Navigating the hurdles surrounding the 2012 Olympics

With 2009 as the mid-point in staging the London 2012 Olympics, now is a good time to review how the complexity of such an initiative is being managed.

What was described in 2005 as a project — and still thought of in those terms by many — has correctly become a mixture of portfolios, programmes and projects.

Arguably one of the most critical decisions made relatively early was to separate out the major construction products from the uncertainty that surrounds much of the vision that is now manifested in five promises, which include ‘Make the UK a world-leading sporting nation’, ‘Transform the heart of East
London’ and ‘Inspire a generation of young people’.

The non-departmental public body, the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA), is responsible for the portfolio that will deliver the permanent venues and infrastructure, and with a budget of over £8billion, commands the vast majority of the expected total budget. As ODA chairman John Armitt pointed out recently, "The big challenge is the sheer scale of activity and the logistical challenge of managing the workflow."

However, care does need to be exercised. Concern expressed by Boris Johnson, London’s Mayor, on the lack of legacy planning has led to the Olympic Park Delivery Company being set up, which is due to take over responsibility this autumn for transforming the games site. Baroness Ford, an urban regeneration expert, is Chair of the company and has already stated that the legacy capacity of 25,000 for the Olympic stadium is to be reviewed.

If the clear product focus of the ODA is to be maintained then it is critical that legacy issues are generally focused on adapting what is committed to be built, post London 2012, and not during the next year or so. What is a complicated construction portfolio should not be allowed to become a complex programme with uncertainty surrounding the deliverables.