De Bosscher - Spliss-Conference
De Bosscher - Spliss-Conference
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296635285
De Bosscher - spliss-conference
Dataset March 2016
CITATIONS
READS
55
4 authors, including:
Veerle De Bosscher
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
82 PUBLICATIONS 424 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
INTRODUCTION
Increasing global sporting arms race (Oakley & Green,
2001; De Bosscher et al., 2008)
Competition increases, because nations invest more
strategically in elite sport
Diminishing return on investment
PURPOSE
Evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of elite
sport policies at the national level
Analytical relationships between policy (inputthroughput) and success parameters (outputs)
Measurement: to objectify the comparison of
a large amount of data
Do systems matter?
www.SPLISS.net
8,5% population
10% wealth (GDP)
22% success summer sports;
37% winter sports
26% of the Olympians 2012
Asia
11. South Korea
12. Japan
America
14. Canada
15. Brazil
EUROPE
1. Belgium (Flanders & Wallonia)
2. Denmark
3. Estonia
4. Finland
5. France
6. The Netherlands
7. Northern Ireland (GBR)
8. Portugal
9. Spain
10. Switzerland
13. Australia
Oceania
A COLLABORATION OF
15 nations, 53 researchers,
33 policy organisations
3142 elite athletes, 1376
coaches, 241 federations
Consortium group
Pillar 5: excellence
Post career
Pillar 9
Improved climate
Scientific research&
innovation
Pillar 8
(Inter)national competition
Pillar 4: performance
Pillar 7
Talent development
Training facilities
Pillar 3: initiation
Foundation &
participation
INPUT
De Bosscher et al.,
2006
INPUT (funding)
9 pillars
96 CSF, 750 sub-factors, at
the INPUT-THROUGHPUT
levels
THROUGHPUT
(processes)
OUTPUT
(success)
CSF
Sub-factors
Pillar 1
Pillar 2
Pillar 3
Pillar 4
Pillar 5
Pillar 6
Pillar 7
Pillar 8
Pillar 9
8
18
10
12
7
9
16
7
9
9
119
31
169
122
84
100
51
65
TOTAL
96
750
QUALITATIVE
(+QUAN)
Overall sport policy inventory
QUANTITATIVE
Objective + perceived
Elite Sport Climate survey
- 3142 elite athletes
- 1376 elite coaches
- 241 performance directors
Note: excl. France
Olympic sports
Able bodied sport
National policy level
Collected by a local researcher
QUANTITATIVE + QUALITATIVE
ANALYSIS
- Composit indicators
- Content analysis
measure to understand
Composite Indicators
RESULTS
Do systems work?
Spearmans rank correlations of total Pillar scores and Success
rs
summer
sig
rs
Winter
sig
0,909** 0,000
0,588*
0,039
16
Pillar 2 (structure)
0,720** 0,004
0,685** 0,007
14
Pillar 3 (participation)
0,049
0,873
0,267
0,377
13
-0,148
0,707
-0,454
0,118
13
0,483
0,080
0,318
0,267
14
0,704** 0,005
0,354
0,214
14
Pillar 7 (coaches)
0,606*
0,028
0,779** 0,002
13
0,577*
0,039
0,271
0,370
13
0,71**
0,004
0,784** 0,001
14
AVERAGE
MAX
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
P8, (inter)national
competition
30%
P3, sport
participation
20%
10%
0%
P7, Coach
development and
provision
P5, (post)athletic
career support
AVERAGE
AUSTRALIA
Successful summer
sport nations
MAX
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
P8, (inter)national
competition
30%
P3, sport
participation
20%
10%
0%
P7, Coach
development and
provision
P5, (post)athletic
career support
AVERAGE
AUSTRALIA JAPAN
Successful summer
sport nations
MAX
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
P8, (inter)national
competition
30%
P3, sport
participation
20%
10%
0%
P7, Coach
development and
provision
P5, (post)athletic
career support
AVERAGE
AUSTRALIA JAPAN
FRANCE
Successful summer
sport nations
MAX
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
P8, (inter)national
competition
30%
P3, sport
participation
20%
10%
0%
P7, Coach
development and
provision
P5, (post)athletic
career support
AVERAGE
CANADA
Successful winter
sport nations
MAX
P1, financial
support
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
P8, (inter)national
competition
20%
10%
P3, sport
participation
0%
P7, Coach
development and
provision
P6, training
facilities
P5, (post)athletic
career support
AVERAGE
CANADA NETHERLANDS
Successful winter
sport nations
MAX
P1, financial
support
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
P8, (inter)national
competition
20%
10%
P3, sport
participation
0%
P7, Coach
development and
provision
P6, training
facilities
P5, (post)athletic
career support
AVERAGE
MAX
Successful winter
sport nations
P1, financial
support
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
P8, (inter)national
competition
20%
10%
P3, sport
participation
0%
P7, Coach
development and
provision
P6, training
facilities
P5, (post)athletic
career support
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
CAN
30%
P8,
(inter)national
competition
10%
0%
JAP
AUS
P3, sport
participation
20%
P7, Coach
development and
provision
P6, training
facilities
P5, (post)athletic
career support
smaller
countries can gain a competitive
advantage in
P9, research and
P2, structure and
organisation
differentinnovation
(less expensive(?) pillars, that
require long-term
development
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
P8,
(inter)national
competition
P3, sport
participation
20%
10%
0%
P7, Coach
development and
provision
P6, training
facilities
P5, (post)athletic
career support
NED
DEN
SUI
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSION
Do systems matter?
Yes they can contribute to performance
no generic blueprint - no sets of Pillars, Critical
Success Factors or recognised best practices that can
be transferred into any national context with the
guarantee of delivering success.
broad consensus on the ingredients that go into the
elite success recipe but countries combine
ingredients in their own unique ways.
benchlearn: seek best principles of efficient and
effective elite sport policies rather than best practice
(De Bosscher et al., 2015)
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
SPLISS analysis (80% qualitative& descriptive)
Mixed methods
CIs are useful to facilitate pattern recognition
summarise complex, multi-dimensional data into
easily understood formats
are not an isolated measurement; they are rather a
supportive and tangible way of understanding elite
sport policies in relation to sporting success,
their use needs to be combined with descriptive and
qualitative explanations.
THANK YOU!
Veerle De Bosscher, Simon Shibli, Hans Westerbeek,
Maarten van Bottenburg