2012 London Olympics Construction Project - Case Study Example

Table of Contents Introduction 2 About the Project 2 Approach to manage the project 3 Mechanism in which the approach helped to deal with complexities 8 Conclusion 11 References 13 Introduction This report looks to identify the complexities which are faced while carrying out different projects. The paper will focus on real life projects and bring forward the different complexities, the constraints and the mechanism which will help in smooth functioning of the project. For this paper the project which has been selected is the 2012 London Olympics Construction Project. The entire paper will revolve around 2012 London Olympics Construction Project and bring forward the manner in which different complexities were faced and the manner in which different steps were undertaken to reduce those complexities. This would thereby help to understand the difficulties which projects presents and will provide a directive through which different strategies and approaches are being undertaken to reduce those complexities About the Project The London Olympics construction project was a large scale, complex project which involved multiple interactive systems. The major objective of the program was to look at two major areas which were ensuring proper development of venue and infrastructure so that the game can be carried out effectively and identifying the different legacy benefits which has to be passed on. The budget which was estimated for the project was £8.1 billion which further looks to include different contingency elements. In addition to it the project looked to provide the venues where the event would take place and looked over 70 individual projects which were interrelated to each other thereby ensuring increased dependence on one another and looked to include different services and logistics. The Olympic park included a lot of different smaller projects like waterways, wetlands, green spaces/parklands, bridges to span the rivers and railways and underpasses; the 80,000-seat Olympic Stadium; the 17,500-seat Aquatics Centre; the 6,000-seat Velodrome and a temporary BMX bike track with 6,000 temporary seats alongside; the 12,000-seat temporary Basketball Arena; the Handball Arena and so on. The overall project was huge and looked at fulfilling different fundamentals and core areas so that project delivery and development standards would become better. This required proper management of the project and looking at different dimensions so that project overall success could be determined. The project had to face a number of obstacle and challenges which had to be dealt with. One of the challenges was the deadline which was predetermined and cannot be changed. The opening ceremony was identified to take place on 27th July 2012 and there was no way that it can be changed posed one of the biggest challenges as the task had to be completed within the allocated time. The Olympics had different stakeholders working together but had conflicting interest which thereby complicated the matter and made the overall situation tense. In addition to it Olympics would be watched by all people around the globe which thereby was a matter of global interest and if the national economy was not able to live up to the required expectations it would have a negative impact. This was matched by worries relate to security due to constant increase in terrorism. The overall risk for the program was very high which thereby required working on the required dimensions and developing a process which would enable the program to be carried out smoothly. Approach to manage the project London was awarded the opportunity to conduct Olympics on 6th July 2006 on the backdrop that the event would be a mega success and would be executed smoothly and peacefully. The project consisted of two teams London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) and the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA). LOCOG was given the task of planning, funding, preparing and managing the event from the £2 billion funds which were raised through private partners, ticket sale, merchandise and domestic sponsorship. ODA was given the responsibility of designing, developing and creating new venues and infrastructure where the Olympics would be carried out. ODA had to look at developing, creating and designing the venues so that it could help to continue the legacy of Olympics within the budget which was allocated to them (Engwall, 2012). This thereby required focusing on time, quality and cost along with other broader social and economic impacts like health, safety, security, sustainability and so on. In the beginning ODA had to face the challenge and risk arising from large scale and complex project delivery in big cities. They had to look out for a way through which designing and building of Olympic park could be carried out. Since the construction involved multiple system which became interconnected as more and more venues had to be connected together so that the project could be completed properly (Hobday, 1998). They had to look towards developing a structure which could manage different organizations carrying out different projects which were interconnected, develop a process through which independent task and system process could be developed, ensure better interface with the different systems and deal with the construction, interiors, logistics and other core areas for successful implementation of the project. This had to be matched by the involvement of different stakeholders like government bodies, local authorities, railways, and other communities which could help in shaping the manner in which the project was to be executed and could look towards ensuring long term productivity and success of the project (Meier, 2008). The organizational structure which was identified by ODA highlights the structural complexity which had to be dealt with. The overall project was divided into smaller projects which were over 70 in number and were allocated to different broad categories like infrastructure, venues, security, logistics, village, and transport. Since, each process was interconnected and linked to one another the structure was divided into three organizational level of hierarchical relationship which is as follows Integrating and carrying out all the functions were jointly managed by ODA and CLM. Working as a client ODA aimed towards working in close relation with the different trade partners, develop a program after careful planning for execution of the project and monitoring the overall project so that the goals can be achieved in the best possible manner. The overall framework was developed and set in such a manner that it looked at developing a single interface for execution of the project and dealing with the conflicting interest which the different parties had. Managing the interface and dependencies between the different projects helped to carry out the different projects in the most beneficial manner (Gersick, 1994). The principal contractor were contracted to integrate the different individual system so that project management system could be carried out against the set benchmark and the overall dimension through which the project will be carried out can be better managed. This helped to work according to the required budget and execute the project within the determined budget and limits which had been previously identified. As a result the different dimensions helped to ensure that the overall project effectiveness can be better identified which thereby looked towards dealing with the different complexities and identifying the mechanism through which overall project delivery and standards can be better met (Williams, 1999). This helped to deal with the different needs and requirements of the project and thereby helped towards ensuring that the overall project was carried out in the most effective manner. The overall project was further divided into smaller work packages which would look towards working for different periods where a time frame for 12 to 18 months would be identified. This approach helped to decide the functioning and develop the required fundamentals through which project management and delivery system improved. In addition to it the project looked at working on multiple key performance indicators (KPI) which would help to understand the manner in which the success of the project would be determined. Since, this KPI were linked with the different incentives and targets it helped to ensure better alignment between the objectives and approach (Flyvbjerg, Bruzelius & Rothengatter, 2003). The KPI approach provided the required flexibility and helped to align the different functions in such a manner that it ensured better chances of success and delivering the project as per the need and requirements. This approach helped to broaden the overall horizon of the project and helped in proper execution of the project as the different core areas which would lead towards maximizing the different gains for the project was ensured. The mechanism to manage the different project was carried out through five key areas which included up-front planning, project and program monitoring, problem resolution, change management, and integration management (Mackenzie & Davies, 2011). The different processes which were used were not new or innovative but when all the process was used together it helped to ensure that the delivery team was able to maintain the progress of the project and were able to understand the different gaps. The mechanism helped to deal with the different needs of the project and determined the scope through which the project was carried out in the corrective direction. This ensured timely delivery of projects and helped to execute the project as per the need and requirements thereby ensuring better delivery standards. Having a properly chalked out strategy which focused on different core areas which would have an impact on the overall project helped to ensure better standards and achieving the project requirements as required. The monitoring process looked at having a mechanism where reviews were carried out both at the individual level and program level. The entire project was evaluated on different parameters where it looked towards providing progress report every month for each individual project which was then compiled to get the progress report at program level. This is followed by a trend review which looks at finding out the trends for senior level managers so that they can understand the manner through which working mechanism at lower levels can be understood (Brady, Davies & Nightingale, 2012). This was matched by the process of carrying out audit so that the manner in which different activities are carried out is better understood and verified. The process looked at upward reporting and downward assurance as shown below This mechanism helped to ensure that the manner in which different projects were carried out is better looked at and the different dimensions through which better results can be achieved are seen. When the monitoring process would bring forward the problem then a problem resolution process would be started which would look at evaluating the problem and bring forward the best recommended solution through which working would improve (Söderlund, 2012). This would help to deal with the complexities that the project presented and provided an opportunity through which the complexities would get solved. This would help to bring effectiveness in the manner of carrying out different activities and would help to ensure better results and achieve the different project requirements. Mechanism in which the approach helped to deal with complexities Breaking down the total project into smaller projects ensured that the structural complexity which the project has can be easily identified and dealt with. This was matched by the fact that managing the different stakeholders was carried out effectively. The project looked at implementing a program for strong governance which involved multiple layers of assurance and reporting as highlighted below Separating the role of different stakeholders and focusing on the execution of the program helped to provide the required oversight through which the external stakeholders different needs were easily met. The overall management process looked to work on the five principles which were identified and were tightly controlled. Along with it the safety and health aspect were tightly controlled while other aspects were loosely managed so that flexibility could be ensured within the system which thereby helped in better execution of the project. Contracts were entered and developed so that the complexity of the different project would enable better opportunities of executing the project. The approach which was undertaken for the project was a tight-loose approach which ensured that a consistent approach was undertaken and at the same time provided flexibility so that the dynamic complexity of the overall project could be managed. The contracts which were tailor made based on the requirements of each contract helped to deal with the complexity. This aspect improved the mechanism through which work was carried out by using a process which looked at transparency in the overall mechanism of working, working in collaboration with one another and finding solutions to the problems so that the project could be carried out in the most efficient manner (Baccarini, 1996). Managing and using an open and collaborative approach helped to work on those behaviour and aspect so that project complexities would be reduced and the overall mechanism of working would improve. The loosely managed approach helped to deal with the economic crisis and ensured better funding by looking at other contingency and approach through which overall business objectives would be managed. The approach which was undertaken to deal with unanticipated changes which resulted in dynamic complexities was a flexible one. The change management approach looked at identifying the changes which have to be done, developing a rigorous process for change approval, having a full document of the changes which have to be made and finding out the impact of that decision and having supporting rationale which would ensure that effective management of the project would becomes possible. All the significant changes required approval from the concerned body so that the different contentious issues which the situation would present can be confronted in a better way (Lenfle & Loch, 2010). The integration management process looked at identifying the interdependencies between the project so that the impact which the changes would lead to can be identified and would help to ensure better integration of the different projects. The use of integration committee would help to deal with the different projects in the most effective and efficient manner so that the different phases would provide maximum gains. All the different individual and interrelated projects were required to undertake a standard approach so that risk management, cost management, and change control process would help to ensure that the project was delivered on time, within the allocated budget and as per the need and objective of the project (Davies & Mackenzie, 2014). Along with it the use of a highly proactive communication strategy and stakeholder management strategy which looked at different level of involvement ensured better community and political involvement thereby ensuring that the different complexities were better dealt with. The approach which focused on different core areas and the manner through which overall project perspective would be identified helped to ensure that the different complexities were understood and thereby helped to ensure that the project was completed and carried out as per the determined goals. The project which was undertaken was highly complex and had to undergo dynamic changing conditions which thereby impacted the manner in which project execution was determined. Along with it high degree of uncertainty along with time constraint resulted in complicating the overall manner through which different project execution strategies were identified. The project involved integration of different type of system which looked at working on different aspect so that system practices would look to implementing a mechanism through which complexities would be better dealt with. This helped in carrying out the project in a manner which ensured that the London Olympics was carried out in the most effective and efficient manner. Conclusion The paper thereby presents the different complexities which a mega project like London Olympics of 2012 had to face. It provides the manner in which working on smaller projects and integrating the project so that different aspect can be looked at helped in successful implementation of the project. Along with it having flexibility along with different approach which looked to deal with the conflicting interest of different stakeholders helped to ensure that the project was executed properly. Along with it the mechanism which the different department look to adopt and worked together in tandem with one another helped to ensure better execution of the project and ensure timely delivery of the project within the allocated budget and time frame. This helped to ensure that the overall mechanism which was adopted ensured that the project was executed in the best possible manner and helped to ensure that the different needs and requirements were better met. This helped to ensure that the project was executed in the best possible manner and thereby provided the mechanism through which the different complexities were dealt in a positive manner. This helped in proper execution of the project and ensured that overall goals which were identified in the beginning was properly achieved. References Baccarini, D. (1996). The concept of project complexity: A review. International Journal of Project Management, 14(4), 201–204. Brady, T., Davies, A., & Nightingale, P. (2012). Dealing with uncertainty in complex projects: Revisiting Klein and Meckling. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(4), 718–736. Davies, A., & Mackenzie, I. (2014). Project complexity and systems integration: Constructing the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics Games (forthcoming), International Journal of Project Management. Engwall, M. (2012). PERT, Polaris, and the realities of project execution. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(4), 595–616. Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N., & Rothengatter, W. (2003). Megaprojects and risk: An anatomy of ambition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Gersick, C. J. G. (1994). Pacing strategic change: The case of a new venture. Academy of Management Journal, 1, 9–45. Hobday, M. (1998). Product complexity, innovation and industrial organisation. Research Policy, 26(6), 689–710. Lenfle, S., & Loch, C. H. (2010). Lost roots: How project management came to emphasise control over flexibility and novelty. California Management Review, 53(1), 32–55. Mackenzie, I., & Davies, A. (2011). Lessons learnt from the London 2012 Games construction programme. London Olympics Learning Legacy, ODA 2011/269. Meier, S. R. (2008). Best project management and systems engineering practices in pre-acquisition practices in the federal intelligence and defence agencies. Project Management Journal, 39(1), 59–71. Söderlund, J. (2012). Project management, interdependencies and time: Insights from managing large systems by Sayles and Chandler. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(4), 617–633. Williams, T. M. (1999). The need for new paradigms of complex projects. International Journal of Project Management, 17(5), 269–273. Read More