Content area
Full text
1. Introduction
Destination Management Organizations (DMO) are believed to play an important coordinating role in both destination planning and development and destination marketing (Bieger, 2008; Heath and Wall, 1992; Inskeep, 1991; Ritchie and Crouch, 2003). While the role of the DMO has been examined in previous research, with particular emphasis being given to its coordinating function (Beritelli et al. , 2009a; Bieger, 1998; Getz et al. , 1998; Presenza et al. , 2005; Volgger and Pechlaner, 2014), there is no conclusive empirical evidence of DMOs' effective coordinating role within a destination's network.
In the case of DMOs (i.e. local, regional or national tourist offices), we argue that the analysis of their coordinating role among the various organizations and institutions in the tourist destination involves a series of peculiarities that require a specific research approach. First, DMOs are constant, permanent organizations. While coordinating units are usually temporary, formed to meet specific needs in the course of a project or initiative, the organizational stability of an institution like a DMO implies a constant obligation to function as a connecting element for the whole community. To act as a stable, permanent coordinating institution is a considerable challenge if the other organizations and stakeholder groups involved do not see an urgent need to be coordinated at all. Second, DMOs have limited budgets, limited control over the service chain and limited human resources (Pike and Page, 2014). This latter factor naturally means that the few people working within a DMO exercise considerable influence over the institution. Consequently, the role attributed to the organization is shaped by the opinions, decisions and actions of the actors working in or affiliated to it. Or, in other words, few people can affect the actions and ultimately the image and the perception of the institution in the community of the tourist destination. Third, DMOs operate almost exclusively in an inter-organizational context. For example, they provide public services such as information centers, they run promotional initiatives jointly financed by the various tourist enterprises and they are in charge of planning processes for the whole destination (Pike, 2004). Consequently, the actors within them are embedded in their destinations' webs of developing relationships and ongoing initiatives.
Our research perspective differs from that of the numerous case studies (Beritelli