The Assessment of Project Undertaken by G4s - Assignment Example

Project management Executive Summary The assignment highlights the assessment of project undertaken by G4S, a well known security service provider. G4S took the responsibility for serving Olympic Games 2012 with its best and efficient security forces. The company promised to provide training to 10,000 security personnel and prepare them for the Games. The company through recruitment and training procedures assured the Games authority that it will provide skilled and well trained group of personnel in the grounds of Games. The company could not undertake a right project management procedure and it mislead the Games authority by highlighting on its available number of security personnel. It was observed that at the late hours just before inauguration of the Games, the company declared that they could not provide the promised number of security personnel. This breach of contract penalised the company severely as it had to pay huge fine. However, the situation was controlled by government when they military force was arranged at the last moment for managing the situation. Thus, the project undertaken by G4S was a complete failure and it lead to collapse of the company image before the public and investors. Table of Contents Introduction 4 Summary of the case: G4S Security Company and Olympic Games authority 5 Team and responsibilities of G4S securities 6 Assessment of project scope 7 Main events during the execution process 8 Determining success or failure of project 10 Conclusion 14 Reference List 15 Table of Figures Sl. No Name of Figure Page number 1 Strategic Review of G4S 7 Introduction G4S, the largest international security solutions group, aims at providing security solutions to the countries, where the risk of security and safety is a serious threat. The company has successfully provided security solutions to many countries. It is a British multinational security provider, which is headquartered in Crawley, United Kingdom. It is regarded as one of the largest security provider in world with respect to revenue and operations. The company operates in 150 countries and have numerous plans of expansion to untouched territories worldwide. The company has also been declared as the third largest employer globally. It employs around 620,000 employees across different countries. The company is registered under London Stock Exchange and is a recognised element in FTSE 100 Index (BBC, 2012; Pattison, 2014). The company has successfully operated globally without any disturbance in operation. However in 2010, after the death of Jimmy Mubenga (a security person), the company started to encounter the gloomiest days in its operational history. Additionally, the company encountered severe blows in business operation when it was unable to provide security services to Olympic Games in 2012. The contract between Olympic Games Authority and G4S had failed to become effective and the latter had to pay a huge amount as penalty (Secretary of State for the Home Department, 2012; Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Committee of Public Accounts, 2013). The current project being discussed is related to providing security solutions to Olympic Games which actually ended up in a fiasco as the company had adopted wrong policies in developing the contract. It is obvious that project management plays an important role in the success of a project (Kloppenbreg, 2011). Project management is defined as the activity for organizing, motivating, planning and controlling the resources for achieving specific goals in daily life (Kliem, 2007). It refers to the temporary effort given to do a specific task (Chmidt, 2009). It is implemented in order to bring beneficial changes or add value to any process or task (Gray, Larson and Desai, 2006). Similar type of project management case study is elaborated through the project undertaken by G4S in 2012. The overvalued number of security personnel and increased pay of the chief executive was also an aligning reason for the project’s failure. The company had to pay a penalty of £ 88 million. The current report highlights on the project details, along with a summary of the execution process. The strategic actions undertaken by G4S are also presented, which indicate execution process of the contract. The main issue pertaining to failure of the G4S project was related to staffing (Blitz, 2012). After failure of the project, the company did not even reflect the loss incurred from the penalty in its annual report and as a result, had failed to comply with the accounting policies (Secretary of State for the Home Department, 2012; Miller and McTavish, 2014). Summary of the case: G4S Security Company and Olympic Games authority In 2011, G4S Security Company was made the official security provider for the Olympic Games 2012. The company had signed a contract with Olympic Games Authority to provide training to 10,000 security workforce for the main event. The project was acquired by G4S owing to the good reputation that it has gained over time in different countries by way of providing high class security services. However, after the controversial death of Jimmy Mubenga, the company had to encounter several questions and consequently, experience deterioration of brand image. The Olympic project, after such a controversy, was a huge opportunity for the company to regain the lost image. So, the project was very crucial for rebuilding image of the company. There are many project management techniques that can be used by company to mange projects. They are brainstorming, Gantt chart, critical path analysis and fishbone diagram (Kerzner, 2013). However, the technique used by G4S is brainstorming. It is process where project mangers find out new processes for analysing the situation and take appropriate decisions for pursuing the project successfully. G4S adopted brainstorming technique to develop new ideas regarding recruitment of new security personnel. The company promised to provide robust and high professionalism to the Games and ensured world class training to security workforce that comprised military, unpaid volunteers and security guards. The security provision was agreed by Olympic authority as well as G4S. The methods used to manage the project initiates from the basic rounds of interview sessions, where the interested applicants were interviewed for the post of security personnel. These security personnel were supposed to serve the Games from the inauguration day. During the signing of the contract the company assured the Games authority that it will train the personnel appropriately however, the proper training was not provided to the new joiners. The company did not provide proper appointment letter to the new joiners. Thus, the joiners could not get the motivation to join the work (Gray, Larson and Desai, 2006). Moreover, in December 2011, the government announced that the number of security personnel would be raised to 23,700, which was double the estimation of Olympic Authority. Hence, the security cost rose to £553 million from £282 million (Telegraph Media Group Limited, 2014). The initial project of G4S with Olympic Games was to provide 10,000 security staff. The confidential documents pertaining to the project indicated that the management of G4S charged £60 million, as opposed to £7.3 million, owing to the rise in number of security personnel (Telegraph Media Group Limited, 2014). Team and responsibilities of G4S securities The overall management of G4S security team that was planned for Olympic Games was under supervision of the company’s executive team. The executive team comprised the Chief Executive Officer, the president, the HR director, the Chief Financial Officers, the Group Communications Director and the Group General Counsel. The executive team had the responsibility to assign separate tasks to different departments of the team, which were in charge of providing security services to the Olympic Games 2012 (BBC, 2014a). After holding extensive meetings with the Games committee, the executive team of G4S documented the exact requirements of the Games, which provided them with an idea regarding the former’s demands. In response to these requirements, the executive committee prepared a detailed plan for the applicants and the existing security personnel who would serve in the Games ground (Byan, 2012). The executive team was responsible for the recruitment of new personnel who would serve the security services during the Games 2012. The interview of applicants was conducted by the team members as they had to select the most suitable ones. However, it was noticed that they failed to do so appropriately (G4S, 2014a). They had chosen unskilled staff members who were not provided with proper training before joining duty. The different departments owing to this project were marketing, operation and finance. The most important task was that related to operations as G4S is a service provider. It was crucial to provide the best service to customers and thus, operational efficiency was expected from this department. The operation department controlled the security personnel such as, security guards, bodyguards, bouncers, armed military forces and secret agents (G4S, 2014a). The security guards had the responsibility to control the crowd in the Games ground and direct them towards right seats and places where they desire. The bodyguards were specially hired by Olympic committee to give protection to renowned players, ministers and celebrities who visited the games. They had to safeguard their clients from any physical danger or even public disturbances. The bouncers were hired by the Games authority in order to keep the crowd calm and eliminate the disturbing individuals who showed any tendency to misbehave. The armed military forces were responsible for managing serious circumstances, where the crowd becomes violent due to any reason. They were hired to supervise and control the whole situation (G4S, 2014a). The military forces were also responsible for overseeing the car park areas by way of directing the cars in order to be parked in the right place. The crowd entering the grounds were monitored by the security guards who also guided them to their seats. The overall responsibility of the operation team was to monitor the security services and identify any security issues that could prove to be fatal for the crowd. The CCTV camera played an important role in the Games as it monitored the crowd very minutely. The finance and marketing departments were structured in such a way that associated functions were conducted from the office itself. The finance department were responsible for ascertaining and keeping track of the salary paid to the security personnel and staff as a whole. They also recorded the expenses and income from sale of the tickets. The marketing department had the task to promote different events of the Games to the public through advertisements over television and hoardings. The above mentioned roles and responsibilities were however not followed by the team members and thus it lead to the failure of the project. Assessment of project scope The scope of G4S is to provide security services to Olympic Games. It is vital for the Games to hire security personnel for the occasions as high profile players are present in the ground and also for safety of the audience. However, the company failed to abide by the claims mentioned in the contract. The overall strategy that was followed by G4S is depicted in this section. The Board of G4S sanctioned the strategy adopted in order to provide security to Olympic Games. The company devoted its time in formulating innovative solutions for the customers and supported the organisational goals (G4S, 2014a). Figure 1: Strategic Review of G4S (Source: G4S, 2014a) The above figure depicts the fact that the company thoroughly highlights on needs of the customers and attempts to fulfil the same. The customers belong to a number of industries and the company even serves the government. It offers a wide range of security solutions to these customers in order to satisfy their requirements. The company provides security personnel to wide range of industries, along with small customers like, home, offices and many more. The company promised to use best technologies for providing security services to its customer, Olympic Games authority (BBC, 2014). Even so, all effort taken by the company was futile as it could not supply adequate number of security personnel to the Games. The strategies undertaken by G4S for meeting needs of the Olympic Games 2012 had failed to be effective, despite conducting several successful projects in different countries. The audit companies outlined the deficiencies of the G4S management for not communicating weaknesses of the company to the Games authority. The company failed to mention that its security personnel were lesser in number compared to the actual requirements. The personnel who were trained could not perform their duty as well due to lack of understanding. The absence of appropriate training resulted in massive destruction of the company’s image (BBC, 2014; Pattison, 2014). Main events during the execution process The main events during the execution process of the project are highlighted through the strategies undertaken company (Hobbs, 2009). The strategy included appointing suitable security personnel for accomplishing the task of providing security to Games 2012. The company received a large number of applications for the post of security personnel. During the assessment of failure of the project, it was found that many applicants passed the interviews, but were never called to attend training sessions before joining the force. They directly attended the field job without any formal training, which resulted in a fiasco. They were unable to understand initial requirements of the company; as a result, their bad performance breached the contract (G4S, 2014b; Miller and McTavish, 2014). Apart from proper training sessions, the company also breached the contract in a number of other ways. It did not provide any appointment letter to the new recruits. This had given a huge scope to the company to drop few of them without any prior notice (Booth, 2012). The personnel could not even take any step against the company as they did not possess any joining letter. Thus, they were unable to prove that the illegalities performed by G4S. Even so, if the personnel raised their voices against the company doings, G4S took legal steps to penalize them. It was noticed that few candidates who were trained properly were fired without any explanation or prior notice (Telegraph Media Group Limited, 2014a). It is noted that the candidates who were trained, after providing with proper appointment letter, did not receive reimbursement of the expense. This expense was made during the training period. Consequently, several trainees were forced to leave the training program and opt for other opportunities. The company even assigned few candidates to distant places, where they could not even reach due to lack of transportation. They were also not provided with proper accommodation. Nonetheless, at the end of training programs, the candidates who passed the tests were provided with a pass certificate. They were given company uniform, but were not assigned with duties before the Games. The above mentioned issues stress upon the lack of proper communication between applicants and the company. The candidates, who were appointed to the job, after receiving the pass certificate, were disappointed with behaviour of the management (Secretary of State for the Home Department, 2012). These events made the officials of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic (LOCOG) worried. They were ready to give assistance to the company at this stage, owing to the contract. LOCOG tried to interfere into the company’s wrong doings and gave solutions that could support or revive the situations (Travis, 2012). The committee decided to correct the miscommunication between G4S and its personnel by assigning their best volunteers for devising solutions related to the Games (Hill, 2013). The committee was concerned regarding poor management of the company as the attrition rate increased. The applicants were not happy and satisfied with their job and as a result, they left the company in search for a better one. The procedure followed by the management was not liked by the candidates as they were misleading in nature (Secretary of State for the Home Department, 2013). The attrition rate in the company was highest in the industry. The candidates who successfully passed the interview had left the company as they were not satisfied with its work structure and policies. Thus, such circumstances affected moral of even those candidates who had successfully cleared the interview, but were not selected for the training. However, they were allotted their duties directly and the absence of training lead to a fiasco when they were ultimately fired without any prior explanation (Telegraph Media Group Limited, 2014a). Determining success or failure of project G4S Security Company is regarded as the largest security company in the world with respect to operation and revenue, which is collected from operating in more than 150 countries. It is the most prestigious security firm globally, but when the firm failed in the project of providing security solutions to Olympic Games 2012, many were perplexed. Such reactions had proved to be true after a series of controversies since 2010. The security group had signed the contract to provide 10,000 staff members for Games 2012. The security assistance was needed in order to cope up with the huge number of visitors (Telegraph Media Group Limited, 2014a). One of the main reasons behind the strategic failure of project is inadequate training sessions to the G4S trainees. Thereafter, the company encountered a number of controversies in last few years of its operation since 2010. The serious concerns were related to inadequate training that was provided to the G4S trainees. The scandals were so severe that even the greatest critics of the company were surprised at its operational state. Immediately before the inauguration ceremony of Olympic Games 2012, the largest scandal in history came into light. G4S encountered its darkest days of business when the company had to declare their inability to provide the promised number of staffs. The total number of staffs had fallen short of 3,500 personnel (G4S, 2014d). The news channel highlighted the project details and loopholes before the public. The news flashed that the company did not provide its staffs with proper contract and even appointment letters. The personnel who did not receive proper appointment letter did not turn up to perform their duties during the Games days (Greene, 2012; Hopkins, 2012). In order to rectify the dismal situation in the Olympic grounds, several armed forces were called to fill up these positions at a very short notice. The government appointed 17,000 military forces in the grounds and they had to take the shifts of G4S security personnel during the same time. The armed forces were called from Afghanistan. These guards were properly trained and had high skills, which had made it possible to manage the situation at a short notice (BBC, 2012). It was declared in July, 2012 that 3,500 more armed forces were required to meet the shortage of properly trained G4S security personnel. A renowned personality of Olympic Games, Keith Vaz, had claimed that “G4S has let the country down and we have literally had to send in the troops" (Byan, 2012). The breach of contract had affected stock prices of the company. The investors were so annoyed by the company situation that they redeemed their invested shares. Moreover, the investors had also become aware that the company has encountered a huge penalty, which had affected their cash balance. G4S declared that it had encountered a loss of £50 million and the share price had declined by 9% (Booth, 2012; Telegraph Media Group Limited, 2014). On 17 July, 2012, Nick Buckles, the Chief executive of G4S, had to confront Home Affairs Select Committee and apologised for failure of the project. He also regretted that they should have considered this project as the most vital among all tasks undertaken. The company should have mentioned the actual number of security personnel available at the time of contract, without misleading the Olympic committee. The chief executive officer promised to pay bonuses to soldiers, who were engaged at the last moment for replacing the unqualified security personnel of G4S. He also stated that the event was very humiliating for the G4S management as they failed to adhere to the contract made and accordingly fulfil the project needs (G4S, 2014c; Telegraph Media Group Limited, 2014). The aftermath of the project’s failure proved to be severe for G4S. In Newcastle, about 500 security staffs of G4S were replaced by the staff of a local security company. Apart from Newcastle, severity of the incident had even spread to Scotland. The Strathclyde Police replaced the G4S security personnel in Scotland. Hence, it was observed that the company encountered loss from several major contracts all over the world because of these replacements. After failure of the project related to Olympic Games 2012, G4S had earned a bad image in serving the global security industry (Telegraph Media Group Limited, 2014; Lawless, 2013). The collapse of the company image did not only affect its revenue, but the investors also lost confidence and trust over the company shares. The companies, who employed the security services of G4S as well as invested in its shares, had redeemed the amount before the latter could have encountered any further losses. When the news of this fraud was highlighted over the media channels, investors of G4S (both public and corporate) redeemed their shares and were clearly reluctant to further invest in the same. This is the main reason behind decline of the share price and reduction in the amount of investments (G4S, 2014d; Wearden, 2012). The Prime Minister of United Kingdom had previously declared that on failing to maintain the requirements of a particular contract, the concerned company will have to pay penalty. Consequently, failure of the Olympic project resulted in huge losses for G4S because of the above mentioned declaration by the government (Blitz, 2012). The big investors of G4S were greatly affected by the loss incurred by the company and in this manner, had become depressed and unsatisfied. They decided and demanded for answers from the company’s management regarding its failure in the Olympic project. However, during the inquiry session, they did not demand for resignations of the top executives. They simply wanted a clear explanation of the failure as their big investments were on stake. They had previously made this investment as the company reputation was booming in the market then (BBC, 2012; Taylor, 2012). In the meeting conducted with the big investors, the company declared to have encountered a loss of £35million, which later increased to £50 million because of breaching the contract (Calleam Consulting Ltd., 2013). The company explained that it had encountered few issues pertaining to processing of the applicants and providing them with proper training sessions. The unsuccessful training programs had led to this situation (Calleam Consulting Ltd., 2013). The British government was the biggest customer of G4S. Due to the failure in abiding by the contract, the government had replaced all G4S security personnel with other security personnel from the competitive companies. The major and high valued contracts of G4S came from the public sector of the UK. The companies in this sector also replaced the security personnel with other those provided by other companies. As a consequence, G4S met its doomsday. Despite once being the biggest security solution provider in the world, the scenario changed drastically within few months into 2012 (Greene, 2012; Telegraph Media Group Limited, 2014). The service provided by G4S to the customers ranged in form of guards for the prison to security officer of a house. The company had planned to expand in new areas and incorporate more services such as, assistance to the frontline police of the UK. Nevertheless, after incident of Olympic 2012, the scenario changed dramatically and the company had to face immense challenges, especially financial loss and damage of company reputation (Calleam Consulting Ltd., 2013). G4S was, thus, far from recovery as the Olympic Games is a famous event and individuals in the UK are fond of the same. Therefore, the public had lost confidence on the company (Greene, 2012; Hopkins, 2012). The chair person of London 2012, Lord Coe, had informed the Ministers of Parliament that G4S was not adequately eligible to understand complexity and size of the responsibility of Games 2012 security jobs. He declared before the board members that it was solely a mistake of the private security company who manipulated the figures of security personnel in the contract and initially mentioned lesser number of security guards at the Games ground. The Olympic organisers had hoped that the G4S contract would prove the best historically, being the biggest company in its field, but unfortunately they were mistaken and the company could not deliver what they promised (Greene, 2012; Hopkins, 2012). Coe, along with the organisers of Olympic Games, pointed out that the Games committee had already paid £90 million in advance before the Games began out of £236 million. When the committee stopped any further payment of the overall cost, G4S declared that it could not provide the promised amount of security personnel, thereby raising the necessity to involve the militaries in order to manage the situation as the Games inauguration date was very close (Lawless, 2013; Shift Media Publication, 2013). Conclusion The Head of Scotland Yard had stated that the government was also responsible for failure of the contract of G4S. He stressed upon the fact that overall responsibility of the Games was on the government. His comments had added to the tension that was prevalent then. The Public Accounts committee (PAC) mentioned that disturbances surrounding the failure of G4S, who had failed to deliver an adequate number of staff to the Olympics, had weakened confidence of the Games organisers. The committee had summoned G4S for an inquiry, where they were charged with financial penalties for last minute failure of the contract. Hogan Howe, the Head of Scotland Yard, assured the assembly police of London and crime scrutiny committee that the police was not involved in supervising the works of the security personnel belonging to G4S (Secretary of State for the Home Department, 2012). Reference List BBC, 2012. G4S Reveals Loss On Olympic Security Failures. [online] Available at: [Accessed 14 July 2014]. BBC, 2014. London 2012: G4S Olympics Statement In Full London 2012: G4S Olympics Statement In Full. [online] Available at: < http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-18839178 > [Accessed 14 July 2014]. BBC, 2014a. London 2012: G4Ss Nick Buckles Regrets Taking Contract. [online] Available at: < http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-18866153 > [Accessed 14 July 2014]. Blitz, R., 2012. G4S Admits Responsibility For Guards Crisis. [online] Available at: [Accessed 14 July 2014]. Booth, R., 2012. London 2012 Olympics: G4S Failures Prompt Further Military Deployment. [online] Available at: < http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jul/24/london-2012-olympics-g4s-military > [Accessed 14 July 2014]. Byan, C., 2012. Olympics Security Firm Apologizes. [online] Available at: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303933704577532544284328650> [Accessed 14 July 2014]. Calleam Consulting Ltd., 2013. G4S – Olympics Security Shambles. [online] Available at: [Accessed 14 July 2014]. Chmidt, T., 2009. Strategic Project Management made simple: Practical Tools for leaders. New York: John Wiley. G4S, 2014a. Strategic Report Overview. [online] Available at: [Accessed 14 July 2014]. G4S, 2014b. Financial Institutions. [online] Available at: [Accessed 14 July 2014]. G4S, 2014c. Internal Audit. [online] Available at: [Accessed 14 July 2014]. G4S, 2014d. G4S to Secure the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. [online] Available at: [Accessed 14 July 2014]. Gray, C. F., Larson, E. W. and Desai, G. V., 2006. Project management: The managerial process. Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Committee of Public Accounts, 2013. The London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games: Post-games review, fortieth report of session 2012-13, report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence. New York: The Stationery Office. Greene, R., 2012. Olympics Security Failure Is Humiliating Shambles, Boss Concedes. [online] Available at: [Accessed 14 July 2014]. Hill, A., 2013. G4S: The Inside Story. [online] Available at: [Accessed 14 July 2014]. Hobbs, P., 2009. Project Management. New York: John Wiley. Hopkins, N., 2012. G4S Faces Financial Penalties Over Olympic Security Failures. [online] Available at: < http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/jul/12/g4s-financial-penalties-olympic-security > [Accessed 14 July 2014]. Kerzner, H. R., 2013. Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Kliem, R., 2007. Effective Communication for project management. London: CRC Press. Kloppenbreg, T., 2011. Contemporary Project Management. Connecticut: Cengage Learning. Lawless, J., 2013. UK Calls Fraud Investigators for Security Firm G4S. [online] Available at: [Accessed 14 July 2014]. Miller, K. and McTavish, D., 2014. Making and managing public policy. New York: Routledge. Pattison, J., 2014. The morality of private war. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Secretary of State for the Home Department, 2012. Olympics Security. [pdf] Crown. Available at: [Accessed 14 July 2014]. Secretary of State for the Home Department, 2013. Olympics Security. [pdf] Crown. Available at: [Accessed 14 July 2014]. Shift Media Publication, 2013. G4S To Face Penalties Over Olympic Staffing Failures. [online] Available at: [Accessed 14 July 2014]. Taylor, A., 2012. How The Plan To Privatize Londons Olympic Security Turned Into A Disaster. [online] Available at: [Accessed 14 July 2014]. Telegraph Media Group Limited, 2014. London 2012 Olympics: G4S Chief Nick Buckles Reveals Disaster. [online] Available at: < http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/london-olympics-business/9400745/London-2012-Olympics-G4S-chief-Nick-Buckles-reveals-disaster.html> [Accessed 14 July 2014]. Telegraph Media Group Limited, 2014a. Timeline: How G4ss Bungled Olympics Security Contract Unfolded. [online] Available at: [Accessed 14 July 2014]. Travis, A., 2012. G4S Failed To Understand Size Of Olympic Security Job, Says Lord Coe. [online] Available at: < http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/sep/11/g4s-failed-olympic-security-lord-coe > [Accessed 14 July 2014]. Wearden, G., 2012. Senior G4S Executives Resign Over Olympics Security Failure. [online] Available at: [Accessed 14 July 2014]. Read More