chosen as the main location for hosting YOG 2010 while NTU was designated as an alternative with existing facilities. YOG 2010 is a project with a set timeframe that must be completed by a specified deadline. The responsibility of the project director is to carefully select the ideal location for the Youth Olympic Village (YOG) and ensure its timely completion. The YOG needs to be situated in a town that meets participants' requirements and provides them with a special place to connect and share their experiences and cultures with each other and their families through digital communication channels at an internet center (International Olympic Committee, 2012).
Opportunities for assignment include providing accommodation and bedding for 5,000 athletes and staff members attending the Olympic event. The NUS university town project must be finished by August 10th, 2010.

Assignment Opportunities

Clarify the Consequences

The objective of the YOG project is to adhere to international multi-sport event standards. It should have the capacity to accommodate 5,000 athletes while minimizing travel time to all Olympic game venues. The project must also stay within budget and be completed within two and a half years.

Quantify Risk Tolerance with Desirability Scores

In order to determine the location of the YOG, decision-making involves evaluating different options based on their desirability scores. The goal is to select the option with the highest score.

The Risk Profile

The hazard profile assesses how well the operating environment can handle significant hazards in relation to achieving project objectives and outcomes. This decision must align with IOC's directive for Singapore to host the Games at a reasonable cost. The Olympic Village at NTU includes an Olympic Village

Square and residential halls on an adjacent site. Additionally, the university needs to address other facilities such as security and lighting system enhancements (Channel NewsAsia, 2008). Prioritizing cost-effectiveness is crucial for ensuring success considering the limited time frame of the project and budgetary constraints.

Hazard profile for selecting Youth Olympic Village location

Uncertainty: Location of Youth Olympic Village

Options Outcome

Opportunity

Consequences

Cost to YOG

Delivery on Time

NTU Chosen - 50% - SGD 9.35M - Most likely
NTU Not chosen - 50% - SGD 0.3M - Most likely
Nu Chosen - 50% - SGD 3.95M - Slightly likely
Nu Not chosen - 50% - SGD 0- Slightly likely

Figure 3 shows the hazard profile for selecting the location of the Youth Olympic Village.
Based on this analysis, choosing NUS as the Youth Olympic Village is a wise decision since it incurs lower costs (SGD 9.35M) compared to NTU (SGD 3.95M).

Determining Overall Desirability of YOG's Risk Profile

Alternate Outcome

Retrofit Opportunities On Time

Desirability Score

Contribution to Overall Desirability

NTU Chosen - 0.9 - 0.8 - 72
NTU Not chosen
Nu Chosen Nu Not chosen

Figure 3 displays an overview of the overall desirability for selecting the location based on the YOG's risk profile.
The overall desirability for the location of the Youth Olympic Games (YOG) can be determined based on several factors.
From the provided graph, it is evident that NUS has a higher desirableness mark (0.9) compared to NTU (0.8), assuming NUS town can finish construction on time.NUS town is a campus construction project focused on creating an environmentally-friendly environment, while NTU

already has an established campus with some sports facilities. Considering this, NUS has a lower opportunity (0.6) to retrofit in comparison to NTU's existing campus (0.9). When evaluating them as potential locations for YOG, NTU scores much higher at 72 compared to NUS at 54. Time constraints are significant in organizing the Youth Olympic Games Singapore. Therefore, it would be challenging if NUS town cannot complete its construction within the specified timeframe. It is also important to consider uncertainties related to hosting such an event. The ownership of Olympic Games lies with IOC (IOC, 2004), involving various institutions including representatives from states and local governments, NOC, and OCOG. Contractors play a crucial role in executing operational tasks like venue construction (Berlemann, 2007). In recent years, sustainability issues have gained importance in cities' bids for hosting Olympic Games. Bidding cities must effectively address these concerns in their plans.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) ultimately awards hosting rights by entering into a host city contract with the chosen city (IOC, 2004). Once selected as the host city, there is a seven-year period of preparation followed by four weeks of events. The government bodies of the host city play a significant role in planning and executing the Olympics, focusing on improving infrastructure, skills, economic gains, and regenerating natural and man-made environments (Berlemann, 2007). There are lessons to be learned from past Games to enhance future ones. Hosting the Olympic Games can stimulate urban revitalization and expedite ongoing efforts (Synadinos, 2001). The project requires substantial infrastructure for transportation, accommodation venues for competition, catering services, utilities management including energy supply and waste disposal. Detailed planning and administration are crucial along with

a management system capable of coordinating all operations seamlessly. Some criticism has emerged due to hosts' desire to surpass previous Games in scale and visual impact; however positive effects also exist. Effective planning relies on past experience, motivation, emotions, adaptability, and expert interviews when literature is lacking or scarce.Due to the scarcity of detailed publications on management systems, gaps have been filled by utilizing expert knowledge. It is crucial to incorporate sustainability considerations into decision-making processes and assign responsibility for sustainable development at all levels and functional areas, especially in host cities that are significant tourist and media centers. The organizational structure must ensure swift and consistent decision-making for timely delivery. However, collaboration with stakeholders from various organizing bodies and beyond is essential to achieve sustainable solutions. Effective communication plays a vital role in understanding stakeholder values and preferences, as well as anticipating their reactions to potential issues. Involving stakeholders in decision-making processes leads to better decisions (Schmidheiny, 1992) and is necessary for achieving long-lasting and socially acceptable outcomes (Berlemann, 2007). The Olympic Games heavily rely on sponsorship and often require government support. As a result, specific budgets are allocated within a set timeframe. The general public has a particular interest in how this budget is utilized since it includes tax money that comes from either increased taxes or redirected funds from other government functions. Support from public sources is typically determined upfront, while additional funding from private sources can be acquired along the way.According to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 2005, it is the host country's government that bears the responsibility for any cost overruns. In the planning stages of the Olympics, increasing

the budget significantly is difficult. Therefore, transparency plays a crucial role in communicating the long-term social and environmental benefits of hosting the games. However, previous experiences like Montreal in 1976 have left host cities burdened with substantial debt, making it increasingly challenging to find hosts due to concerns about cost-benefit mismatch.

Incidents such as the Munich attack or Atlanta bombing have further complicated organizing Olympic events as they divert attention from potential attacks. Nevertheless, validating risk-based approaches considering unrealized threats proves challenging. Early planning stages can employ computer simulation techniques to visualize scenarios that may jeopardize safety and security during Olympic events. These simulations also serve as training tools closer to when live drills are conducted by allowing practice of key tactics and standard operating procedures.

In certain cases, exploring trade-offs, multiple objectives, and risk attitudes becomes important for informed decision-making processes.Our group has conducted a partial analysis comparing factors for and against hosting the Youth Olympic Games (YOG) at either NTU or NUS, which we have organized in a table for easy reference and review. Singapore has always strived for excellence in various sectors, such as finance, healthcare, logistics, education, media, aerospace, and tourism. The goal is to position itself on the global stage and compete with neighboring ASEAN countries like Hong Kong and Bangkok. Singapore aims to showcase its strong economic capacity and assets while establishing itself as a prominent player in global strength and economic diversity. Selecting a suitable location to accommodate athletes is crucial to ensure they have a positive experience in Singapore. However, due to its small size, housing a large Olympic team would be challenging. It requires significant physical, financial, and

infrastructural capital commitments.Singapore must recognize the complexity of this task and invest efforts in planning coordinating ensuring allowing for capital expenditure expansion. Both NUS and NTU have been chosen as potential venues for housing Olympians.The tables below demonstrate the relevant trade-offs between these two options that need consideration.The optimal event to host will be determined using the even swap methodThe text provides a consequence table for selecting the Youth Olympic Village and an aim section, considering factors such as alternate venue, commuting time, facility service, facility size (number of beds), cost to YOG (including Green Village Cost), integrated related sports, education and culture construct, and security. Both NUS and NTU assume their buildings will be ready by YOG 10 and can offer 5000 beds each. The remaining factors are evaluated using the even swap method: alternate venue, Nu factor (unclear meaning), commuting time (15 minutes for both venues), facility service (outstanding for NUS and moderate for NTU due to reduced travel time), cost to YOG (low for both venues), integrated related sports, education and culture construct, and security. The main focus is on purpose, alternate venue option, and Nu factor. The objective is to achieve low cost with outstanding service in Facility Service and Cost to YOG including the Green Village Cost. There is a trade-off between increasing installation service in NTU or increasing its cost to YOG. Ultimately, only Security cost remains with NUS being cheaper at SGD 1.5 Mil. This analysis shows that NUS is a superior choice compared to NTU for housing Olympians. Singapore's status as a first-world country with low risk tolerance makes it suitable for hosting high-profile international events like

the Olympic games.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Desirability Curve highlights the significance of Singapore accommodating all YOG Olympians in order to showcase the country globally. While it is feasible to house Singapore Olympians elsewhere, this would lead to a lack of interaction with athletes from other countries, resulting in a 50% decrease in desirability. Nonetheless, accommodating 80% of the Olympians is still acceptable, even though desirability significantly drops to 10%. Based on an interpretation of the Risk Attitude curve, it is evident that Singapore displays a risk-seeking attitude when it comes to accommodating the Olympians for YOG.