Overview of process

The approach and methodology I propose in this book are not new or ground breaking, they are simply the collected wisdom, trial and error and experience gathered over many years from a host of event organisers.

I propose that where possible you should work through the contents of the book in order (or in the order that matches your needs). Each chapter contains a ‘stage’ of the process, though there is a degree of overlap in some areas and checkpoint reviews may demand that you go back a stage or two to change or confirm some details. I know that life is rarely neat and convenient, but generally one stage should be completed before you start the next stage. I accept that, depending on circumstances, you may have to vary that approach. You will probably find that while working on Chapter 6, you may still be tying up loose ends and documenting elements of Chapter 5, and you or a deputy may just be starting to make calls and send emails in preparation for Chapter 7. Although that is acceptable, be warned that if you try to run some critical stages in parallel, you stand a huge risk of falling into an endless circle of review and reworking. It is possible that your findings and decisions for some stages could impact decisions and arrangements in other stages, causing yet another endless loop of review and reworking.

As you progress, you will gradually collect more information, refining your plans and arrangements. You will gain confidence in the viability of your proposed event, or it is possible that you could realise that there is a fatal flaw and that your proposed event will be too costly or too dangerous to run, so you may abandon the idea!

Generally, when finished, the output and results from each stage should be reviewed to reconfirm the viability of your proposals and then fed on into the following stages.

This logical progression with checkpoints at the end of some stages formalises your reviews and forces you to reconsider the event’s viability in the light of the latest research and investigation. For example, if you discover that there is no suitable site available, you may feel it best to abandon the proposed event at that point, with least effort and resources expended. Alternately you may wish to check which aspect of the proposed event you would need to change so that you could fit it onto the available site! Whichever option you choose, you can be assured that if your research is valid, you are making decisions based on fact and not guessing or simply taking a chance.