Do Projects Learn Across Space and Time? Evidence from the Olympics
Despite the theoretical potential for cost reductions through experience, an analysis of Olympic Games from 1960 to 2024 reveals that geographic distance, temporal gaps, and temporary organizational structures create a "myopia of learning" that prevents strategic improvement and results in persistent cost overruns.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
The Big Question: Do We Get Better at Doing Things Over Time?
Imagine you are baking a cake. If you bake a cake every week for 60 years, you would expect to get better. You'd learn the perfect temperature, how much sugar to use, and how to fix it if it burns. You would save money and time because you've done it before.
The authors of this paper asked: Does the same thing happen with the Olympic Games?
The Olympics happen every four years. They are huge, expensive, and repeatable. Logically, the world should be getting better at hosting them, spending less money, and making fewer mistakes with every new city that takes the turn.
The shocking answer is: No.
After analyzing 64 years of data (from 1960 to 2024), the researchers found that the Olympics are not getting better. In fact, they are just as messy and expensive as they were in the 1960s. The average cost goes over budget by 159%. That means if a city plans to spend $1 billion, they end up spending $2.6 billion.
The Problem: The "Amnesia" of the Olympics
Why doesn't the world get better at this? The paper argues that the Olympics suffer from a condition the authors call "Spatiotemporality." That's a fancy word for a simple problem: The Olympics are too far apart in space and time to learn from each other.
Here is the analogy:
Imagine a relay race where the runners are not on the same track.
- Space (Geography): The first runner is in Barcelona, the second is in Atlanta, the third is in Rio. They are in different countries with different languages, laws, and cultures.
- Time: They don't run one after another. They run four years apart.
- The Team: The biggest problem is that the "team" changes completely every time.
The "Pop-Up Restaurant" Analogy:
Think of the Olympics not as a permanent restaurant (like McDonald's), but as a pop-up restaurant that opens in a different city every four years.
- McDonald's (The Ideal Learner): They have a permanent headquarters. They have the same managers, the same recipes, and the same staff training. If a burger tastes bad in London, they fix the recipe for Paris next week. They learn continuously.
- The Olympics (The Pop-Up): Every four years, a new city builds a brand-new restaurant from scratch. They hire a brand-new chef, a brand-new manager, and a brand-new staff. When the event is over, the restaurant closes, and everyone goes home.
When the next pop-up opens in a different country four years later, the new chef has never met the old chef. The old chef's notes have been lost, forgotten, or don't apply to the new kitchen. The new chef has to figure everything out from scratch, making the same mistakes the old chef made.
The Two Types of Learning
The paper makes a crucial distinction between two types of learning:
Tactical Learning (The "Little Fixes"):
- What happens: The organizers of the Rio Olympics realized, "Hey, the buses are getting stuck in traffic. Let's hire more traffic cops." Or, "We need to hang the flags correctly."
- The Result: They fix the immediate problem. This is lower-level learning. It happens during the event.
- The Catch: These fixes die with the event. The next city doesn't automatically know about them.
Strategic Learning (The "Big Picture"):
- What should happen: The system changes so that no one ever has to deal with traffic jams again. Maybe they build a permanent subway line, or they change the rules so the games are cheaper.
- The Result: This is higher-level learning. It saves billions of dollars and prevents disasters.
- The Reality: The Olympics have zero strategic learning. They keep building expensive stadiums that sit empty, and they keep going over budget.
Why Does This Happen? (The "Myopia" of Learning)
The authors use a concept called "Myopia of Learning." Myopia means being short-sighted.
- Short-sighted in Time: Because the games are four years apart, the knowledge "rots" before it can be used. By the time the next city is ready, the experts from the last city have retired or moved on.
- Short-sighted in Space: Because every city is different, what worked in Tokyo doesn't work in Paris. The "franchise" (the International Olympic Committee or IOC) tries to send instructions, but the local team (the Organizing Committee) is temporary and often ignores the advice because they are too busy putting out fires.
It's like trying to teach a new driver how to drive by handing them a manual written by a driver who drove a different car, in a different country, four years ago.
The Solution: How Do We Fix It?
The paper suggests that "tweaking" the system (like better manuals or more meetings) won't work. We need a radical change. They propose four strategies, using real-world examples:
Incremental (The "Slow Fix"): Just keep doing what you do but try to get slightly better.
- Verdict: Failed. The Olympics have tried this for 60 years, and it hasn't worked.
Centralizing (The "Permanent Home"): Pick one city to host the Summer Games forever, and one city for the Winter Games forever.
- Analogy: Instead of a pop-up restaurant, build a permanent stadium complex. Use the same facilities every time.
- Example: The ancient Olympics were held in the same place (Olympia, Greece) for 1,000 years.
- Pros: No need to build new stadiums. The same team can stay and get better every time.
- Cons: It loses the "global tour" feeling.
Decentralizing (The "Specialized Hubs"): Don't host the whole game in one city. Let different permanent places host specific sports.
- Analogy: The "Skiing World Cup" happens in the same snowy mountains every year. The "Surfing World Cup" happens at the same beach.
- Idea: Have a permanent "Olympic Village" for swimming in one country, a permanent track in another, etc.
- Pros: You use existing, specialized facilities. You get experts who know their sport inside out.
Real Options (The "Step-by-Step" Approach): Don't build a massive Olympic stadium immediately. Build a small one, see if people like it, and then expand it over 20 years.
- Analogy: Don't buy a $50 million Ferrari immediately. Buy a used car, learn to drive, then upgrade to a sports car, then a supercar.
- Pros: You only spend money when you know you need it. You avoid the "white elephant" stadiums that no one uses.
The Bottom Line
The Olympics are currently stuck in a loop of Sisyphus (the Greek figure condemned to roll a boulder up a hill forever, only for it to roll back down every time).
Every four years, a new city rolls the boulder up, spends a fortune, makes mistakes, and then the boulder rolls back down. The next city starts from the bottom again, with no memory of the previous climb.
The lesson for everyone: Whether you are running a government project, a big corporation, or a community event, if you keep changing your team, your location, and your timeline, you will never truly learn. To get better, you need continuity. You need to keep the same people, or the same place, long enough to actually learn from your mistakes.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.