that. Neither you nor the council had any experience with such a specific event. It’s obviously on a different scale to the Tour de France, but what it has in common with that is that it had to be perfect and that there was a lot at stake. When the news of the visit came in, all sorts of feelings, interests, challenges, and risks immediately flashed through your mind. The timeline clearly illustrates what goes through your mind in those very first moments – thoughts that are still fresh and disorganised. A true management challenge, it’s as simple as that.

We immediately started looking into what other local authorities were doing. Searching for information. Googling and phoning round to other local authorities. What we found was informative, but there were no standard operating procedures or checklists available. It soon became clear that simply copying and pasting was absolutely out of the question. To be honest, I was actually very disappointed by that. In short, we didn’t get much out of it. We really had to get stuck in ourselves. There was not enough time to seek advice from scientific bodies or other institutions with extensive expertise in this type of event.

What happened

The first thing I did was to put together a team in consultation with Mayor Jacques Niederer, with whom I sat down almost immediately every morning at 8.30 am. The fixed routine, in my own room, and starting with the mindset of ‘wanting to be part of it’. I simply took the lead. It sounds simple, but by doing this, you naturally become the leader, and other parties very quickly start to see you that way.

My conviction

By taking a clear stand on my own convictions, the team members quickly felt that I was giving 110% – a sort of over-the-top, in terms of the safety requirements for the event and, consequently, the project organisation. Some felt I was far too strict about the requirements for the measures I believed we needed to implement. That’s how personal leadership can be – that line you believe in. I was firm in my conviction, stuck to it, and immediately asked for the team’s loyalty. Leadership can be a lonely business at times, because there’s a fraction of you that doubts your own convictions. It was just a fraction, nothing more.

One of those convictions was this: I had seen examples of this, not least when I was in New York on a short holiday and happened to come across President Barack Obama visiting the city. I saw the measures being taken there. That inspired me greatly. With the earlier events in Apeldoorn still fresh in my mind, I drew my own line in the sand. As far as I was concerned, no cars would be allowed in or out of the city during the Royal Couple’s visit. That was my decision, and I was determined to stick to it. I not only had to convince my team but also stand my ground and dispel any doubts.

That dialogue was intense but constructive, bringing you closer together. In fact, everyone in the team had opinions, perceptions, and thoughts based on their own insights and experiences. This process of sharing is crucial to becoming a team. Afterwards, when the King and Queen boarded the train right on time to travel on to the next reception venue in Oisterwijk, a feeling swept through the whole team: it was good that we’d done it that way after all, and the decisions we’d made came to be seen in a different, even better light, because they were felt to have contributed to the success.

Silo mentality

The first thing that struck me at the start of the project was the number of parties involved in organising the Royal Couple’s reception. And that all these parties think and reason from their own perspective and want to act on that basis. In itself, this is understandable, but as the coordinating safety manager, I experienced this as a silo mentality. One of the first things I did was to focus people on the common goal we had set for ourselves: working together and getting down to business in a coordinated manner. That was my driving force, which I felt deep down, radiated and conveyed to the team. ‘A safe celebration in Roosendaal’ – that was it, and it became our common goal.

Leadership

For me, leadership was at times not just about motivating and coaching team members, but also about daring to be the boss and saying: ‘This is how we do it, and no other way!’ Leadership was also about daring to take responsibility, making your best choice based on assessments from your team members and yourself. Then, of course, making decisions and acting on them consistently. I found it particularly striking that there are many parties where you think, ‘They’ve got the overview, they know how things work, or how to find common ground for coordination.

I’ve come round on this. There is a great deal of willingness, but I’ve learnt that it’s wise to always check, no matter how well they know each other or how willing they are to go the extra mile for one another. An event is a unique convergence of forces and players; in this case, it is a one-off with its own dynamics. So an ‘organisation’ emerges that doesn’t exist in everyday life. As a leader, you must realise this. You should be aware that you are one of the few, if not the only one, with the full overview. Tailor your communication accordingly.

Risk management

Where necessary, we brought in professionals. The team was strong enough; we already knew each other, and there was a great deal of mutual trust, because in Roosendaal, it is simply the norm to work closely together. The team’s strength enabled us to quickly identify our weaknesses and determine where professionals needed to be brought in to fill the gaps. I found this process of sharing information to be extremely important. Having the courage to acknowledge where your own weaknesses lie – sometimes personal ones too – and to take action accordingly. To me, this is risk management in its purest form. And even if you think you’ve got everything sorted or that it’s ‘under control’, it’s still wise to keep an open mind. A single detail can throw the whole plan off course. For me, risk management means having an open mind, leaving room for dialogue, and always keeping your eye on the ball, making decisions where necessary.

Pride

We worked systematically, used our common sense, stayed true to ourselves, listened carefully to one another, and ensured that every team member could perform to the best of their ability. I am proud of the Safety Team, which, in perfect coordination with the Creative Team, delivered a top-class performance in terms of both timing and approach.”

About research into sporting events in a politically sensitive context

Bake Dijk, a consultant and researcher in the Department of Public Administration and Organisation Studies at Utrecht University, explains his findings regarding the evaluation, which was led by Professor Maarten van Bottenburg. The report itself was discussed in the article ‘Evaluation of the Grand Départ of the Tour de France’ dated 19 January. His brief explanation is now included in full on the following page of this article.

How do you assess the value of such a major sporting event? This was discussed in advance in close consultation with the organisers. What is realistic to measure based on our scientific knowledge? Together with Maarten van Bottenburg, the objectives to be measured were formulated using the SMART criteria. It is not just a celebration, but there is also value for society. That is also why the Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport supported this. This public marketing campaign – ‘Inspire a Generation’ – was first deployed at the Olympic Games. ‘Legacy’ is the buzzword here. Any self-respecting government always wants to invest in that.

The research examined this legacy in the long term, the impact on the city during the first five years following the event, and the leverage effect. Work is now underway on the follow-up for city marketing. How can the DNA of Utrecht – a city of culture and knowledge – be expanded to include sport? It is important to create a framework, as the agenda – across the whole of the Netherlands – is still fairly empty. It is important to note that there is some reluctance regarding major events, partly due to corruption scandals at FIFA, doping at the Olympic Games, and so on.

The ratings for this event were good: 8.4 for the Tour and 8.2 for the side events. We also looked at the value that Le Grand Départ has brought to the city of Utrecht. Among other things, we examined the economic value of the 130,000 hours of volunteer work during and after the event. What happens to that database? Is there a follow-up, or was this a one-off? This is not made clear in the study, which is a shame, as it demonstrates organisational strength. It is recommended that this be addressed and utilised.

Finally, the city’s involvement, so perfectly executed, can be described as unique. This is legacy! The organisation’s bottom-up approach has boosted the organisational capacity of the city, its associations, and businesses. Collaboration within the city was very well facilitated by the project organisation and the municipality. There was a very strong focus on cross-pollination between knowledge, the economy, culture, and sport. From a scientific point of view, Le Grand Départ of the Tour de France has been an investment in Utrecht’s society.”

Discussion

Knowledge exchange

Knowledge sharing regarding event organisation is perceived as too limited. There is a lack of a platform for public authorities in the Netherlands. Terms such as ‘stiff’ and ‘meagre’ are mentioned. On the other hand, it seems that larger sporting events are context-specific and that event plans are of limited use across contexts.

The use of scientific knowledge is also limited. Reports are read, but they are often too abstract to be of practical use in event organisation. They are also often not easily accessible or readable for organisers. With its evaluation report, Utrecht University has done everything possible to present the knowledge gained as effectively as possible. A relatively ‘quick’ scientific report. According to Bake Dijk, “it’s not a comic book, but a lot of hard work has gone into the design.”

To connect science with practice as effectively as possible, Utrecht University is working hard to publish scientific reports on sport in both daily newspapers and more sport-specialised magazines such as Sport Knowhow XL. In this publication, Bake Dijk, together with colleagues Paul Hover, Hans Slender, and Froukje Smits, published the article ‘Le Grand Départ Utrecht 2015 ‘, of great value to Utrecht. “Science is increasingly engaging in marketing,” says Dijk. “This can be achieved by using short, accessible articles to act as a bridge between the scientific field and everyday practice.”

The role of politics

Coordination within Utrecht was excellent. Martijn van Hulsteijn: “In the run-up to the Tour de France, party leaders, the municipal executive, and senior management worked together to map out the strategy. The people involved in the run-up in 2013 were different from those involved during the event in 2015. The approach has been maintained, although ultimately it is the politicians who decide how much public money may be invested in such an event.

Politicians wanted to pursue a good, comprehensive plan, although political views on the scale of the investment differed. That makes sense. The council decided and acted collectively, always following the path of transparency. Even the €385,000 deficit was reported. That led to discussion, but was ultimately not an issue. What is striking is that no questions were asked about the final report and evaluation.”

Anneke van der Kluit, project secretary and risk manager in Utrecht, did find it rather nerve-wracking to see how the council would react. You are on your guard because a lot is at stake. Communication with the responsible administrator was direct and effective.

In Roosendaal, the mayor kept the party leaders constantly informed. That worked very well. Short and open lines of communication. The evaluation in the council was positive and acceptable to most parties. “The fact that the city has a lot to gain in the run-up and has gained a lot in the final stages naturally plays a part here,” says Gabriel Jas, “so politically, everyone is pretty much on the same page.”

Focus on safety

The key question is how safety can be guaranteed as a fundamental principle. After all, ensuring safety often requires a great deal of effort. Nienke Piël from the municipality of Almere: “During the Libelle Summer Week, Ebru Umar plays a role because she is a columnist for Libelle magazine. The fact that she was unable to travel directly from Turkey back to the Netherlands meant that, as a municipality, you are immediately faced with having to consider any additional security measures.”

Marc Nagelkerke of the Zeeland Safety Region: “You see what terrorist attacks can do to the organisation of your event. Take, for example, the arrival of Sinterklaas in Meppel on 16 November 2015. Shortly before that, on the night of 13 November 2015, the attacks in Paris took place. That unexpectedly created sudden and additional pressure regarding security. Then all stops are pulled out to discuss what the risks are and what additional measures are needed to guarantee safety.”

Freek Stein: “Deventer attracts many visitors with its annual Book Market – around 125,000 – making it a relatively large event for the town. In terms of security, the measures are relatively limited, as the target audience is currently assessed as ‘low-risk’. Just as with Libelle Week, a single detail can change everything. It’s good to remain alert. Often you know in advance what needs to be done to guarantee public order and safety. Following our victory in the first match against De Graafschap, we expect to be promoted to the Eredivisie with Go Ahead. That will mean night-time work and will require specific measures.”

Marc Nagelkerke: “In Zeeland, a risk analysis is always carried out in advance. This is discussed with all relevant parties involved and accompanied by measures. The so-called residual risks are submitted to the board. These were low in Meppel, but suddenly everything changed. Residual risks can never be eliminated; in fact, they can change at any moment due to events elsewhere. The key questions you must answer for every event are: ‘Can we look each other straight in the eye, knowing we have done everything we possibly could?’

Ilhan Tekir of Utrecht City Council raises the highly relevant financial aspect of events in this context: ‘You cannot rule out everything. You never can. Sometimes there are risks that nobody thought of or that people considered unlikely. In your budget, you must also be able to show what you have done about them and where you accept residual risks. In my view, politics is about the latter. This requires a transparent presentation of risks, measures, and costs in the budget. We paid extremely close attention to this for the Grand Départ of the Tour de France. Ultimately, it turns out that the financial aspect is still very important to politicians.”

Framework for decision-making

The broader question that arises is how a local authority decides which events are suitable for the city. How do you weigh up the options? Is a politically agreed framework needed to make such decisions? In this regard, the suitability of the location and the local authority’s organisational capacity for safety are essential.

The discussion held in Utrecht – where, inspired by Le Grand Départ, Martijn van Hulsteijn is currently working on a new city marketing strategy – is also on the agenda in Deventer, the old Hanseatic city, and in the rapidly growing Almere, now almost as large as Eindhoven. What do you want and what can you achieve as a city in the field of events? It almost seems worthy of a round-table discussion in its own right.

This framework is important because events require a careful balancing of interests. Freek Stein: “It is logical that there is resistance among residents in Deventer’s city centre if we allow noise-generating events on the Brink. The limit is five per year, but in practice it is eight to twelve events. After all, historic sites are in high demand. It is good for the hospitality sector, but the balancing of interests belongs at the administrative table. I advocate for more attention to be paid to this.”

Bake Dijk points out that “creating a socially guiding theme for the city, which is also formally adopted by the council, can be a huge help in making the right decisions. An events calendar can then be linked to such a theme. The theme and the events must be connected, in line with one another. That way, you link events through politics and administration to what residents find desirable and acceptable. The trick, however, is not to stray beyond the boundaries of your municipal events portfolio.”

Stein adds: “What’s remarkable is that what is acceptable and what isn’t – for example, hardcore music in the heart of Deventer – also seems to be politically charged. There are political parties that believe this should be allowed to move with the times, whilst others find it inappropriate. The portfolio is therefore subject to political forces. The tension between interests is ever-present and requires constant consideration.

Gabriel Jas: “In my view, it makes a big difference whether something is an annual event or a one-off. With the former, there is tradition, the scripts are well-developed, communication with the various stakeholders is in order, and things are predictable. In Roosendaal, that is the fourth cycling criterium after the Tour de France – yes, we’ve almost come full circle in this masterclass (ed.) – ‘De Draai van de Kaai’. It’s an annual event and well established in terms of organisation, including by the council. Gradually, we’ve been able to step back more and more.

It has, as it were, become a controlled relay race, although I know that as a council you must always remain alert and focused on the unexpected. The event fits within the city’s portfolio and has been refined over the years, particularly through collaboration among the organising foundation, the safety teams, and the council. Giving the city space whilst being willing to share responsibility – that, in my view, is the secret to success. At least, if it fits within the portfolio established by the political and administrative authorities. In Roosendaal, that is the case.”

Niek van Droffelaar: “Taking everything into account, direct disruption to residents and potential terrorist attacks appear to be the greatest risks. When organising events, ‘carelessness’ regarding the unexpected must be avoided at all times.”

Outsource or do it yourself?

Whereas 10 years ago there were 50 partners, there are now 150 partners playing a role in a major event. All of that has to be managed. It is becoming increasingly complex. There is not only an increase in outsourcing individual components, but even the entire event. Local authorities are becoming more cautious. For example, the government cancelled participation in ‘The European Games’. Events compete financially with other priorities, such as healthcare or culture. There is also a trend towards a participatory society, in which citizens and organisations are increasingly allowed or dare to take the initiative, with the government encouraging this.

The key question is who will ultimately be in charge if that scope is granted or if a form of public-private partnership is chosen. Occasionally, there is still a government body that is financially strong enough to steer and manage the whole process, rather than leaving it to the market, but keeping it under its own control. The province of Gelderland exercised this control over De Giro last month. That is an exception.

The trend seems to be towards allowing more participation, giving society its own space and initiative, more outsourcing, more private parties and fewer public funds. However, this does not relieve the government of its responsibility to guarantee safety. This is an area of tension. Freek Stein refers to the incident in Haaksbergen: “As a local authority, you simply cannot let go of safety.” The municipality of Haaksbergen does not come out well in the analyses. How deeply must a municipality be willing to intervene in the organisation of such an event to ensure safety? Is that possible, or is it necessary? Certificates from organisers are apparently no longer sufficient. Furthermore, there is always the Public Prosecution Service, which in this case is breathing down the municipality’s neck or, in the worst case, could threaten prosecution, because the municipality should have prevented something.”

Bake Dijk: “There is a risk-regulation reflex on the part of the government in these kinds of cases. On the one hand, granting leeway, but on the other, imposing extensive forms with all manner of provisions, guarantees, and conditions. This is counterproductive. We want to grant leeway, yet we are restricting the scope for action. All in the name of safety, mind you. But where is the balance? Safety is the guiding principle for events.”

Nienke Piël raises the issue of the event’s scale: “Aren’t smaller events actually much riskier? After all, their organisation is often less professional. Risks are often analysed less thoroughly and there are fewer safety arrangements in place. How far should you go in permitting them? It really is a dilemma, including from a political and administrative perspective.”

Organising an event thus becomes almost an ethical issue. To allow it or not? To give in to the culture of fear? Or to let go? To arrange everything properly behind the scenes, or to deliberately avoid doing so? The longer we talk about it, the more risks seem to emerge. The feeling is to ‘let go’ if possible… until something happens. Then the ingrained risk-management reflex strikes again because everyone panics. And applications for smaller events become even more complex and bureaucratic, the safety region’s recommendations pile up even further, and every spontaneous expression of society’s desire to celebrate something is paralysed. Organising an event can turn into a negotiation process between organisers and local authorities. This creates a sliding scale. In short, there is a sense of paralysis.

Jack Kruf: “On the other hand, we Dutch are among the world’s top event organisers. So we certainly know what we’re doing. From what I’m hearing, we’re ready for a more holistic, professional event organisation in which all levels of government participate. An organisation that brings together expertise can be deployed anywhere and coordinates on behalf of the authorities. That way, we wouldn’t have to keep reinventing the wheel. Such an organisation could offer bespoke solutions and, above all, would possess comprehensive knowledge of relevant political and administrative processes, understand how citizens think and feel, and be focused on sharing knowledge and experience.”

Marc Nagelkerke: “It is already the case that teams from the safety regions know each other and exchange a great deal of information. So something is already getting off the ground. Municipalities, on the other hand, share far less with one another. It is not a given that one municipality will help another when something needs to be organised, even though Public Safety Officers know each other well and trust one another implicitly. So there is already a foundation there, too. That cooperation can and must be given a further boost. Various forms could be explored.”

Is risk management sexy?

Anneke van der Kluit sums it up powerfully: ‘Talking about uncertainties is and remains difficult for people. At the start of Le Grand Départ, there was significant resistance within the team. Talking about risks would take time and be pointless. Remarkable, really. Martijn, his client, municipal secretary Maarten Schurink, and coordinating financial adviser Ilhar Tekir from the Finance department wanted to stick to this approach. Every four to six weeks, we sat down together. And once the conversation got going, a great deal came to light, issues were voiced, and a productive discussion emerged on how to address the uncertainties at hand. A sense of return on investment emerged.”

Ilhan Tekir adds: “As the event drew nearer and the pressure on people increased, things did get a bit more difficult. The focus shifted more and more to issues that weren’t being properly addressed.”. The key turned out to be maintaining a sense of calm and constantly returning to the actual uncertainties, using the objective as our starting point. The model derived from COSO II helped us greatly to maintain that calm. The documentation process was systematic and consistent. This made the project stronger. Ultimately, the organisation became much more aware of how to manage risks. By then, they realised that risk management extends beyond finance alone. The City of Utrecht has now also named its policy document ‘Risk Management and Resilience’ rather than the other way round. Crucially, senior management insisted that risk management be an integral part of the entire approach. That is where it all begins.

The kick-off session with PRIMO also set the tone. Everyone was free to speak openly from their own perspective. That proved enriching for the whole team. It is important to enter the dialogue with an open mind and to respect everyone’s assessment in the process.”

Risk manager?

An event involves ‘striking a balance’ between organisers, the government and society. In short, insecurity is the greatest threat to that balance. There remains a fear of the unexpected. Understandable, given the events of recent years. However, risks can never be ruled out; that is also a fact. Doing everything you can is the way forward. Whichever way you look at it, accidents can always happen. That is also something to accept and not to try desperately to rule out.

It is actually seen as logical that public authorities also employ risk managers who oversee the entire spectrum, who have access to the boardroom, are allowed and able to be critical, have an open mind, and who can support the commitment to perform to the highest standard. This is a question that could well be taken up by the various umbrella organisations of local authorities and regional councils, in consultation with, amongst others, safety regions, environmental services and water boards.

Participants

• Bake Dijk, Advisor/Researcher in Public Administration and Organisation at Utrecht University.
• Cherique Cuppen, Change Management Communications (Health Care Inspectorate) with a focus on sustainability / Participant at Stichting Denkkracht Utrecht.
• Niek van Droffelaar, Consultant at The Transformatie Groep / Participant at Stichting Denkkracht Utrecht.
• Eric Frank, Director of PRIMO Netherlands.
• Martijn van Hulsteijn, former Project Director of Le Grand Départ de Tour de France 2015.
• Gabriel Jas, Team Leader for Safety, Supervision and Enforcement at Roosendaal Municipality.
• Anneke van der Kluit, former Project Secretary of Le Grand Départ de Tour de France 2015.
• Jack Kruf, President of PRIMO Europe and chair of the masterclass.
• Marc Nagelkerke, Specialist in Operational Information Management at the Zeeland Safety Region.
• Nienke Piël, Senior Management Advisor on Crisis Management at the Municipality of Almere
• Freek Stein, Deputy Director at the Municipality of Deventer.
• Ilhan Tekir, Financial Advisor at the Municipality of Utrecht.