【作者】 温阳；

【导师】 张林；

【作者基本信息】 上海体育学院 ， 体育人文社会学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 本文以大型体育赛事场馆运行风险作为研究对象，通过风险的识别，明确了存在的风险，并建立了风险评估指标体系和评估细则；接着通过风险评估，分析出风险发生的概率和潜在的损失；在对风险全面把握的基础上，提出了大型体育赛事场馆运行风险的应对和监控措施，达到风险管理的目标。论文主要介绍了以下六个方面。第一，本文采用“目标特征—目标损害—风险因素”逆向追溯结构分解方法对大型体育赛事场馆运行风险进行识别。首先，从时间维度入手，分析大型体育赛事场馆运行的赛前计划、赛前筹备、赛时运行和赛后恢复等四个阶段的职能目标，建立目标特征集合；接着，通过鱼刺图法初步绘制出损害目标的特征集合，结合专家风险检查表法、实地考察法和专家访谈法完善目标损害集合；最后，将风险目标损害因子作为核查对象，编制专家问卷调查表，通过专家风险核查表对风险因素特征集合进行诊断、筛选或补充，初步构建了由三个一级指标，九个二级指标和二十六个三级指标组成的大型体育赛事场馆运行的风险识别框架体系。通过集合理论和特征映射理论避免了风险识别过程中风险因子交叉、重叠和遗漏的问题。第二，对初步构建的风险识别框架体系经由两轮德尔菲专家调查法进行论证，最终形成了大型体育赛事场馆运行的风险评估体系：三个一级指标（赛前筹备阶段风险、赛时运行阶段风险、赛后恢复阶段风险）；九个二级指标（场馆运行计划风险、场馆人力筹备风险、场馆财力筹备风险、场馆物力筹备风险、场馆安全防范风险、场馆竞赛服务风险、场馆后勤保障风险、赛后人和物撤离风险、场馆赛后财务风险）和二十七个三级指标（客户群服务计划制定风险、安保方案和应急预案制定风险、场馆运行任务和程序制定风险、场馆空间布局风险、人力资源规划风险、人员招聘和选拔风险、人员培训与演练风险、人员考评与激励风险、场馆团队建设风险、场馆运行财务预算风险、场馆运行财务控制风险、场馆临时设施建设风险、场馆永久性建筑设施管理风险、场馆物资供应风险、安全保卫风险、交通消防疏散风险、观众服务风险、医疗卫生服务风险、技术服务风险、包括餐饮、语言、票务和市场服务等在内的其它服务风险、场馆设施管理风险、场馆环境维护风险、场馆财物供应风险、场馆人员撤离风险、场馆建筑设施受损风险、场馆资产流失风险、场馆财务超支风险）。第三，采用层次分析法构建了大型体育赛事场馆运行风险评估指标体系的层次结构模型，经由专家对指标重要程度的两两判断，计算得出了大型体育赛事场馆运行评估指标体系的权重表。其中赛时运行阶段风险权重系数最大（0.4785），赛前筹备阶段风险权重系数次之（0.3941），而赛后恢复阶段风险权重系数最小（0.1274），其中前两项权重之和占整个场馆运行风险的87.26%，赛后恢复阶段风险仅占12.74%。根据风险重要性原则，本文仅对风险权重大的赛前筹备和赛时运行两个阶段，结合实际案例展开评估。第四，对举办第七届全国农运会的南阳体育馆赛前阶段场馆运行风险进行了评估，评估结果如下：赛前筹备阶段风险隶属于“差（风险很大）”的为“0”；隶属于“不好（风险较大）”的为“0.0071”；隶属于“一般（风险一般）”的为“0.1533”；隶属于“较好（风险较小）”的为“0.4017”；隶属于“好（风险很小）”的为“0.4654”。根据最大隶属度原则，专家认为南阳体育馆赛前筹备隶属于“好”，隶属于“较好”及“好”的为“0.8671”，因此，综合专家的意见，专家认为第七届全国农运会南阳体育馆场馆运行赛前筹备阶段的风险较小，其中物力资源筹备和财力资源筹备风险很小，而场馆运行计划风险和人力资源筹备风险相对大些。第五，通过对第七届全国农运会南阳体育馆赛时阶段场馆运行风险的可能性、严重性和可控性三项指标分别进行评分，评估结果显示场馆赛时运行阶段风险量排在前十位的风险为：场馆停电、群体性拥挤和踩踏事件、竞赛信息处理出错、聚众闹事、场地器材故障或损毁、食品卫生不合格、爆炸和扬言爆炸、物资供应不及时、劫持人质及交通工具以及投掷物品等，并针对这十类风险制定相应的风险应对预案。第六，既然风险可以理解为目标与结果的偏差，那么围绕场馆运行目标采取科学合理的场馆运行管理方法是有效避免风险的最佳途径。因而，本文提出了大型体育赛事场馆运行管理的四点具体措施：科学地进行场馆运行设计、围绕客户的需求来完善场馆的竞赛服务、提供强大有力的场馆后勤服务保障以及落实场馆安全措施。更多还原

【Abstract】 This dissertation, taking as its research objective the operational risk of thevenues for major sports events, specifies the existent risks through risk identification,and establishes a risk assessment indicator system and some detailed assessment rules;through risk assessment, it goes on to analyze the probability of risk occurrence andpotential losses; and finally, based on a comprehensive grasp of risks, it proposesresponse and monitoring measures to the operational risks of the venues forlarge-scaled events so as to fulfill the objective of risk management. Thedissertation mainly consists of six parts as follows.Firstly, the dissertation adopts a structural decomposition approach of reverseretrospect, consisting of the characteristics of THE OBJECTIVE-HAZARDS OFTHE OBJECTIVE-RISK FACTORS, to identify the operational risks of the venuesfor major events. From the time dimension, the dissertation begins with an analysis onthe functional objectives in four phases, namely, pre-game planning, pre-gamepreparation, game operation, and post-game recovery, in the operation of large-scalevenues, and establishes the set of objective characteristics; then, with the help of thefishbone diagram method, it preliminarily draws out the characteristic set of hazardobjectives, and based on other methods, including an experts’ checklist, a field surveyand expert interviews, further improves the set; finally, taking as a check object thehazard factors of risk targets, it formulates an expert questionnaire, and uses theexpert’s risk checklist to diagnose, screen or supplement the characteristic set of riskfactors, and preliminarily sets up a frame system for risk identification for venues ofmajor events consisting of three first-grade indicators, nine second-grade indicatorsand26third-grade indicators. By employing the set theory and feature mappingtheory, certain problems, such as the crossing, overlapping and omission of riskfactors, are prevented in the process of identifying risks.Secondly, the tentative establishment of the frame system of risk identification isdemonstrated by Delphi Methods, also known as expert surveys, and the riskassessment system for the operation of the venues for mega events is eventuallydeveloped: three first-grade indicators(pre-game risks in the preparation phase, gamerisks in the game operation phase, and post-game risks in the recovery phase);ninesecond-grade indicators (risks in venue operation program, risks in the preparation ofvenue personnel, risks in the preparation of venue financial resources, risks in thepreparation of venue material resources, venue security risks, venue sports service risks, risks in venue logistics supports, risks in post-game human and materialevacuation, risks in the post-game venue finance) and27third-grade indicators (risksin the formulation of client group service program, risks in the formulation of securityprograms and emergency response, risks in the formulation of venue operational tasksand procedures, risks of venue distribution, risks of human resources planning, risksin personnel selection and recruitment, personnel training and rehearsal risks,personnel appraisal and incentive risks, risks of venue team development, risks infinancial budget of venue operation, risks in financial control of venue operation, risksof temporary venue constructions, risks in the management of permanent venueconstructions and facilities, risks in the supply of venue materials, safety andprotection risks, risks of fire prevention and evacuation, spectator service risks,medical and health service risks, technical service risks, other service risks includingrepast, languages, ticket and market services, risks in the management of venuefacilities, risks in the maintenance of venue surroundings, risks in the supply of venueproperties, risks in the evacuation of venue personnel, risks of venue construction andfacility damage, risks of venue asset run-off, and risks of venue finance overrun).Thirdly, the analytic hierarchy process is employed to set up a hierarchicalstructure model for the indicator system of risk assessment in the operation of thevenues for mega sports events, and through a pairwise judgment on the importancedegree of indicators by experts, the weight table for the assessment indicator systemof the mega venue operation is consequently obtained. Among them, the weightcoefficient for the risk in the phase of game operation is the largest one (0.4785),which is followed by that (0.3941) in the phase of pre-game preparation, and the leastone is the weight coefficient for the risk in the phase of post-game recovery (0.1274),among which the summation of the first two weights occupies87.26%of the entirevenue operational risk while the risk in post-game recovery only amounts to12.74%.In line with the principle of risk importance, this dissertation, on the basis of an actualcase, conducts its assessment on the risks in the pre-game and game phases, whichpossess larger risk weights.Fourthly, in terms of the operational risks in the pre-game phase, the dissertationassesses the operational risks of Nanyang Gymnasium where the7thChina FarmersGames is to be held. The results of the assessment go as follows: the risk categorizedas VERY POOR (a maximal risk) in the pre-game preparation phase is0, the onecategorized as POOR (a high risk) amounts to0.0071, the one categorized as GOOD(a general risk) totals0.1533, the one categorized as VERY GOOD (a low risk) amounts to0.4017, and the one categorized as EXCELLENT (a minimal risk) reaches0.4654. In accordance with the principle of maximal subordinate degree, experts holdthat the pre-game preparation of Nanyang Gymnasium categorized as EXCELLENT,VERY GOOD and GOOD scores0.8671. Consequently, after the integration ofexperts’ views is made, Nanyang Gymnasium is concluded to face a low risk in itsphase of pre-game preparation, among which there are slight risks in the preparationof material and financial resources and comparatively bigger risks in venue operationprogram and human resources preparation.Fifthly, the assessment on three indicators, namely the possibility, severity, andcontrollability of venue operational risks in the Gymnasium’s pre-game phase, revealsthat top ten risks, in terms of risk quantification in pre-game venue operation, includepower failure, mass congestion and stampede, errors in processing competitioninformation, mobbing, venue equipment failure or damage, poor food hygiene,explosion or threatened explosion, untimely material supply, hostage or vehiclehijacking, and object throwing, and corresponding risk response plans are accordinglyproposed to tackle these risks.Finally, since a risk is interpreted as a deviation between an objective and a result,the best way of an effective risk aversion is to adopt a scientific and rationalmanagement method for venue operation centered on operational objectives.Therefore, this dissertation puts forward four specific measures for the operationalmanagement of the venues for large-scale events, namely, the scientific design forvenue operation, the improvement of sport services centered on clients’ needs, theprovision of powerful supports for venue logistic services, and the adoption of thesafe venue measures.更多还原