Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T09:30:18.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using Performance Measures to Assess Performance of Indoor and Outdoor Aquatic Centres

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2016

Gary Howat ,
Gary Crilley  and
Duncan Murray
Gary Howat
Affiliation:
School of Management, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, South Australia 5095, Australia, Phone: + 61 83025326, Fax:, + 61 8 302 5082, Email: gary.howat@unisa.edu.au
Gary Crilley
Affiliation:
School of Management, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, South Australia 5095, Australia, Phone: + 61 83025163, Fax:, + 61 8 302 5082, Email: gary.crilley@unisa.edu.au
Duncan Murray
Affiliation:
School of Management, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, South Australia 5095, Australia, Phone: + 61 8 302 3164, Fax:, + 61 83025255, Email: duncan.w.murray@unisa.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A recent trend throughout Australia has been to develop multi-purpose indoor public aquatic centres in favour of outdoor pools. Such major policy and planning decisions often rely on consultants' feasibility studies, yet there is limited comprehensive industry-wide data available on which to base such decisions. The industry-wide performance measures discussed in this paper help fill this void by providing objective data to support the contention that multi-purpose indoor aquatic centres tend to outperform centres with solely outdoor pools. The key indicators of performance are based on financial viability and community participation data for a sample of Australian public aquatic centres.

Keywords

Performance measuresfinancial viabilityparticipationaquatic centres
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , January 2005 , pp. 6 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2005 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Audit Commission. 1989. Sport for whom? London, England: HMSO.Google Scholar
Bayley, G., & Nancarrow, C. 1998. Impulse purchasing: A qualitative exploration of the phenomenon. Qualitative Research: An International journal, 1(2): 99–114.Google Scholar
Benton, N. 2003. The new wave: An era of pool developments. Australasian Leisure Management, 36: 14–17.Google Scholar
Crosling, R. 2003. Using the Australian Business Excellence Framework to achieve organisational excellence. Sydney, Australia: SAI Global Professional Services.Google Scholar
Howat, G., Crilley, G., Mikilewicz, S., Edgecombe, S., March, H., Murray, D., & Bell, B. 2002. Trends in service quality, customer satisfaction and behavioural intentions of Australian aquatic centre customers, 1999-2001. Annals of Leisure Research, 5: 51–64.Google Scholar
Howat, G. 2004. CERMPI® operational management (efficiency) performance indicators for Australian public indoor aquatic centres with outdoor pools (Group 6), 1997–2003. South Australia: University of South Australia.Google Scholar
Ittner, CD., & Larcker, D.F. 2003. Coming up short on nonfinancial performance measures. Harvard Business Review, 81(11): 88–95.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R.S., & Norton, D.P. 1992. The balanced scorecard – measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1): 71–79.Google Scholar
King, M. 2003. Who pays? Australasian Leisure Management, 42: 48–49.Google Scholar
Kress, K., Ozawa, R, & Schmid, G. 2000. The new consumer emerges. Strategic Leadership, 28(5): 4–9.Google Scholar
Lebas, M., & Euske, K. 2002. A conceptual and operational delineation of performance. In Neely, A. (Ed.), Business performance measurement: Theory and practice: 65–79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511753695.006Google Scholar
Meyer, M. 2002. Rethinking performance measurement: Beyond the balanced scorecard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nair, M. 2003. Essentials of the balanced score-card. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Neely, A. (Ed.) 2002. Business performance measurement: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511753695Google Scholar
Neely, A, 1999. The performance measurement revolution: Why now and what next? International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 19(2): 205–228.10.1108/01443579910247437Google Scholar
Niven, PR. 2004. Balanced scorecard step-by-step for government and nonprofit agencies. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Otley, D. 2002. Measuring performance: The accounting perspective. In Neely, A. (Ed.), Business performance measurement: Theory and practice: 3–21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, L. 1997. Barriers to total quality management in public leisure services. Managing Leisure, 2: 17–18.Google Scholar
Robinson, L., & Taylor, P. 2003. The performance of local authority sports halls and swimming pools in England. Managing Leisure, 8: 1–16.10.1080/1360671032000075207Google Scholar
Sport England. 2002. National benchmarking service for sports halls and swimming pools: Guidance and survey documentation. London: Sport England.Google Scholar
Stern, H. 1962. The significance of impulse buying today. Journal of Marketing, 26(04): 59–62.Google Scholar
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. 2001. Using multivariate statistics (4th ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Whittaker, A. 2003. Taking the plunge. Australasian Leisure Management. 42: 50–51.Google Scholar