PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT OF

THE LONDON OLYMPICS 2012

LEGACY PROGRAMME
Module Code: 7PJMN003W
Module Title: PROGRAMME AND STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT

Submitted: 23RD DECEMBER 2021

Abstract
This report is on the programme management of London Olympics 2012 Legacy programme
with a focus on if the programme fulfilled its strategic vision. The report is covering the period
1
after the conclusion of the Olympic Games till date and shows the blueprint of the Games
Legacy Programme and the benefits map of the programme. It further contains the report on the
lessons learnt post-games in the aspect of how the project and programme was managed, the
leadership of the programme, management of quality, management of change, management of
risk and how resources were allocated to each project under the programme. Secondary data was
used from numerous published literatures and official UK Government reports. I found that the
strategic vision for the legacy programme was indeed successful and is now being used as a
yardstick for other Olympic Games and international mega-projects.

2
Cover Page ……………………………………………………….…………………………...…1
Abstract …………………………………………………………….……………………………2
Table of Contents ………………………………………………………………………………3
1.0 Discussion of the Strategic Vision behind the Programme ……………......………………. 4
1.1 Programme Blueprint for the Olympics 2012 Legacy Programme …………………..…6
1.2 Benefits Map for the Olympics 2012 Legacy Programme …………………………..….8

2.0 Lessons Learned Report……………………………………………………….…………….9

2.1 Programme and Project Management …………………………………………………..9
2.2 Leadership ……………………………………………………………………………...9
2.3 Risk Management ………………………………………………….…………………...10
2.4 Change Management …………………………………………………………………...10
2.5 Quality Management and Governance ……………………………….………………...10
2.6 Resource Allocation …………………………………………………………….……...12

3.0 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………...13
References ………………………………………………………………………………………14

3
1.0 DISCUSSION OF THE STRATEGIC VISION BEHIND THE PROGRAMME
The London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games was a remarkable success and without a clear
vision, effective planning and delivery process, this success would not have been achieved.
According to Epstein (2011), the vision for the London 2012 Olympic Games was, “to host an
inspirational, safe and inclusive Olympic and Paralympic Games and leave a sustainable legacy
for London and the UK”. The core vision was “to stage an inspirational Olympic and Paralympic
Games for the athletes and the public, to deliver the Olympic Park and venue on time, agreed
budget and specification, to regenerate and sustainably develop East London and to achieve a
sustained improvement in UK sports before, during and after the Games” (Girginov, 2012).
The British Government and the organizers of the Game ensured the strategic vision were not
forgotten after the 2012 games. To ensure the success of the Olympic vision, it was executed via
partnership working amongst all the stakeholders. “Although executing the promises was not
straightforward because of its high reliance on investments and other non-financial factors, they
were able to fulfill the strategic vision” (Girginov, 2012). Some of the promises seem to have
been met at the end of 2011 while others were met after the Games. For example the Olympic
Site was completed in 2011, however, the continuous management and transformation was to be
executed after the Games by the LLDC. “The LLDC transformed the Queen Elizabeth Olympic
Park for its long-term use and completely opened it to the public in 2014” (Daothong, 2014).
According to the report by the HM Government in 2013, “the huge investment on infrastructural
development of the Olympic Park in preparation for the Games accelerated the regeneration of
East London that began over 30 years ago”. East London was a deprived community faced with
“overcrowding, high rate of unemployment with low levels of skills and qualifications compared
to London as a whole” (Girginov, 2012), hence the need to improve the standard of living of the
people, housing provision, neglected transportation system and reduce high crime rate. The long-
term regeneration vision for the community has been executed as “over 11000 homes has been
constructed and currently in use, the Athlete village was converted into homes, a standard
transport system has been put in place, over 110,000 job were created before, during and after
the games, improved security and a new parkland that has brought real benefits to the residents
and the economy as a whole” (HM Government, 2013).
Looking at the actual jobs created from hosting the Games and beyond the Games, the benefits
becomes more glaring. The Games preparation helped reduce unemployment rate in London by
1.2% (IOC, 2013). Over 46,000 people worked on the Olympic park and village, 10% of whom
were previously unemployed. Trainings were done to improve their skills and for their
employment prospects after the Games.

Hosting the Olympics is a grand opportunity for London to generate a long-term economic
benefits. According to International Olympic Committee (2013), one of the main areas of the
economy that benefited from the Games was the construction industry as the construction
projects had given the UK economy a £7.3 billion boost by 2013 which was just a year after the
games and it was projected that the total benefit from hosting the Games could reach up to
£41billion by 2020. It is worthy to note that because of the proficiency demonstrated by the
construction industry during the Olympics, “British companies are winning contracts to help
other nations deliver their Olympic games” (IOC, 2013).

4
The delivery of the vision of the Olympic Park venue were also fulfilled. According to Daothong
(2014), “LLDC's long-term vision is to ensure that the park and surrounding areas promotes
growth and economic development, and create a place where people want to work, invest and
support small and medium enterprises and diverse businesses”. The HM Government report
(2014) stated that the stadium itself has been used for other events, the Aquatic Centre which
reopened in 2014 welcomes over 800,000 visitors yearly from local people to high performing
athletes since then (except the last two years due to the pandemic restrictions). The Lee Valley
Velo Park, Eton Manor Sports complex has also been reopened and in use beyond the Games
likewise other venues. London is now being seen to be more advances than previous Olympic
hosts because it activated its legacy plan. “This is the first time a host city has achieved retaining
all its venue on the Olympic Park as the legacy of eight out of eight venues has been secured
within a year of the game” (HM Government, 2014).
London also benefitted from tourism in the aspect of economic growth as over 590,000 people
came into London for the Games and spent an average of £1,290 during their stay (IOC, 2013).
Having a lasting impact in sports and healthy living has always being a core legacy ambition for
the UK Government. The aim is to improve grass root sports in various communities and inspire
young people all over the world to have sporting habits. “Over 15 million people in 20 countries
were involved with international inspiration” (HM Government, 2013). The report further stated
that government has boosted public health through the development of sports and exercise
medicine centre via physical programmes to promote well-being and exercise.
The figure below briefly shows the evolution of legacy delivery and the responsibility
shouldered by the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) in handling the planning
and delivery of all the legacy commitments since after 2012.

Evolution of legacy delivery vehicles.

Fig 1: Legacy delivery vehicles.

Source Richard Brown, Gary Cox & Michael Owens (2012) Bid, delivery, legacy

5
1.1 PROGRAMME BLUEPRINT FOR THE OLYMPICS 2012 LEGACY PROGRAMME
The Logic Model is a good communication tool for stakeholders within the programme and it
gives us an insight of what the programme is all about. Below table shows the programme logic
model for the London 2012 Olympics.

Table 1: Programme Logic Model for London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics Legacy
Programme.

INPUTS STRATEGIES OUTPUTS OUTCOMES IMPACT

- Financial - Stage the - New Housing - High - Improved

Resources Games Employment transportation
- New Sports Rate system
- Human - Build the Facilities and
Resource Olympic Site Recreational - Financial - Community
and Venue Centre Growth of the Development
- Volunteers economy
- Refine - New - Economic
- Infrastructure Transportation Transportation - UK being Development of
System System known for good the people
- Skills Input
Investment
- Construction of - New job - Affordable
- Athletes
Housing opportunities - Restoration of Housing
- Olympic East London
- Job Creation - New - Improved
Agencies
Investment in - Keeping up Tourism
- Inspire youths the UK Healthy
- Sponsorship
Lifestyle - Improved
(Government - Inclusiveness Employment
Support,
Political - Better - Improved
Backing, Governance Standard of
Companies) Living for East
- Overall
Londoners
regeneration of
East London - Improved
health and
Longevity of
lives of citizens
- Improved
Investment

The results that came from hosting the Games in London was glaring for all to see and its impact
was felt around London especially in the east of the city. A good example of the impact felt is in
the restoration of East London that has been one of the most deprived community in UK for a
6
very long time. They were faced with “high rate of unemployment, health issues, low living
standard, bad transport system, housing provision was lacking, and so on” (Girginov, 2012).
Government knew they had to invest heavily in the area to boost the communities and make
them competitive with other communities in London. After the Games, there has been a
significant growth and development in the area. The quality of life in East London has been
raised, there has been a boost in employment level of residents, the transport system has been
significantly improved which is still being enjoyed all over London till date, over 11,000
affordable new homes were built within the host boroughs, and so much more.
Improved standard of living, economic development and healthy lifestyle are some of the long
term impacts from restoring the East of London.

7
1.2 BENEFITS MAP FOR THE OLYMPICS 2012 LEGACY PROGRAMME
The benefits map for the Games legacy programme is a good tool to capture potential objectives
from hosting the Games. Below table captures the benefit map of the programme.
Table 2: Benefits Map for London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics Legacy Programme.

ENABLERS BENEFITS DISBENEFITS OBJECTIVES

- Human - More Job - Cost - Restoration of

Resource opportunities East London
- Disagreement
- Financial - New Housing - Improved
Resources Construction
- New Transport Industry
- Government System
Support - Improved
- Encouraged employment rate
- Olympic healthy living
Organizers and - Improved
Agencies - More external transport system
investors
- Transport for - Improved
London Healthy Life
Style
- Improved
investment

Having a Legacy programme in place provides a way in which the costs of the events can be
offset by the promise of long-term benefits to host cities, thereby limiting any burdens of
using public funds for the execution of the project. 
The benefits that has emanated from London hosting the Games in 2012 has been felt across UK.
The construction industry for example has boomed since after the Olympics and this is because
of the proficiency demonstrated during the Games. It has made British construction companies to
be sort after by other countries. “British companies are winning contracts to help other nations
deliver their Olympic games” (IOC, 2013).
Rebuilding East London has helped improve transportation, security, employment and housing in
the host boroughs. Some other objectives that was achieved from hosting the Games are
increased investment in the area, improved health and improved standard of living.
The main dis-benefits that surrounds the execution of these objectives is the high cost used
in implementing the legacy.

8
2.0 LESSONS LEARNED REPORT
The execution of the strategic vision of the London Olympics programme requires proactive
planning and coordination amongst all stakeholders. Likewise, learning from previous mega
projects that became white elephants and abandoned was important for the success of this
project. “London learnt not only from other host cities in planning and delivering the project but
from previous UK projects” (Brown et al., 2012). For example, ensuring they had clarity of
funding responsibility from inception and avoiding fixed-price contracts was a good way to
circumvent failure.

2.1 PROGRAMME & PROJECT MANAGEMENT

A legacy programme involves a high level of programme management as numerous projects are
involved in it. In managing a huge project like the London Olympics, “team efforts of all
workers like the architects, engineers, contractors, local authorities and all the Olympic
agencies is quite essential for the success of the project” (Palmer, 2014). For example, the
responsibility for the post-games transformation was transferred to LLDC by the ODA in June
2011 to avoid a rundown of the infrastructures that has been put in place for the Olympics. All
stakeholders worked hand in hand to make the legacy programme become a success. They all
knew their responsibilities and worked towards fulfilling the set goals. This was quite
commendable as LLDC knew their responsibility even before the commencement of the Games.
“They were able to transform the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park and deliver the programme on
time, with the north park opening a year after the Games and the south park opening on 5 April
2014” (Nash 2014).
An important positive lesson learnt was leaving the project in the hands of experts like the
project managers and the agencies formulated rather than the government micro managing the
whole construction process (Dodd, 2010). It gives the project managers, construction companies
and the agencies more room to work rather than being over controlled.

2.2 LEADERSHIP
For the strategic vison of the London 2012 Olympic to be successful, good Leadership was
imperative. Organizations and individuals with commitment, passion and drive is important for
the execution of the vision. London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and
Paralympic Games (LOCOG) was responsible for staging the games while the Olympic Delivery
Authority (ODA) was responsible for developing the permanent venues and infrastructure. With
all the challenges faced during the planning and execution of strategies, “ODA demonstrated
clear leadership via strong communication with its supply chain; inspiration; engagement with its
partners; and robust systems for monitoring performance” (Epstein et al., 2011).
.

9
2.3 RISK MANAGEMENT
Risk assessment and management should be a prime concern for any host cities. For the London
2012 Olympics, organizing the game and planning for the legacy carried a lot of risks. According
to Jennings (2008), “the stakeholders group consisting of the Government, the Mayor of London
and the British Olympic Association made a provision in the Olympic budget of £109million for
risk”. There was also a provision of £2.7billion for contingency and DCMS’s expectation is that
they will exhaust the funds in full as it will cover the cost overruns or revenue shortfalls. The risk
for cost overruns was not managed properly as it became a near certainty which required them to
use up the contingency funds and even requested a budget increase.
The IOC, the British Government and LOCOG worked on risk management and was faced with
organizing risk as the expertise and experience needed for organizing such mega-event was
confined to a select number of global firms. Other paramount risk the organizers faced were
“financial risk, security risk, geopolitical risks, construction risks, transportation risk,
infrastructure risk, licensing risk, sponsorship risk, risk of fluctuations of foreign exchange risk,
public opinion risk and reputational risk” (Jennings, 2008).
To a certain extent, most of the risk were managed sufficiently except for the financial risk due
to the cost overruns which made them request for budget expansion. Budget should be more
realistic in the future. However, putting in place the London Legacy Development Corporation
(LLDC) to be responsible for the continued development and management of the Olympic Park
after the game was a good way of managing infrastructure risk and avoiding the structures from
dilapidating.

2.4 CHANGE MANAGEMENT

Managing change in individuals, communities and organizations can be tasking. When carrying
out a mega-event like the Olympics, changes are expected. A significant change that occurred
was the overhauling of 6 boroughs in East London to improve the entire community for the
direct benefit of everyone who lives there. They built large-scale construction projects, managed
events to include everyone and made best use of limited resources.

2.5 QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE

ODA’s approach to quality management demonstrated that good governance structure is
essential for sustainable development. In managing the Park, LLDC aimed to provide spaces of
sufficient quality for the Olympic park to achieve the designation of metropolitan open land
which was achieved. The quality of work done spoke for itself as London has become a
benchmark for quality infrastructure and Legacy programme.
Prior the involvement of the LLDC, ODA ensured that the quality of work done was topnotch,
starting from the supply chain management strategy, to how contractors effectively delivered
high standards and how they developed performance reporting and quality management systems.
“Contractors demonstrated how they will ensure products and materials were sourced and

10
processed in line with the environmental, social and ethical guidelines and standards of the
country” (Daothong, 2014). Not having a quality management system in place might have led to
construction defects and work will also slow down thereby not meeting up with allocated time.
The Governance of the Games involves large number of organizations which will be depicted in
the figure below. It is important to note that the “Olympic Board were in charge of the co-
ordination of the Games, Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) was responsibility for delivering
the Games’ infrastructure and venues while the London Development Agency (LDA) was
responsible for purchase of the Olympic Park and developing the legacy plans” (DCLG, 2015).

Figure 1: Governance structure of the Olympics Legacy. Source: DCLG 2015 report.

11
2.6 RESOURCE ALLOCATION
The government’s notoriety with mega-projects is managed this time with delegation to world
experts. The executors of the Games were top project managers and construction companies with
great experience. They learnt from previous projects that turned to white elephants to use only
the best people. Other employees without sufficient experiences were also trained in the
respective jobs they were required to carry out. There was a workforce of 6,000 paid staff, up to
70,000 volunteers, around 100,000 paid contractors (Girginov, 2012).
As regards the funds used to execute the Olympic Games, there was a public budget of
£9.3billion and an operational budget of £2billion (Girginov, 2012), however this was exceeded
as the drive for perfection made them forget the cost involved. The lesson learned is to always
have a robust budget to cover all expenditure and work within the budget so the project can
fulfill its cost allocation.
The funding breakdown for the Games and Legacy will be depicted in the figure 2 below. It
details the overall Public Sector Funding Package (PSFP) for the Games which is £9.298bn.

Figure 2: Public Sector Funding Package (PSFP)

12
3.0 CONCLUSION

The London Olympic and Paralympic Games is considered a tremendously successful event
exceeding many people's expectations. “The legacy programme transformation works that
followed post game was exceptionally successful as it was built on the principles of team work,
collaboration and focus on delivery” (Palmer 2014). It was designed to continue to deliver
sustainably for decades to come. It is this lasting legacy that sets the London games apart from
other games and major international events. Building the right team with passion and ‘can-do'
attitude is an integral part of the success of the programme. The overall direction for the Games
and the Legacy was properly set and communicated. The Olympic board carried out the
communication properly with the other organizations via the help of a well-organized structure
with clarity of roles and responsibilities.

It is safe to say that the 2012 London Olympic and Paralympic games was a dream made reality
and the whole of UK is proud for it.

13
REFERENCES
Brown, R., Cox, G. and Owens, M. (2012). Bid, delivery, legacy – creating the governance
architecture of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games legacy. Australian
Planner, 49:3, 226-238. DOI: 10.1080/07293682.2012.706964

Cashman, R. I. (2006). The bitter-sweet awakening: The legacy of the Sydney 2000 Olympic
Games. Pan Macmillan.

Daothong, J. and Stubbs, D. (2014). London 2012 legacy: creating a more sustainable future for
London and beyond. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Civil
Engineering 2014 167:6, 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1680/cien.14.00006

DCMS. (2008). Before, during and after: making the most of the London 2012 Games. DCMS.

DCMS. (2011). London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics Games: Quarterly Report.

Department for Communities and Local Government DCLG. (2015). London 2012 Olympics:
Regeneration Legacy Evaluation Framework. Amion Consulting Limited.

Dodd, S. and Sathasivam, V. (2012). "Mega-Project Management: A Case Study Of The London
Olympic Games 2012". UK Academy for Information Systems Conference Proceedings 2010.
19.

Epstein, D., Jackson, R. and Braithwaite, P. (2011). Delivering London 2012: Sustainability

Strategy. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Civil Engineering 2011 164:5, 27-
33. https://doi.org/10.1680/cien.2011.164.5.27

Girginov, V. (2012). Governance of the London 2012 Olympic Games legacy. International
Review for the Sociology of Sport, 47(5), pp. 543–558. doi: 10.1177/1012690211413966.

HM Government Report. (2013). Inspired by 2012: The Legacy from the London 2012 Olympics
and Paralympics Games. A joint UK Government and Mayor of London Report.

International Olympic Committee IOC. (2013). London 2012 to provide long-lasting Economic
Benefits. IOC News. https://olympics.com/ioc/news/london-2012-to-provide-long-lasting-
economic-benefits

14
Jennings, W. (2008). London 2012: Olympic Risk, Risk Management, and Olymponomics.
Published in August 2008 in the John Liner Review, 22(2): 39-45.
http://www.gamesmonitor.org.uk/files/Jennings_2008_OlympicRisk.pdf

Naish, C. and Mason, S. (2014) London 2012 legacy: Transformation of the Olympic Park.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Civil Engineering 2014 167:6, 26-32.

National Audit Office Report. (2011). Preparations for the London 2012 Olympic and
Paralympic Games: Progress report December 2011. Report by the Comptroller and Auditor
General HC 1596 Session 2010–2012 6 December 2011.
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/1011756.pdf

Palmer, D., Ker-Reid, D., Venn, N. and Bruni, A. (2014). London 2012 legacy: Managing flood
risk at Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Civil
Engineering 2014 167:6, 46-52.

15