Reflective Case Study Report

Project Management in Business

(QHO531)
Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 The role of projects in delivering organisational strategy............................................... 4
1.2 Processes, techniques and tools ................................................................................ 5
1.3 Process of planning and managing projects................................................................. 5
2.1 Governance and monitoring progress ............................................................................. 6
2.2 Stakeholder Management ............................................................................................. 7
2.3 Risk Management ........................................................................................................ 8
Conclusion and recommendations ......................................................................................10
Reference List ..................................................................................................................11
Introduction

London Olympics Game,2012 was regarded as one of the most massive efforts done by a
country in organising this event. This reflective report will talk about what is a project and its
role in organisational strategy and the process of planning and managing project. Will
continue with a critical review of the Olympics project focusing on the governance, the
stakeholders and the risks management. The report will end by mentioning the factors
contributing to the project management in the 2012 Olympics, their success or failure and
possible recommendations for future events.
1.1 The role of projects in delivering organisational strategy.

According to APM(2021), a project is an exclusive short-term effort initiated with to scope of

achieving “planned objectives” under a certain list of acceptance criteria, with a certain
decided term and allocation. In comparison, Business as Usual is defined by Anand et al.
(2004) as “the way things work”. The main characteristics attributed to a project are: reduced
operating costs, elevated earnings and service quality and other organisational benefits and
value that help towards strategy management(Zwikael, Smyrk, 2009).

In order to explain strategy, Artto and Dietrich(2007) cite Hatch’s theory(1997) saying that
strategy is a mix of rational actions sustained by a fitting number of resources with the
ultimate goal of achieving organisational principles and gaining competitive advantage. As
part of the strategy, a project is driven by competitive advantage and contributes to the
accomplishment of the business strategy (Srivannaboon, 2009).
While the argument might be that project are introduced in order to enable change, only 18%
of organisations are able to achieve that (PMI, 2014). The type of change needed depends
highly upon the strategic view adopted by the organisation (macro view) and to the alignment
to the business strategy. Cooke-Davies (2014) explains that the projects that are implemented
to gain behavioural and cultural change are at the highest risk of delays. When implemented
successfully, projects deliver an accelerated rate of change thus reducing the cost per total
and offering competitive advantage.

Another crucial role of a project is to support decision-making processes at the management

level as well as for the staff. A well-adjusted project is able to deliver “objective fact-based
analysis with subjective human-centric input” (Cohen, 2005) in order to satisfy the project-
related needs of the stakeholders. Considering the array of options , the decision-making
process developed in a project focuses on the logical choice (Cohen, 2005)

Strategic alignment, so crucial in adopting change, is the process of involving every

department and member of the organisation and their strategic effort in order to achieve the
strategic goal defined in that organisation and is now part of the culture (CMOE, 2021). The
main benefits of this are:

i. Underlines the competitive advantages of the organisation

ii. Focus on an unanimous priority
iii. Developed and increased communication and coordination
iv. Supports decision-making and empowers employees. (CMOE, 2021)
1.2 Processes, techniques and tools

Initiation of a project is synonymous with the beginning, the approval and launching of a
project (Wiegers, 2007). The initiation concentrates on developing and further investigate the
idea in order to determinate the feasibility of the project. At this stage, the stakeholders are
identified, the responsibilities are delegated and the support system of the project is further
investigated in order to analyse its possible success rate (Project Management Training,
2021). The sponsor develops a business case to justify the project. Project charter (including
purpose, scope, constrains, budget, deliverables) is also developed and approved by the
sponsor before the planning phase commences . It is also necessary the identification of the
project stakeholder, to analyse the influence and motivation of the stakeholders, create
relationships, develop a plan for the level of the implication of the
stakeholders(ProjectPractical, 2021).

1.3 Process of planning and managing projects

Project charter (PID) it is an initial document that details the scope of the project, as well as a
summary of the assumptions and future needs in regards of that project. The project charter
is done once the project has been approved. Subsequently, a project plan is the document
that elaborates exactly the activities involved into realising the project, the timeline and
timeframe relating exactly how the project is “executed, monitored, controlled and closed”
(Brown, 2021). On this understanding, can be said that the major difference between the two
is the fact that project charter is a legally binding document signed by either a sponsor,
management etc (Usmani, 2021) while the project plan is an informative detailed document
that elaborates the actions and processes required in the project. A project charter focuses
on the overviews of the vision and team, stakeholders, budgeting, deadlines and risks while a
project plan focuses on deliverables, milestones, resources (Athuraliya, 2021) producing sub-
plans such as scope where “outputs, outcomes and benefits are identified and
controlled”(APM, 2021) using WBS to provide desired outcomes and benefits(Botherton et
al.,2008). Scheduling sub-plan is a timetable used to show start date and presumed finish date
with the help of Gantt Chart (APM, 2021) and cost is an estimation of costs and budget and
control over the actual and forecasted costs(APM, 2021). The lasts subplans are quality, the
adequacy of the outputs reporting to the project(APM,2021), risk (risk matrix), stakeholders
and communication.
2.1 Governance and monitoring progress
According to APM (2021) governance is a structure constructed on authority and
accountability that construes the outcomes and outputs of the project, while also controlling
them . There are 3 important aspect to governance: the direction and connection of project
objectives and organisational objectives, the process of decision-making and the monitoring
of the performance(WendyHirsch, 2018)
Project governance needs to be adapted to each project, as there is no standard
conceptualisation. Alie(2015) uses PMBOK to list the crucial stages of governance: alignment
with the organisation’s governance and monitoring the governance plan and progress.
Governance management focuses on creating and implementing policies in order to minimise
waste.

When referring to Olympic governance, the discussion focuses on the mission of the game.
Considered the “highest expression of Olympism”(Girginov, 2012), the Olympic Games aim
towards social change through education and sport. The 2012 Olympics focused on applying
the social change to a greater scale while still conveying social adjustme nts to better the life
quality for the British residents. The structure of the Olympics governance is as follows:

1. Coercive Voluntarism : ODA, LOCOG, DCMS

2. Targeting : Podium, DCMS, Legacy Trust
3. Framework regulation: DCMS, GOE, CSL(Girginov, 2012)
London Olympics most important legacy is regarded as being the urban regeneration.
BBC(2021) mentions that through the regeneration of the Stratford are a as a result of the
Olympics, 3 reforms will be implemented:
1. Social – creation of a new academy for 2,000 children and aiming at 10,000 new
houses built by 2030 (BBC,2021)
2. Economic – 20,000 jobs by 2030 in Stratford (BBC,2021)
3. Environmental – continuing the sustainability path that the London Olympics
provided(BBC,2021)
On the subject of sustainability, IOC(2013) writes that it was the main focus of the
governance. London was the first city to measure the carbon footprint during the full period
of delivery of Olympic Games. The construction of the stadium was done with sourced timber,
recycled copper and the water waste was reduce by 40% with the usage of recycled
rainwater. Despite the fact the sustainability goal of zero waste and zero carbon footprint was
not reached(Harvey, 2012), this approach over sustainability won London Gold at the 6 th
Sports Event Management Awards(IOC, 2013).
A major issue the London Olympics encountered in 2012 was the debate over LOCOG’s private
status and their approach over spending public money. LOCOG was set up as a private
company aiming to raise money from the private sector thus it was unnecessary at the time
to register it as a public body (The National Archive, 2012). Kelso(2012) touches on the fact
that LOCOG is ‘underwritten’ by the taxpayers in the UK ergo making the Treasury
accountable for any inadequacy and shortfall. Considering this aspect, Kelso(2012) continues
by mentioning that LOCOG has been awarded £1bn of public money and the spending of this
amount was subject of frustration and debate for Whitehall. The centralised aspect of the
structure meant that the debate over the large sum was a closed debate. Amidst the error
made by LOCOG in assigning the private security company (later discussed in this report), this
issue affected the trust in the Committee and sparked question over the enrolment in the
private sector (Kelso, 2012). It might be useful for future mega-events for the organisations
that are assigned public funds to be registered as public bodies, in order for the Government
to have access ai their decision-making processes.

2.2 Stakeholder Management

While many factors can influence the evolution of a project, an important aspect that
contributes to a successful outcome is stakeholder management. Friedman and Miles (2006)
citing Freeman define stakeholders as a group of people that contribute to the outcome of
an organisation or project, being directly affected by it or by its workings. This theory argues
concentrates on the importance of good communication and quality not only for shareholders
but also for all stakeholders. Weber (2017) argues that a stakeholder should be “strategic or
significant, identifiable, concrete, political or visible”, underlining the importance of this actor
in any project. A good and transparent relationship must be maintained with the stakeholders
in order to improve the chance of success.

A major event such as the Olympic Games involves a high number of partners and
stakeholders. According to the London 2012 Programme Brief, the key partners involved in
the delivery of the event are: British Olympic Association (BOA), British Paralympic
Association (BPA), Greater London Authority (GLA), London Organising Committee of the
Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG), Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) as well as
the Central Government, Home Office and the community (London 2012 Programme Brief).

LOCOG (2013) declared that the 2012 Olympic Games vision is to use this event as a “catalyst”
for evolution and change across the London community, UK but also internationally . DCMS
(2008) stated that one of the main goals is to transform East London’s community and to
improve the quality of life for the Londoners. As the community is one of the most important
stakeholder, IOC(2020) published data showing that the Games managed to increase local
employment by 40%. Every stakeholder involved in the makings of the Games maintained a
level of communication with the community, in order to avoid disruptions and to get approval
for any major changes.

While the goal was to not cause any disruptions in the life of the community, the developing
parties used the term ‘community’ as stakeholder vaguely, failing to provide parameters that
could help identifying exactly which and what community they considered important. This
failure made it impossible for them to identify the values that needed protected. As such, the
development of the Games resulted in relocation of Clays Lane residents, as well as allotment
holders and various minorities that resided nearby (Sadd, 2012). Naughton (2008) relates that
a vast majority of the relocated residents were vulnerable people and that the Olympic Games
destroyed their community’s network system and support system.
The communication also failed between stakeholders and, in a snowball effect, the plan to
create a rehousing alliance vanished, remuneration was late or non-existent
(Naughton,2008).

Based on the events that unfolded as a result of the Games, would be suggested for the
developers to apply stakeholders theory on communities, and further analyse the social
impact that can be caused. Sadd (2012), when discussing the issue of the community as a
stakeholder, uses the research done by Friedman and Miles to underline the need for the
stakeholders to be properly recognized, to work alongside with the organisation in order to
avoid conflicts. For future events of this calibre, it would be needed for the communities to
not be affected socially or financially and for them to be informed about the both long term
and short term goals in order to evaluate and decide.

2.3 Risk Management

For a project to arrive at completion, management must have the tools to identify risk and
provide solutions compatible with the vision for the project. PMBOK Guide(2000) refers to
risk as an ‘uncertain event/condition” that once arose, might have a positive impact or a
negative impact on the given project. APM(2021) refers to risk management as a system
meant to “identifying, analysing and responding” to the risks and provides steps for a
qualitative risk management using tools as risk matrix.

For the London 2012 Olympic Games there was a national and international effort involved
in risk management, adapted to the geopolitical context (Jennings, Lodge, 2009). The risk
management had 3 phases: identifying the risks, mitigating the risks and understanding
residual risk. The success of their processes and techniques can be seen in how successful a
possible labour and industrial dispute was resolved through correctly and promptly
identification of the risk and then mitigation and negotiation in order to satisfy the needs of
labour stakeholders(McDonald,2012).
A tool that was successful in risk management for the Games is the technological footprint.
Consequently, face and ID recognition, smart ticketing, intruder detection were seen as being
vital components of a proper adapted risk management (Jennings,Lodge,2009). Panasonic
(2021) revealed that 2500 security cameras were installed in London for security reasons. The
cameras fulfilled a second role too, making possible to control congestion before becoming
an issue.

The Olympics Committee was responsible with hiring a private security company to provide.
For the London Olympics the company chosen was G4S and they were meant to provide
13700 guards(Booth,Hopkins,2012). Weeks before the start of the Games, G4S announced
that the number of guards available for this event was below 6000 prompting to a major
security crisis. The problem goes further, as the company was unable to provide the
technologies and tools such as x-ray machines, leaving the Committee and the Government
in a pressured situation. While the army managed to provide another 1200 personnel, the
security was scarce and the costs increased substantially(Booth,Hopkins,2012). A solution to
the issue could have been the employment of two or more private companies by LOCOG to
provide the needed personnel. The failure can be a pivotal moment that marks the need for
a better collaboration between Governments, Olympics Committee and private companies in
order to alleviate the pressure of security and incorporate more concise security risks in risk
management.
Conclusion and recommendations

London Olympics 2012 was a complex mega-event that focused on changing the approach on
organising and implementing a positive legacy. Greatly structured, the governance was
focused in creating long term social change(Girginov,2012). Their urban regeneration plan,
although still in progress, failed on the sustainability delivery from the start not reaching the
goal of 100% no waste and no carbon footprint (Harvey,2012) suggesting a need for more
realistic and reachable goals in the future. Alongside, the inability of control over LOCOG’s
budgeting of public funds(Kelso,2012) suggest avoiding privatisation of institutions for which
the Treasury is liable for.

The stakeholders involved in the London Olympics Game maintained communication through
the project and after, showing that it made possible a growth of 40% in local
employment(IOC,2020). But the failure to correctly identify the parame ters of the community
lead to a rehousing disaster(Sadd, 2012) and it compromised the network and social system
of the former residents(Naughton, 2008). For future mega-events, would be recommended
an analysis of the level of disruptions caused to the community and improvement in
communication between sponsors and residents.

Through their technological footprint method, the organisers created a digital London
prepared for massive tourism during the games(Jennings,Lodge, 2009). The great number of
CCTV installed helped resolving or avoiding incidents, as well as possible
congestions(Panasonic, 2021). A problem represented LOCOG’s failure in assigning a proper
and prepared security company, leading to a massive shortage in security
personnel(Booth,Hopkins,2012). For future events, might be a solution for multiple private
companies to get involved in the security aspect, providing personnel and equipment within
capability.
Reference List

1. ALIE, S. S. (2015). Project governance: #1 critical success factor. PMI® Global Congress
2015, PA: Project Management Institute.
2. ANAND, V., ASHFORTH, B.E., JOSHI, M., 2004. Business as usual: the acceptance and
perpetuation of corruption in organizations. Academy of management
perspectives, 18(2),
3. APM, 2021. What is governance? [viewed 20/12/2021]. Available at:
https://www.apm.org.uk/resources/what-is-project-management/what-is-
governance/
4. APM, 2021. What is risk management? [viewed 20/12/2021]. Available at:
https://www.apm.org.uk/resources/what-is-project-management/what-is-risk-
management/
5. APM, 2021. What is project cost planning and control? [viewed 20/12/2021]. Available
at: https://www.apm.org.uk/resources/what-is-project-management/what-is-
project-cost-planning-and-control/
6. APM, 2021. What is quality management an control? [viewed 20/12/2021]. Available
at: https://www.apm.org.uk/resources/what-is-project-management/what-is-
quality-management-and-control/
7. APM, 2021. What is scheduling in project management? [viewed 20/12/2021].
Available at: https://www.apm.org.uk/resources/what-is-project-
management/what-is-scheduling-in-project-management/
8. APM, 2021. What is Scope Management? [viewed 20/01/2022]. Available at:
https://www.apm.org.uk/resources/what-is-project-management/what-is-scope-
management/
9. APM, 2021. What is project management? [viewed 13/11/2021]. Available
at: https://www.apm.org.uk/resources/what-is-project-management/
10. ARTTO, K. A., & DIETRICH, P. H., 2007. Strategic business management through
multiple projects. . The wiley guide to project program & portfolio management.
11. ATHURALIYA, A, 2021. The easy guide to creating a successful project charter, Creatly
[viewed 13/11/2021]. Available at: https://creately.com/blog/project-
management/what-is-a-project-charter-guide-templates/
12. BBC, 2021. Case Study – Urban Regeneration in Stratford, London [viewed
17/01/2022]. Available at:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z9y47hv/revision/3
13. BROTHERTON, S. A., FRIED, R. T., & NORMAN, E. S. (2008). Applying the work
breakdown structure to the project management lifecycle. Paper presented at PMI®
Global Congress 2008, PA: Project Management Institute.
14. BROWN, L., 2021. What is project management plan and how to develop one?,
Invensis Learning, 7 October [viewed 29/11/2021]. Available at:
https://www.invensislearning.com/blog/project-management-plan/
15. CMOE, 2021. The need for strategic allignment [viewed 28/11/2021]. Available at:
https://cmoe.com/need-for-strategic-alignment/
16. COHEN, C. B.,2005. Project management decision making: blending analysis and
intuition., PA:Project Management Institute.
17. COOKE-DAVIS, T ,2014. Perspective: the strategic benefits of change;
18. CABREY T.S., HAUGHEY, A, 2014. Enabling organizational change through strategic
initiatives, March
19. DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT. 2008. Before, during and after:
making the most of the London 2012 Games. London: DCMS - British Government
20. FRIEDMAN, A. L., MILES, S. (2006). Stakeholders: theory and practice. Oup Oxford.
21. GIRGINOV, V. (2012). Governance of the London 2012 Olympic Games
legacy. International review for the sociology of sport, 47(5), 543-558.
22. HARVEY, F., 2012. London 2012 falls short of “greenest ever” targets, report shows,
The Guardian, 19 July [viewed 20/01/2022]. Available at:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/jul/19/olympic-games-green-targets
23. HOME OFFICE, 2011. London 2012 Olympic & paralympic safety and security strategic
risk assessment (OSSSRA) and risk mitigation process: summary, January [viewed
20/12/2021]. Available at:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attac
hment_data/file/97982/osssra-summary.pdf
24. HOPKINS, N., BOOTH, R., 2012 Olympic security chaos: depth of G4S security crisis
revealed. The Guardian, 13 July [viewed 20/12/2021]. Available at:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/jul/12/london-2012-g4s-security-crisis
25. INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE, 2020. Here east: how the olympic games
london 2012 created new opportunities for a community, 27 july [viewed 19/12/2021].
Available at: https://olympics.com/ioc/news/here-east-how-the-olympic-games-
london-2012-created-new-opportunities-for-a-community
26. INTERNATIONAL OLYMPICS COMMITTEE, 2013. London 2012’s sustainability legacy
lives on, 31 July [viewed 17/01/2022]. Available at:
https://olympics.com/ioc/news/london-2012-s-sustainability-legacy-lives-on
27. JENNINGS, W., & LODGE, M. (2009). Tools of security risk management for the london
2012 olympic games and fifa 2006 world cup in germany (no. Dp 55). Centre for
analysis of risk and regulation, london school of economics and political
science.29/11/2021]. Available at: https://creately.com/blog/project-
management/what-is-a-project-charter-guide-templates/
28. KELSO, P.,2012. London 2012 Olympics: Games delivery under threat as pressure
begins to bite ahead of final inspection, The Telegraph, 21 March [viewed
19/01/2022]. Available at:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/9156247/London-2012-Olympics-
Games-delivery-under-threat-as-pressure-begins-to-bite-ahead-of-final-
inspection.html
29. LONDON 2012, PROGRAMME BRIEF [viewed 17/12/2021]. Available at:
https://stillmed.olympic.org/documents/games_london_2012/appendix_1_london_
2012_programme_brief.pdf
30. MCDONALD,C., 2012. How Risk Management Kept The Olympics on Track, CFO, 5
September [viewed 20/12/2021]. Available at: https://www.cfo.com/risk-
compliance/2012/09/how-risk-management-kept-the-olympics-on-track/
31. MINDTOOLS, 2021. Project initiation documents [viewed 28/11/2021]. Available at:
https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newppm_85.htm
32. NAUGHTON, C., 2008. Displaced by London’s Olympics, the guardian, 2 June [viewed
19/12/2021]. Available at:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jun/02/olympics2012
33. PANASONIC, 2021. London 2012 [viewed 20/1/2022]. Available at:
https://www.panasonic.com/global/olympic/us/london/support/security.html
34. PMI (2014). Enabling organizational change through strategic initiatives [viewed
28/11/2021]. Available at : https://www.pmi.org/learning/thought-
leadership/pulse/enable-change-strategic-initiatives
35. PROJECT MANAGEMENT-TRAINING, 2021.The six phases of project management
(viewed 28/11/2021). Available at: https://www.projectmanagement-
training.net/category/six-phases/
36. PROJECTPRACTICAL, 2021. Project initiation process: 6 keys activities [viewed
29/11/2021]. Available at: https://www.projectpractical.com/project-initiation-
process-6-key-activities/
37. SADD, D. Mega-events, community stakeholders and legacy: London 2012. 2012. Phd
thesis. Bournemouth university.
38. SRIVANNABOON, S., 2009. Achieving competitive advantage through the use of
project management under the plan-do-check-act concept, Journal of General
Management, 34(3)
39. THE LONDON ORGANISING COMMITTEE OF THE OLYMPIC GAMES AND PARALYMPIC
GAMES, 2013. London 2012 – report and accounts [viewed 19/12/2021]. Available at:
https://stillmed.olympic.org/media/document%20library/olympicorg/games/summe
r-games/games-london-2012-olympic-games/facts-and-figures/locog-report-and-
accounts-for-the-18-month-period-ended-30-september-2012-london-2012.pdf
40. THE NATIONAL ARCHIVE, 2012. Records of the London 2012 Organising Committee of
the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) [viewed 18/01/2022]. Available at:
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C13273031
41. USMANI, F., 2021. What is a project charter: examples and templates, PM Study Circle
[viewed 29/11/2021]. Available at: https://pmstudycircle.com/project-charter/
42. WEBER, J., 2017. Stakeholder management
43. WENDYHIRSCH, 2018. Project Governance- why you need more than a RACI to get it
right, 24 February [viewed 15/01/2022]. Available at:
https://wendyhirsch.com/blog/project-governance-examples
44. WIEGERS, K. Practical project initiation: a handbook with tools. Microsoft press, 2007.
45. ZWIKAEL, O., & SMYRK, J. (2009). The role of projects in organisations–an executive
leadership approach.