Building Project Management of London Olympics Stadium - Case Study Example

Abstract

The 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games led to major construction and regeneration programmes controlled by the Olympic Delivery Authority. The programmes were well managed to ensure sustainability where several lessons emerged.

• Executive Summary

When London became the successful bidders for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, the need for major construction and regeneration programmes was inevitable. The Olympic Delivery Authority had a great scope and programme of works. The project was managed by the Olympic Delivery Authority while the Delivery Partner that became the project manager was Currall, Lewis and Martin consortium. The strategic objective of the project management was to ensure delivery of the sustainability commitments through which several lessons were learnt with the project being a success. However, the management might have failed to meet the suitable practices of project management through the integration of project and programme management posts. There are several key lessons learnt from the project. The first one is that investments should be made more on the comprehensive programme and project management processes. Second, it is important to develop a broad capability and intelligent client. For instance, in the project BAA was already strong and looked for another staff to ensure that their capability was boosted. The appointment of the Delivering Partner with extensive capabilities was inspiring. Third, it is important to secure a full funding system to ensure sustainable completion of the project. Lastly, it is important to invest in the organizational development and human resources for the success of the project. It helps in the building of the supportive culture, relationships, and skills thus comprehensive and sustainable development.

London 2012 Olympics Stadium

• 1.0 Introduction

The report is about the project management of the London 2012 Olympics Stadium. It will be divided into major sections, namely, The London Olympics Stadium Building Project; The London Olympics Stadium Project Management; and the Analysis of the London Olympic Stadium Building Project Management in the given sequence. In addition, the report will cover the key lessons learnt and their importance in the management of a project.

• • 1.1 The London Olympics Stadium Building Project

When London became the successful bidders for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, the need for major construction and regeneration programmes was inevitable. The programmes’ goal was to ensure that the infrastructure and venues needed for staging the games were available. The construction programme was extensive, politically and technically challenging and had a fixed deadline of July 2012 in which the Opening Ceremony of the Games was to be conducted (Kintrea 2012). The bid of Olympic, therefore, was enshrined in the vision of developing stadia, bridges, and roads. All the development activities were to be done under the watch of the Olympic Delivery Authority. The capital works were to be completed at least a year before the start of the Games. The Olympic Delivery Authority, therefore, had five years to recruit its staff, procure, and deliver approximately £ 6 billion of the main construction works. Most of the construction works were to be done on the polluted and derelict site in Stratford, London (Dodgson et al. 2015).

The Olympic Delivery Authority had an intense scope and programme of works. First, it was to engage in the land remediation and deconstruction of about 400 hectares of land. Second, it was to engage in the master planning of about 950 planning application and construct infrastructures that entailed approximately 20-kilometre roads, 26 bridges, 13-kilometer tunnels, and other new utility infrastructures such as telecommunication, electricity, gas, and water (Kintrea 2012). Third, the authority was to see the construction of 14 temporary and permanent sporting venues and a broadcasting centre and media centres of about 12,000 and 29,000 squares respectively. It was also to see the construction of the Athletes' Village and the development of public open space, gardens, and parklands that would cover approximately 100 hectares. In addition, the authority was to ensure that the transportation system was improved, which included the infrastructure and station works.

Table 1: London 2012 Construction and Infrastructure Schedule

Source: Kintrea (2012)

Land preparation for the development of the stadium begun in mid-2007. However, the official start date of the project was 22 May 2008 despite the piling works relating to the development of the foundation beginning four weeks earlier (Kintrea 2012). The first public event was held at the stadium in March 2012. It served as the finish line for the celebrity running event organized by the National Lottery. The stadium was used intermittently while the renovation was being conducted. The renovation saw the lower seating bowl being replaced with the seats that could be retracted thus allowing for seats that were comfortable for both the pitch and athletics sports. Upon its completion, the stadium was approximated to have a carrying capacity of sixty thousand (Davies & Mackenzie 2014). It was to become later the home of British Athletics and West Ham United Football Club. However, the controversy was experienced in the decision that saw West Ham become the stadium's main tenants.

• • 1.2 The London Olympics Stadium Project Management

Even though the construction of each of the 2012 Games venue was an outstanding project on its own, it had to be managed using an integrated system. The management of the project was done as a coordinated programme at the geographical site that was constrained. It, therefore, required extensive integration to ensure sustainability. The project's Olympic Delivery Authority appointed an outstanding Delivery Partner that had great experience in the large scale construction. The Delivery Partner that became the project manager was Currall, Lewis and Martin consortium (Snell 2006). The consortium was made of three great construction companies that had a great relevant experience. The Olympic Delivery Authority performed in the project as both the sponsor and the client. It engaged in the supervising of the project activities to ensure delivery and also the setting of policies that governed it. Besides delivering the fixed assets that were needed for the event, the Olympic Delivery Authority gave the Currall, Lewis and Martin Consortium the role of developing a broad range of priority themes in the construction industry that included inclusion, equality, and sustainability. The complex programme was also in need of the processes and mechanisms that could be embedded into the outcome process to ensure that the third parties had successful delivery. As a result, an assurance framework was developed that provided assurance to the project deliverables (Grabher & Thiel 2014).

• 2.0 Analysis of the London Olympic Stadium Building Project Management
  • 2.1 Analysis of the Strategic Objectives

The Olympic Delivery Authority received the extensive public fund to ensure the London 2012 Olympics Stadium a success. Its objectives went beyond the mere construction projects since the event meant so much to the United Kingdom government. For instance, the United Kingdom government had the intention that the Games would give London and United Kingdom a lasting legacy (Kintrea 2012). As a result, the authority developed a mission and objectives as per the requirements of the key stakeholders.

The mission of the Olympic Delivery Authority was to "deliver venues, facilities, infrastructure and transport for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games on time, to budget and to leave a lasting legacy" (Kintrea 2012, p. 3). It also had four main objectives. First, it aimed at creating facilities and infrastructures linked to the Games as per the agreed budget and the given time and with adherence to the sustainability development principle. Second, it aimed at delivering the Olympic and Paralympics venues as per the stipulated time as per the needed building design and specification taking into consideration the available budget and providing for the given legacy use (Davies et al. 2014). Third, it aimed to deliver the needed transportation infrastructure and devise and implement effective plans for transport as per the legacy use. Lastly, it aimed at assisting the London Development Agency in the finalizing of the legacy plans relation to sustainability for all venues and the Park.

The Olympic Delivery Authority aimed at ensuring sustainable high performance on the pressured environment throughout the life cycle of the project that took seven years (Owen 2013). Considering the management of people, the objective presented unique opportunities as well as challenges in the project. Consequently, an integrated organizational learning programme was formulated that incorporated the multi-layered tools through the promotion of mentoring and coaching. It also allowed for the knowledge to be swiftly acquired, foster team facilitation integration, and ensures change in the management capability. Furthermore, the goals helped in the building of the personal wellbeing and resilience and allowed for a professional learning system.

The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, abbreviated as LOCOG, aimed at using procurement as one of the main elements of ensuring sustainability (Cumming, Stubbs & Walsh 2013). LOCOG made attempts of taking into consideration the best practices used by some of the organizations. It used the ideas to build a bespoke framework that ensured sustainable procurement. Sustainability was integrated into the processes and methods entailed in procurement.

The strategic objective of the project management was to ensure delivery of the sustainability commitments. As a result, the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games developed a management framework, which would ensure that the sustainability commitments are taken into notice (Cumming 2013). It, therefore, developed the Sustainability Management System that increased significantly in size and evolved with the maturity of the organization.

Another strategic goal of the programme was to ensure that those daily activities of London City were not compromised. The project managers, therefore, enhanced the development of City Operations Programme whose main role was to oversee the work required to ensure that the Paralympic and Olympic Games relating activities were held in the non-official venues (Lewis 2013). The goal aimed at ensuring that the operations were efficient, safe, and smooth thus enhancing the activities of the city. As a result, the management team integrated an internationally recommended management system to ensure sustainability.

Source: Kintrea (2012)

Figure 1: Olympic Delivery Authority Strategic Framework

The Olympic Delivery Authority also aimed at fostering community engagement and public participation in the project. It developed the Code of Construction Practice that came up with objectives and measures that were applied throughout the construction programme (Sharpe 2012). As a result, it enhanced good community engagement and relations during the construction project.

• • 2.2 Project Management

The Olympic Delivery Authority spearheaded the project management of the Stadium. It, therefore, played an overseeing role on the delivery strategy of the project, which was based on a number of tenets. First, it aimed at bringing on board the right people that could deliver at the fastest pace possible. Second, it engaged in the setting of a realistic budget and developing the budget, programme, scope, and early funding mechanisms (Kintrea 2012). Third, it aimed at fostering prompt and early decision making thus saving time and money. It also called for strong programme management and allowed for the integration of industrial partners to ensure success in the project. Furthermore, it aims to ensure that the risk management is integrated into the project from the beginning to the end. It also ensured pro-activity and transparency in external and internal communication. Lastly, it ensured that collaboration is made between the industry partners and the government.

The Olympic Project Management disagrees partly with the acceptable project management practices. For instance, the Olympic Delivery Authority moved quite quickly from the planning phase to the delivery phase. After staffing its positions, the Olympic Delivery Authority employed the Delivery Partner with great experience in large-scale construction and proven track record in delivering capability. The Delivery Partner was the Currall, Lewis and Martin which is a private consortium. The consortium comprised of three major parenting companies that included Mace, Laing O’Rourke, and CH2M Hill (Kintrea 2012). The Delivery Partner was appointed as the Olympic Delivery Authority’s overall programme management partner. It was also give the responsibility of the Project Manager for the constructions relating to the projects. The approach was preferred as opposed to the alternative that would see the separation of the programme and project management. The integration of the programme and project management roles is not acceptable. However, the argument was that there would be synergistic benefits in integrating of the project and programme manager. As a result, whenever a conflict of interest arose, it was the role of the Olympic Delivery Authority to ensure assurance (Scherer 2011).

Source: Kintrea (2012)

Figure 2: Delivery Strategy

• 3.0 Key Lessons Learnt and their Importance in Project Management

There are several factors that can be learnt from the London 2012 construction programme, especially, in the way the programme was managed and how it affects the individual projects. The favourable outcomes of the programme were due to three main drivers. First is the comprehensive use of the five programme and project management processes (Mackenzie & Davies 2011). The processes were crucial in determining the success of the project and included; the upfront planning, programme and project management, problem resolution, change management, and integration management process. Second, the outstanding specification of several principles and targets around the key programme objectives such as safety and health was also crucial in the success of the project. Third, the project was a success due to the high-level management philosophy that is pervasive and covering the entire programme (Jennings 2012). However, it is important to take not of the factors that made the headline drivers most effective. Some of the enabling factors that should be taken into consideration include the recruitment of a competent Delivery Partner that was well sources; the use of contractual agreements that are supportive, and the integration of culture in the programme. However, all of these could not be possible without the motive and perception that people had in the project. In explanation, there are six supporting factors, which ensured that the enabling factors were successful. First is the ‘Olympic effect’ that saw the enthusiasm of the project grow. Second is the focus on the health and safety during the construction project (Druker & White 2013). Third, the project was successful because there was a strong focus on both organizational and personal development. Another supporting factor was the practice that allowed the contractors to work with partners that they were familiar with thus ensuring effectiveness and efficiency. In addition, the market downturn of 2008-2009 ensured that the project was a success not forgetting the full funding.

Source: Mackenzie & Davies (2011)

Figure 3: Overall ‘drivers of success’ framework

Even though some of the lessons learned were circumstantial and could not be avoided or replicated, the consciousness in the senior management in the making of decisions was critical. The senior management ensured that a professional, rigorous, yet flexible project and programme management hence the success of the project. Even though each of the management approach’s components seemed to be uprising, the integration and level of execution in the case of London 2012 Olympic Stadium construction proved to be more powerful. Furthermore, it appears that the project ensured that the construction practice in the United Kingdom construction industry is improved. As a result, several of the individual managers in the construction industry decided to imitate the process while some of the construction firms adopted the changes through the development of firm-wide policies (Mackenzie & Davies 2011). The aspect of the legacy that the construction project caused is so huge and should not be underrated.

London 2012 construction programme had got several individual projects thus in need for a flexible approach to project contacting and procurement. However, the key lessons from the project are; first, investments should be made more on the comprehensive programme and project management processes. Second, it is important to develop a broad-capability and intelligent client. For instance, in the project BAA was already strong and looked for another staff to ensure that their capability was boosted (Mackenzie & Davies 2011). The appointment of the Delivering Partner with extensive capabilities was inspiring. Third, it is important to secure a full funding system to ensure sustainable completion of the project. Lastly, it is important to invest in the organizational development and human resources for the success of the project. It helps in the building of the supportive culture, relationships, and skills thus comprehensive and sustainable development (McCarthy & Synnott 2012).

• 4.0 Conclusion

The London Olympic 2012 construction project was a success. First, it aimed at ensuring the ‘greenest' games that ever existed, and achieved it based on the fact that it managed to cleanse the previously contaminated Queen Victoria Park. Second, it ensured sustainability with the Olympic Delivery Authority looking beyond the Games and ensuring that return on investments was achieved. Other major factors included improved power generation, security and transportation, health and safety, and employment opportunities.

• Reference List

Cumming, P 2013, Developing and implementing a sustainability management system for the games. Available from: < http://learninglegacy.independent.gov.uk/documents/pdfs/sustainability/cs-games-sustainability-management-system.pdf>. [24 June 2016].

Cumming, P, Stubbs, D, & Walsh, G 2013, Sustainable procurement- the London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games. Available from: < http://learninglegacy.independent.gov.uk/documents/pdfs/sustainability/cs-games-sustainable-procurement.pdf >. [24 June 2016].

Davies, A & Mackenzie, I 2014, ‘Project complexity and systems integration: Constructing the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics Games’, International Journal of Project Management, vol. 32, no. 5,pp. 773-790.

Davies, A, MacAulay, S, DeBarro, T, & Thurston, M 2014, ‘Making innovation happen in a megaproject: London's crossrail suburban railway system’, Project Management Journal, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 25-37.

Dodgson, M, Gann, D, MacAulay, S, & Davies, A 2015, ‘Innovation strategy in new transportation systems: The case of Crossrail’, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 77, pp. 261-275.

Druker, J & White, G 2013, ‘Employment relations on major construction projects: the London 2012 Olympic construction site’, Industrial Relations Journal, vol. 44, no. 5-6, pp. 566-583.

Francica, J 2013, The London Olympics 2012- A success story in sustainable infrastructure development; looking beyond the games. Available from: < http://www.directionsmag.com/entry/the-london-olympics-2012-a-success-story-in-sustainable-infrastructure/364275 >. [24 June 2016].

Grabher, G & Thiel, J 2014, ‘Coping with a self-induced shock: The heterarchic organization of the London Olympic Games 2012’, Social Sciences, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 527-548.

Jennings, W 2012, ‘Why costs overrun: risk, optimism and uncertainty in budgeting for the London 2012 Olympic Games’, Construction Management and Economics, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 455-462.

Kintrea, K 2012, Programme management. Available from: < http://learninglegacy.independent.gov.uk/documents/pdfs/programme-organisation-and-project-management/425751-ll-prog-management-tagged.pdf >. [24 June 2016].

Lewis, R 2013, Embedding sustainability in the delivery of London City operations. Available from: < http://learninglegacy.independent.gov.uk/documents/pdfs/sustainability/cs-city-operations.pdf>. [24 June 2016].

London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games n.d., Project and programme management. Available from: < http://learninglegacy.independent.gov.uk/themes/programme-organisation-and-project-management/ >. [24 June 2016].

Mackenzie, I & Davies, A 2011, Lessons learned from the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games construction programme. Available from: < http://learninglegacy.independent.gov.uk/documents/pdfs/programme-organisation-and-project-management/425009-234-innovation-aw.pdf >. [24 June 2016].

McCarthy, S & Synnott, E 2012, ‘Regeneration and the role of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games’, Journal of Urban Regeneration & Renewal, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 303-310.

Owens, M 2013, Organisation learning at the Olympic Delivery Authority. Available from: < http://learninglegacy.independent.gov.uk/documents/pdfs/programme-organisation-and-project-management/426401-2012-ll-organisation-learning-oda-tagged.pdf >. [24 June 2016].

Scherer, J 2011, ‘Olympic villages and large-scale urban development: Crises of capitalism, deficits of democracy?’, Sociology, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 782-797.

Sharpe, G 2012, Public participation and community engagement. Available from: < http://learninglegacy.independent.gov.uk/documents/pdfs/equality-inclusion-employment-and-skills/426301-ll-public-partic-comm-engage-aw.pdf >. [24 June 2016].

Snell, P 2006, CLM consortium named as 2012 delivery partner. Available from: < file:///C:/Users/Hp/Desktop/Writing%20Styles/HAVARD%20Real.htm >. [24 June 2016].