No equipment, no competition – the SELMA reference model for managing logistics in sport

The global sport market is an industry that has seen strong growth in recent years (Herold et al., 2019). It is anticipated that the global sport equipment market will experience a 32% growth in revenue between 2024 and 2029 (Statista, 2024). Taking that into account and given the fact that today’s sporting events are the world’s largest non-defense-related logistics events (Minis et al., 2006), it is obvious that logistics in the sport sector is of great importance. Nevertheless, sport logistics, operating at the interface of logistics and sport management (Pott et al., 2023b), has received little scientific attention to date (Herold et al., 2019). This is particularly surprising when we consider that a central goal of sport management is to ensure effective and efficient operations in sport organizations and logistics can pay in toward this goal, e.g. by streamlined processes, cost reduction or enhanced communication (Byers, 2013; Schwarz and Hunter, 2018). This applies in particular for the heart of the sport sector’s value creation – sport events and competitions – which require immense amounts of sport equipment especially in professional sport (Herold, 2022; Pott et al., 2023a). Logistics provides for smooth events and positive experience for participants and spectators by coordinating the full supply chain from procurement to distribution of the equipment, including proper transportation planning, inventory management and facility management (Herold, 2022; Schwarz and Hunter, 2018).

However, there are no established models that support sport organizations in professionalizing and optimizing their logistics, neither with a focus on sport equipment nor on any other sport logistics complex (Pott et al., 2023a). By providing an abstracted and simplified representation of sport (equipment) logistics in organizations, a reference model could help to understand processes, tasks and relationships and, thereby, promote a common understanding. By comparing the actual state of their logistics with the reference model, sport organizations could identify weaknesses or optimization potential. A reference model could also be used as a template for similar applications, which would save time and resources, as existing structures can be adapted rather than starting from scratch. Therefore, the paper pursues the following overall research objective (RO):

The focus therefore is on supplying athletes with the sport equipment they need to perform their sport – and not on other sport logistics areas such as spectator management, athletes transportation or media and broadcasting support. On the way to achieving the research objective, the paper develops along the following subordinate research questions (SRQ):

From a sport management perspective, answering these questions is of high relevance because it broadens our understanding of sport organizations and their design by revealing structural arrangements and various organizational processes in the field of sport equipment logistics. This way, this work not only informs researchers but sport executives and managers alike (Byers et al., 2012).

The paper develops as follows: After the introduction, section 2 provides a theoretical background on reference modeling and sport logistics by reviewing literature. Subsequently, a conceptual framework proposal is presented. In section 3, the methodological approach is explained. Section 4 presents and describes the sport logistics reference model that has been developed. A discussion of the results follows in section 5. It contains a revisit of the research questions as well as implications and limitations. Section 6 provides a conclusion of the paper.

To create a reference model for equipment logistics management in sport, this paper is using the method box of information systems science as it offers structured methodologies that help in systematically analyzing and designing processes. These structured approaches lead to clearer models and frameworks. Hence, this section reviews the literature on information systems with special focus on reference modeling as well as the literature on sport management with a special focus on sport equipment logistics which reflects the application domain of the reference model. It then proposes a conceptual framework as abstracted idea of a sport logistics reference model.

Whether they are businesses, non-profit organizations or public authorities, all organizations have workflows and processes. Processes define how organizations provide their services and products. Design and execution of the processes affect quality and efficiency of the services and products offered (Dumas et al., 2021). Good workflows foster competitive advantage, as Porter expressed early in his well-known value chain approach (Porter, 1998); and information is key (Porter and Millar, 1985). Today, information increasingly is processed digitally, which is where information systems come in as discipline adopting from different reference disciplines such as management and computer science (Avison and Elliot, 2006; Khazanchi and Munkvold, 2000). Using structured modeling approaches, it contributes to the effective management of organizations and use of IT in organizations (Becker et al., 2012; Khazanchi and Munkvold, 2000).

Representing relevant aspects of an original is a fundamental characteristic of models of any kind. The original is reduced by an abstraction and contains the information relevant for a specific audience, whereby several characteristics are fulfilled (Becker et al., 2004). The representation characteristic serves to represent the original and defines the type of model. The reduction of complexity is represented by the reduction characteristic. The aim is to reflect a selective choice of aspects from the original that does not affect comprehensibility but reduces the model to its key components. The pragmatic characteristic is defined in order to ensure that the model is suitable for the addressee, which guarantees the purpose for the use of the model by the addressee (Stachowiak, 1973). In addition to these characteristics, models are also enriched with subjective aspects to add further details (Heinrich et al., 2011). In this context, models can be understood as a language-independent communication medium for information (Krcmar, 2015).

Considering and applying models in the context of information systems allows them to be understood as information models. Becker and Schütte (2004) describe information models as an immaterial representation of information systems in order to design information systems and organizations. Based on the model, information regarding elements of a system can be declared in a specific modeling language. Information models can be divided into seven categories, whereby the individual categories are not always disjoint and therefore a model can belong to several categories (Becker and Schütte, 2004; Meier and Wüst, 2003). In the context of this work, the model classes of the process model, ideal or target model and reference model are considered.

A reference model is a specialized form of information model (vom Brocke, 2015). The objective is to create an overview for information system and organization designers that serves as a guideline and can be reused in different configurations (vom Brocke and Fettke, 2019). It is therefore used as a reference point for concrete individual models and can also be regarded as a target or ideal model (Schütte et al., 2001; vom Brocke, 2015).

Organizational design usually derives to-be models from as-is models. An as-is model represents the current state of a system or organization. The to-be model maps a vision that is pursued through a system change or reorganization. A to-be model can incorporate information from best practices, field-tested processes and reference models (Speck and Schnetgöke, 2005).

A process model, however, represents the sequence of a process. The representation of the process in a given modeling language is therefore essential. The process as such is a sequence of completed activities in a chronological and logical order which leads to a previously defined result (Becker et al., 2012; Fischermanns, 2013; Schmelzer and Sesselmann, 2020). Process models essentially serve two purposes: organizational design (e.g. organizational documentation, process-oriented reorganization, continuous process management) and application system design (e.g. software selection, software development, workflow management) (Rosemann et al., 2012).

The represented areas of information models can be summarized in our paper as follows. The application of a reference model in a process context creates the dilemma between a representation of universal information and the representation of a company’s own strategic advantages. To overcome this dilemma three main characteristics of a reference model are considered in our approach. (1) The degree of general applicability for the creation of a wide range of individual models must be taken into account. (2) The adaptability of reference models for the straightforward derivation of a specific model without extensive changes must be granted. (3) An application as an individual model without modification has to be possible (Dietzsch, 2002).

The domain of sport logistics comprises the management of warehousing and transport within sport organizations (Herold et al., 2019; Pott et al., 2023a). In order to fulfil the expectations of sport logistics clients, such as athletes or fans, it is necessary to plan, implement and control the forward and reverse flow of goods, people and information (Herold et al., 2019; Pott et al., 2023b). Sport logistics can be interpreted as the intersection of logistics management and sport management (Pott et al., 2023a, b). It encompasses procurement, operations, distribution and reverse logistics processes from the logistics management discipline (Pott et al., 2023b). The field of sport management provides expertise in marketing, operations and organization (Pott et al., 2023b).

Herold et al. (2019) established a framework for sport logistics containing four pillars, namely venue logistics management, athletes logistics management, fan and spectator logistics management and sport equipment logistics management. Venue logistics management at a sport event encompasses the organization of venue spaces and infrastructure for all involved participants, including catering, security, and medical supply (Chakrabarty and Premkumar, 2023; Herold et al., 2019, 2021). Characteristic for venue logistics operations is the execution of a high volume of diverse service demands within a limited timeframe (Beis et al., 2006; Chakrabarty and Premkumar, 2023; Herold et al., 2019; Robinson et al., 2010). Athletes logistics management mainly deals with the coordination of travel and transport of athletes and their staff (Chakrabarty and Premkumar, 2023; Herold et al., 2019, 2021). Fan and spectator logistics management is primarily concerned with infrastructure and transportation systems for fans and spectators as well as traffic management (Bovy, 2006; Chakrabarty and Premkumar, 2023; Currie and Shalaby, 2012; Frantzeskakis and Frantzeskakis, 2006; Herold et al., 2019; Kassens-Noor, 2010). Sport equipment logistics management focusses on supplying athletes, venues and fans with the required equipment, which includes warehousing and transportation of those items (Herold et al., 2019, 2021; Minis et al., 2006; Minis and Tsamboulas, 2008). Based on this Chakrabarty and Premkumar (2023) add a fifth pillar, the media and broadcasting logistics management, which is concerned with the provision of support services to media and broadcasting agencies. These services include the management of the agencies stay, the provision of infrastructure, and the support of operations at off-site media hubs (Chakrabarty and Premkumar, 2023). In this paper, we concentrate on the pillar of equipment logistics management with special focus on the supply of athletes.

Four key elements of sport equipment logistics can be identified: purpose, material flow structure, organizational levels and area of operations (Pott et al., 2025). The latter contains warehousing, transportation and location of action, so it reaches along the whole logistics chain (Pott et al., 2023a; Pott et al., 2025). Organizational levels of sport equipment logistics are divided into planning, preparation and execution (Pott et al., 2025). Looking at the material flow structure of sport equipment logistics, a distinction is made between centralized and decentralized material flow structures (Pott et al., 2025). The purpose can be divided into athlete equipment logistics, which comprises the provision of athletes with required equipment for practicing their sport, and sporting event equipment logistics, encompassing the supply of necessary equipment for the successful running of sporting events (Pott et al., 2023a; Pott et al., 2025). Typical responsibilities of equipment logistics include the organization and storage of equipment (Siedentop et al., 2020), the monitoring of equipment issuance in order to reduce equipment loss (Parent and Smith-Swan, 2013) and the coordination of equipment transfers between disparate locations (Masterman, 2022; Pott et al., 2025). The subfield of athlete equipment logistics is distinguished by a unique combination of features, including low cost pressure, minimal competition, personal customer relationships, predictable demand, low price elasticity, closed material flow and high error transparency (Pott et al., 2023a). Furthermore, the goods handled in athlete equipment logistics are characterized by a high degree of heterogeneity, which results in the need of different load carriers and storing devices (Minis et al., 2006; Pott et al., 2023a). It is not uncommon to have special rooms for equipment storage (Jordan et al., 2009; Pott et al., 2025). Additionally, equipment logistics is characterized by the return of equipment once the game has been completed (Covell et al., 2019; Pott et al., 2025; Staurowsky et al., 2019). Professional athlete equipment logistics is mainly relevant in professional sport due to larger quantity of goods, higher frequency of use, longer travel distances, higher value of goods and the necessity of transporting specialized items (Pott et al., 2023a). Such logistics enable athletes to dedicate their full attention to the practice of their sport, which leads to the best performances, following the theory of marginals gains (Bamford et al., 2015; Pott et al., 2023a; SCMA, 2016). In addition to the four key elements, Pott et al. (2025) define five central tasks of logistics operations, namely order processing, warehouse, inventory management, packaging and transport.

Following on from the state of the art, we are developing a reference model for sport equipment logistics, since there is a paucity of established models that provide sport organizations with an orientation framework for the professionalization of their equipment logistics (Pott et al., 2023a).

Based on the state of the art described in the previous two sections, we propose the following conceptual model (Figure 1) as construct of thought meant to serve us as starting point for the creation of the sport equipment logistics management (SELMA) reference model:

From logistics and sport management, the reference model draws its domain knowledge. The discipline of information systems management delivers the method to design the model. The SELMA reference model shall consist of several layers. The supra layer represents the highest and most abstracted layer. It shall give an overview of the full scope of the model at a glance, cover the main fields of activity of sport equipment logistics management with its central entities and provide an overall understanding of the relations between these entities. Each entity shall then be further elaborated in the lower layers. Elaborate layer 1 defines the crucial processes behind every entity of the supra layer. Each process of elaborate layer 1 can then be further specified in subprocesses at elaborate layer 2, each subprocess of elaborate layer 2 can be further specified in sub-subprocesses at elaborate layer 3, and so on. Example: Sport equipment distribution is an entity at the supra layer. A central process of it is to provide the sport equipment to the athlete at a sport event (elaborate layer 1). A subprocess of it is to carry the sport equipment onto the pitch.

This chapter explains the methodological approach toward the design of the SELMA reference model. Initially, an overview on reference modeling methods is given and a suitable approach is selected. Afterwards, the reader is introduced to the icebricks modeling language and method.

There are several approaches to reference modeling in the literature. The approaches differ primarily in the number of different phases and the level of detail of the respective reference modeling. Fettke (2014) identifies several approaches which all comprehend four to seven phases.

Fettke and Loos (2004) describe a four-phase approach: the problem is defined, the reference model is constructed, an evaluation is carried out and maintenance of the model is proposed.

Becker et al. (2002) interpret the method for reference modeling in a five-phase approach. After defining the project objective, the modeling technique for the reference model is defined. The model is then created and tested and finally brought to market. In this approach, the definition and selection of the modeling language and thus the understanding of the target groups and the reuse of the reference model are considered essential.

Delfmann (2006) takes up the approach of Becker et al. (2002) and, after definition of the modeling method for the reference model, he supplements a phase of implementation of the technology for reference modeling. Here, the constraints for reference modeling are further specified and defined.

Derived from these various approaches, Fettke (2014) defines a seven-phase approach. Within this approach, he focuses on three phases: the collection of individual models, the preparation of these models and the extraction of reference models from the previously collected models.

Basically, the respective approaches are similar, but their number of phases differs because they are broken down into different levels of detail. Overall, four overarching stages are always included:

1. Problem definition and objective: To create an IT artifact, a problem definition is developed (Ahlemann and Gastl, 2007; Schlagheck, 2000; Schütte, 2013). Reference models are usually designed to solve the problems of a group of companies (Schütte, 2013). The defined goal is closely derived from the problem definition (Delfmann, 2006; Vom Brocke, 2015), which in turn places requirements on the model (Thomas, 2006).

2. Modeling technique: According to Holten (2000), a modeling language should include a conceptual aspect, a representational aspect and an action guide. Conceptual aspects define model elements and their meaning and relationship to each other. Representational aspects assign forms of representation of the elements and relationships to each other (Holten, 2001).

3. Construction: On the basis of the objective and modeling technique, Schütte (2013) recommends a top-down approach. Firstly, this allows the achievement of the objective to be monitored, and secondly, it allows further specialization to be mapped through additional detailing. In addition to modeling, the possibility of configuration rules should also be considered. Depending on certain parameters, the reference model can thus be used for different purposes (Stadler, 2010).

4. Evaluation: The evaluation of a reference model is usually carried out during the design phase (Stadler, 2010). This is done through interviews with technical experts, verification of the created model parts against the model rules or through the preliminary test application of the created model (Becker et al., 2002; Fettke, 2014; Knackstedt, 2006).

All in all, the concept of Thomas (2006) can be adapted for our approach, according to which a reference model is an information model that can be used to create further models.

This work is based on the five-phase approach of Becker et al. (2002) with special focus on the first three phases. The approach has already proven itself in scientific work (Hartmann, 2022), and by focusing on the creation of the reference model, an initial model is developed which can be built upon and refined in future work.

A process model is the representation of a process, which is a chronological and logical sequence of activities to achieve a goal (Becker and Kahn, 2012). There are various modeling languages for mapping processes, which can be selected depending on the purpose and objective. UML, BPMN and EPK, as commonly used modeling languages, can be described as general-purpose modeling languages and are highly flexible in use (Frank, 2013).

In a more general way, modeling languages can be understood as a system of characters and rules for their use (Holten, 1999), which is applied in a method for creating results (Wand and Weber, 2002). The icebricks method (hereafter referred to as icebricks) addresses both areas and provides a modeling language as well as a modeling method, made available in an integrated tool (Clever, 2016). On the one hand, the usefulness of icebricks in the creation of reference models has been scientifically proven by the construction of many established reference models (Fechner, 2015; Gäth, 2013; Hartmann, 2022; Püster, 2016). On the other hand, icebricks provides support for the quality characteristics of models through the prescribed application of the principles of proper modeling (Becker et al., 2012) during the use of the icebricks tool. This is implemented, for example, through the concept of semantic process modeling, which increases the quality of models by project-wide glossaries as a vocabulary (Clever, 2016). In addition, icebricks directly meets the requirements of a reference model in terms of the levels of detail and the options for creating variants thanks to its technical structure.

Icebricks is based on its modeling tool with the same name and is divided into four hierarchical levels: The frame, the main processes, the detail processes and the process components. A strict hierarchy is followed along the way. The frame represents the basic structure and entry point of the modeling project. The elements of the framework are further designed as main processes, which in turn are refined in the detail processes. Every structure is described by the process components also named as process bricks. These process bricks are represented by a name as well as corresponding attributes based on the four main attribute types selection, text input, relationship, and miscellaneous (Schmolke, 2023). These attribute types are individually designed along the process model to fit the needs of the model itself.

The frame can be freely designed graphically during the modeling and its components are named by a noun, which should reflect the business area. The elements of the models at the main and detail process levels are linked by a control flow and identified using a combination of a verb and a following noun. This makes it possible to create descriptive and unique identifiers for the process elements, which are stored in the project glossary.

In addition to this basic modeling, variants and references can be used in icebricks. Variants represent alternative process flows, which are designed according to the intended use. References are process elements that reference an original element and link to it. References therefore prevent the provision of redundant elements in processes (Clever, 2016; Schmolke, 2023).

This section introduces the sport logistics reference model. Initially, the context foundation of the reference model is explained and its content cornerstones from the domain of sport equipment logistics are disclosed. As centerpiece of the reference model its frame is presented. For each element of the frame, its main processes are then described.

The development of the reference model for sport equipment logistics is based on a variety of sources, with the aim of providing comprehensive coverage of the research topic. First, given the dearth of literature on the subject of athlete equipment logistics, it was initially necessary to use an inductive approach and collect a broad spectrum of important information by interviewing experts (Meuser and Nagel, 2009). Based on this, Pott et al. (2025) applied a qualitative research approach, conducting semi-structured interviews with experts to obtain primary data. The semi-structured type of interview gave the interviewer flexibility to identify useful clues and follow them up as they emerged (Adams, 2015). Before the interviews were conducted, an interview guide was devised according to Bogner et al. (2014), Wassermann (2015) and Kallio et al. (2016). The 11 experts interviewed were equipment logistics managers of German national sport federations for Olympic sport. It was taken into consideration that the experts interviewed were representative for all federations in order to enable conclusions to be drawn that would be applicable to all (Kothari, 2004). To this end, the selection of experts was conducted with the objective of ensuring a diverse range of perspectives, with representatives from sport federations of varying dimensions and specializing in different sporting disciplines. The qualitative data collected in the interviews were analyzed interpretatively (Döring and Bortz, 2016) using Mayring’s qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2016). Second, internal documents of a sport federation were examined which were part of a tender for warehouse planning in relation to a warehouse management system and the internal warehouse process planning. It was analyzed with the same methodology as the interviews. This enabled the acquisition of in-depth insights into the logistical processes of a sport federation. Third, the existing secondary literature was analyzed, which has already been the subject of analysis in preceding sections (see section 2). The findings gained from the analysis of all the data examined lead to the sport logistics reference model which is described in the following sections according to the conceptual structure of icebricks.

The frame forms the highest hierarchical level of the reference model for sport equipment logistics and is the most abstract level of the model. It enhances the overall clarity of the structure (Figure 2). Underlying the frame are the main processes. Below them, at the lowest hierarchical level, are the detail processes. The model is divided into two areas: the preceding processes and the athlete equipment logistics cycle.

The preceding processes are composed of “planning” and “procurement”. They form the roof of the framework. The area of planning includes scheduling, demand planning, liaising with the organizer and checking the conditions at locations of action. Procurement is responsible for maintaining supplier relationships and the entire process of ordering new sport equipment, which enters the athlete equipment logistics cycle once the ordered items arrive in the goods receiving of a warehouse.

The athlete equipment logistics cycle forms the core of equipment logistics and is divided into three subareas: warehousing at federation, external transportation and logistics at the location of action. The warehousing at federation subarea consists of the “goods receiving”, where both newly ordered items and returning items from the location of action are received, the “warehouse”, where the equipment is stored, and the “goods issue”, where equipment leaves the warehouse in the direction of the location of action. Physically, these elements are assigned to the warehouse(s) of the federation. The “transportation” subsection is located between the subareas of warehousing at federation and logistics at location of action and connects them by bidirectionally carrying out transports from one to the other. The logistics at the location of action takes place at the sport venue (e.g. in a locker room) or close by (e.g. in a team hotel) and consists of the “on-site preparation”, the “athletes supply” and the “on-site postprocessing”. The on-site preparation includes receiving the equipment sent from the (goods issue of the) federation’s warehouse to the location of action for a sport event and setting up a temporary storage for the equipment. From the temporary storage, the equipment is assembled and provided to the athletes before and during their practice or competition. At the location of action, a second cycle can emerge during the event, especially if an event is spread over several locations or is divided into several competitions at different times. Depending on the circumstances, transportation can also be integrated into this second cycle. One might consider the example of a football World Cup, in which the matches of a team are played over the course of several days or weeks in a variety of stadiums. In this case, the equipment would have to be transported several times from the central storage point at the location of action to the respective venue and subsequently returned. After the completion of an event, the “on-site postprocessing” takes place and the equipment is returned from the location of action to the “goods receiving” department of the warehouse via transport.

While the ordering of new items is an infrequent occurrence, as the equipment is mostly reused, the main processes of the athlete equipment logistics cycle are repeated at every action.

The main processes are each subject to an element from the frame. They are further described in the following sections. Each main process has subordinate detail processes. The detail processes are not described in depth here. They can be viewed in the complete process overview given in Appendix.

Planning takes place before any action and, thus, any physical equipment movement is run. The planning element from the frame is represented by the elements “perform scheduling”, “perform demand planning”, “prearrange sport equipment transportation” and “prearrange logistics at location of action” (Figure 3). The elements of the main process form detail processes. These detail processes are represented in their own layer. For example, the process “perform scheduling” is represented as a detail process with the elements “check season calendar” and “plan dates”. The demand planning main process includes consulting the coach and the operational logistics to ultimately determine the demand and inform the procurement department. The prearrangement of transportation consists of estimating the transportation demand and based on that, carrying out the transport independently or hiring a transportation service provider. In addition, the mode of transportation must be selected. Checking conditions at the location of action and exchanging information with the host/organizer are part of the main process “prearrange logistics at the location of action”. The aim of this is to ensure optimal preparation for the event.

The procurement process covers all procedures relating to the ordering of sport equipment. Much of the equipment is supplied by the sponsoring outfitter, in particular textiles. Other equipment such as sport devices is sourced from various suppliers. The procurement process encompasses eight elements (Figure 4). It includes maintaining the supplier master data and the supplier conditions, such as procurement prices. Defining articles and recording sport equipment, which contains determining and choosing correct quantities, sizes and flocking, are also part of procurement. Further tasks of procurement are choosing suppliers, placing orders, checking order confirmations and monitoring deliveries.

Goods receiving covers all handling of equipment incoming to the federation’s warehouse from equipment suppliers and actions. At the main process level, the goods receiving at the warehouse of the federation includes receiving, deconsolidating, inspecting, sorting and forwarding sport equipment (Figure 5). The main process “receive sport equipment” is structured as follows: First, the sport equipment is received from the carrier. Then it gets checked for completeness using the delivery note or shipping label to identify a possible incorrect delivery. After that the sport equipment is presorted by type (e.g. sportswear, hard goods) and condition (e.g. used/unused). The following main process “deconsolidate sport equipment” contains the subordinate detail processes “break up transport units”, “empty shipping container” and “presort sport equipment item by item”. Additionally, the equipment is inspected, which comprises identifying the equipment and performing a quality and quantity control. The objective is to ensure that the sport equipment delivered is accurate and conform to the required specifications.

The warehouse element covers all operations at the federation’s warehouse that lie between goods receiving and goods issue. It is represented as the main process by the elements storing, preparing, adapting and replacing equipment as well as performing an inventory and taking equipment out of storage (Figure 6). These process steps are further detailed in the secondary process level. Storing equipment contains identifying the storage location, separating the equipment, visiting the storage location and finally putting the equipment into storage. Cleaning, drying, disinfecting and repairing equipment are part of the preparation of equipment. Additionally, to the preparation, the equipment may need to be adapted. A possible adaption is the flocking of equipment, which becomes necessary, for example, when the sponsor changes. Further subprocesses of the adaption are waxing, grinding and individualizing equipment in order to prepare the equipment for its next use. An inventory is carried out either permanently or annually. The main process “replace equipment” includes sorting out outdated collections, old/defective sport equipment and equipment with incorrect flocking. Furthermore, successor articles are defined to replace the disposed equipment. In the processes of taking sport equipment out of storage, the storage location must first be identified. Then the storage location is visited, before subsequently taking the sport equipment and transporting it to the consolidation point.

Goods issue covers all operations between the storage of the sport equipment and its provision for transportation at the docks of the warehouse. It is represented by three elements on the main process level (Figure 7). The first main process is “consolidate sport equipment”, which includes checking the order for completeness, sorting the equipment according to the event to which it needs to be transported and performing a quality control. The main process “pack sport equipment” consists of providing, filling and marking sport bags or boxes. The marking allows a quick identification of the equipment without opening the bags or boxes. The following main process of preparing the sport equipment for shipping includes the detail processes “form transport units”, “record weight”, “register transport unit”, “label transport unit” and “provide transport unit for collection”.

Transportation comprises the preparation, execution and monitoring of the transports of sport equipment between the warehouse(s) of the federation and the location of action (Figure 8). Before the execution of a transport, preparation is necessary, which encompasses the detail processes “declare customs” and “take out sport equipment insurance”. Subprocesses of the main process “carry out transport” are “perform loading”, “transport equipment” and “perform unloading”. During the execution of the transport, the main process “monitor transport” takes place, which comprises the tracking of the delivery and informing the team management, organizer and accommodation about the delivery status. Furthermore, a staff member can accompany the shipment at a certain time and section of the transport.

The logistics at the location of action starts with the preparation, containing four elements on main process level (Figure 9). First, the shipped equipment is received and a temporary storage facility is set up. To do the latter, a suitable space must first be selected, which can be, for example, a locker room, a container or a conference room in a hotel. Then storage system and workplace are set up in the selected space. In the process of receiving the shipment, the completeness and the conditions of the bags and boxes are checked. Subsequently, the equipment is moved to the temporary storage facility. Additionally, the team management is informed. After presorting and counting the equipment, it is stored in the temporary storage. If shortages are detected during the counting process, these are compensated for by the acquisition of new equipment. When use of the sport equipment is imminent, it is taken out of the temporary storage. If necessary and not previously done, the sport equipment is flocked. In addition, it may be necessary to adapt the equipment. In order to optimize the subsequent provision for athletes, the equipment is bundled. This can be achieved by creating a bundle for each activity on the schedule. Alternatively, a bundle can be created for each athlete. Another option is to bundle by location, e.g. a bundle for the locker room and a bundle for the pitch.

The supply of athletes comprises issuing the sport equipment to the athletes, supporting the usage of the equipment and collecting the equipment after usage (Figure 10). If applicable, the issue must be acknowledged. The support of usage includes providing replacement or alternative equipment, e.g. if equipment is damaged. An adjustment of the sport equipment may also be necessary in order to adapt the equipment to the athlete and the conditions.

After the sport equipment was used by the athletes, e.g. in training or competition, on-site postprocessing takes place. This means all material is brought back into its initial state (as far as possible) so it can be used again or transported back to the federation’s warehouse. On-site postprocessing is represented by four elements on the main process level (Figure 11). Part of the postprocessing is controlling quantity and quality of the sport equipment. Equipment that can no longer be reprocessed is disposed of and replaced with newly acquired items. Otherwise, the readiness for use of the equipment is restored by cleaning and repairing it. After that the equipment is restored in the temporary storage facility in case another competition or practice is scheduled at the location. Otherwise, the equipment is prepared for collection and transport back to the federation warehouse, which encompasses packing the equipment and forming transport units. In addition to taking the equipment out of the temporary storage, the temporary storage facility itself must be dismantled. This includes dismantling the storage technology and the workplaces. The initial state of the space is restored.

This section discusses the results of the paper. To this intent, it revisits the research objective and questions first before it points out implications and sketches limitations and opportunities for further research.

The main research objective (RO) of this paper was to create a reference model for managing equipment logistics in sport organizations. This goal was achieved through the presentation of SELMA, the sport equipment logistics management reference model. The model incorporates elements from the academic disciplines of logistics, sport and information systems management for which the technical foundations were first laid (see sections 2.1, 2.2). As envisaged in our conceptual proposal (see section 2.3), the field of sport logistics contributed the domain knowledge to the model, the field of information systems management contributed the design method.

The first subordinate research question (SRQ1) asked how the reference model for sport equipment logistics management could be constructed in a scientifically sound manner. The procedure to construct the proposed model was based on established methods for creating reference models that have been identified and explained (see section 3.1). The methodological approach of Becker et al. (2002) has been chosen for the adaptability and usefulness is verified by various implementations (Fechner, 2015; Gäth, 2013; Hartmann, 2022; Püster, 2016). In accordance with the main research objective, the focus was placed on the phases leading to the construction of the model. The individual steps in constructing the reference model were described transparently.

Based on the analysis of expert interviews with sport organizations, internal documents of a sport logistics tender, and secondary literature, an appropriate consideration of the model addressees was ensured. Through the combination of deductive and inductive knowledge gain, both the current state of research and the common processes of sport equipment logistics in practice were included in the construction. The reference model was thus constructed in a methodologically sound and comprehensible manner.

Icebricks was selected as suitable modeling technique for reference modeling because all components of the modeling technique support reference modeling through consistent structuring and by reducing complexity. The simple modeling language of icebricks is an intersection of popular modeling languages. The level concept, the variant concept and the semantic standardization of icebricks can also be transferred to other modeling languages and are therefore applicable for a large target group.

Icebricks is the only modeling language in its original form, i.e. without any extensions, that follows a clearly defined syntax and can be completely semantically standardized. In addition, by limiting the modeling elements to process elements and the control flow, the language is easy to understand and can be used without difficulty. Consequently, the use of icebricks ensured that SELMA was constructed using a suitable, semantically and syntactically standardizable modeling language.

Our conceptual proposal intended several layers with an overview of the full scope of sport equipment logistics management on the supra layer. In icebricks, this highest layer and overview is represented by the frame. The structure of the frame in which the main elements are arranged provides model users with orientation and an introduction. As Figure 2 shows, the frame comprises preceding processes and the athlete equipment logistics cycle which can be considered as centerpiece of the model (SRQ2).

The preceding processes take place before the sport equipment arrives at the sport federation, i.e. before the logistics managers of the federation physically handle the material. However, planning and procurement constitute essential activities of logistics in general and sport logistics in particular as here it is determined, what equipment needs to be handled where and when. The preceding processes, thus, establish the foundation of the athlete equipment logistics cycle.

The athlete equipment logistics cycle is divided into three parts. Warehousing at federation features all tasks performed at the warehouse(s) of the sport federation, from goods in to goods out, including typical tasks like storage, order picking and packing. Transportation is dedicated to forwarding the equipment needed from the federation’s warehouse to the action and back. Sometimes transportation by external providers might be necessary at the location of the action, too. Logistics at the location of the action covers all equipment movements at the venue (e.g. in a stadium) or close to the venue (e.g. in a team hotel). This part of sport equipment logistics is very special because it takes place in temporary, non-logistics premises with personal contact to the athletes (customers). We talk of the athlete equipment logistics cycle because it is the expression of a feature that distinguishes sport logistics from other logistics sectors: the material flow is closed, which means the equipment that leaves the warehouse for the most part comes back to the warehouse (Pott et al., 2023a).

SELMA’s frame synthesizes all core issues of sport equipment logistics management as it explicates widely-used, yet specific fields that all typical sport equipment logistics activities can be easily be assigned to.

The third subordinate research question (SRQ3) asked for the specification of processes. Therefore, the conceptual model proposal took different layers below the supra layer into account to include the description of processes. During the implementation with icebricks, two layers where realized: one layer for main processes, one for detail processes. While each main process is part of an element of the frame, each detail process always originates from a main process. The main processes were described in depth in section 4.3 and the corresponding detail processes were addressed where appropriate to deepen understanding. In order to keep the SELMA reference model clear and concise and ensure that it is easy to use, the standardized icebricks modeling hierarchy was followed, and no further layers were added. Instead, the degree of abstraction was adjusted in such a way that a description on three layers became possible.

The SELMA reference model promotes standardization by providing a common language and a set of guidelines for sport organizations to follow with regard to their equipment logistics. Thus, it ensures consistency in how sport logistics systems are designed, implemented and evaluated. It makes an important contribution to successfully designing process management and software selection projects, especially for the logistics departments in sport organizations. Users of the reference model are enabled to identify the business processes of a sport organization and to present them in a structured way in an as-is model. The reference processes can also help to derive an optimized to-be model.

The developed reference model for managing equipment logistics in sport is an important first step toward making the topic of sport logistics more accessible through systematization. It serves to define the components of sport equipment logistics in a comprehensive approach and will help to achieve a more uniform and structured understanding of the topic of sport logistics – for research and industrial practice. The abstracted process definition and tailoring make it possible to adapt a sport equipment logistics process to specific projects. This allows both the procedure and the communication between project participants such as equipment managers, team management, athletes or suppliers to be coordinated and improved.

The SELMA reference model incorporates best practices and established solutions from the sport logistics sector. Sport organizations are guided toward proven approaches which helps to reduce risk and to minimizes trial-and-error approaches. The pre-defined processes speed up design and implementation by offering a starting point. Both aspects improve project efficiency and cut costs.

Finally, the reference model can be a basis for comparison and evaluation of sport equipment logistics systems. By comparing how closely a sport logistics solution or process adheres to the reference model, sport organizations can assess its quality, completeness, and performance.

The results of this paper constitute a first conceptual design of a reference model for sport logistics in the context of the sport equipment distribution for athletic events. Due to the exploratory focus of this work, several limitations exist, which may represent a reference point for future research.

The derived reference model is primarily based on the results of the survey of experts in semi-structured interviews and is complemented by the analysis of internal documents of a sport equipment logistics tender and of existing literature. The experts surveyed are from German sport organizations (Pott et al., 2025). Although their expertise originates from the international context of the German national sport federations for Olympic sport and the assumption of applicability in other federations is valid (Kothari, 2004), the applicability of the reference model needs to be further confirmed and verified.

In addition, the reference model is derived on the basis of the experts’ knowledge. An complete adaptation of this reference model in the context of a sport event has not yet been realized. A future goal is therefore to instantiate the reference model in a real-world context to ensure the applicability and further refinement of the results as mentioned by Österle et al. (2011).

On the basis of multiple instantiations in real-world contexts, the consideration of variants and alternative process flows is also crucial. In further studies, a refinement of the results and the creation of variants can therefore be encouraged. In addition, the question of meta information of the process elements can be considered in future investigations. The focus in this context lies on providing meta information for individual process elements in the form of descriptive attributes, such as the duration of a task, the frequency of a task during an event or the consideration of individual circumstances for each piece of equipment.

The reference model SELMA makes no claim to completeness as it is based on a sample of sport organizations which may not cover all potential requirements. Although it is assumed that users of the reference model can reuse large parts for their own sport logistics projects, it cannot be ruled out that their processes may result in further – sometimes critical – requirements that are not covered here.

These limitations constitute an outlook for future research and can serve to further develop the reference model created in this study in the field of sport logistics. As this work is based on the five-phase approach of Becker et al. (2002), but only focuses on phases one to three, shifting attention to phases four, testing, and five, marketing, are consistent, complementary next steps. Testing and evaluating the model allows conclusions to strengthen its validity. Marketing can expand the potential user group and stimulate further research and practical use of the reference model.

Hand in hand with marketing goes another future necessity: the maintenance of the model. Application, maintenance and marketing are interdependent: Marketing the reference model favors its application (Becker et al., 2002). The application can be used for maintenance and the improvements from the maintenance can be used for marketing. In addition to the deductive gain in knowledge through new literature and system descriptions, continuous maintenance should primarily take place through scientifically documented further applications in sport logistics projects. In this way, the limitations resulting from the size of the sample and the subjective perception can be relativized.

The SELMA reference model is the central outcome of this paper. It shapes and describes the field of sport equipment logistics management in three layers: The frame represents the basic structure of the model and sport equipment logistics activities. A total of nine elements is identified that are bundled in preceding processes and the athlete equipment logistics cycle. The latter is subdivided into the fields of warehousing at federation, transportation and logistics at location of action. Between all elements, the relations are disclosed. The elements of the framework are further designed as main processes, which in turn are refined in detail processes.

The SELMA reference model fills a vacuum in the academic and application-oriented discourse: it extends existing frameworks on sport logistics by the description of sport industry-specific equipment logistics processes and structures and offers sport organizations orientation for the design of their logistics. In addition to its high practical relevance, this work is intended to stimulate scientific discourse and lay the foundation for further research in the field.

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

The authors thank Prof. Dr. Dr. h. c. Jörg Becker and the Prof Becker GmbH, Altenberge, Germany, for the possibility to use the web-based icebricks platform to create the SELMA reference model.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.