From applicant to designated European Capital of Culture

Abstract

2015),"Unspread wings: Why cultural projects don't provide refreshing ideas for project management although they could?"If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -The purpose of this paper is to investigate the management challenges related to the transition from the application phase to the delivery phase of the project of being a European Capital of Culture (ECoC). Design/methodology/approach -Case study based on qualitative research interviews with the management team, combined with existing research on ECoC and documents on the Aarhus 2017 project. Findings -The first main finding is that the challenges are caused by the way in which the transition from applicant to designated ECoC includes a change in management, shifting from a project to a programme structure and change in organisation. The second main finding is that stakeholder management in relation to politicians and cultural agents is challenged by a high level of ownership and expectation.Research limitations/implications -The study focuses on just one case and one phase of the project. Practical implications -Consequences for the way ECoC are managed and the programme organised could be drawn from this. Originality/value -The originality of the work is in that it studies this very critical phase in the project's life-cycle in great detail, and focuses specifically on the management of ECoC.

Covid-19 Risk Management Perspectives of the European Capital of Culture: What Now?

“…The title also represents a step forward development, not only in the field of culture, but also in the field of tourism and other activities and it could be considered as a driver of positive change in a society, with the main aim of securing the strong local and regional commitment to the project. The main focus is on strengthening cultural institutions, renewal of cultural heritage, strengthening cultural participation, development of cultural and creative industry, crosssectoral cooperation and finally development of tourism (Hansen and Laursen 2015;Jaguzović 2019). Aforementioned tasks are incorporated in the main tendencies of all stakeholders involved in organization and realization of the ECoC (Jaguzović 2019), that are all together contributing to development of the project (Hansen and Laursen 2015).…”

Programming for holistic value creation: collaboration, coordination and perception

“…Aarhus announced their candidacy in 2007 and a project organization was established in 2008 to prepare the bid for the selection process that led to the designation of Aarhus as ECoC in 2012. After 2012 the organization was transformed (Hansen and Laursen, 2015), setting up a commercial foundation funded primarily by state, regional, and municipal funds, with some financial input from foundations and the commercial sector. In a timeline of Aarhus 2017 ( Figure 1), the transition from project to program marks a change in character and level of activity in the program organization.…”

“…The Aarhus 2017 ECoC was centered on the theme 'Let's rethink,' with three main areas of focus: the city, values, and creativity (Aarhus 2017, 2012). The three areas were complemented by six strategic objectives that provided directions for the development of the ECoC and explicitly stated the anticipated effects and value to be created, for instance: This paper refers to the group of projects funded under the Aarhus 2017 budget as a 'program,' as identified by Hansen and Laursen (2015), and following the convention used by Näsholm and Blomquist (2015) who studied the 2014 ECoC in Umeå, Sweden. The projects in the program had a shared vision but were run and managed independently from the Aarhus 2017 program organization.…”

“…This paper refers to the group of projects funded under the Aarhus 2017 budget as a "program," as identified by Hansen and Laursen (2015), and following the convention used by Näsholm and Blomquist (2015), who studied the 2014 ECoC in Umeå, Sweden. The projects in the program had a shared vision but were run and managed independently from the Aarhus 2017 program organization.…”

Rethinking participation in the Aarhus as European Capital of Culture 2017 project

“…(Davies 2011 pg 91) It is estimated that approximately 8000 people were involved in devising the programme through consultations, roadshows and exhibitions. But as described in Hansen and Laursen (2015) the transition from the bidding phase (2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012) to the delivery phase (2013-2017) caused radical organisational changes including a total change in the management team, a shift from a primary focus on project development towards programming, and a corresponding redefinition of participation, from participation in decision making to participation in cultural activities.…”