Program and Project Strategy - Case Study Example

London 2012 Legacy Program Name Instructor Course Executive Summary After hosting the Olympics, there was a program that was developed known as the London 2012 Legacy Program which was intended to create an Olympics legacy. Various objectives were developed which surrounded improving the lifestyle and surroundings of the local community of where the Olympics were held as well as provide opportunities for more people to take part in sporting activities. However, as the report has documented, the program was a failure. The report has analyzed some of the factors that led to the failure of the program as well as documented some the project best practice that would have resulted in the success of the program. According to the findings of the report, some of the factors that led to the failure of the program include bad leadership, disregarding the warning signs of program failure, poor cost estimations, among others. Some of the project best practice that could have been implemented to avoid the problems of the program include proper planning, identifying early warning signs, proper risk management, and efficient management of the budget and stipulated schedules. Table of Contents Table of Contents 3 Introduction 4 Meaning of Project Success 4 Success/Failure of the London 2012 Legacy Program 6 Factors that Contributed to London Legacy Program Failure 7 Inadequate Preparation 7 Failure to Define and Enforce Parameters 8 Inaccurate Cost Estimations 8 Bad Program Leadership 9 Program Warning Signs 10 Project ‘Best Practice’ 11 Planning 11 Procedures in Project Management 12 Monitoring the Budget and Schedule through Work Plan Management 13 Warning Signs 14 Risk Management 15 Conclusion 16 References 17 London 2012 Legacy Program Introduction One of the most significant outcomes of hosting the greatest event in the world, the Olympics, was to be experienced all across the capital of the United Kingdom for many generations to come. There would be an enhancement of the transport links as well as the development of a new shopping center just nearby the new Queen Elizabeth Park which would increase the number of visitors and the investment pool (Brown, Cox, and Owens, 2012). Some of the permanent venues like the Aquatics center and Velodrome will provide affordable facilities which would encourage the capital residents to participate in sporting activities as well as provide facilities which can host events of the world-class caliber (Brown, Cox, and Owens, 2012). In the end, more tourists would be attracted to visit London which would, in turn, boost the level of businesses which would operate in the capital. London anticipated to secure infrastructure, cultural, transport, social, and transport legacy as a result of the Olympic games and turn them into golden opportunities for various decades to come (Brown, Cox, and Owens, 2012). The government of the United Kingdom was to coordinate the London 2012 Legacy Program. This paper will seek to evaluate the program through assessing various aspects and factors that would lead to the program’s outcome. Meaning of Project Success Various meanings have been attached to the word ‘success’ of a project. For this paper, a project is considered to be successful when the program gets completed on time, meet its required goals and requirements, completed within the estimated budget, and has the expected return on investment (Shenhar et al., 2001). If a project or program fulfills these requirements, then it is considered to be a successful project. Various factors lead or play a part in the success of any project, or program bit effective governance and project management practices are the most critical. The costs, time, and scope, often referred to as the triple constraint is a model that is used to separate the successful projects from the unsuccessful projects (Shenhar et al., 2001). This means that it should be delivered within the required costs, within the required timeline, as well as the given scope. Therefore, when starting any project or program, it is vital for any organization to work actively so as to define its project’s success across the three distinct tiers. The first tier is the project completion success (Cooke-Davies, 2002). This tier concerns the definition of the criteria of the process through which a successful project or program can be delivered. This tier addresses the triple constraint which includes the scope, time, and budget that the program could be implementing (Cooke-Davies, 2002). This tier is limited only to the program duration and success and can be measured when the program is completed officially. The second tier concerns the service or product success (Cooke-Davies, 2002). This tier concerns defining the criteria by which a service or product that has been delivered by the product is considered successful. For example, in this case, it involves the achievement of the goals that were set in the initial stages of planning the London 2012 Legacy Program (Bauman, Murphy, and Matsudo, 2013). The system that is used by many program managers to evaluate the levels of success of the service is measuring the scope of the system, the enhancement of satisfaction of the users as well as the time that was taken to complete the project. Measuring the success of service delivery by the program require being measured at least when the service has already been implemented and within a stipulated time duration (Cooke-Davies, 2002). The third tier is the program success which concerns defining the criteria within which the delivered service brings value to the intended people as well as how the program strategically and financially contributes to the target audience or beneficiaries (Cooke-Davies, 2002). For example, the London 2012 program is intended to bring a lot of benefits including enhanced sporting activities, and leaving a legacy in that city (Bauman, Murphy, and Matsudo, 2013). Therefore, at the end of the implementation of that program, it will be vital to measure its success by measuring how it will bring value to the London citizens. Therefore, a program can be considered successful if the three tiers are met adequately. Success/Failure of the London 2012 Legacy Program The London 2012 Legacy Program was not considered successful. This is because it has consistently faced many criticisms concerning its inability to meet the intended and original ambitions of the program (Girginov, and Hills, 2009). As defined above, a program or project is considered successful if the goals of the project are met, it is delivered on time, and within the given budget. One of the ambitions of the legacy program was to increase the number of individuals who participated in sporting activities between the years 2014 and 2015 for at least more than half an hour in one week (Girginov, and Hills, 2009).Between this time, the number of people who took part in these sporting activities decreased instead. Additionally, the costs that were incurred were more than was intended. Nine billion pounds was spent which was aimed to leave a golden legacy for London citizens, and more so, the local community (Girginov, and Hills, 2009). Four years after the implementation of the program, a different reality was experienced. This golden legacy was not there. One of the most significant concerns was that the program was very costly and yet it was very slow which means it was not delivered within the stipulated time (Girginov, and Hills, 2009). The legacy program promised about 6,800 new and stylish homes for the local community, but the people of the community are still confined to living in flats which were the former Athletes’ Village. In this surrounding, there is an impersonal and soulless ambience which still smacks that area which was supposed to bring a golden ambience of a golden legacy (Girginov, and Hills, 2009). Factors that Contributed to London Legacy Program Failure As documented above, the London Legacy program failed because it failed to meet the intended goals, within the stipulated time frame, and the allocated budget. Various factors led to this failure. Inadequate Preparation One of them was inadequate preparation. Although there were some clear goals that were set before the commencement of the project, there were no plans for the exact way of actualizing the achievement of those aims (Akkermans, and van Helden, 2002). These objectives were just documented but there was no clear picture of what was to be done. It could be essential to have this picture in advance, that is, before the commencement of the program so that the planners and the program managers could know what needed to be done step by step, within what time frame, and what costs were involved in doing so (Akkermans, and van Helden, 2002). Therefore, the London Legacy program lacked a clear focus in the very early stage stages of the program implementation which is what made things to become even harder in during the implementation process (Akkermans, and van Helden, 2002). More so, the focus was so blurred that the program ended up using up a lot of money, taking a lot of time, and achieving very little of their goals. It would, therefore, be important if the program planners could meet with all the stakeholders in various stages of the program implementation to discuss issues to do with the service quality, the required time, and the costs that were to be incurred (Akkermans, and van Helden, 2002). This would have played a significant role in keeping the project to maintain its focus all through its implement. Failure to Define and Enforce Parameters During any program implementation, especially of such a large program, it is vital to develop and work competently with a team (Besner, and Hobbs, 2006). If the goals and tasks of the program are not achieved within the required standards, then there would be the need for ramifications. The program manager(s) would need to rank the tasks that would be involved in the implementation of a project by priority and then assign the tasks to the individuals who were most proficient for those tasks (Besner, and Hobbs, 2006). At the beginning of the implementation of the London Legacy Programme, there was a team that was developed to which would handle various aspects of the project (Scott, 2014). However, not all tasks were assigned to the most suitable individuals, rather, some of them were assigned to the most prominent people and according to the who-knows-who basis. There was, therefore, a mismatch of the tasks and the people who did it which in the end did led to the minimum levels of achievement of the program and ultimately its failure (Scott, 2014). Inaccurate Cost Estimations It is extremely vital to estimate the costs of a program as accurately as possible. This is because if the cost estimates are off, then the resources that are needed to implement the program would run out in the process which would then lead to the failure of the program (Dvir, 2005). On the other hand, overestimation of the costs of program implementation would result in the wastage of resources which may still lead to the failure of the project or program (Dvir, 2005). Regarding the implementation of the London Legacy Program, there were a lot of issues to do with costs which led to the ultimate failure of implementing the project (Hughes, 2012). There were numerous disagreements regarding the amount of money that needed to be spent on developing this legacy and more so, in the investment of sporting activities which was one of the goals of developing the legacy (Hughes, 2012). This battle of funding the implementation took place for a while before the UK government agreed on the costs. However, even after this agreement, still, there were various cases of mismanaging the funds allocated for the program which led to a lot of costs being incurred with small implementation levels (Hughes, 2012). By the time the project was supposed to be done with, 2014/2015, about nine billion pounds had already been spent, but the goals of the program had not yet been achieved (Hughes, 2012). Bad Program Leadership In the implementation of a massive program like this of the London Legacy Program, leadership plays a central role in the achievement of the goals of the program (Alzahrani, and Emsley, 2013). People who are in various levels of management have a role in ensuring the success of the program thus it is not only about the program managers. The different managers that are responsible for overseeing the implementation of a program are required to offer the necessary support to the program managers so that they can be able to achieve the expectations that are accorded to them (Alzahrani, and Emsley, 2013). The London Legacy Program did not have bad leadership per se, but the leaders did not offer the necessary support to the various program managers to oversee that they achieve the objectives of the program effectively (Veal, Toohey, and Frawley, 2012). As documented earlier, the politicians had a huge role to play in this. The politicians, being part of the UK government which was overseeing the implementation of the program, were negligent about various aspects of the program instead of having the upper hand in it more so, in directing the program managers on the steps to take to oversee the achievement of the program (Veal, Toohey, and Frawley, 2012). Additionally, they were also involved in the mismanagement of the funds that were allocated for the program implementation and delaying the realization of the goals of the program. This then shows how the program implementation can be impacted detrimentally by bad leadership (Veal, Toohey, and Frawley, 2012). Program Warning Signs When the program is almost failing, various warning signs would show that if the strategies are not changed, then the program will be bound to fail (Besner, and Hobbs, 2006). Therefore, when these signs begin to show themselves, then there would be the need to take the necessary action as soon as possible. If the strategies of program implementation are not changed, then the entire program would be bound to fail. Regarding the London Legacy Program, there were various signs that showed that it would not be successful but were disregarded (Besner, and Hobbs, 2006). One obvious one was that of time. It is evident that if the program begins to take longer that it is required with the particular micro-objectives being not met within the necessary time frame, then the program would be bound to fail (Ziakas, and Boukas, 2012). Another apparent sign of the project failure was the costs. The costs that had initially been allocated for the project implementation was regularly changing with many government officials being involved in its management (Ziakas, and Boukas, 2012). The lack of proper management of the funds would automatically lead to the failure of the program. Thus, disregarding some of the early signs that showed the probability of the failure of the project led to the actual failure of the program (Ziakas, and Boukas, 2012). Project ‘Best Practice’ The theory of best practice in project management is essentially a reminder that if a project or program is successfully initiated, planned, monitored, controlled, and the results measured, then better results of project implementation would be achieved (Kamata, and Tamai, 2007). Planning Planning is an essential part and component of best practice which plays a significant role in the achievement of the program’s success. It is important to plan the program through the utilization of a project definition document (Kamata, and Tamai, 2007). It is a huge mistake to begin a project or program without spending adequate time in the planning stage which would lead to the reduction in the duration and cost of the program implementation associated with an enhanced quality of the project life (Kamata, and Tamai, 2007). As discussed earlier, the London Legacy Program had set out clear objectives of what the program was to achieve but did not spend adequate time in the planning phase (Girginov, and Hills, 2009). The legacy program would have defined the deliverable of the program from the planning stage which would have described various aspects of the program at high levels. Once the relevant stakeholders approved the plan, then it would have formed the basis for the activities that were to be undertaken during its implementation. In the planning stage, some of the components that would have been included in the Legacy Program would include the project overview, the goals, and objectives, the scope of the program, as well as the risks and assumptions that would be involved (Kamata, and Tamai, 2007). Other constituents include the approach to be taken for the program implementation, the organization of the program, and the duration and costs estimates. This is not to say that the Legacy Program, in its entirety did not have these aspects included in the planning phase of the program, but they were not spelled out correctly which made its implementation even more challenging (Girginov, and Hills, 2009). Procedures in Project Management Another best practice in program management is the proper definition of the processes that are necessary for project management (Patanakul, Iewwongcharoen, and Milosevic, 2010). These procedures give an outline of the necessary resources that are needed to manage the project or program. This will entail the sections regarding how the teams that will be developed during program implementation would manage their issues, quality, risks, communication, and scope, among other aspects management (Patanakul, Iewwongcharoen, and Milosevic, 2010). It is vital to have the ability to handle the program or project in a rigorous and proactive manner so that all the stakeholders and the project team would have a clear understanding of the way the program will be managed. Regarding the London Legacy Program, there was the lack of a common knowledge of some of these aspects that have been spelled out as a requirement for the best practice, and more so, regarding the management of resources (Bauman, Murphy, and Matsudo, 2013). Conflicts arose in the process of implementing the program which would have otherwise been avoided through spelling out the clear project procedures in the early stages of the program. Monitoring the Budget and Schedule through Work Plan Management After a successful planning and spelling out of the procedures of the program, then executing the program could start (Kerzner, 2002). Theoretically, since there is an agreement on the program definition as well as the work plan program management procedures, another common challenge that spruces is the proper execution of the plan. This plan includes managing the timelines and the budget. The theory of best practice requires that the program is completed within the required timelines and within the estimated budget (Kerzner, 2002). In doing this, it would be necessary for the program managers to regularly review the work plan in these parameters to determine if there are activities that need more attention regarding time and money management (Kerzner, 2002). The Legacy Program was not completed on time with the objectives not being met within the stipulated timelines. Also, a lot of money was spent on the project with minimal success levels of the same (Brown, Cox, and Owens, 2012). Therefore, this means that the program did not follow the work plan consistently and did not review it always in the process of implementation which would have led to high success levels of the same. Warning Signs Another vital aspect of best practice is to look out for some early warning signs which would show whether or not the project or program is in trouble or not. Some of the warning signs that the program is being troubled include variances in the budget or schedule, if the morale of the team seems to declines, or the deterioration of the quality of the deliverables (Besner, and Hobbs, 2006). In case some of these signs begin to depict themselves, it is proper to address them while there are still in the early stages. For example, the program managers could take some testing activities, the quality control steps, raising visibility by undertaking risk management or develop a plan that is proactive which ensures that the project is still on track (Besner, and Hobbs, 2006). One of the reasons that have been given which led to the failure of the Legacy Program is disregarding these warning signs especially that of the budget and the timelines (Davies, and Mackenzie, 2014). The program managers as well as the stakeholders were experiencing conflicts regarding the management of resources and had delayed implementation of program activities but did not raise any alarm whatsoever. Eventually, the program was not successful. They could have addressed some of these warning signs through, for example, revisiting the work plan regularly and managing these risks in an efficient manner (Davies, and Mackenzie, 2014). The resources could have been utilized as planned, team work could have been enhanced, and conflicts regarding the management of resources could have been minimized. This could have overseen that the project is implemented successfully (Davies, and Mackenzie, 2014). Risk Management Another program best practice is proper risk management. This involves the identification of risks up front and resolving these risks as soon as possible. The risks of a program are usually identified during the planning stage of the program (Doloi, 2009). In the identification of the risks, the planners need to determine the probable impact that it would have on the program. For the high-level risks, there is the need to have particular plans which could be used to address them (Doloi, 2009). The medium-level risks would need to be managed proactively while the low-risks would be regarded as the assumptions of the program implementation (Doloi, 2009). Efficient planning of how to tackle risks is essential as it will minimize the chances of the program failing just because of the risks coming to reality. When the risks become problems, they need to be resolved as fast as possible so that it would not lead to adverse impacts on the program (Doloi, 2009). In the case of the Legacy Program, some of the risks that were identified were about lack of coordination of the team which was involved in the implementation of the project, conflicts in resource allocation, and the risks of underperformance by some of the team players (Scott, 2014). This was because of mismatch of their skills and the roles allocated to them. However, these risks were not resolved in good time which piled and in the end led to the failure of the program. This show that if these risks were identified up front in the planning stage and tackled then, then these risks would not have led to the failure of the Legacy program (Scott, 2014). They would have created an adequate plan for handling the risks, identify the program assumptions, and adopt a proactive approach in dealing with some of the risks which would play a significant role in risk management (Scott, 2014). Conclusion The London 2012 Legacy Program was to be implemented with the aim of creating a golden legacy for the local community in London where the Olympics took place. Some of the goals of the program were to enhance the cultural, social, infrastructure, and social legacy in London. Additionally, the people who lived in the former Athletes’ Village were to live in stylish homes, and the number of individuals who took part in sports was to be increased. However, this program was a failure because it was not completed within the required time frame and the estimated budget, and the specified goals were not achieved. Some of the factors that led to the failure include bad leadership, disregarding the warning signs of program failure, poor cost estimations, among others. Some of the project best practice that could have been implemented to avoid the problems of the program include proper planning, identifying early warning signs, proper risk management, and efficient management of the budget and stipulated schedules. References Akkermans, H. and van Helden, K 2002, Vicious and virtuous cycles in ERP implementation: a case study of interrelations between critical success factors. European journal of information systems, 11(1), pp.35-46. Alzahrani, J.I. and Emsley, M.W 2013, The impact of contractors’ attributes on construction project success: A post construction evaluation. International Journal of Project Management, 31(2), pp.313-322. Bauman, A.E., Murphy, N. and Matsudo, V 2013, Is a population-level physical activity legacy of the London 2012 Olympics likely?. Journal of physical activity and health, 10(1), pp.1-4. Besner, C. and Hobbs, B 2006, The perceived value and potential contribution of project management practices to project success. Project management journal, 37(3), p.37-39. 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), pp.226-238. Cooke-Davies, T 2002, The “real” success factors on projects. International journal of project management, 20(3), pp.185-190. Davies, A. and Mackenzie, I., 2014, Project complexity and systems integration: Constructing the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics Games. International journal of project management, 32(5), pp.773-790. Doloi, H 2009, Relational partnerships: the importance of communication, trust and confidence and joint risk management in achieving project success. Construction Management and Economics, 27(11), pp.1099-1109. Dvir, D 2005, Transferring projects to their final users: The effect of planning and preparations for commissioning on project success. International Journal of Project Management, 23(4), pp.257-265. Girginov, V. and Hills, L 2009, The political process of constructing a sustainable London Olympics sports development legacy. International journal of sport policy, 1(2), pp.161-181. Hughes, K 2012, Mega Sports Events and the Potential to Create a Legacy of Increased Sport Participation in the Host Country. International Sports Events: Impacts, Experiences, and Identities, pp.42-54. Kamata, M.I. and Tamai, T 2007, October. How does requirements quality relate to project success or failure?. In Requirements Engineering Conference, 2007. RE'07. 15th IEEE International (pp. 69-78). IEEE. Kerzner, H 2002, Strategic planning for project management using a project management maturity model. London, John Wiley & Sons. Patanakul, P., Iewwongcharoen, B. and Milosevic, D 2010, An empirical study on the use of project management tools and techniques across project life-cycle and their impact on project success. Journal of General Management, 35(3), pp.41-65. Scott, C 2014, Legacy evaluation and London, 2012 and the Cultural Olympiad. Cultural trends, 23(1), pp.7-17. Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., Levy, O. and Maltz, A.C 2001, Project success: a multidimensional strategic concept. Long range planning, 34(6), pp.699-725. Veal, A.J., Toohey, K. and Frawley, S 2012, The sport participation legacy of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games and other international sporting events hosted in Australia. Journal of policy research in tourism, leisure and events, 4(2), pp.155-184. Ziakas, V and Boukas, N 2012, A neglected legacy: Examining the challenges and potential for sport tourism development in post-Olympic Athens. International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 3(3), pp.292-316. Read More